Westralis

I dont think I am doing anything other than stating the obvious, and I cannot see how current policy satisfies those simple principles of equal treatment of human beings, protecting human life, and not providing an opportunity for criminals.

You think my attitude simplistic, yet why would you attempt a dangerous voyage and engage the service of criminals were it not to your advantage? If there was equal treatment of asylum seekers, there would be no reason to endanger yourself or give money to criminals as there would be no advantage to be gained.

Fester, I have already stated in my previous answer the advantage to be gained is the preservation of life, specifically yours and your family’s. Perhaps your failure to comprehend my previous answer to your repeated question above is that your life or that of your family’s has never been placed in real jeopardy. Had your family been placed under threat I can assure you, that you would dance to anyone’s tune even Lucifer's in order to save them. Such are the real horrors that these people have experienced and what is more shocking is that some of these horrors have been executed by not only the despots that have subjugated their lands and people but coldly and just as cruelly by our dearest so called "ally" as well.

Article 14.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" that single sentence forms the core of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which Australia ratified on 22 January 1954. That undertaking cannot be unilaterally abrogated once entered into by any member state of the United Nations without revocation of membership and pariah state status.

Again Australian Gov’t views are all thoroughly explained in the Australian Gov’t’s own words located here; http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

All the parties, including the Greens, support the deportation of asylum seekers who are found not to be genuine refugees. This is the rub. The debate needs to broaden out to include consideration of opening the borders. After all, if the big moral question is 'people smuggling', as Rudd/Gillard and Ruddock/Chris Evans claim it is, then open borders would put the people smugglers out of business immediately. The real problem, the difficult one, is the question of why we should exclude anyone who can come here on grounds other than health (and even then, it would be a case of quarantine rather than exclusion).

In response to CJ Morgan

This is CJ Morgan masquerading as a caring compassionate humanitarian.

1) If it was at all possible, I would like to swap Australian "scrotes" like Col Rouge for those desperate but deserving people who increasingly frequently make the unenviable decision to abandon their homelands to try and make a new life here. Australia has far too many heartless and sanctimonious bastards already. The fact that their government is on the way out seems to make them uglier and shriller with each awful utterance.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5799#79233

2) I certainly don't regard Rudd as a "'do no wrong' hero". In fact, when it comes to asylum seekers I'm increasingly disappointed by his gutlessness. He should quit playing populist politics and do the decent and humanitarian thing by abolishing mandatory detention and the so-called 'Indonesian Solution' altogether.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9595#153899

Sounds like a CARING guy, eh – the type you might envisage your daughter (or more realistically, perhaps, your widowed grandmother ) bringing home to dinner.

But under this façade lurks another CJ –the real CJ :

“I don't think any kind 'victory' is possible for the invaders in Afghanistan. They should cut their losses, withdraw and leave the Afghans to sort themselves out. It'll be messy, but it's inevitable.
Boaz - you seem to be unaware that poppy production in Afghanistan fell to almost zero when the Taliban were in power. Mind you, that's about the only positive thing to be said for that regime.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 11 June 2010 10:51:00 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3715#90014

Note this part :

“They should cut their losses, withdraw and leave the Afghans to sort themselves out. It'll be messy, but it's inevitable”

“ IT’LL BE MESSY, BUT IT’S INEVITABLE”

Not much concern for “ all the those desperate but deserving people” in that solution!

Morgan charges that AGIR and others manipulate the refugee issue for their own selfish ends

What is CJs agenda--- it clearly is NOT compassion!
No compassion , No consistency –No credibility !

Westralis

I would again draw your attention to the principle of equal treatment of asylum seekers. Now, you give this quote:

"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution"

Treating asylum seekers equally does not violate this right. If anything it enhances the right, discourages people traffickers, and protects the lives of asylum seekers by giving no selection advantage to them from undertaking dangerous journeys.

In contrast, a geographical discrimination of asylum seekers only seems to endanger lives and support criminals. It violates the principle of equality, and it does not change the number of refugees that Australia accepts. I would guess that the discriminatory selection system is also more costly to administer.

What is wrong with the notion of treating people equally?

Wow Horus - I'm obviously striking a nerve there. However, you don't appear to understand plain English. Each of those quotes that you painstakingly found is quite consistent with my attitude to refugees and those like you who hate them.

It's also perfectly consistent to call for both a more humanitarian approach to refugees and for an end to Australia's military involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed, all that military intervention in Afghanistan seems to have achieved is the generation of asylum seekers and the return to heroin production.

Compassion? You don't know the meaning of the word.