Adam, I must pick you up on your statement: ‘…they (refugees and asylum shoppers) have no powerful lobby groups, they don’t vote in this country (unless they achieve citizenship), they have few resources and little political leverage.’

Are you saying that voters have real power and it is their wishes which must be respected? Isn’t that us? Don’t we, Australians, have a say in how we’ll receive refugees and asylum shoppers? Are we allowed to challenge the notion that people from faraway countries have a right to immigrate to the Western country of his or her choice?

Adam, you are right, we need to greatly simplify the whole postion on refugees and immigration to eliminate confusion, racism, prejudice and bigotry.

Let's bring back the dictation test.

Sage:

What God given right do you have to say whom comes to this country and who does not. The fact of the matter is no individual, parliment, court and most certainly no arbitary commission have that right. It is something we grant our selves simply because we have bigger guns than the refugees, not unlike a gang of Iraqi Insurgents taking over a neighbourhood and setting up check points.

As far as the UN rules go, those escaping from persecution for what ever reason must stay in the first port of safety.

Australia's location on the map suggests that there are other safe port and countries that the refugee have manouvered through.

Most of the true potential refugees never get to leave their own countries because they do not have the connections nor the funds to make it out.

Britain has a concern now with the movement of a European sector Labor market and others.

Britains social security system is now the governments major focus with the unrealistic expectations of an increase to population because of this populus movement, the impact of affordability and the jewel in which so many migrating are drawn to.

However it appears that the Papuans may have been the subject of persecution and they are one of the rare island countries that are across our seas.

What Suebdootwo says about Australia's locality holds true for most refugees - except for West Papuans, who's first port of call probably is Australia because of winds and currents and the difficulty in travelling to PNG. The other exception would be New Zealand.

DLC - What God given right indeed. Probably the same god given right which gives those coloured bits of plastic in your wallet their value. The numbers in your bank accounts their meaning. The same god given right that looks after you when you are sick or injured, that educated you (obviously failed in this instance), that provided the roads that deliver your food to the shops, the God given right that provides your phone, your electicity, your interference free TV and Radio. The list can go on and on. In short it's called society.

Now the Government is “attacking” asylum seekers. You know that they are running out of arguments when they have to resort to such purple prose to get our attention. A democratically elected government exercises its right to repel attempts at illegal entry in accordance with BI-PARTISAN laws, is supported by the Leader of the Opposition, and wins by a large majority. The majority, it appears, didn’t see the aggression, or “attack”, that Adam Ferguson did. In fact, most of the attacking was done by spitting, screaming asylum seeks on Australian troops.

When he has our attention, Mr. Ferguson goes on to be the umpteenth whinger on what he calls “Pacific solution Mark 11”, which was “widely criticised” (by the usual suspects).

He then explains to us, like all of the others have, that the proposal has all illegal arrivals processed off shore and, despite the assumption that they are-fleeing-from-persecution, they will be most upset by having to spend time being “traumatised” in remote “camps” (which are probably better than any other accommodation that they have had in their lives).

Would he rather the detention process be drawn out further, with access to Australian courts and greedy lawyers dragging it out with appeal after appeal? At least without the self-serving lawyers their cases will be brought to a quicker conclusion.

So, they might go to somewhere other than Australia, but is this a problem – particularly when their friends keep telling us they just need asylum, and they are not really country shopping?

As for the “powerlessness” of asylum seekers, what on earth does the author expect when people pop up in a foreign country illegally? There is the usual harangue about obligations, of course, but any obligations the Australian Government has are owed first, second and third to the Australian electorate. And, the Coalition, for all its faults, is doing just that. Anyone who thinks the Opposition in government would not do the same is extremely naïve.

If, as the author hopes, Coalition backstabbers hold sway, our soon to retire PM will look weak

The reactionary apologist class always come out in force when a commentator questions the motives for bribing weaker states to be complicit in Australian human rights violations. Sometimes I think it is a pity the aborigines could'nt apply the same tests of 'suitabiiity to migrate' these bastions of fair play hold up as their right. The comment that refugees probably would never have had it so good as in the Australian funded gulags tells us a lot about where the author resides on the food chain. Ah, the 'banality of evil'!

