A bit less emotion and a bit more reason please.

The asylum seeker in question did not die because of his status or because he was locked up. The ultimate cause, while yet to be fully investigated, relates to the timeiness and adequacy of his treatment. Did he delay seeking treatment or was the necessary treatment not available in a timely manner? We don't yet know. If the latter changes need to be urgently made.

If we close the offshore detention centres, be prepared for a renewed flow of boat people and more deaths at sea.

The author talks about childish behavior of fingers in ears while at the same time basing most of her article around another childish behavior of screaming so loudly those around you hurt.

If recent images I've seen reportedly from Manus are correct then there is clearly a problem with the facilities. On the other hand I doubt Abbott or Morrison has been kicking the walls out of the toilets in the center, a lack of cleaning etc might be something those in detention could do something about.

Detention is not my preferred solution, I think we could do better but those screaming most fervently against detention don't seem to be offering a willingness to cooperate with anything other than let them come.

No support for TPV's, no support for checks to try and reduce the downsides for those already here of accepting those fleeing a losing battle whilst clinging to the beliefs and cultural traits that created the very thing they fled.

So rather than scream how about some constructive suggestions for alternatives other than detention.

R0bert

Regrettably what you say is fairly correct.
We will never stop wars and strife.
The major reason is that there are just too many humans.
We shall never stop this virus like population increase so there will always be conflict because of competition over land, water, religion and language.
We have passed the point of no return.
We are breeding, and eating ourselves out of house and home.

Please do not be ashamed to be an Australian. This is a free country so you can leave anytime you like and go to some other country more to your liking and where you can be proud.
The fact is we do take refugees but now we are making it hard for lazy and horrible people to come here for our Centrelink and our freedom. These same people will then want Australia to change into the same rubbish place they left. That is another problem.
We need people who will contribute something not just leach off the rest of us and this will preclude the current batch of fraudsters.
Kathy you just do not get it! The vast majority do not want these bludgers in fact half the population want no immigration whereas the other half are happy to accept immigration. It is difficult, so go and have a Bex and a lie down and leave complicated things to us adults.

u could probrably scream at Rudd/Gillard for encouraging people to come here illegally. You could also scream loudly for the huge numbers of assylum seekers who are waiting to come here legally rather than ripping up papers in order to beat the system. If we had any guts we would also deport supporters of Hamas and Isis and allow people with far more noble intentions here.

Kathryn - a basic point seems to have completely escaped you. We have not stopped taking refugees. We have just stopped taking them if they arrive by boat. The number we take is exactly the same either way. Nothing has changed. You are simply seeing those who arrive by boat and not seeing the many thousands more in refugee camps who were being denied places because of the ones who came by boat.

Oh dear!

The first 4 comments came from children who have mistaken maturity for the capacity to justify inhumane treatment of others.

Those who accept the status quo have set aside the definition of asylum seekers and have resorted to applying entirely unjustified namecalling using emotionally charged epithets, yet these same people pretend that they are not emotional, that they are the rationalists, that only their opponents are being emotional.

What is rational about early, brutal death in captivity?
What is sensible about the way that refugees are being housed and treated?
What is justifiable about repeatedly, constantly and willfully breaking international treaties and law?

We are not talking about Centrelink dole bludgers as someone stated. Well over 90% of boat arrivals who have been objectively assessed in recent years have been found to be actual refugees. That means, by definition, that the reason they are here is to find refuge. Their lives depend on them finding refuge, the same refuge which we Australians are refusing to provide. Their highest priority is safe refuge, not the dole. That also means that Australia and Australians, from the PM down, have legal, ethical and, for those with a personal compass, moral obligations to provide refuge.

This discussion isn't me or others being "emotional", as this is an inappropriate response when others are subjected to avoidable pain. It is about man's inhumanity to man. It is about the irrational, insensitive, inhumane and sometimes even religiously bigotted attempts by other Australians to deny unfortunate, desperate, hurting people their rights as humans.

Maybe the 500,000 long term annual arrivals are the real latent dole bludgers. No statistics have been put forward that could support the notion that boat people and other extremely desperate refugees are truly seeking to become economic immigrants? That is because there is none.

Australia is very much out of step with the reasonable expectations and standards adopted by every other Western country. This needs to be changed and soon.

We need stop making excuses.

We must close the death camps.

