Ship of Fools: Scott Effing Morrison

Thread: Scott Effing Morrison Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029973

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I have a fantasy where me and a couple of other burly blokes (BB) accost Scott (evil and competent) Morrison in a gridiron fashion when he is out on campaign. BB1 blocks one bodyguard, BB2 blocks a second, whole BB3 goes for Morrison, grabs his specs and in one fluid motion, chucks them on the ground, stamps on them, and then yells, "Now your blindness isn't just a metaphor you CUNT." Hopefully there will be plenty of spittle involved. All three are then arrested and charged, but at peace.

Morrison is the Treasurer but was the Immigration Minister in the present conservative Government in Australia. He more or less set up the current system of detention, and there have been two self-immolations in the camps in the last week or so. The present immigration minister, Dutton, has blamed refugee advocates and the newspapers for this. Dutton is just one of those nasty conservatives that are a dime a dozen, but I think Morrison is a good operator, and I want him dealt with so that his political career ends ASAP.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Translation of "Morrison is a good operator", please? Thx.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

hmmm, what I mean in the context is someone who is good at their job. That means Morrison's good at implementing policies I hate.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

oh, I also meant to apologise a bit for using the word cunt. It is my very worst swear word, reserved for people I hate viscerally. I don't believe it should be banned, but that some people do adds to its awfulness. I thought better about using it, but stuffed up my attempt to edit the post.

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

The man is like a cane toad - poisonous to everything he touches. I really hope he is held accountable for his actions...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I assume they're busy working on something that allows them to ignore the ruling that the internment camps on PNG are illegal.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Not at all, Alan Cresswell - the people who can no be longer be interned on Manus are PNG's problem now, so it's all good. Not that the PNG government agrees, but whatevs.

ScoMo is a thundering disgrace, but barely stands out as such amongst the rabble currently forming the Australian federal cabinet.The only good news I have had this week is that Tony "The Mad Monk" Abbott is no longer my federal member due to the constituency boundary shifting again.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I assume they're busy working on something that allows them to ignore the ruling that the internment camps on PNG are illegal.

Well, illegal according to PNG law. That's not going to bind the Australian government, any more than what's illegal in Japan binds the UK government.

About 700 of the people in PNG have made an application to the Australian High Court to come to Australia.

From what little I've seen I'm not sure they have much of a legal case, but it will certainly be interesting.

Bear in mind this is the same court that said the situation on Nauru was, from an Australian law perspective, legal.

[ 05. May 2016, 14:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

What the UK government does in Japan is bound by Japanese law. What the Australian government does in PNG is bound by PNG law - in this case meaning that they can not operate internment camps on PNG since the courts there have declared them illegal. Which, presumably, means the Australian government needs to find some other nation to host their internment camps if the government wishes to continue locking people away.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I assume they're busy working on something that allows them to ignore the ruling that the internment camps on PNG are illegal.
Well, illegal according to PNG law. That's not going to bind the Australian government, any more than what's illegal in Japan binds the UK government.

About 700 of the people in PNG have made an application to the Australian High Court to come to Australia.

From what little I've seen I'm not sure they have much of a legal case, but it will certainly be interesting.

Bear in mind this is the same court that said the situation on Nauru was, from an Australian law perspective, legal.

Perhaps better to say that it's hard to see quite how they can frame their case. They are not in Australia and their removal from Australia was valid under Aust law. I don't like the law any more than you do. Morrison and Dutton have kept things to a tight line, supported strongly by a department which for decades has run a harsh line against refugees.

Your last sentence is a bit tough on the High Court. That outcome was clearly flagged as a possible outcome during the course of the directions hearings and then in argument during the substantive hearing. The transcripts are all available on AUSTLII.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What the UK government does in Japan is bound by Japanese law. What the Australian government does in PNG is bound by PNG law - in this case meaning that they can not operate internment camps on PNG since the courts there have declared them illegal. Which, presumably, means the Australian government needs to find some other nation to host their internment camps if the government wishes to continue locking people away.

A problem which they are going to face is that as a matter of Australian law (it stinks, but it seems to be the position) the 700 or so never really arrived in the country.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Your last sentence is a bit tough on the High Court. That outcome was clearly flagged as a possible outcome during the course of the directions hearings and then in argument during the substantive hearing. The transcripts are all available on AUSTLII.

Um ... so fucking what?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Reading will show how the argument was formed, and hence the judgments.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Your last sentence is a bit tough on the High Court. That outcome was clearly flagged as a possible outcome during the course of the directions hearings and then in argument during the substantive hearing. The transcripts are all available on AUSTLII.

I've read the judgements. There was something in the majority judgements that was bugging me, and then the dissenting judgement absolutely hit the nail on the head.

It's one thing to exercise the power to remove people from the country. It is quite another to continue to work at controlling their movements after they are off your territory.

The thing I simply cannot stomach is that we have reached the point where we are trying to stop people who have been assessed to be genuine refugees from going to New Zealand because we don't want people, even refugees, to get the impression that they might get to have a better life after hopping on a boat heading in this direction. It's revolting.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Reading will show how the argument was formed, and hence the judgments.

