TooRight, why have you gained such a good knowledge of nazi history? For hints? The people in detention centres are not "illegal". This can't be stressed too many times. They have a right to enter the country and seek asylum. But this, of course, is not something those who fear becoming the "new Mecca" want to countenance. And as for Christian values, isn't tolerance one? Isn't helping those in need one? And isn't conscience one? Try not to get too hung up on the abortion/stem cell debates, son. There are plenty of good, practising Christians who can see more than one side of the argument. In fact, a Jesuit priest has presented one of the most compelling arguments that early embros, long after the stage they need to be for stem cell experiments, cannot be considered people.

For those who critise the practise of mandatory detention in Australia I ask this question:

Would you prefer the detention of asylum seekers by the Australian government or the exploitation of human rights by those who truely benefit from sending illegal immigrants to Australia.

Australias hard line stance to illegal immigrants has significantly reduced the level of illegals entering this country. It has sent a clear message to those who formally partook in the trade of illegal immigrants that Australia is not a easy target.

No one likes to see women and children behind 'wire fences' but the reality is that the alternatives are often far worse.

I hope Petro Georgiou has thought long and hard about the precedent he is setting. Ultimately, the blood will not be on his hands when things go wrong.

Illegals would not be in detention if they had followed the 'legal' channel. If they can't respect our laws entering, how are we meant to enforce our laws if they immigrate?

I am not against multiculturalism, indeed I embrass it, but like any activity it has to be regulated and not shadowed by subjective bias and political point scoring.

marlo:

"I am not against multiculturalism, indeed I embrass it, but like any activity it has to be regulated and not shadowed by subjective bias and political point scoring"

what, like mandatory detention? well the government certainly scored with people like TooRight on that one.

TooRight, care to explain how you reconcile 'the green movement killed more people than nazi and stalin combined' and ridiculing the '50-60 dirty hippies that protest everyweekend'?

that seems like a lot of work for a few hippies even if they have got the weekends free. but perhaps they are hidding WMDs in their lattes.
you never know.

sorry, couldnt help stoking your paranoia.

on a more serious note, i often hear exponents of mandatory detention claiming its sucess as a policy as some sort of justificaiton on locking people in what amounts to as worse than prisons.

but at what cost? is it worth their freedom, their health and their sanity? and if this is, as the government claims, a pragmatic not a xenophobic policy, i want to know how many, or how long is enough?
how many children are you prepared to lock up to ensure you can watch big brother in peace?

i am yet to hear an argument that this policy is morally right, or if not,whether it is a position worth abandoning morals for.

Petro Georgiou has bought the best of our political system, democracy,freedom of speach and freedom of conscience to an area of this government that has been lacking all of those.

What an interesting subject the policy of mandatory detention is. In all my years of watching the Australian political scene, I know of no other instance where the principal supporters of a government's policy is the opposition's heartland. The chardonnay sipping labor elite seem unable to grasp the idea that their political power springs from the fact that on most issues the voters are apathetic. This issue concerns the ancient principle of territoriality, that strangers entering your territory may only do so by leave, and that entry without permission constitutes invasion. This aspect of human nature is so old that it pre-dates humans, being shared with most of the animal kingdom. The spectre of a mass incursion into Australia from asia has been a recurring nightmare in the Australian psyche since well before federation, and won't be going away any millenium soon. After years of effort with children overboard, refugees harming themselves, etc., the australian people resoundingly re-endorsed the policy at the last election. When will they ever learn?

Hi plerdsus,

Your comments take me back to sitting by the Mekong River in Vientiane with work friends from Hong Kong, Thailand and Malaysia during the time that strong John decided to stop the boats from arriving in OZ. They all agreed that it was the right move as up until then they had let the boats keep coming - they were simply passing the problem on to us until the Australian Government finally made a move to protect our borders.

I'm sick of hearing the word "tolerance" and its variances? The true meaning of tolerance has been lost by those who wish to accept anything just because "society" has apparently asked us to accept it. We shouldn't tolerate people breaking our laws to come here. They should be placed into secure environments, such as detention centres, so that they can be processed and their character determined.

Further in regard to tolerance, just take the recent conference in Victoria by Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot who, as Christian ministers, were explaining the Koran/Quran and much about the religion of Islam. They were not there to attack Islam, but rather, explain how we as Christians might understand Islam. But instead of reasonable debate and TOLERANCE, the Islamic Council of Victoria decided to take action against these two pastors under the so called Religious Tolerance act (Vic). Unfortunately, they were found guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Now that's real tolerance isn't it!! NOT

Now to detention. The processing time should not take as long as it has - that is the only good thing that I've heard from Petro Georgiou. I agree completely. Yet to blame the government alone for that is foolish, as many of the asylum seekers have either destroyed their papers or simply don't want to be honest about where they truly come from - the Bakhtiyaris, for example.

Now, what about Cornelia Rau or Vivian Alvarez? Sadly for them and their families, they were both very ill and should have been treated by State Government mental health institutions. Thus, the issue here is in fact a State Government one. But of course, when these two cases came up, the immediate blame was launched at the Federal Government by the left. "Never mind that Labor State Government mental health services failed these women - let's just blame Amanda Vanstone and John Howard" they cry.

Quite simply, the system we have now is working fine. As PM John Howard said "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" - Hansard, 2001. Hear! Hear!