Leigh and Sage are deliberately being obtuse again, jerking their knees on their bigotry and ignorance and I am tired unto death of it.
1. Since the 1967 refugee protocol there is no requirement for the refugees to stay in the first country, they are allowed to go wherever they can get to. We made this law in 1973 when we adopted the protocol and wrote into law in 1992. This was done simply because millions and millions of people were being stranded in limbo in countries that were sending them back to the torture and murder. It was done so we never have another holocaust.
2. The notion of country shopping was Ruddock's brainless lie because people won't line up like the stamps in his stamp books. The very fact that almost every person who came on the boats after transiting other places were given refugee visas gives the lie to the proposition.
3. The reactionary hatred for fellow human beings and the sustained nonsense makes pawns of innocent human beings.

Sage is asked - who gave you the god given right, Good question, who gave any of us the god given right when it was our ancestors who stole the country in the first place and we are all interlopers in an aboriginal nation.

The problem with the refugee convention is just that it irritates the liberal government to have to uphold human rights that they willingly signed on to do.

"asylum seekers" , another overworked ideology, another load for the Australian backs to carry.
I would suggest that first we work out the difficulties with Aboriginals, the Lebanese problems,Multi culture and all the other problems and calls on the tax payer before we enter in to any more asylum arguments.
We have lawyers for two women who were taken into care wanting millions of dollars compensation for that care being given.
We have dysfunctional societies in our land who need setting right before we can do justice to overseas people.
Charity should begin at home.

The vast majority of Australians are either immigrants or descendents of immigrants.

Refugees from Europe built the Snowy Hydro.

How easily we forget.

Steve (Still alive :))

When too many people try to get into the lifeboat,do we overload it so all will perish,or decide enough is enough and save ourselves?

Most of the world's starving billions can be classified as refugees since they are oppressed by hunger.Is it not better to help them in their own countries?The more we give ,the more the population problem worsens.Every African has been given over $5000.oo and they are worse off now than 40yrs ago.The problem now is just too big for anyone to solve.Just look at the successful Cultures on this planet and the emerging economies of India and China.Look at the reasons for their success.

The real pawns in this debate are the hardworking Aussies whose taxes pay for all this nonsense and have no say in how their money is wasted.

Arjay, being hungry doesn't make people refugees for convention reasons which are a well founded fear of persecution due to religion, race, social group, political opinion and so on.

Hunger doesn't differentiate. Do you like the fact that we wasted $3 billion sending people to Nauru and then bringing them back to live here anyway? Or the $2 billion to bomb Iraqis or the millions to bomb Afghans and therefore make more refugees.

We don't suffer one iota here except from laziness, cruelty and mind numbing indifference.

For your information Marilyn and DLC I’ll have you know I’m a salamander. Turn up the heat.

Last night a programme on would be migrants with mental problems who are being treated by the Australian authorities. Some have been moved to private hospitals in Queensland from Baxter.
In Sydney and most other capitals ,there are soup kitchens for homeless Australians with mental problems.
No private hospitals for them, only where ever they can find shelter for the night.
No lawyers wanting millions of dollars for them, no refugee activists, no television recognition. Just the street and soup kitchens.
They are only Australians so they do not matter.
Now if they were foreigners, they would be entitled to everything.

Hey Mickijo, how many Australians are locked up for 5 years or so without charge, behind electric fences and without genuine recourse to legal rights?

What's that you say? Well Vivian Alvarez was and the government still refuse to compensate her, Cornelia Rau was and the same answer.

It is Baxter that drives people insane, so why make them better and then send them back? They have committed no crime you know, these foreigners.

I'm open for suggestions. How do we decide who is and who isn't a refugee? And, while we are deciding, how do we prevent non-refugees from disappearing in our society? I'm not going to advocate our current system, but I have not yet heard a better idea.

