Xena – we are all the subject to our own prejudices and virtues. What you claim as prejudice I would observe as balanced concern for the stability and fabric of orderly life. What you see as “normal”, to me, reads like remarkably fool hardy, anarchistic, irresponsible, naive woolly thinking.

Before suggesting someone with an opposing view is prejudiced, look at yourself and consider how free of prejudice your views are or how flawed, biased and intolerant your thinking is (for whatever reason).

And before your descend deeper into the pit of emotionalist hyperbole, before making analogies to concentration camps.

Comparing an Australian detention centre to such is simplistic offensive garbage and you know it –

Maybe just compare a detention centre to a third world refugee camp and tell me which has the better housing, water and sanitation… To help with this “challenge” I will even give you three guesses and a hint (not the refugee camp).

Quite honestly your posts do less and less to espouse your cause, more and more to expose your emotionalist chant for what it really is – garbage.

David_BOAZ – Agree with your last post – but when did the demands of “radicals” ever take into account reason and accuracy. Much of the points you and I are making is like “casting pearls before swine”.

As we come to the end of this post before it is swept off the main board, remember this -

Quoting the UK Daily Telegraph “Bourgass is one of an estimated quarter of a million people who have come to Britain in recent years claiming asylum and who stayed on despite being turned down.."

Kemal Bourgass has been given 32 years for the attempted terrorist mass poisoning of Londoners and the murder of a Policeman. Good reason for being circumspect and possibly even suspicious and detaining people who "wash up" on our shores

Xena
I would really like to actually achieve something in this discussion, I dont want to "win", nor would I enjoy 'losing' so it should not be about that.

I want to get to something closer to truth, and as Col says 'balance'.

Now, you call detention centres 'Concentration' camps. Given your knowledge of what that wording actually conjures up in the mind of anyone who has seen the Nazi camps, do you think that is truly honestly a fair way of describing the detention centres ? How would you describe the Cells at a police station ? How would you describe our Jails ?

The emotive connotation of the word 'concentration' camp is ugly and has overtones of mass murder and the burning of bodies. I find your imagery unacceptable in terms of a reasonable and intelligent discussion about the issue of unlawful entrants to Australia. (and they are unlawful)

Now, you suggested that 'improved interview' training is NOT the answer now, yet this was touted as the main source of the problem which was keeping people contained for long periods of time. I don't think I was missing as much as ur suggesting.

Now, you made a statement, ("innocent" men women and children) asked a question, "Why incarcerate them now" ? and I'll try to answer it fairly.

The word 'innocence' is to prejudge the outcome of an assessment process. Right or wrong ? (refer Cols comment about Kamel Bougss)
Incarcerate again has emotive connotations, the appropriate word here would be 'confine' or 'detain'.

Now, you suggested if I remember correctly that we should accept 'as many as we can environmentally sustain'. Would that be like 3 million ? our population is projected to be from 23mill to 30mill by 2051. Ok, assuming we can sustain such a number, would u therefore accept say 5 million refugees NOW ? There are many more than that in the world Xena.
Would you anticipate this having ANY negative social political or economic impact ? if so, in what way please ?

An asylum seeker incarcerated in Baxter detention centre overdosed on sleeping tablets last night.

“we are all the subject to our own prejudices and virtues.”

- Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious Col, next time I need advice about crossing the road I know who to call.

“remarkably fool hardy, anarchistic, irresponsible, naive woolly thinking.”

– Col I guess when the debate is too hard for you, then all you can do is dismiss my comments.

“casting pearls before swine”. - Arrogance does nothing for your argument either.

Fact: I have worked directly with many refugees in assessing their claims for housing; I have met their children, husbands, wives.

Fact: I have been privy to first hand accounts of their lives prior to escape and during detention.

Australia has always taken in refugees why is there such a backlash against the latest? I have never suggested an ‘open slather’ intake - just a more humane approach than what we have at present.

Why are you so opposed to a humane approach? I have suggested racism – if that is untrue why do you attempt to justify internment of INNOCENT people and in this country we presume innocence until proven guilty and the majority of refugees are found to be genuine.

Boaz, big yawn, see above.

Xena – “Obviously” the “bleeding obvious” was obscured from your view – why else would the likes of me need to point it out to you?

I guess suggesting my views are “prejudiced” could be said to be – “dismissive” – I see your capacity for accepting criticism is seriously limited, compared to your capacity for dealing it out. Not a viable debating style.

That you associate voluntarily with illegal migrants might merely indicate the limited range of opportunities you have to associate with real people. I do not need to associate with criminals to be aware of the effects of criminal behaviour.

The UK would have been a safer place and a UK police officer still be alive if Kemal Bourgass had been despatched back to Algeria when he failed the “asylum seeker” criteria, instead of being allowed to ferment terror as he freely circulated in UK society.

As for your response to Davids comment “Big Yawn” May I quote you

“I guess when the debate is too hard for you, then all you can do is dismiss (Davids / ) my comments.”

And detaining those who flout migration rules and protocols is “racially indifferent” and not “racist” – especially when I do recall the list of detainees / deportees has included a number of celebrated British deportees, sent back to the dear old mother-land (UK) from whence they had originated – hardly the actions of “racists”.

As I said before – good at dishing it out – too arrogant to accept it back... in the words of Darren Hinch “shame, shame, shame”

Miranda – so what – Indians are known to disfigure their children to make them more “emotionally pitiful” as beggars. Likewise “overdosing” is a pitiful action and deserving of contempt not compassion. Just as sewing ones own children’s lips together and other acts of self and parental destruction are contemptible.

Col, after reading your posts regarding abortion, most of which were well reasoned, I am disappointed with your efforts here. Xena was quite right to point out that dismissing her comments hardly constitutes debate.

In addition she states that she has worked with housing refugees - that is not 'associating with criminals' - long bow you are drawing there.

Boaz made the same points again - no wonder xena said refer to above - neither you nor Boaz seem to have had any direct contact with refugees, unlike Miranda and xena. You prefer to base your debate on sensational extremes such as the Kemal Bourgass case. So one bad apple is it....?

I have recently employed a young afghanistan man for labouring work in my landscape business - he would have to be the keenest and most enthusiastic labourer I have ever employed. So, one good apple....