There appears to be, a significant proportion of any population who can only think in terms of absolutes. Such people comprise the "activists" for every cause imaginable, and they all have the same mindset. That is, they take what may be considered a reasonably good idea, and then demand that nothing less than total extreme commitment to that idea is acceptable.

Religious nutters of every religion and denomination think exactly this way. No amount of easily understood science and common sense can deflect them from the absolute belief that the entire universe was created in six days, and that fossils are just creatures which did not make it into the Ark.

Vegans take the really excelent ideal of "kindness to animals" to it's most absolute extreme, and refuse to eat even milk or honey because they claim it is "stealing from animals." Some people obsessed with their health and fitness have been known to exercise themselves to death.

Kellie appears to have the same mindset. The perfectly reasonable idea that Australia should take refugees in Kellie's mind become a moral absolute. Kellie seems to think that anybody who calls themselves a "refugee" has the absolute right of entry into her country. Nowhere in Kellie's article did she even mention to what extent Australia should do this, so I can only assume that Kellie would not care if a million people turned up on our doorstep every year. That this would have a catastrophic effect on her own country and people does not worry Kellie one whit. All she can see or understand is the moral absolute.

As a student of history, I have always been amazed at how influential people who think like Kellie have been when it comes to creating catastrophic situations. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Hirohito, all thought in absolutes like Kellie. Some of the most disastrous military defeats in history were all the result of generals who thought entirely in military absolutes. Goering once said of Hitler," His answer to everything was war, and his answer to war was to always attack."

Every country has the right to defend its borders. Every country has the right to say who can, or who cannot, enter its borders and more importantly, who may remain and live within its borders. However, when an allegedly humanitarian country, such as Australia, has signed an international agreement with the United Nations to accept people seeking asylum and seeking refuge, there is an equal obligation to comply, or withdraw from that agreement.

And complying with this agreement does not mean foisting people off onto third world countries and placing them under house arrest off-shore, in detention centres, in appalling conditions - and expecting them to be pathetically grateful.

The trouble is that now successive governments have painted themselves into corners and have nowhere to go. They feel they cannot let these "illegal asylum seekers" into Australia because this will enthuse the people smugglers to commence operations, but in doing so, they are dooming hundreds of people to a life of misery, at vast cost to the Australian electorate.

I would far rather Australia be completely honest and withdraw from its agreement with the United Nations; and openly state that it will no longer accept any refugees, rather than to continue to try to pretend to be one of the good guys. We are not. The entire world knows that are the nasty guy. We need to stop kidding ourselves.

I wish that I had the answer to the refugee problem, but like everyone else, I do not. After all there are over 61 million of them at last count. But I do know that every time that I see the Australian Parliament open with The Lord's Prayer, I despise its hypocrisy. And I despise the hypocrisy of every so-called Christian who supports such an unjust system. Whatever happened to Christ's Command to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself?

I guess that some people will find out when they rock up to the Pearly Gates and are told, sorry, no entry, our border is protected and you will just have to find refuge for eternity elsewhere.