The thing is, we need to process the refugees. If we didn't - if we just accepted everyone's claim of refugee status, then anyone could come here and say they are suffering persecution back home. And while we are processing the refugees, we need to know where they are. Until we find a better way (and I have no doubt there is a better way), locking them up seems to be the most straightforward option. If locking them up subjects them to unnecessary trauma, one should question how traumatic their experiences in their homeland - the experiences that made them leap on a boat and come here - really were.

Historic Factors Leading to the Rise of Fascist States:

1) Massive public investment in the military-industrial complex;

2) Expansion of global influence through military conflict / occupation / acquisition of resources;

3) Ownership and control of the media and information outlets by the ruling elite;

4) Growing disparities between economic classes, with a greater consolidation of wealth among the ruling elite;

5) Suppression of labor movements and workers' rights initiatives;

6) Diminution of individual civil rights (usually under a pre-text of fear) and intolerance for dissenting points of view;

7) Subversion or elimination of democratic election processes.

8) Powerful and continuing Nationalism

9) Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights

10) Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

11) Obsession with crime and punishment

Be patient.

We're almost there - only a couple left to go...

For heavens sake we don't have to lock up refugees to know where they are, that is just another of Ruddock's spurious bits of rot.

Tens of thousands of asylum seekers have come to Australia and have never been locked up. Do you know that even if they did "disappear" into the community there were only ever 4,000 people in the busiest year.

Would anyone notice apart from the fact that they would be begging.

As for the argument that if they are traumatised in detention life at home couldn't be too bad? What planet do you live on? If people are tortured, then make a hair raising and dangerous escape risking death only to be locked up they would certainly be re-traumatised.

In fact the refugees who managed to get off Nauru and to New Zealand and Australia were found to be 4 times more traumatised than the average case load.

As for how we decide, we have a full set of laws to do that.

And I might add Mickijo, there is no 400-page report from Amnesty International on the disgusting way we treat our own homeless mentally ill people. Seems like the locals don't rate.

Wouldn't that be a sign of a fascist organisation in the making. I mean isn't fascism oppressive, dictatorial control? Isn't AI trying to control which group will be the subject of a 400-page report and which group won't? Why don't Australia's homeless and mentally ill people matter?

At the risk of being subject to Marilyns stinging rebukes such as "You don't care"... or "Badddddd Christian" I'll live dangerously and take the plunge yet again to delve into this issue.

Firstly Marilyn, I feel ur too close to this issue emotionally to see the big picture. Take a year off, then after some reflection, you might see it in a more balanced manner.

Also, see this video, http://media.putfile.com/Corolla35 please all have a look at this.

and pay specific attention to:

a) The ethnicity of the attackers
b) Their nominal religion
c) Why did 'this' sub group of a larger generally peaceful and well adjusted ethnic group react like this ?
d) Does this say something about social compatability of this background for Australia ? (irrespective of them being born here)

Then, consider if this outcome could have been avoided by a better planned more controlled refugee intake which had the associated controls of avoiding ghettos.

Unfortunately, ghetto avoidance is almost impossible, because large extended families (compounded by polygamous marriages producing LARGGGE family re-union potential)
want to stick together geographically as well as socially.

A woman went to Jesus once and began using some very expensive ointment to anoint his feet. The disciples criticized her “Why was this not sold and given to the poor” ? Jesus responded “You will always have the poor with you, you will not always have me, she is preparing my body for burial”

Even if you (Marilyn) had the energy and effort of a 100 mother Theresa’s the ‘refugees’ will still be with us.

For our part, as Australians, we must also give consideration to the social, demographic,political and cultural impact of people coming to this land.

If we do not, the above video shows clearly, that we will end up BEING or at least experiencing a vast refugee problem in our own country.

Do you want to be hunted down like a dog and bashed with an iron bar by 50 thugs of a particular ethno/religious background, just because of your white skin ? I sure don’t.

