(continued)

There was a substantive exchange of views on the SIEV X issue between Bishop Tom Frame, Anglican Bishop to the ADF, and myself. His review in “Public Administration Today” and “Defender” (September 2004), and my reply in “New Matilda” (January 2005), can most easily be accessed on line through my website URLs:
http://www.tonykevin.com/SIEVX-PublicEthics-TomFrame.html

http://www.tonykevin.com/GodnCaesar.html

The SIEV X evidence was also the subject of debate in the JAS (Journal of Australian Studies) Online Review of Books in February 2005, between Dr Jennifer Clarke of ANU and myself:
http://www.api-network.com/cgi-bin/reviews/jrbview.cgi?n=1920769218

The debate about how 353 people died on SIEV X has moved far beyond Tam Long’s views in 2002. It is now a debate about real evidence of major criminality, possibly involving Australian national security agencies, and about the failure so far of the Australian criminal justice system to deal properly with that issue. There will be whistleblowers. The SIEV X story is far from over.

Briefly, on gw’s response to my second and third points: the cruelty now being exposed in our detention centres is real, major and systemic. As an Australian, I feel ashamed of that. It sickens me. Many of us feel this way now.

Rightly, there is growing support for Petro Georgiou’s efforts to find a better solution. Gw needs to think more deeply about what it means to be Australian. Decency, like charity, begins at home

Great riposte Tony.

I am very concerned at the lengths people like gw will go to in order to justify cruelty.

It is true we do have to monitor our borders and that not all refugees are genuine. This fact still does not justify inhumane treatment of human beings.

It sickens me also that people think cruelty is justifiable under any circumstances.

I can't speak for the actions of other countries, however, as an Australian, I am very troubled by our complicity in SIEV X and the scandal of TAMPA.

I believe that Georgiou will make a difference and salute the brave libs who are actually standing up to Howard. Pity the opposition is languishing in dither-land. So many opportunities for Beazley to take a stand so many opportunities lost.

There is one thing about the whole illegal immigration debate that seems to have been ignored by everyone - that is that the strongest supporters for John Howard's tough policy is the Labor Party's heartland. The latte left seem to lack any vision in this debate; where do they think Australia will be in thrity years, when the world population will be 9 billion, and the hordes of illegal immigrants will be enormous. If we can establish Australia as tough country to take on, we will be spared the need to declare illegals to be enemy aliens, liable to be shot on sight, or for the navy to use the illegal's boats for target practice. You can be sure that the Australian people will not tolerate a massive influx of illegals, and will elect politicians that will carry out their will. Thank heavens we have a sea boundary.

plerdsus and gw nailed it pretty well.We either make a stand or end up being a poverty stricken 3rd world nation ourselves.This is about the survival of our society and economy.
There are too many interest groups pushing their own agenders i.e. immigration lawyers and bleeding hearts with no concept of the consequences down the track.
People like Rainer are always pushing their racist barrow but have failed to recognise that we take more diversity of immigrants than any other country.The English language is the predominate culture here and we should not be swamped by a revolution of cultures that don't respect our achievements.We are a big country with a small economy and should develop with a single consciousness of being firstly Australian.It is far too easy to get Australian citizenship.

Arjay, Thanks for your "insightful" comment. It reveals far more about you than it does me. But the really sad thing about this is that you'll probably never know how or why.

Arjay said, "People like Rainer are always pushing their racist barrow but have failed to recognise that we take more diversity of immigrants than any other country." More than the US or Canada? I don't think so. And so what if we do? The Snowy scheme was built by the labours of a great diversity of migrants, mostly from Europe. Is it their origin that makes this sort of migrant intake OK, or the fact that they were mostly Christian? There were similar objections to the present ones raised when the Vietnamese boat people were arriving here, but no-one now can deny the valuable contribution they have made to our society, even though they were of a different complexion and only some were Christian.
Let's face it, all our ancestors came originally from Africa and the differences that are visible now are the result of geography not just genetics. The non-visible differences, like language or religion, are products of the human mind and can be accommodated by the application of that mind. There is nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost by indulging in xenophobia.