Ibbit, if you think a Coalition government will withdraw from the UN Convention, you're in for a shock.

Just ask yourself why did the Howard government excise Ashmore Reef, and Christmas Island, then set up Nauru, when all they really had to do was revoke our domestic law allowing asylum seekers entry, and withdraw from the UN Convention?

This debate has nothing at all to do with me personally. It is about Australian law and what is permissible under that law. Ad hominem slurs against me won't change the reality of the laws we all have to live under

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

Jennifer to quote the convention:

"Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they presentthemselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

The phrase "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is of particular relevance.

Your assertion that " a person who is seeking asylum has the legal, yes that's legal right to enter this country without papers, and by any method of transport," does not apply to those taking a boat from Indonesia, where their life is not threatened, especially those that have resided there for an extended period.

The quandary is that once on Australian territory, they cannot be deported back to Indonesia. Thus the government is left with the choice of returning them to their countries of origin or providing them with Protection.

Habeas corpus does not permit those with legitimate rights to reside to be detained.

The convention also allows for the return of refugees once the situation in their country has stabilized, thus the TPVs are a legitimate solution.

You still have failed to address the previous issue of the boat people taking asylum places from those more deserving.

Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Refugees cannot request asylum in those countries that aren't signatories. They can only live in camps, and have no rights to work etc. That is why we cannot return them.

How would you suggest an Iraqi asylum seeker, for example, access Australia without moving through another country, usually countries that are not signatories and don't offer asylum?

Asylum, BTW is not just living in a camp. Asylum is the chance to work and live a free life.

The government is not in any quandary. We have agreed to be a country of asylum. We have processes for assessing refugee status. We can deport those who do not fulfill the requirements. We have voluntarily agreed to this situation. What is the quandary?

The only quandary is that which is manufactured for political purposes. It is extremely straightforward if we abide by our nation's laws.

Those with legitimate rights are indeed detained, until those rights are confirmed.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I had agreed to enter into any discussion on the question of boat people taking places from the more deserving. All I would say on this aspect is that it matters very little if at all in the law, who is more or less deserving in this situation. Boat arrivals requesting asylum have to be justly treated under our laws. That is the reality. We can't refuse them because somebody else might be more deserving. There really isn't anything else to say about it, unless you want to change the law.

TPVs have been found to cause enormous psychological damage. Why would you advocate this additional torment? There are probably circumstances under which temporary protection is appropriate. But you cannot expect people to live for years in that limbo, and that is not the intention. It's TEMPORARY protection in specific short term situations, and there aren't many of those.

None of these arguments actually mean anything - the law says what it says. It has to be observed or changed. That's my point
Jennifer

Perhaps we should go back to the practice adopted by the navy in the early part of this century and sink a few boats. That was the main cause of the flow stopping. Don't tell me it didn't happen. Some sailors who were out there will confirm it if you ask them nicely.

David

Jennifer complains about the propaganda and collusions at the heart of the “stop the boats” debate -–then adds some of her own.

Confronted by Tony Abbot claim:“We stopped the boats before, we can stop then again”
She professes bafflement --but she had two options:
1)Looking at what his party did “before" might give a good indication of what he planned to do next time around, or
2)Looking at what happen to the illegal Papuan boat-–just last month--might also give a clue as to what can be done when there is a will.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/immigration-starts-deporting-papua-new-guineans-claiming-australian-citizenship-as-another-boatload-arrives/story-e6freoof-1225975957261

Instead, she launches into the following, colourful speculation: “Will he fire on the vessels that disregard ,risking death and injury to asylum seekers and their children, in international water …will we kill and maim them”

Jennifer makes much of our need to meet our “international obligations”, but she only wants to talk about the Refugee Convention.There is another convention which we signed, the UN convention against people smuggling, which requires us to crack down all forms of people smuggling.
Where does she talk of our “international obligations” under the anti-people smuggle convention?

Her account of asylum seekers reads like a fairy tale, they are:“people with drive, ingenuity and courage” , “seek(ing) sanctuary” in “democratic” Australia , only to find successive Australian governments through “indefinite” detention and TPVs create “uncertainty” which “manage(s)to achieve what the Taliban could not”
Unfortunately her whole sorry tale is undermined by a few unco-operative facts:
1)Many have flown into Indonesia business class, ingenuous, yes –but hardly courageous!
http://www.smh.com.au/national/revealed-smuggler-arrested-over-gangs-plot-to-ship-afghans-here-20100711-105p8.html
2) After getting residency in OZ , many return to places they told us endangered their lives ,courageous perhaps –but hardly honest!
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/13/1175971353190.html
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/21/15098766.html

(and incidentally, contrary to her spin, TPVs are perfectly acceptable under the refugee convention) .

But what is Jennifer’s alternative?
Set them all lose on the community while they appeal and re-appeal their cases.
Well, its been tried already in Canada – and it failed dismally.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/agents-promise-tamils-boats-to-australia/story-e6frg6so-1225948082054

In one of her concluding remarks she says: The “asylum seekers …are an easy target”
-Nah! it’s Australia that’s the easy target.

*We can't refuse them because somebody else might be more deserving. There really isn't anything else to say about it, unless you want to change the law.*

That is exactly why the law needs changing and updating, Jennifer.
The law is being shown to be an ass, full of loopholes, hardly
assisting the most needy.

Hitler was the law once, slavery was the law once, they were not
particularly good laws.

If the law becomes an ass, change the law. Its quite simple really.