JohnBennetts:
Well said. One sane voice so far .
The racial tones of the other rants are obvious.
It does make me ashamed to be an Australian and no I will not leave for somewhere else but stay and try to bring the view point of the MAJORITY out over the propaganda of the shock jocks and the lame stream press.
The Abbott so called government will not be calling the shots for much longer and after they have gone with their fascist idealism reason will prevail.

The author seems to have no idea of the current world situation and seems to think we live in an equal happy world without borders.

There is no recognition that in the world of sovereign states in which we live entry into the territory of another state is by leave, and that entry without leave constitutes invasion.

As other posters have mentioned, the underlying problem is world overpopulation, and the only solution to this will be provided by the four horsemen (War, Famine, Pestilence and Death).

The world cannot cope with the current population of 7,200,000,000, and when it gets to 10,000,000,000 things will get very much worse.

The response of the elite is to ignore the problem and make discussion of it politically incorrect.

At a conservative estimate, there would be over 1,000,000,000 people in the world who would love to move to Australia, and this is not going to happen.

The most obvious first step that the government should take would be to abrogate the Asylum Convention, and I am puzzled why they do not do this.

After that, all that is needed is legislation to provide that all non-citizens without visas on a boat that seeks to enter our territory would be declared to be enemy aliens, and the task of preventing their entry would be assigned to our armed forces, with the authority to use lethal force if necessary

< We will never stop the flow of asylum seekers… >

< There are ways to deal with people smuggling and boat arrivals and stop people drowning without being unnecessarily punitive to needy people. >

Kathryn, these statements appear to be at odds. Do you want to tackle people smuggling and boat arrivals or do you want to just accept a continuous stream of arrivals?

Please clarify this. Currently it looks as though you are highly confused about the bigger picture… or perhaps only just cursorily mentioning it and not really interested in it at all.

You know full well that if we were to treat asylum seekers as you would want, it would create a huge pull factor, and we’d find ourselves dealing with many thousands more. And if that was to happen, we’d have to take a considerably harder-line approach, in which many more people would get turned around at sea, would be placed in detention, would get hurt, would die… and in short would be treated in ways that you so vehemently protesteth about.

It appears that you haven’t thought this issue through. Not by a very long way.

Write us another article that is more about the big picture of asylum seeking. And please tell us exactly what ways there are of dealing with people smuggling and boat arrivals without being ‘unnecessarily punitive’ to needy people.

Absolutely agree with runner.
And as things stand, the flow of refugees can only ever grow, along with the internment camps that are the only places left for around 50 million people.
[They're all invited around to Screamer's, for afternoon nibbles.]
Greece with a population of around 12 million people, opened her door to around a million people, many who would now be better off, if they'd stayed were they were?
What do they have now? Apart from a million with no money, no homes, no work; and clean out of charity!
My heart bleeds for people, who are locked up in internment camps, sometimes like the Cohen, for literal generations.
And in those filthy hovels/tin shanty towns/tent cities, with no running water, no proper sanitation etc; one or two deaths P/W, just go completely unnoticed, but particularly by those screaming the loudest, about far better conditions in a tropical paradise.
The standards on Manus Island are far better than those of more than 85% of Papuans.
And native women in particular, are handed a truly shocking deal/can be summarily executed for alleged witchcraft, for heavens sake!
These screamers need to get things in context, and start working for a better world; and fixing those things that they scream about, at source!
Imagine, if we all believed in reincarnation and Karma!?
This world would be a far better place, and few if any needing to flee anything, let alone injustice, persecution or poverty!
Scrrreem awah.
Rhrosty.

Our “boat people” are a tiny manifestation of a world wide phenomenon, and to understand that requires the “big picture”, not screaming and abuse.It involves a stage of advanced imperialism, with enormous flows of finance oblivious to borders; massive concentrations of wealth and global disparities; geo-political conflicts over strategic resources; endless local wars with displacement of people. Threatening the whole world has been the doubling of population since 1960, with numbers still increasing most in poorest countries. Over the same period, per-capita cropland has fallen by more than half. ( Just imagine the catastrophe if/when predictions of climate change are realised).

If there is anything to be ashamed of about Australia, it is our education system.

Only a dreadfully degraded education system could produce people so incapable of logical thinking, that they could produce this bit of fluff.

This lady wants to give away the heritage of millions of Ozzies, a heritage which is not hers to give, to pacify an addled conscience.

