Yeah ozzie, next we will see blazing banner headlines in the press AUSTRALIAN MALES THE WORST WIFE BEATERS IN THE WESTERN WORLD. Next will come the usual crap from "feminists" claiming that this proves how misogynistic "Australian" society is.

Only last week, the newspapers cited the fact that cigarette smoking in Australia had increased significantly, which "proved" that no amount of public funds spent on anti smoking messages had done anything. The elephant in the room was that we are importing third worlders into this country who are addicted to tobacco, and even give "refugees" free cigarettes.

If we import people into this country in large numbers who do not share our values, and encourage them to maintain their ethnic and cultural uniqueness, then pretty soon we will be in the same position as Sri Lanka and every other woe begotten state now in turmoil from the curse of multiculturalism.

A good definition of "insanity" is "making the same mistake, over and over again." With so many examples of ethnic division creating serious social strife and even civil wars, one wonder why a woman like the is author is so determined to have Australia emulate self evident failure.

@Loudmouth. Joe, your first instincts were correct. The source for the claim that the occupants of the boat returned to the Sri Lankans were "economic" appears to be an official of that government. Put what weight you like on that. My view would be zero. It is in any case irrelevant. Once the Australian navy intercepted the boat it became our responsibility to treat the occupants in accordance with international law. This is what we manifestly failed to do.

With a couple of honourable exceptions the comments on this article are s series of bigoted and ignorant rants. Any issues about our breach of international law is just another opportunity for Muslim bashing. The refusal to address the real issues is itself quite telling.

As far as the second boat is concerned Julian Burnside suggested that holding the occupants incommunicado may well be piracy, as you suggested at the outset. At least the High Court now has carriage of the matter and the government's intention to breach our treaty obligations is now less likely to occur.

Ignore the red herrings. Like Rhiannon and Poirot your humanity has not been crushed.

Joe Loudmouth,

“Keep a-movin' Joe,
don't you listen to him Joe,
James’s a devil not a man
and he'll spam you any lie without falter"

Here are some inconvenient facts that James missed telling you (I wonder why?)

The first boat
-- It contained manly Sinhalese whom advocates up till now had been characterising as the oppressor class
--The one passenger who merited further investigation opted to return home when he learnt he would have to wait till his processing was finalised on Manus (so much for running for his life!)
-- A father of one of the passenger later admitted they were only looking for jobs/work [NOTE THAT ADMISION WAS FROM AN *ABC* INTERVIEW WITH THE FATHER!]

The second boat
Originated from India. which has a Tamil state which offers sanctuary and support (though apparently --judging by their 7,800+ Kms reroute-- it's not as generous as what is on offer down-under --COME ON DOWN have we got a deal for you!)

And as for this:
<< Julian Burnside suggested that holding the occupants incommunicado may well be piracy>>

It is an illustration of James’s sides gross hypocrisy.
- When the asylum scammers call for a rescue then force the crew of their rescue ship to change course and take then to an Oz territory [as they did with the Tampa and two or three other vessels since] –that’s OK!
-When they refuse to leave a rescue ship in an Indonesian port –and all the while are being served up culturally sensitive meals –till they are guaranteed passage to a short list of Western countries [ as they did with the Viking Princess –that’s OK too!

But when they get detained on a border protection vessel –whilst no doubt all the while being served up culturally sensitive meals—and delayed due to the attempts of advocates to frustrate things through court appeals- that’s piracy?

In the end all this fighting and difference of opinion really does not get us anywhere. The important thing is that we live in a democracy and we basically had an election where this topic was one of the major voting points. Australians voted, and they voted strongly to STOP these people. End of story.

Ozzie

<<Australians voted, and they voted strongly to STOP these people. End of story>>

Ozzie, Ozzie, Ozzie, you have got to get your head around the thinking of the advocates!

The nearest analogue to an Oz illegal immigration advocate would be the Ayatollahs Iran. They are answerable to a higer authority that trumps democracy. And only the <<bigoted and ignorant>> would challenge their faith and assumptions.

An entirely predictable response from the usual suspects. For another viewpoint, and one with which I mostly agree, read Guy Rundle's piece in today's Crikey.