Welcome to Douche Canoe, Spirit Animal and Whinger of the Week – Mamamia’s brand new weekly post.
Not quite sure if we need to explain, but let’s do it anyway just for kicks:
Each week, we will pick the biggest Douche Canoe, Spirit Animal and Whinger from the last seven days. What’s a Douche Canoe? Someone who has pretty much been the worst/done something crappy/just generally been a wanker. What’s a Spirit Animal? Someone who has won the week by being awesome. What’s a whinger? Well, pretty much just someone who has had a major sooky-la-la moment.
So without further ado, let’s get this thing started.
Douche Canoe of the Week goes to…
The one and only Immigration Minister Scott Morrison.
The man in charge of implementing our goevernment’s “Turn back the boats” policy, it’s on Morrison to explain why there were allegedly shots fired by Australian Navy Personnel at a group of 25 refugees seeking asylum in our country.
But Morrison has conveniently decided to stop briefing the media on asylum seeker arrivals. So aside from a brief denial, there’s been no light shed on the situation by the man in charge.
Spirit Animal of the Week goes to…
The magnificent Emma Thompson.
Mainly for her brilliant acceptance speech at the National Board of Review Awards, but also for general all-round brilliance.
First she took her heels off and said this:
Top Comments
I guess making a commiment to the Australian Public to "Stop the Boats" and actually doing so is doucheworthy. Attacking Mysogyny "Where ever I see it" and then not doing so, isn't. Right!
Gillard barely touched on women’s issues during her speech, but there was this answer to a question from a New Zealand student who asked about female representation in Middle Eastern politics:
"Ah, well, ah, it, you know, it’s, ah, not, not for me, ah, to, ah, you know, determine how, ah, countries and individuals determine these issues …"
"Ah, well, ah, it, you know, it’s, ah, not, not for me, ah, to, ah, you know, determine how, ah, countries and individuals determine these issues …"
I don't understand how the commitment to stopping the boats is working - please explain? And also why this is an appropriate response to the rights of people to "seek" asylum? Even if in the end, that person (questionably at times) is deemed as not needing asylum, the stop the boats policy denies their right and international law to seek it.
Because there hasn't been a boat reach Australian shores for the past five weeks…. I'd say the Libs are honouring their election commitment quite adequately at this point.
Well, when no boats come for over a month that's considered stopping the boats I guess.
Also, nobody is stopping anyone claiming asylum, they are just stopping boats coming here illegally. If you want to claim asylum you can do it in Indonesia, you don't have to travel to Christmas Island to do it. Also, you don't claim asylum for a country, you claim asylum in a country. There's nothing in the treaty we signed that says you get to pick your place of resettlement.
Before Rosie and others start calling Morrison such an indecent name, they might consider taking some affirmative action. Refugees who have arrived here and have been processed as genuine refugees get a bridging visa. These genuine refugees can be accommodated in YOUR OWN HOME. Contact The Australian Homestay Network site for information on how you can apply to welcome them into YOUR OWN HOME instead of resorting to the passive and evasive tactic of name-calling.
You DO have options to help genuine refugees. So far, from the copious quantity of articles published here on this subject, and I've read the lot of them, there has not been one person who objects to federal policy on immigration and refugees who has taken this action.
My friend takes refugees into her home, yes, HER HOME. She faxes her application to get into Viilawood Detention Centre to meet up with someone she has heard about or knows something of, goes in and meets them, sometimes several times, listens to their story, writes endless letters to immigration urging them to complete the visa processing so they can go and stay in HER HOUSE. It takes ages. If successful she takes them into HER HOUSE, helps them with their English, and applications to various courses of education, a few nurses among them, and eventually, she helps them integrate into society. I would estimate she has helped 2 dozen of them over the last 15 years.
Stop talking out your arse - you don't know anyone involved because you have this distasteful 'us and them' attitude, and you wouldn't dream of doing it yourself. Other people do it.
We took in a family of four from Iraq in the 1980's. Myself and most others who respond and post on "refugee" articles on MM would surely be very grateful if your "friend" could respond to the very next article on MM concerning refugees and outline her experiences for us. So far, as I said (the wording of my post was actually quite succinct) no person has done so in response to any article published on the subject.
I'm afraid my "friend" (why the inverted commas - you don't believe I have a friend?) is well into her 60s, not addicted to the internet, has never heard of Mamamia, and is too busy helping refugees out of detention to defend her interests to online cynics. Maybe that's the reason you have heard from 'no person' on this topic here - they're all out there doing something.
As for your story - why don't you expand and tell us more? Were they refugees? How did they get here? How did they end up living with you? How long did they stay? Where are they now? And what made you become so anti - asylum seeker if the arrival is by boat?