If this lady was the "principal strategist for the Australian Democrats", it is little wonder the democrats are no more, thank god. Such addled thinking, with no rationality can do nothing but harm wherever it is applied.

The issue of asylum seekers was predicted about 20 years ago (can't remember who made it).
It was if I remember correctly the prediction was to be flood of people.

I think it was in the context about the concerns of another country invading Australia, where the person predicted that it would more likely to be a flood of immigrants.

Whilst Australia remains relatively wealthy and peaceful, many people will want to follow the western dream.

Rather than screaming (or ranting) I would like to draw your attention to some speculations about practical options to 'stop this'. See 'Boat People Magic'
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/refugee_complexities.htm#21_7_13

The basic theme is that what is being done by governments in relation to asylum seekers at present is hopeless - and that doing any better involves recognising that the wars, persecution and strife that currently give rise to refugee flows do have causes - and those causes can be addressed. Some more recent suggestions about doing so are in 'Challenging the Idea of an Islamic State'
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/discouraging_extremism.htm#6_9_14

Wolly I think the idea was we would by now be swamped under a flood of global warming refugees.

They got that one just as wrong as they got the temperature forecast.

As my father used to say about public servants, "Can't these people get anything right"? The answer is there for all to see.

Xenophobia is alive and well in parts of Australia.
The only thing that will stop "boat people" who are really refugees and not "illegal boat people" is to slow down population growth world wide.
This is never going to happen voluntarily but eventually will happen through lack of resources i.e. water.
It would help if the big two parties would stop the "big Australia" push that is the main cause of discontent.
This is a result of big corporations wanting cheap labour by having a large pool of unemployed.
The gutter press encourages resentment by the racists and gives the neolibs another three word slogan.
It is easily fixed for the moment by cutting back on the huge numbers of migrants and work visa's.
There is no permanent cure because neither of the parties will actually do anything that will upset big business.

Logic has left this authors brain because it clearly wasn't getting any air time. Full of emotion and lacking any form of reasoning, its hard to actually argue against the article, as facts are few on the ground.

The author is a person who claims to have been "physically sick" when Australia returned 41 Sri Lankans home while glibly ignoring the deaths of hundreds who died st sea because people like themselves the Greens encourage perilous journeys in rickety boats. Looks like their deaths can be easily dismissed as bad luck. As long as they can retain their role as the perennial bleeding hearts, asylum seekers dying doesn't matter apparently.

Dear Bren,

<<If we close the offshore detention centres, be prepared for a renewed flow of boat people and more deaths at sea.>>

So what's wrong with that?

If people choose to go sailing the wide ocean in inappropriate leaky boats, then they should be ready to take the consequences. If that happens, then we have nothing to be ashamed of, then it wouldn't be our hands killing them or detaining them, then it's them versus nature.

[Sock puppet]

One thing about which we should rightly scream loud and long is the total detachment of cabinet from the realities of life's moral guidelines.
Who designed the structure and implementation of the immigration detention policy?
Which jumped-up little bureacrats were given the job of running and controlling it?
Where is the awareness and understanding of the needs and humanity of people who are asking for help?
We seem to be whining constantly that others less lucky than we, plea for this land to become their home.
Throw out immigration restriction, throw open our doors, and throw out the sub-humans who try to run our country, and stuff it up in the process. Then we can look in the mirror and regain a little respect for what we see.

Again these horrible horrible people are incapable of looking after their children. Keeping the camp clean and themselves properly fed. Apparently they expect liveried servants to wait on them and their scum lawyers.
Lawyers were earning a million dollars a week from us taxpayers and then whining it is all for the good of humanity.
Start making these people do everything for themselves and when they will not co-operate use that as the reason for them being deported.
A tribunal of taxpayers to decide whether they are genuine. Lawyers allowed to observe but only if they pay us to do so.
That would stop this nonsense dead in it's tracks.

Could somebody please explain to me what is SOOO incredibly terrible about the author writing a (gasp!) emotional article?

From the comments here you'd think she just farted in a crowded lift or confessed to being a paedophile? Does the macho commentariat here ever stop to consider that this is a subject that long ago lost all capacity for rational reasoning or logical discourse?

All that is left is emotion. When dealing with this tragic subject, I for one will trust my feelings over my 'cognitive' faculties any day.

Keep screaming, Kathryn.