'Migrant teenagers are sexually assaulting young girls or getting caught up in violent clashes within a few weeks of arrival because they don't know how to behave in their adopted society, youth experts have warned. Many foreign teenagers had a misguided view of consent, mistakenly believing that the way Western girls dress justifies sexual attacks.Two years ago a city based legal centre was flooded with young refugees aged between 16/18 defending rape and assault charges soon after thay had arrived.'
Quoted from a daily paper.
A Youth Legal Service spokesperson said, "It is understandable , given where they have come from."
So who is going to protect Australian girls? Or do THEY have to adapt to how new comers consider proper clothing?So they do not get raped and assaulted for outraging a new comer's views on modesty.
Australia is quickly being sent back to the dark ages because of wrong migration.

I take it, then, that old mate Maz would like 4,000 new illegals begging in her neighbourhood? We have enough parkies around here. I, personally, don't want any more.

What exactly about the treatment of illegal immigrants is traumatic? I am generally interested to know.

Golly Oto, there are no such thing as illegal immigrants in
Australia, you have confused us with someone else. It has been legal since 1992 to enter and remain in Australia without a visa, go ask the High court to read you the law.

Anyway, the argument is ridiculous when we consider that over 5 million people come to Australia every year and you have not noticed.

Actually I have had two pieces of good news this week that make me untouchable even by DB and his lunacy.

1. The "genuine" document as compared to the phoney document used to "prove" that Ali Bakhtiyari is a Pakistan bear little resemblence to each other. The original is properly translated finally and the signature is in the name of Asghar Ali and is written in Urdu - Ali can barely write his name in Dari.

Ergo, the whole thing was a hideous scam.

2. An Iraqi christian friend who spent 1 year locked up in Woomera, spent the next 4.5 years as a temporary person without the right to family reunion, another year as a permanent resident without his family will have his wife and two adult kids here on Wednesday.

Great joy to everyone who has learned to love this committed and decent doctor who has been offered little but trauma by this nation.

Oto I suggest you have a read of the HREOC report on www.humanrights.gov.au called "A Last Resort" to find out what happens to children in those jails.

Well.. Marilyn can now join Irfan in the "you are armchair nazi's and lunatics" club, M.. don't you know that personal abuse does your argument no good ?

As for Baktiari, I don't recall claiming he 'is' a Pakistani, I have claimed that he had employment in Pakistan, and hence could not be classified as a genuine refugee or assylum seeker.. I think thats 'game/set/ match'.

Did you view the video ? your silence on that was deafening.

You are still needing serious counselling on the 'big picture' and I emphasise that you definitely need to separate yourself emotionally from this obsession you have allowed to become your raison d'être for life.

Strange as it might seem, there are actually a large number of existing Australians here, who have struggles and needs. They have a sense of powerlessness over change to their culture and society, and they view the likes of you as an agent of change who is against their interests.

Again, we always must consider the culture, religion and political background/proclivity of people coming to this country irrespective of what a 1000 nicely worded warm fuzzy documents might say about 'total absense of discrimination'

Just like we had a 'white australia' policy, our Indigenous people had a 'black Australia' policy, they just didn't have the military resources to enforce it.

'White' Australia was misguided, and used as a synonym for 'compatable'. I don't view skin color as a symbol of compatability, but I sure do view other issues in that light.

Controlled compassion will have the outcome of social and cultural stability and produce a durable society not racked by ethnic trouble such as contained on that Video (Did anyone see it ?)

The idea that we should all get over ourselves and accept all and sundry is as sane as trying to reason with a fox in a chicken pen about the evils of killing chickens.

It hasn't worked for any place I know of yet......

Non-racist look at Boaz post

For our part, as Australians, we must also give consideration to the social, demographic and cultural impact of all people, all the various peoples and the individuals in our land.

If we do not, as the above video shows clearly, that we will end up BEING or at least experiencing a vast racist problem in Australia (people escaping terror like that are going to be wanting Australia to remain free of that nonsense – only a racist driven by some sort of illogical fear or hatred would commit absolutely to another).

