It is darn silly to blame Australians for the regretful loss of life of boat people. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I have the view that the legal principles in our constitution are paramount. If we were to disregard these then we can be subjected to the wimps of any country and lose the freedoms we now have. We cannot and must not subject ourselves to the ills of other nations. Whatever Malaysia may or may not do as to human-rights, etc, never should govern how we protect our borders.
We will prevent more loss of life by making sure that people smugglers are so to say put out of business. As Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal rights I have for long promoted that all refuges or so called refugees are to be handed over to the UN (United Nations) and it and it alone should deal with those seeking another country to live in. This post doesn’t allow me to set it all out how to put it in place but I have published it also on my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati.
By refusing to accept anyone not coming directly through the UN we actually will save more lives in the process because then a person seeking to live in another country will be aware that travelling by boat to Australia will be fruitless because they will still end up being housed in a UN designated facility which may very well be in a country near where they had their domicile.
The more you give in to boat people the more will seek to make the dangerous trip and the more people will lose their lives in the process. All those good doers who pretend to wanting to safe lives are in fact the very people causing tragedies of sinking boats to eventuate because those on board are lured by their softly, softly approach.
And why do we have armed forces if now any country can flood Australia with its citizens and gradually by this can be ensured to take us over from within?

The problem with the Malaysia solution article is too much advertising in it. As is now with other articles.
Seldom do I go these days to onlineopinion because I view it has too much advertising that one has to go from page to page to read a particular article. It is a turn off and in fact puts me off of considering what it being advertised.
While making money may be an issue just to go through numerous pages to read one article is a bit rich

LF,

Because I dismiss the wildly inaccurate claims of "illegality" by those intellectually effete that haven't bothered to read the laws or charters, does not mean that I actively promote naval interdiction of these vessels on their illegal journeys. Unlike you I don't believe that the turning of the boats was the sole or even most significant reason the pacific solution worked, and certainly from 2004 to 2008 it played no part in the success of the pacific solution. And I would not promote this action unless it could be done safely without active resistance.

I support the police, traffic control, customs and other security agencies in up holding the law, even if they occasionally require the use of or threat of force. Do you? This would certainly apply to mandatory detention, shore processing, and the Malaysian solution which you support.

Shadow Minister, do you support the use of force to block the entry to Australia of asylum seekers? "Yes" or "No"
As I said, there will be no response from me whatever the answer.

LF

You must be a lawyer, wanting a yes/no answer to a multi faceted question.

My answer is yes where appropriate.

If your answer is no in all circumstances, then you are essentially against all off shore processing, all detention, against the arrest of the people smugglers and the confiscation of their boats.

The person so lamely playing at being the lawyer is you, SM. The question is not in the least multi-faceted, for all your obfuscation.

Your refusal to answer the question actually reveals more about you than a simple answer of "yes" or "no".