Hamas has shown that it is very willing to offer children as sacrifices in the form of human shields. To send kids in leaky boats would be minor in comparsion if they thought they could join hundreds or thousands more cheating on our welfare system. Wake up Australia!

[Sock puppet]

It is always a pleasure to read the thoughts of decent people.

However, what people need to come to terms with is that the crown is a baby stealing, child abusing, genocidal regime and its knowing and obliging servants are absolute filth.

Senator Hanson Young said it not so long ago, that indeed the way in which these children are treated constitutes child abuse, and of course it follows that those responsible are CHILD ABUSERS.

Now, did everyone hear what that foul little worm Grimer complained about on Insiders the other day? Oh yes, something about a comment from Malcolm Fraser to the effect that tony abbott goes to church on Sunday but for the rest of the time he is anything but a "Christian."

..

Now, what could be worse than drowning at sea they ask? And of course, a rough ride on a boat is no doubt but one of the trials that some of the Asylum Seekers have faced. Anyway, how about, after being lured to a so called lucky country by a guvment of child abusers who hang out the BIG SIGN

(member of the Asylum Convention)

these often extremely courageous people are locked up without charge or trial, indefinitely,

(and or without the right to know if and or when they will ever get out)

in circumstances known

(and known for a long time)

to produce adverse medical outcomes.

Then, a long and traumatic descent into mental illness culminating in severe and chronic illness wherein all of ones worst experiences are replayed and relived over and over as one languishes in the pit of post traumatic stress or something similar.

(Ever seen "Shell Shock" victims?)

And what do the trash in Canberra say, oh yes, we must abuse the ones we've got in order to save others from drowning, as if there were no other way to mitigate that occurring.

But then, did any of the decent folk ever take anything the slime in Canberra has to say on this subject seriously?

Dear DreamOn,

The situation you describe is inevitable so long as the slime in Canberra believe that they own this continent. Suppose you believed that you own your body and those asylum-seekers were represented by germs (cells different than your body-cells) - wouldn't you treat them similarly?

If you don't like this behaviour, then as the first step, Canberra should be dismantled (I don't mean the city and buildings, etc., only the control structure), then individual states can set their own refugee policy.

Please don't delude yourself as if another political party would fix the problem - they all believe in the concept of sovereignty and as such, while they may pay lip-service to other ideas, when push comes to shove they are bound to act in a similar manner to ensure that everyone remembers who is the boss of this country.

Look, settle it.

Why don't all those who are in favour of accepting as many refugees as they want, simply get together and sign an instrument of indemnity promising to pay ALL the costs - processing, settlement, social security, and indemnity against crime - to everyone else? That will shut them up, won't it? You could give everyone who doesn't agree with you a legal action to take and sell your houses and cars and furniture and computers to pay the costs of what you allege is a moral problem above any sordid question of actual finance?

Why would that not be a total solution to the moral problem you allege? Kathryn? JohnBennets? RobertLePage?

If it's really a moral problem - and not you just ostentatiously preaching on street corners like the Pharisees and hypocrites while only using the State to filch money off other people to pay for your values - then why not? Why not just put your money where your mouth is?

Talk about the bleating of conmen!

No one is locked up, at least not against their will. Any time these illegal gate crashers chose they can be whisked of home on a big silver bird, all at Ozzie taxpayer expense.

Of course going home includes loss of face in their community as failures. It also probably involves lots of hard work to pay back the money many borrowed for long term living expenses while getting here, & fares on planes & boats & trains, as the song goes.

So please cut the crap about being locked up. Being where they are is their own choice. They are hoping the bleating of idiots in Oz will prevail, & give them entry to the easy life.

Funny isn't it. Thousands of Ozzies are slaving away, & will be for years, hoping they can afford a week or so sitting under a palm on a tropical island come holiday time. Pity so much of their earnings will have wasted on a bunch of leaches, who complain about a permanent holiday.

Pardon writes "Throw out immigration restriction, throw open our doors, and throw out the sub-humans who try to run our country, and stuff it up in the process. Then we can look in the mirror and regain a little respect for what we see." What a stupid thing to say.

Great idea. Why not go one step further and invite ISIS to come run the country.

The Pardons, Kathryns, JohnBennets & RobertLePages haven't offered one iota of a practical, big picture, long term solution or alternative and they never will because they haven't got a clue.

