No Shadow Minister, you’re wrong.

The “single defining weakness of my argument” is that it is based on my visceral and moral objection to causing suffering and death to asylum seekers who are doing nothing more than accepting the invitation we have extended to seek refuge here.

My argument doesn’t have, in your terms, just one “single defining weakness.” It has many:

It’s based in observing the spirit, as well as the black letter (as you recommend) of domestic law and the UNHCR Convention. Another “weakness.”

It is based on my abhorrence for the deceitful duplicity that leads my country to spend unacceptable amounts of money finding its way around laws it has voluntarily implemented, rather than having the courage and the honesty to admit these laws apparently no longer work for the country, and start addressing them. Another “weakness.”

It’s based on my profound disgust at my country’s willingness to use the death of asylum seekers, and the suffering of survivors incarcerated indefinitely in detention centres, as an example to other asylum seekers not to come here. Definite “weakness.”

It is based in my belief that people of the world share a common humanity, and asylum seekers who arrive by boat (at our invitation) are as entitled to humane treatment as is any body else. And we all know how “weak” it’s considered to hold that belief.

It’s based on my belief that to cause suffering in one person in order to teach another person a lesson is a very dubious moral position, and is abhorrent to me. How “weak” is that?

In my world, the governing maxim is “ First, do no harm.”

I probably hardly ever achieve that goal, but it is my goal.

I understand that you consider that position, and all my other positions, to be “weakness.”

Because of suffering in my own life, I’m not able to advocate inflicting it on anyone else. This reluctance is often interpreted as a weakness.

I have to live by my own values. If they’re considered “weak” by some, I can’t say that either surprises or upsets me.

Jennifer,

Policies based on an emotional response (as you clearly have) to an issue often fall prey to the law of unintended consequences. (pink batts is a prime example)

Weakening the refugee policy has led to far more suffering and death for the asylum seekers than ever existed under the pacific solution. More boat people have drowned in the last 2 months than from 2003 to 2008. More people are in detention with stays now extended due the incapacity of the immigration dept to deal with them.

When you see the pictures of the bodies of women and children washed up on Christmas Island, can you really claim to have "done no harm"?

If there would be only 5000 to 10000 boat people a year, I would be the first to send safe boats to fetch them and give them permanent residence immediately. But we all know that this is fantasy.

Shadow Minister
1. I do not accept your foundational premise that a Pacific solution will either stop the boats, or save lives. This is based on my own considerable research (as well as emotion). While this research is clearly not the same as yours, I have yet to be convinced that yours is in any way superior to mine.
2. Given that I don’t accept your premise and you don’t accept mine, there really isn’t anything more we can say to each other on this matter, owing to lack of common ground.
3. I was not aware that I was making any policies. This doesn’t seem to me to be the kind of forum in which one makes policies. It is for the expression of opinions, (even ones with a bit of emotion). My article was an opinion piece. My posts are opinions. I doubt that anyone with any sense bases policy only on opinion.
4. I’m at a loss as to see how my personal philosophy of do no harm is responsible for the Christmas Island deaths. I thought it was a storm.
5. According to your own statistics, there have never been more than 5, 609 boat arrivals in one year. Why haven’t you already sent out boats to bring them safely in, given them permanent residence and saved their lives?
6. I know the answer. It’s better to use them as an example to deter others. If you save their lives and let them live here, everybody on the planet will swarm onto boats and head for Christmas Island. If you let them suffer and die that will really show we mean business.

Oooo-eeer! That last bit was emotional.

BTW, if you have that kind of power, am I talking to the Prime Minister?

BTW 2, our exchange has tempted me to ditch my personal philosophy for a while.

I’m told Desmond Tutu refuses to engage in arguments with those entrenched in opposing points of view. This is a wise stance, I think, as too much energy is wasted in what can only be a pi**ing contest.

@ Shintaro

Bleedin hearts love boats

Their Grimm tales inspire

Chardonnay sermons

.....

Shintaro sorry

Shogun say (do) hara

-kiri not haiku

Why hara-kiri?

It is not my honour that

Is in peril here

Doing the right thing

By the unfortunate does

Not mean one's heart bleeds

I think you will find Jennifer, that global sentiment is changing.

The real villain seems to be the UNHCR, who know that their old
Convention is flawed and full of holes, but refuse to update it.

I note that Sweden and Norway have sent people back to Iraq, despite
all the finger waving. Europe has slowly but surely had a gutfull
and increasingly cant' afford this little joke anymore, as one
country after another, goes into a debt spiral.

I gather that around 5 billion a year is spent processing asylum
seekers, a large % of them economic migrants taking their chance.
So huge amounts of money are simply wasted.

At some point, despite all the finger waving, some country will
break out and name its terms. I wish it was Australia.

We agree to take 15'000 asylum seekers a year, from UN refugee
camps. We also agree to take asylum seekers which are citizens of
ajoining countries and not country shoppers.

Any who turn up with no papers, can be given UN papers and transferred
to a UN refugee camp. With some of the enormous savings created by
the new policy, Australia can increase its contribution to funding
UN refugee camps, rather then waste the money as we do now.

The UNHCR clearly have their heads in the sand over this one, but
eventually, reality will prevail. Perhaps you should talk to them
about making some changes.