SM,

I'm suggesting that some men and women put political expediency before ethical considerations - and at present in Australia both major parties are vying for popularity and applying unethical strategies to achieve that end.

"Jennifer, it seems, is merely highlighting Julia's lack of feminine empathy"

Is a far cry from:

"I'm suggesting that some men and women put political expediency before ethical considerations"

The whole pretext of the article is sexist, the reason behind it is just an excuse.

The article totally misses the real Julia's issues.

They are nothing to do with toughness or gender.

The real Julia's real issues are pigheadness, authoritarianism, and an inability to accept being in error.

Oh and of course that the fault is always with someone else, usually Tony.

The author may be exibititing, in this article, similar personality traits ... Which leads me to ask: Are they exclusively female traits?

Poirot:
<some men and women put political expediency before ethical considerations>
In fact, many talk and act as if they had no ethical/political obligations/responsibility to consider. This is how far intellectual standards have degenerated; popular “debate” is often not merely parochial, but aggressively narcissistic and ignorant of real issues. A few of the complexities populists seem oblivious to:

Australia's complicity in the colonial/postcolonial world that is still playing out.

Australia's support for US-led unilateral interference and manipulation, as well as eager participation in military actions on foreign shores, all productive of refugees.

Inequality/upward mobility; Australia’s prodigious comparative wealth, ethically indefensible in the global context, is bound to be a mecca to refugees. If we’re not prepared to live more modestly and reduce inequality, we should accept that we're going to attract mendicants.

Ideological imperialism--the West imposes its "values" and culture as if nothing else could possibly be legitimate. By the same token, its values are not scrutinised and immune to criticism. This phenomenon breeds indignation, resentment, jealousy and envy.

Australia is a big player in global economics, which helps to generate over-population and unsustainability=refugees.

Australia is not isolationist; it fully participates in the world it helps to create and must partake of all that that entails.

As a rich Western nation, Australia shares responsibility for today’s economic, environmental and political refugees. It therefore has moral and practical obligations.

Geographical good-fortune; Australians are “lucky” to have a giant landmass to exploit; they do no “deserve” it and their propriety is ideological and tenuous.

Australia is signature to and purports to support human rights--“all” humanity.

Australia supports other conventions too, whose reciprocal protection it enjoys, and must be seen not merely to honour them in the breach.

Empathy, Compassion, generosity—traditionally the feminine milk and honey of human kindness
Indifference; in being indifferent to the global effects of its ethical/environmental footprint, Australia is party to many of the world’s ills and must take its share of the consequences, including refugees.

The hearts and minds of decent men and women are suffocated by populist politics. There's more to it than stop the boats!

@ Briar Rose & Co.

The term "asylum seekers" is a nonsense.

If it was all about seeking asylum.Then temporary protection visas--which are perfectly permissible under the convention-- would be a favoured option.And if it was all about offering temporary protection then we could accommodate a lot more.

But both the "asylum seekers" and their unwitting accomplishes want nothing of TPVs.

If it was all about asylum seeking then one would expect that the southern Sudanese "asylum seekers", who sought protection in OZ before they gained independence, would be leaving our shores to resettle in their new homeland--but it isn't happening.

If it was about all asylum seeking one would expect the thousands of Tamils who sought asylum on our shores would be returning home.

AND BEFORE ONE OF THE ADVOCATES JUMPS IN WITH THE USUAL SPIEL ABOUT DOOM AND GLOOM IN SRI LANKA!

Many Tamils are returning --according to no lesser source than the UNHCR:

"In 2010, the improving situation in northern Sri Lanka has prompted an increase in facilitated repatriation and spontaneous returns of refugees from India and elsewhere. This trend is expected to accelerate in 2011, when it is estimated that up to 15,000 UNHCR-facilitated and 6,000 spontaneous individual returns will take place
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4878e6.html

But none of those returnees are from five star sites like OZ.

And this is because it is NOT about seeking asylum ---it' about seeking affluence ---they are affluence seekers--not asylum seekers.

At least Squeers, for all his ideological mumbo-jumbo is insightful enough to see there are "economic" refugees in the mix --though he doesn't know how many. And he cares even less. For him the West is one giant soup kitchen whose duty it is to feed the rest of the world.

the West is one giant soup kitchen whose duty it is to feed the rest of the world.
SPQR,
and to top it all off it has to be muslimised. Unfortunately, you can show this scenario to the academic educated but you can't make them understand.