Jennifer,

Unfortunately I can see nothing "scholarly" about your article or your posts. You ignore the scientific principle which requires that any theory or proposition explains the data in the real world, you clearly have little grasp of law in Australia, and your calls for abandoning the convention can at best be called sarcastic.

Here are some facts from the department of immigration:

Fin Year..Arrivals by boat
1999–00.. 4,175
2000–01.. 4,137
2001–02.. 3,039 - Pacific solution introduced.
2002–03.. -
2003–04.. 82
2004–05.. -
2005–06.. 61
2006–07.. 133
2007–08.. 25
2008–09.. 1,033 - Pacific solution removed.
2009–10.. 5,609
2010-11.. 3,392 ytd (end October)

The coalition knows that the change in policy influenced the increase in boat arrivals, it has also been acknowledged by the Labor party, and the Newspoll polling indicates that between 80%-90% of the Australian people do so too. The reason that I have largely discounted other factors, is that I cannot find even a combination of factors that can explain the numbers. Not the Iraq war, the Afghan war, Sri Lanka, none have had any significant changes at the relevant times.

So whilst nearly everyone in the country agrees with the blindingly obvious, you in your ivory tower have some information about some other 3rd force that none of us are aware of thst accounts for the massive change in numbers.

You clearly do not have the bottle to substantiate your claims either.

Educated folk?

Right comrade! as in

Re-educated.

…………….

The ones buying are

boaties –big bucks all

and look no returns.

Well well. Don't get emotional, Shadow Minister.

I refer you to my article. You've clearly forgotten what it was about, and have replaced it in your mind with what you imagine it is about.

My suggestion that we withdraw from the Convention and change domestic laws is entirely serious. If you are unable to grasp that, if you can only conceive of it as a sarcasm, then that’s your problem, not mine. There’s nothing I can do to convince you, and I have no interest in trying.

I believe that is what we should do if we are to behave congruously, responsibly, and honestly.

We do not have to change the Constitution in order to do this – my understanding is that refugee law is of no concern to the Constitution, unlike the excision of islands and territories. It can be addressed by parliament.

Law is not my area of expertise. Why should it be? Are you attempting to discredit me because of that? Good luck with that futile project.

I have yet to meet an unscholarly person who wrote an internationally acclaimed doctoral thesis. As you are completely unfamiliar with my work, I'm not attaching a lot of weight to your judgment of my scholarship.

I have never claimed to have superior knowledge in the matter of the Pacific solution. I almost certainly at this point have less than you.

The merits or otherwise of the Pacific solution have absolutely nothing to do with my article.

What I have said over and over in posts, is that I wish to pursue my own research into this, and when I am satisfied that I have as much information as I'm likely to find, I will then make a decision about my opinion of the efficacy of the Pacific solution to stop boat arrivals.

I will not simply accept your perspective, even if you do claim millions of others agree with you.

Millions of people agreed with Hitler. And we all know where that led. There is no correlation between truth, the majority, and morality.
To be continued…

Continued…

On the question of my courage:

I do have the bottle to publish an article that is going to bring a great deal of anger and personal attack down on me. This isn’t the first time I’ve done this and it won’t be the last.

I do have the bottle to treat seriously an enormous number of posts, almost all of them antagonistic and aggressively demanding, and not a few of them hurtful.

I do have the bottle to put my name to my thoughts and opinions.

I do have the bottle to take a stand that is, as you pointed out, against the raging tide, because I want to say what seems to me to be important.

All I have is a voice, as the poet so beautifully observed. To undo the folded lie…

Nobody is forcing you to read my work. You choose to do that. If you find it not to your liking for whatever reason, then read something that doesn’t irritate you so much. Life is short. Why spend it in irritation when you don’t have to?

Now let’s call a halt to this abrasive exchange, Shadow Minister. I have other things to do, and this has taken up a lot of time.
Jennifer.

Shintaro , you’re right

the hoi polloi v

the educated.

Messianic stuff!

So kingly, Christ like?

Nah... second thoughts, more Knut

Jennifer,

I have no problem grasping the point of your article, as you hope that the pariah status that withdrawal will create is a disincentive for the current treatment of refugees.

What you fail to grasp is that signing up to the convention is not legally binding in the first place. It is simply a recognition of principles, and the effect on the courts of the convention is to provide guidance in the application of common law. Withdrawal from the convention if even possible would not change this in any way, as guidance in common law is often taken from US and European courts even though there is no formal recognition.

Existing common law excluding refugee law does not allow extradition or deportation to countries where the defendant might suffer harm. Even excluding refugee law, boat people cannot be deported to where they might suffer harm or persecution.

The second thrust of your article was that "It’s not clear just where Abbott intends to “stop the boats”.

The answer I gave was simple, the re imposition of the pacific solution, which actually does abide by the letter of the convention, and is pretty simply the policy.

You challenged the effectiveness of this proposal, and I provided departmental figures which show a very strong correlation.

While I am not arrogant enough to expect you to accept my views at face value, when I do provide compelling evidence, I do expect more than platitudes "ebb and flow"

If you want to check the figures feel free:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm

As for your courage, you have completely failed after multiple requests to provide even one smidgeon to substantiate your belief that the pacific solution will not work. Without substantiation,your belief is akin to religious fervour and not likely to convince anyone.