No one has yet offered a single valid reason for Australia to accept ANY immigrants, let alone refugees, and especially refugees who represent a repressive and medieval religious mind-set.
So I ask.....WHY?
All we seem to be doing is creating a rod for our own backs by overloading our cities and services, creating ghettos and religious/racial conflict, for NO appreciable gain for us or our nation.
The do-gooders will rave about our moral obligations but I say...to whom?
Surely our moral obligations to our current population are greater?
What is the point of accepting more people when by doing that we destroy the very thing they supposedly came here to enjoy?
I feel the do-gooder attitude to immigration/refugees is akin to those fools who post the address for an open-house party on social media, and we've all seen the results of that particular brilliant stunt!

Dear Bruce,

<<No one has yet offered a single valid reason for Australia to accept ANY immigrants, let alone refugees>>

Indeed!

But that doesn't justify hunting down people at sea and locking them up.

You don't have to accept them, but you may not reject them either without a valid reason. If they cause trouble in cities, then don't allow them into cities and if they draw on services, then don't give them access to those services, but you have no valid reason to deny them entry into the whole of this continent.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<No one is locked up, at least not against their will. Any time these illegal gate crashers chose they can be whisked of home on a big silver bird>>

Where they go and how, or what do they call "home", are none of your business. Just give them back their leaky boats and let them sail away as they please. Better still, don't take away their boats in the first place.

Yuyutsu says "you have no valid reason to deny them entry into the whole of this continent", but of course we do. After all we are the ones who settled it, tamed it, fought for it, & paid for it.

Perfectly happy to give them back their boats, although as they are simply simply fare paying passengers, I'm not sure they are their boats. Still I'll go with giving them the boasts, provided it is agreed that they will be sunk on sight, if they then intrude into our territorial waters again.

They would be much better off taking the air ticket home, but I certainly don't mind.

We know they are not in danger going home. Most of them go home, as soon as they have residency, to pick up a bride or two, to bread more good invaders back here

Come on Yuyutsu, you are usually smarter than that. We have intruders trying to illegally access our borders. We have a Navy charged with turning those intruders back; or if the intruder's boats are no longer sea worthy, escorting them to temporary custody.

No one is hunting them down; it's called protecting our borders. These are cue jumpers, economic refuges, who are attempting to illegally enter Australia.

If they don't want to go back to their homeland they can go back to their last port of departure the same as anyone attempting to enter Australia is treated at the airport if they arrive without the proper documents or intentions (eg plan to work without a work permit).

Add to this, if we didn't turn them away they will most likely end up on the dole, send for their families to join them, and in most cases add to the number of Muslims in Australia who are unwilling to assimilate.

The boat people issue is serious, it should be treated as though its a foreign invasion, and dealt with firmly in order to discourage others from trying the same. Its a harsh reality that is necessary if we want to preserve our Australian values and culture into the distant future.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<After all we are the ones who settled it, tamed it, fought for it, & paid for it.>>

Settled - most of Australia is still unsettled. Also, it was already quite settled when white man came. I never suggested that refugees should be allowed to integrate into Australian society and enter settled areas without permission from those living there, but unless they pose a danger (Muslim issue aside), nothing can legitimately prevent them from entering unsettled areas of this continent or places where local people invite them.

Tamed - did the continent ask you to be tamed? did it even gave you its permission? otherwise, you seem to assume that acts of abuse give the abuser ownership over their victim.

Fought for it - poor continent thanks you profusely for it would otherwise be killed/injured/raped, had the British failed to come in time to rescue it. Right?

Paid for it - and sent the cheque to heaven? Can you show a receipt from God, its previous owner?

Who is this 'we' anyway, which you assume to speak with one voice?

<<if they then intrude into our territorial waters again.>>

Also a "settled" area, I presume? Now you need to produce a divine receipt for the seas around Australia as well.

Most boats were not caught in what Australia considers its territorial waters in the first place: most were caught by the Australian navy closer to Indonesia in acts of piracy.

<<We know they are not in danger going home.>>

What's that got to do with you? Your only legitimate consideration is whether they actually pose a danger to YOU. If they do, then you may stop them regardless whether or not they face danger going home and if they don't, then you have no right to stop them, also regardless. Dangers to cherished concepts of sovereignty do not count - only dangers to real people.

Dear Hippie,

<<We have intruders trying to illegally access our borders.>>

You must be joking: what possible obligation makes them subject to the laws of Australia?

