w, our expert panel, our High Court, holds a different point of view than the one held by the UNHCR. Parenthetically, our High Court's decision touched on our sovereignty and also the ability of the government we vote for to put in place laws that apply to us and others. You must remember w that our constitution pre-dates the UN charter on refugees by some 46 years.

Sage,

That may be the case, but if we're not willing to comply with International Conventions, we should withdraw from them totally, particularly when our support (like the Rodent's word) is determined by local political demands. (aka Sovereignty?)

For someone with a fetish for "sending a message" to others, it's at odds with his moral stance on many other matters.

Our refusal to sign the Convention against Torture for example,was made soley to keep our prisons and detention centres from outside scrutiny.

However, as I recall, our Government has used International UN Convention non-compliance by another nation as an excuse to take us to war.

wobbles,
It appears there are some 130 countries that have signed onto the Refugee Convention 1951 and a casual look at my globe shows Aus to be one of the futhest from the ME. Only NZ is futher. Incidently, Egypt, Iran and Turkey are signatorys to the convention. Out of 130 countries, I wonder why the asylum seekers would come here and risk the lives of their children on a leaky, overcrowded and unreliable tub. The parents are totally responsible for putting their children at risk and in detention.

Katie. You and Ms Sheperd have something in common. after spin and accusations of racism and prejudice fails you resort to personal attacks by claiming others are heartless and cruel. You know I for one give to various charities, some of whom direct funds overseas, and am a service club member which gives time and funds to assist all maner of causes. I bet some of the kids that get my funding are more destitute and deserving than those you give to. How could you be so cruel as to ignore the more deserving?

You need a reality check. There are plenty of kids here that desperately need help, not even to mention those in Africa.

Banjo
So, because there are other people in the world worse off, we should do nothing to help those in need who are on our doorstep?

I am not arguing that the kids we lock up in detention centres are any more deserving of compassion and assistance than others around the world, such as in africa as you mention. My point is, at what point did we as a nation decide that we can accept the indefinate imprisonment of children who have done nothing wrong? I'm sorry, but even if the parents are to blame for their situation (and i dont believe any of us are in any position from our limited knowledge of the details to make any decent or rational assessment of the parents' decisions, but that's irrelevant to my point) does that make it ok for us to abuse these children further? If they don't deserve to be here, then ok, send them back. But why must we lock them away for four years and scar these children while we work that out? The argument of whether they should be here, whether they're really refugees, whether they should have landed somewhere closer, is totally irrelevant to the point I'm making. The fact is, when they are here it becomes our decision as to how we treat them. I beleive that the way in which someone treats those most vulnerable and powerless is a true reflection of their character. And it disgusts me what our nation's detention policies reveal of this nation's character.

I actually believe that treating people, any people, with basic human dignity is fundamental and one's right to be treated with dignity and compassion cannot be overruled because they didn't follow all the rules in the way in which you'd like them to.

And Philo - does the fact that the family chose not to go back to Pakistan and rather remain imprisoned in Australia not maybe suggest to you that they fear what is waiting for them at home is worse?

Wobbles:

The clear intention of article 31 is to bar asylum shopping. Has Australia signed up to any reinterpretation?

Refugee numbers have fallen off lately, but that situation is not going to last. The real problem is that it would require 2-3 Earths to give decent living standards to everyone, without counting any negative impacts due to peak oil or climate change, even if all the resources were divided equally and managed in the best possible way. If you doubt this have a look at the Redefining Progress site on environmental footprints and compare environmental footprints and ranks on the UN Human Development Index. The problem exists because, with some notable exceptions in East Asia, the Third World people themselves decided to use the gains of the Green Revolution for population growth rather than higher living standards or development.

Now numbers are again pressing on resources. According to the World Watch Institute site world grain production per person peaked in 1984. Rwanda is a good picture of the future of many of these places, even if the conflict is ostensibly about politics, religion, ethnicity, or something else other than access to resources. Joseph Gasana, Rwanda's former agriculture minister, wrote an article in the July 2002 Worldwatch magazine with a table showing the relationship between calories per person and massacres in the different districts in his country.

This leaves the developed countries with a choice, repudiate the international agreements and close down the borders, or, because of the huge numbers of arrivals, see their own countries become as poor, unequal, and environmentally degraded as the places people are risking their lives to escape. The Prime Minister is using a tough on asylum seekers policy to disguise the record high and unsustainable immigration program he is running for the benefit of the corporate elite. I often think I should cheer you refugee advocates on your way and wait for the backlash. Unfortunately, it is likely to be accompanied by big votes for the Far Right, ethnic hatreds and even considerable blood on the streets.

Divergence,
The meetings held in 2001 were to clarify and detail Article 31 interpretations and included representation from Australia. The conclusions represent the understandings that resulted from these meetings. There were also specific outcomes regarding the incarceration of children which we have also unilaterally ignored.

I agree with your observation that global resources are a growing problem and I believe that this is the real reason behind the political and social situation we find ourselves in today.

The idea that we can be wealthy only by making somebody else poorer is historically the type of thing that causes revolutions. Terrorism for example, is (of itself) not the problem, but the symptom of a deeper problem already rooted in the poverty and oppression forced by some countries onto others.

I'm actually not a refugee advocate, just interested in truth and fairness. I have no moral commitment and feel no personal guilt in the outcome of individual cases, it's just that I don't like the idea that the plight of these people is being exploited for domestic political gain. If there's a link (no matter how indirect) between incarceration of children and keeping DVD prices low, I can't do anything about it but I don't have to like it.

I was personally in the situation of monitoring the media for about 10 hours a day between 2000 and 2002 and could see how it is used to manipulate public opinion and still despair at how easily it can be done.
I also have an associate who was a researcher for certain newspapers during the Nugan-Hand bank and oil crisis days in the 70's and he confirms all my suspicions about how the system works.
Politicians try to create, manipulate and use public opinion for their own purposes and the "bread and circuses" analogy has never been truer.

Finally, I think we've already seen the start of "blood on the streets" as well as emerging neo-fascism and ethnic hatred in this country. This is the natural outcome of the manipulation I mentioned above.