BOAZ_David et al keep flogging the argument "we won the election" so the rest of us should just accept the majority decision.
Sorry, but history is full of examples of policies and practices which were acceptable to the majority (at least of those who got to vote) but are recognised now (with the benefit of hindsight) to be unacceptable in a civilised, modern society eg:
.slavery
.child labour
.disenfranchisement of women from the vote
.apartheid
.discrimination against Jews and especially Hitler's "final solution"
.instutionalised discrimination against Negros in the USA, especially the South,until the 1960s

Even our own "White Australia" policy continued up until the 1970s and was not abandoned due to demands from the Australian public and I have no doubt a majority would have voted to retain it ( I am sure there is a significant proportion would even now like to have it reintroduced). No, this policy was abandoned because we had political leaders, Liberal and Labor, who recognised it was morally unacceptable.
Unfortunately our current crop of leaders, Liberal and Labor, lack the moral fortitude to stand up and say " our treatment of refugees is a disgrace; these are fellow human beings who should be afforded common decency and treated humanely." Our leaders are too worried that what might be called the "One Nation" bloc of voters will turn against them and they might lose the next election. Expediency before morality.

When my grandchildren ask me to explain why we treated refugees the way we do now, my conscience will be clear as I tell them the truth.

Following on from Rossco's post (which is reasonable and isn't peppered with personal insults, BD & Col) is the opening paragraph to today's story in the Age, plus link:

"The Howard Government will be asked this week to find a humanitarian solution for more than 50 asylum seekers who have spent "long enough" in detention on the tiny, cash-strapped island of Nauru."

http://theage.com.au/news/National/UN-plea-for-Nauru-internees/2005/04/17/1113676647109.html

Read it and think.

Ringtail – maybe your pontification is indicative of your own prejudices

Karen – since you outstayed your visa – and thus your welcome – consider youyrself lucky

I can speak for myself and advise – there is nothing racial in my motives – Being an immigrant myself, my motives are based on the right of “Australia” to decide who comes here and who does not – regardless of their race and

those who intended to get dropped from a boat on a deserted beach have damned any merit they may have had in any application they may hence make.

I do not know David_BOAZ except through his posts here but I have never seen him post anything which would indicate "racist" motives or motivations.

I would suggest from what I have heard, detention is Australia is far more "sanguine" than someone experiencing parallel detention in USA – following your “Patriot Act” legislation.

Rossco – my grandchildren may if ask me why we detained illegal immigrants – and I will honestly say –

if you respect a society you do not start by crapping on its entry rules and expect a warm welcome – you respect those rules, stand in line like and follow due process - your grandfather did.

Xena – personal insults – those who live in glass houses should not throw stones - we supposed xenophobic racists (as insults cast in my and Davids direction from you or your fellow travellers) are not the source of all such expletives.

I guess if the vast majority of the population were against mandatory detention they would have expressed it at the last election. That the Liberals retained and increased their elected authority supports the idea that whatever “anti-detention advocates” feel, they are a minority and a minority without merit.

Wow. It's been interesting to find out what the 'other side' thinks. I've never read so many words from anyone who actually voted for John Howard (except in The Australian).

It seems that racism, xenophobia and religious prejudice are rife in Australia - more than I could possibly have imagined.

John Howard has tapped into some deep and tenacious insecurities.

Interesting.

Miranda,

is that the best you can do ? repeat slogans ? c'mon, if u want to have your views respected, you will need to lose the slogans and actually grapple with what is being said by your debating opponents.

I asked a series of crucial and important questions, which I'm yet to see your answer to.

In particular, my carefully numbered list. Until you actually answer these, you are not engaging with those of different views, you are just shouting your 'party line' at them with closed ears.

If you want to head further towards some kind of reconciliation of views, it would be a good idea to respond to seriously intended questions, which would enable me (and others) to actually know what lies beHIND your oft repeated slogans.

Ranting on about 'xenophobia' in response to "Is the govermnents acceptance of people from the worlds trouble spots in a controlled manner not good enough" ?- is not a way to foster support for you or your ideas.

I'm afaid you remind me too much of Jehovah's witnesses who come to your door with ONE idea in mind, "YOU listen, WE talk". That is not an insult, its a description of how you are coming across.

Deal with ISSUES step by step, reveal your thinking, your justification and then we can get past first base.

I refer you AGAIN to my list of questions above.

Xena

As I said. "Glutton and Drunkard" or "He is driven by demons" with you there is no win. Its 'your damned xenophobic/racist/blah blah' no matter what I say which is not in accord with your view. So, I refer you again to my questions which I seek answers for

ROSSCO
I address my questions in the list above (see the appropriate post)
to you also.

I have made specific points, and I desire real thought out answers.

Your post said pretty much 'zero' because it was not on the issue.

Forget your "The majority is not always right" because in the absence of God almighty, the majority IS ALWAYS right, by might'

I hope I don't have to go thru the same philosophical treadmill with you also or again to indicate that apart from God, there is no such THING as 'right' there is ONLY 'convenient' 'workable' 'less or more harmful' so, please, put your thinking cap on and grapple JUST with the issue at hand.

Here is an extra question:

"Do you have any vested interest in the support of illegal assylum seekers coming to Australia, either politically or personally" ?