It must have been with a sinking heart that Gillian Triggs learned this morning of the latest setback in her struggle to ensure a fair go for the undeserving. As head honcho at the Complete Waste of Australian Taxpayers’ Money Council (a.k.a, the Australian Human Rights Commission) it must have been with great dismay that she read the news about her council’s  legal ruling that yet another piece of refugee trash should be showered with great wads of money just because he is a refugee, has been dismissed out of hand by the evil Abbott government.

“Still F***’n Broke”
As a result, the piece of trash in question, John Basikbasik, is no longer entitled to receive a cool $350,000 in compensation. Even though he was found guilty as hell of killing his wife, and served his minimum sentence (in the case of a refugee, the usual 20 minutes), he was not allowed back into the community where he would be free to kill again, Triggs argued, and he should be paid a lot of taxpayer dough because of it. Basikbasik, himself, was said to be “gutted” at the government’s decision to deny him the money. “Now I’ve got no wife and I’m still f****n’ broke.” he said.

But according to one psychiatrist report the problem with Basikbasik was not that he was a wife-killer, but that he was “unable to acculturate” – that is, unable to adapt to an Australian lifestyle – since arriving here as a refugee from West Papua by canoe in 1985. This was greatly in evidence, in his repeated failed attempts to win the sympathy of ordinary Aussies.  In vain, he tried imitating the other typical, un-acculturated refugees he sees being fawned over on ABC and SMS TV programs by Lefties every day, by engaging in acts of violent assault, domestic violence, drug use, welfare fraud, praying at a mosque – etc. It was only then, after these acts failed to get him government hand-outs of any kind, that he decided to really demonstrate his inability to acculturate by battering his wife to death with a bicycle.

After being found guilty of murder, he was sent to prison. In contrast to the previous Labor government, however, the Abbott government decided to act in the best interests of the Australian people. After the completion of a miniscule gaol sentence, the government said Basikbasik was unfit to return to Australian society, and promptly threw away the key.

Triggs was appalled.
For the government to have the audacity to relegate the the well-being of a convicted criminal refugee to a secondary-place behind that of the concerns for the safety of the wider Australian community was just incomprehensible. With all her university degrees, it just didn’t make sense.

After a long whinge to her counterparts at the UNHCR in New York Triggs decided that only a quick 350 grand payout would help Basikbasik line his pockets and overcome this affront to her sensibilities, and to that of all Lefties like her world-wide. The Abbott government surprisingly agreed that a compo would indeed serve these purposes, so it rejected the ruling out of hand.

This afternoon I rang President Triggs to ask her a few questions. I expected to find her in tears but willing to open up. But unfortunately she wasn’t taking any calls from any Murdoch-reading fascists again today, so I emailed her the following instead:

Dear President Triggs.
How’s things, Gillsy? (Well, I hope!)
Couple of questions.
A few months ago you ruled a $300,000 payout should be paid to a con-artist who complained about being detained too long in Australia after he was convicted for swindling $644,000 out of genuine, everyday, dinky-di Aussies. That ruling was rejected point-blank by the government. Now, this one today, of Basikbasik, who was convicted of murdering his wife. The government failed to let you rip $350,000 of compo from the taxpayers after this guy was found guilty, too.
What’s going on?

I mean, my point is that you have  pursued the causes of these two criminals (amongst many others), despite neither one of them, apparently, being a Muslim. Although, it is true, Basikbasik does seem to be mentally unstable.
This is hihgly uncharacteristic of you, so I’m confused.
Tell me: my readers need to know. What are the most important criteria by which you decide squandering enormous amounts of tax-payers’ money on frivolous compensation cases would be a good idea?
(Choose any one of the following from below – but only number 4 is correct).

1. Your client is disadvantaged (a Muslim or a swindler in need of more cash).
2. Your client is not an old, white, hetero-normative Anglo (unless he is a Muslim or a swindler in need of more cash).
3. Your client is just another fuckin’ refugee with a grievance looking for handouts.
4. ANY of the above!

Answers on the back of a postcard, please.
Thanks Gillsy!