Saturday, September 14, 2013

Julian Burnside QC defends his Tasmanian solution to Ben Fordham

If you want a really good insight into the psychology of the Left, then you can't go past this interview that Julian Burnside QC gave to Ben Fordham on 2GB. In it he argues for turning Tasmania into a big detention centre.

It starts out with Fordham asking: "Are you serious?"

Burnside prevaricates a little and says, somewhat halfheartedly, "It could work". He adds that of course it won't be adopted anyway ...

It's pretty obvious from his tone of voice that he's not offering a serious solution to the whole asylum seeker problem. And if he's not serious, then why suggest it?

It's merely a rhetorical exercize that enables him to demonize the two major parties (LNP mostly). He can look at the machinations of democracy, turn up his nose and sneer: "If only you were all pure of heart and compassionate like me and my fellow travellers!"

If anything it shows how little he truly cares about humanitarian issues. Not only is he unmoved by deaths at sea -- endorsing a policy that will guarantee that they continue -- he's just using them as fodder to show how much cleverer and more visionary he is than those appalling politicians. (And who elects those nasty pollies? Why, those thick, primitive proles, of course ...)

Julian Burnside QC, like all his latte slurping, finger wagging ilk, thinks it's all about him. He believes that anyone who is not in his luvvie elite is invariably cruel and heartless, always driven by the basest motives.

When Fordham says that both major parties are pushing for a hard-arsed border policy to deter arrivals and thereby stop the drowning deaths he immediately impugns their motives, asserting with no evidence whatsoever that politicians "don't care about people dying at sea". Fordham notices the casual arrogance inherent in this statement, asking if he's become a mind reader.

As well as being pompous and sanctimonious, Burnside is also intellectually dodgy as all get out. In a shamelessly deceitful tactic he says that the rate of boat arrivals "tracks parallel with international refugee movements". If that were an accurate statement then every democratic nation on Earth would have experienced an astronomical rise in refugee arrivals. That's simply not the case and he knows it.

He also refuses to acknowledge that even his beloved ABC defines those coming here by boat as "illegal arrivals". When Fordham presses him on this point he quite curtly -- and without a hint of self-parody -- says "Trust me. I'm a lawyer." It's comedy gold.

The interview contains many more gems of self-satire from one of the high priests of hand-wringing. Definitely worth a listen.


  1. There's a certain poetic justice in Burnside's proposition. Tasmania has been a breeding ground for our unlovely Greens; why not park the illegals in their backyard?
    That said, I doubt that Burnside had any intention of being ironic.

  2. 1) There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum regardless of the manner in which the asylum seeker arrives.
    2) Julian's ideas on this subject have a great deal of merit. The accommodation of asylum seekers in Tasmania (and, as his broader idea suggests, rural communities) will bring funds and people into the community.
    3) We have not experienced an 'astronomical' increase in boat arrivals. In fact, boat arrivals make up a tiny proportion of the whole and it is boat arrivals we are discussing here.

    1. Whose funds Sappho? More mainlander funds, of course. Also incorrect on the boat arrivals. Far more claimants arrive by boat than air. The reason? Much harder to dispose of the passport coming by boat than by plane. Claiming to be a refugee is not the same as being a refugee. Is someone ever goind to ask Mr Burnside how much money he makes per annum representing claimants?

  3. Sappho said...

    "boat arrivals make up a tiny proportion of the whole"

    That's correct. That's why we need to stop all immigration from Islamic countries, legal or illegal.

  4. Sapho someone is only an asylum seeker until they arrive in the first country of safe haven - and that's not us sunshine.

    If wishing to preserve a culture based on the ideas of the Enlightenment and so having to stop/limit immigration from cultures/religions which spurn that idea as inferior is racist then I'll accept the tag.