![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipWalked fifteen kilometres today (to and from work) and listened to six academic interviews on the journey, courtesy of the most excellent upclose collection from the University of Melbourne. The interview on Happiness and Grief lecture was particularly good. Walking and podcasts really is a good combination.
In evening return journey however, was approached by a man moving quite erratically. After exchanging 'good evenings' he inquired, in the Anglo-Saxon vernacular, whether I wished to engage in fellatio. Ignoring him, I continued on my way, leaving a cacophony of curses in the distance. Or so I thought; about a kilometre later said individual reappeared in the unlit parkland behind the Mental Health Fellowship near Fairfield boathouse - he'd followed me that distance. Although well into my middle-ages, I'm a pretty burly chap and was well prepared to visit violence if jumped by some nutcase in the dark. But the surprise appearance would have been more problematic for people of a shorter and slighter build, and especially with less upper body strength.
Paris Aristotle makes his case for the Houston Report. It is pretty obvious that the threat of offshore detention does reduces the chance of asylum seekers attempt risk journeys to Christmas Island. It is also true that Nauru is now (along with PNG) a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention and Protocol, which means that asylum seekers at least have legal protections (unlike Malaysia). It is also a great positive that the Houston Report has recommended increasing the humanitarian intake from 13,000 per annum to 27,000 pa within five years.
However it remains incomprehensible that the Report did not support an increase of funding to the UNHCR for processing Indonesia, the point of most departures. The reintroduction of indefinite detention to the processing centres, even if they are of the "open detention" model, is of course unacceptable. Finally, the suggestion that those who arrive by boat should not be eligible to sponsor family members to join them, is not only downright dangerous, it is also a breach of the ALP platform section 157 ("Labor will ensure that asylum seekers who arrive by irregular means will not be punished for their mode of arrival"). Readers may recall that I take the politicians who breach the platform with some seriousness.
In evening return journey however, was approached by a man moving quite erratically. After exchanging 'good evenings' he inquired, in the Anglo-Saxon vernacular, whether I wished to engage in fellatio. Ignoring him, I continued on my way, leaving a cacophony of curses in the distance. Or so I thought; about a kilometre later said individual reappeared in the unlit parkland behind the Mental Health Fellowship near Fairfield boathouse - he'd followed me that distance. Although well into my middle-ages, I'm a pretty burly chap and was well prepared to visit violence if jumped by some nutcase in the dark. But the surprise appearance would have been more problematic for people of a shorter and slighter build, and especially with less upper body strength.
Paris Aristotle makes his case for the Houston Report. It is pretty obvious that the threat of offshore detention does reduces the chance of asylum seekers attempt risk journeys to Christmas Island. It is also true that Nauru is now (along with PNG) a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention and Protocol, which means that asylum seekers at least have legal protections (unlike Malaysia). It is also a great positive that the Houston Report has recommended increasing the humanitarian intake from 13,000 per annum to 27,000 pa within five years.
However it remains incomprehensible that the Report did not support an increase of funding to the UNHCR for processing Indonesia, the point of most departures. The reintroduction of indefinite detention to the processing centres, even if they are of the "open detention" model, is of course unacceptable. Finally, the suggestion that those who arrive by boat should not be eligible to sponsor family members to join them, is not only downright dangerous, it is also a breach of the ALP platform section 157 ("Labor will ensure that asylum seekers who arrive by irregular means will not be punished for their mode of arrival"). Readers may recall that I take the politicians who breach the platform with some seriousness.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-26 12:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-27 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-15 01:09 pm (UTC)And what happened with your stalker?
no subject
Date: 2012-08-15 01:55 pm (UTC)Eh, wishful thinking on their part. I don't let my membership lapse.
And what happened with your stalker?
I think I have him the the shake at the Fairfield bridge when a group of cyclists rode past in the other direction.
Damn freaky experience.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-15 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-15 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-15 03:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-16 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-15 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-16 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-16 01:59 am (UTC)Glad to hear there was no violence! Take care out there, you. :)
no subject
Date: 2012-08-16 03:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-16 04:22 am (UTC)I'm inclined to think this is an exceptionally commendable position. The fact that you've personally stood in defence of it is pretty darn awesome. Alas, I've a got feeling the section will see a great deal more abuse down the line.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-16 04:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-16 07:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-17 12:03 am (UTC)