Again - so fucking what?
The law is an ass. The fact that something is logical in terms of a law that is terrible doesn't amount to much.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

If you bothered to read what I said, you may gather that I don't support the legislation, but was picking up on what Orfeo said. Probably too hard a distinction for an academic.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

You're still not being very successful in making whatever point you seem to think you're making.

How is it unfair to the High Court to point out a High Court decision?

The first comment I made, the one you reacted to, I didn't even state whether or not I agreed with the decision (as I've now indicated, I'm not persuaded it's correct in law and I find parts of the dissenting judgement fairly compelling). You say I'm being unfair because... because you could tell from the transcripts which way they were leaning? I'm sorry, but what the hell does that mean?

Where did I say the decision was surprising, or unexpected? Where did I say anything at all where the transcripts would be relevant?

I've just got no clue what you think you're either saying or reading that made "the High Court decided this" / "you're being unfair to the High Court" anything other than a non sequitur.

If what you're saying is some form of "the poor dears, they couldn't think for themselves it was all the fault of the lawyers appearing before them", then that's grounds for greater criticism. These are the highest judges in the land. Just because arguments are presented to them in court doesn't force them to accept those arguments. Justice Gordon in her dissent basically said that some of the government's arguments were complete rot. And indeed all of them are perfectly capable of saying "that argument should not be accepted", they say it somewhere in almost every case.

My best guess is that you read into my posts some kind of moral pronouncement about the High Court's decision which simply isn't there. Surely you know me better than that. I understand the difference between whether something is moral and whether it's legal. As far as I'm concerned the immorality of current policy isn't in question. I stated what the High Court found was legal. And it wasn't until the second post that I said I think the Court was wrong on that.

[ 07. May 2016, 10:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If you bothered to read what I said, you may gather that I don't support the legislation, but was picking up on what Orfeo said. Probably too hard a distinction for an academic.

My god, you are a douchebag. It's nice to be reminded of that sometimes.
What orfeo said. Though I doubt he can get through to you, either. He's more patient with stupid than I am. It's why he's a hellhost. That, or he's actually really a masochist.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Orfeo Quite clearly what I was saying is that your last sentence implied that the High Court was being far too political and taking the Govt's line. That is something they most clearly weren't doing.

No point in replying to Dark Knight.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo Quite clearly what I was saying is that your last sentence implied that the High Court was being far too political and taking the Govt's line.

Well that implication is entirely in your own head. It sure as hell wasn't in mine when I wrote the post.

Besides, given that the Opposition policy is almost exactly the same on these matters, there's not much of a political point to make.

[ 08. May 2016, 00:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

Apparently, he is refusing to apologise to Save The Childrem for false accusations regarding their actions on Naru, despite the Government having to pay them compensation for those same accusations.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo Quite clearly what I was saying is that your last sentence implied that the High Court was being far too political and taking the Govt's line.
Well that implication is entirely in your own head. It sure as hell wasn't in mine when I wrote the post.

Besides, given that the Opposition policy is almost exactly the same on these matters, there's not much of a political point to make.

Glad it was not in your mind then.

The policies of both parties are unspeakably bad. They both demonise refugees. As the new Catholic bishop of Parramatta said this week, his family would not have made it into here had the present policies then been in place.

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:
Apparently, he is refusing to apologise to Save The Children for false accusations regarding their actions on Naru, despite the Government having to pay them compensation for those same accusations.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:

quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:
Apparently, he is refusing to apologise to Save The Children for false accusations regarding their actions on Naru, despite the Government having to pay them compensation for those same accusations.

Yes, that's a beauty isn't it, and it shows that the idea of blaming activists and the media for protests by the prisoners on Nauru and PNG is a tried and true strategy.

I have got my anger out of my system for now. I'm sure it will return. Thanks Hell.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:
Apparently, he is refusing to apologise to Save The Childrem for false accusations regarding their actions on Naru, despite the Government having to pay them compensation for those same accusations.

Who was Immigration Minister when that happened, Morrison or Dutton?

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

I'm pretty sure it was Morrison.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten how long ago it was. Plus it really isn't that long since the Ministers (including the Prime Minister) all shuffled around.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Morrison, I'm fairly sure.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

According to the news on the BBC today, Dutton certainly seems to be trying very hard to be a first rate jerk. Is there some global competition we're unaware of at the moment? A "who can be the most awful person in public office?" competition. The US has Trump, the UK has Boris, Australia has Dutton ... with plenty of others vying for the coveted position.

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

The good news is that Mr Dutton is copping a *lot* of flack, from all sorts of people. Maybe, with the aid of a sledgehammer, he may get the point.

Yet another toad. There are a lot of them around, now.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

This writer thinks that Dutton is, in fact, trying to be objectionable.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

I could call it either way, I think. This is the man who thought that making jokes about Kiribati disappearing under water was the go, until ScoMo pointed out there was a boom mic overhead.

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This writer thinks that Dutton is, in fact, trying to be objectionable.

So, then, a toad's toad. I really hope the man loses his seat this time round. He's upset a few people in his electorate, so it might be possible.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0