Nice one, Formersnag. Quite hilarious, in fact. You're getting funnier these days, now that you're not just targeting women.

You're really a comedy writer who posts here when you're bored, right?

The use of "extremely strong and condemnatory language" in the article was deliberate.

It's the language used since the Tampa by those who oppose the "boat people."

The hysterical tone of my article is also an imitation of the hysteria that has surrounded boat arrivals since that time.

Sometimes taking language and tone and applying it to a different set of circumstances can demonstrate what it is, in a way that nothing else can.

I'm amazed at the discussion about "fairness" that always seems to come up in relation to asylum seekers who arrive by boat. I don't recall "fairness" being much of an issue in other topics. The boat people had money to pay for their passage and other asylum seekers don't. This is in a sense unfair. I don't argue with that.But do you want to drown them for it?

What does interest me is that nobody throws in the "fairness" card when we're talking about all the Australians who walk around with aching and rotten teeth, for example, because they don't have the money for treatment. That's not fair. Why aren't you shouting about it? Why does fairness suddenly become a serious public issue only with regard to asylum seekers jumping queues?

Or if you don't like the teeth example, pick any out of hundreds, all to do with money and lack of it.

The usual abuses of being a bleeding heart self-trashing leftie who wants to run Australia down and land us all back in the slime are nothing more or lesss than I'd expect after writing an article such as that.

The language I used has been in use in this country at the very highest political level, on talk back radio, in tabloid newspapers for years. It's the kind of language that will land us back in the slime, and I'm very glad to have brought this to the attention of many who, given their posts, would never have given it a second thought if it had stayed where they wanted it, against the "boat people."

Thank you for reading my article. Jennifer Wilson

We're the only nation to be officially recognised as being racist by the UN.

It's a historical fact that the country was founded on racism.

Federation was intended as a method of keeping out the Chinese - and ever since, racism is like sort sort of national team sport, where the new arrivals are targetted until somebody else takes their place.

Where are all those Asians we were being supposedly "swamped by" ten years ago? Immigration has increased since those dangerous days so where have they gone?

I think they're now in anti-Middle Eastern cheer squad and have become one of "us", just as the Italians, Greek, Poles and all others before them took their turn against those that came later.

"Shut the gate behind me".

If we don't want to live up our obligations as signatories to International Agreements, then we should at least have the courage to officially tear them up and walk away.

Ludwig, in answer to your question, I don't think we are "such monstrous racists". I agree with CJ Morgan that we are probably no more racist than a lot of other nations.

I don't believe people escaping situations such as those the asylum seekers are fleeing stop to wonder if the western democracy they hope will take them is going to be racist towards them.

On the other hand, overseas students who are not coming from a traumatised environment do wonder about our racist reputation. Which we do have, sorry Ludwig. Some students decide we are, and they go elsewhere for their education.

There's a hierarchy of needs - if you're fleeing for your life you probably don't think the finer points through, as you might if you are only considering where to get your tertiary education.

The posts in response to my article seem to prove the point I was attempting to make. There is a frightening degree of loathing towards asylum seekers who come here by boat. That degree of loathing needs to be acknowledged and addressed because it isn't good for any of us. Thank you for engaging with my article. Jennifer.

Wobbles - just who signed up to these International Agreements, and what rights do they have to do so .. it is obvious that the majority of Australians - who everyone including the UN says is racist, did not agree to this.

So, I'm in agreement with your proposal, tear up these agreements .. unless everyone in the world is prepared to live by them, including the countries who seem to spew refugees out to the rest of the world .. then bugger it, why should we be the catchall for the world's self created misery.

If your country has problems, stay there and fix it .. leave the immigration to people who want to move to another country to join that society, not to live somewhere with all your baggage and hatred you brought from the old country, never intending to do more than suck off all you can and never take up the values of the new country.

It just encourages despots who know they can get rid of malcontents because bleeding heart, hand wringing and weeping whites of European stock tend to be soft touches to the intolerance of other societies.

I reckon if you put it to referendum, Australia would be out of the UN agreements in a heartbeat ... they do us no good whatever, all we do is encourage people to come here, knowing they do not need to fit in, and eventually can demand yet more tolerance from us while showing us none at all.

Where does the UN get off anyway passing judgement on us? What about countries like Japan and South Korea who take zero migrants?

That statement about Australia being named as racist by the UN should be worn with pride! Have a look at the mobs in the UN, sure, lots of tolerance there .. not! Everyone who shows tolerance, gets run down by parasites who have no intention of actually joining their societies as good citizens .. let's end this rubbish.

<< The use of "extremely strong and condemnatory language" in the article was deliberate. >>

Yes, obviously Jennifer.

<< It's the language used since the Tampa by those who oppose the "boat people." >>

What?? !!

Totally untrue! By a small fraction of them, possibly, but certainly not by the majority.

You are obviously very critical of those who have opposed boat people for supposedly using this sort language. So then, how could you lower yourself to a level that you clearly think is pretty damn low by using the same sort of linga??

Not logical, to say the least!

This sort of language certainly makes people take notice of an article like yours. But it sure doesn't help your cause or lead anyone to think well of you! In fact, I reckon that some of those who agree with you would be a little embarrassed and wanting to distance themselves from it.

<< Ludwig, in answer to your question, I don't think we are "such monstrous racists". I agree with CJ Morgan that we are probably no more racist than a lot of other nations. >>

Glad to hear it.

<< The posts in response to my article seem to prove the point I was attempting to make. There is a frightening degree of loathing towards asylum seekers who come here by boat. >>

Really? I don't see that at all. Sorry, but I think that you are quite off the mark there. You seem to have either misinterpreted posters' comments or you seriously want to think that those who are against onshore asylum seeking and people smuggling hate those seeking asylum, to the point that you are reading it into peoples' comments when it isn't really there.

Anyway, thanks for engaging in the discussion. Too few article writers do that on this forum.