Also, like Hasbeen, you provide no justification for using the word 'our'.

<<it's called protecting our borders.>>

You may legitimately only protect people (and only those who authorised you to protect them), not borders, which are an illusory human invention anyway.

<<the same as anyone attempting to enter Australia is treated at the airport if they arrive without the proper documents or intentions (eg plan to work without a work permit).>>

Which itself is bullying.

<<they will most likely end up on the dole>>

Not unless you offer them the dole!

<<add to the number of Muslims in Australia>>

That's a separate issue: if Muslims are shown to pose a danger to Australians, then you could make a special case.

<<who are unwilling to assimilate.>>

Excuse me? Why should anyone be required to assimilate with you? it's the same as saying "if they are unwilling to sleep with me": if your culture is good and attractive, then others would more likely want to assimilate. If they don't, then you should take a good look at your own culture's shortcomings.

<<it should be treated as though its a foreign invasion>>

Nothing wrong with a foreign invasion so long as it's not brutal, so long as no Australians suffer any harm. May I remind you that the first white settlers in Australia also conducted a foreign invasion.

<<if we want to preserve our Australian values and culture>>

Then you better make sure that they are good values and a worthy culture. Otherwise, they better go into history's waste-basket.

Well I stand corrected by Yuyutsu, or Mr Smartie Pants by another name.

Are you living in a dream world or perhaps you just don't subscribe to the reality the vast majority of us are sharing. All governments around the world exercise their authority within agreed borders... yes I realise that is a concept you disagree with, but its the reality. You can wish the world operated differently and you can point fingers at anyone who says 'we or our' but that isn't going to fix or change anything.

As for me, I accept the world and the Australian government is not perfect, but I feel this country shares damn good values and a worthy culture that I do not want to see destroyed by a gradual Islamic take over. The biggest number of boat people seeking refuge in Australia are Muslim and therefore pose a threat. Xenophobia is a like paranoia, its only a phobia if there isn't anything to worry about.

Obviously Yuyutsu you want more Muslims here, to add to your mosques congregation, so you can raise more money for nefarious Muslim activities. Do you subsidies illegal boat people, or some friendly overseas group?

Obviously it would be easier to introduce Sharia law if Canberra was disbanded, but I have bad news for you. It aint gunna happen. Enough of us are a wake up to your lot & ready to stop you.

I do thank you for showing your radical Muslim ideas. It might help some of the bleeding hearts wake up to what you lot are up to.

'Obviously it would be easier to introduce Sharia law if Canberra was disbanded '

Yes Hasbeen and it is obvious by the myriads lining up to immigrate to Muslim nations how successful Sharia law is. Hard to understand how people are pooped on in their own country and then want to come here and poop on us. Must admit though the you almost must think we deserve it with such blind ignorance from the progessives. Look how many vote for these 'progressives'.

Dear Hippie,

I am well aware of the reality, the sad reality, in which an organised criminal gang claims sovereignty over a whole continent. I am also aware that the same more or less happens all around this planet.

I am also well aware that there is not much I can fix or change, yet it is my moral duty to stand outside the circle - for otherwise I would become personally responsible myself for this unacceptable behaviour.

Regarding Muslim immigration, I already said that an exception can be made if an unbiased assessment indicates a feasible danger to Australians. This however should not affect non-Muslims and those who fled the restrictions and persecution of Islam.

Understandably, Muslims are a pain in the suburbs of Sydney, but it still needs to be assessed whether Muslims would also pose a reasonable threat if allowed to roam in the Australian outback (with no benefits, rights or a legal status), or if accepted by Australian citizens as pets (with all the normal obligations of pet-owners to ensure that their pets are under control and do not disturb the peace). Simply put, humans should not be treated worse than animals (either wild animals or pets) and animals should not be evicted/killed unless they pose a danger to humans or their property and livestock.

Dear Hasbeen,

I am a Hindu and I do not want any more Muslims in Australia.

However, who comes to Australia should not be up to what I want or don't want: I have no right to deny others entry to this continent, but I may still do so if I am convinced that they pose a reasonable threat.

You know very well from years on OLO that Shariah law is as furthest as possible from being my cup-of-tea. Do you really think that I'm the kind of person who likes being ordered around by others? Do you think that I would just give up my music because someone with a long beard said so? While I respect some religious practices of Islam as beneficial, I find the package quite wanting.