Do you want to be hunted down like a dog and bashed with an iron bar by 50 thugs who have been fed a mountain of racist propaganda just because you are different to them? No and neither do my black friends. Thugs are thugs and if it wasn’t white skin it would be black skin (Remember Cronulla) if it wasn’t that it would because you’re Jew (remember the holocaust) or your hairs too long, any difference will do to a thug.

Do you want to be firebombed because you are a refugee or an anti-racist? Boaz why don’t you preach your racist nonsense to the Sudanese family of nine? Why do you turn a blind eye to racist thugs recently firebombed their flat? Show them your propaganda video that is totally irrelevant to their chosen life –except that they are black refugees. Why do you promote propaganda and create misunderstanding that gives thugs like those in Toowoomba an excuse to attack a mother and her children? The problem is not refugees but thug-like Australians and propagandists.

There are nice people and there are nasty people. There are thugs, bullies looking for trouble , usually in the safety of numbers, and there are people who just want to set up home, raise a family in peace, live to their own cultural mores with respect to reasonable Laws, whilst,if so be it, challenging foolish laws and attitudes. Basically be good citizens. I sure do. And it stands to reason that refugees do and will

David you claim game, set and match about Ali Bakhtiyari but as usual you are wrong. He told DIMA the day he was interviewed in October 1999 that he had lived and worked at the Pake Hotel in Islamabad's slums of Rawalipindi for a year.

He was deemed to be a genuine refugee with a well-founded fear of being tortured, killed and persecuted in Afghanistan. In fact almost every Afghan who still lives here had to work illegally in Pakistan or Iran for some time before coming here, just to get the money to get here.

That does not make them Pakistani or give them the right to be dumped like cockroaches without legal documents of any kind in Pakistan based on an old document for another person dated 1975 and it certainly doesn't give the government the right to claim a baby born in Adelaide can be said to have been born in Pakistan just to get rid of them.

If 100% of all Afghans worked outside Afghanistan before coming here and yet only 1 family was ever deported to Pakistan one would have to consider there was a conspiracy by DIMA to do it. And in fact there was.

It nearly cost the lives of a baby boy, an unborn girl and her mother and placed 5 other children in danger of being blown to bits or shot by the very people they had fled from.

As for the racist other views you express - I wonder if you know the people you vilify.

Marilyn,

If it were just a question of a few thousand people a year, who were overwhelmingly genuine refugees, I doubt if anyone would have an issue with it. The problem is the wider picture, as David keeps saying.

Refugees and illegal immigrants are influenced by the pull factor of First World living standards, which is magnified if their ethnic community is present in the proposed destination country to provide support in settling in, especially if the earlier settlers include friends or relatives. The refugees also experience the push factor of persecutions at home, and the illegal immigrants can take advantage of it by pretending to be refugees. Every other developed country except New Zealand that has the welcoming refugee policy you want has experienced huge blow-outs in numbers and a large proportion of ill-founded claims (in the UK 490,000 asylum claims not counting dependants between 1997 and 2004, 21% accepted as genuine, including after appeal). See the Migration Watch UK site and that of the Center for Immigration Studies in the US. Iran is currently the number one source country for asylum seekers in the UK, with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan all in the top ten, just like Australia, and from the sheer numbers there must be many false claims from these countries. If you are asserting that Australia is some sort of Magic Kingdom where ordinary rules don't apply you should give your evidence.

It is gratifying that refugee numbers are down now around the world, but the fact remains that there are failed states to our north that have enormous population growth rates and dire poverty. It is quite likely that groups in some or all of them will adopt Rwanda style solutions to problems of environmental deterioration and resource shortages, creating literally millions of refugees. You may be right about the current state of international agreements, but no such agreement will be treated as a suicide pact.

Divergence, the US has over 1 million refugees from all over the world and they are not automatically locked up on arrival.

They have 11 million illegal immigrants who cross the border mostly from Mexico, they are not locked up.

We had precisely 15,000 refugees on boats from 1989 onwards - gawd, how pathetic we are.

In the meantime another 50,000 or more have flown here and are not locked up ever, even though they are usually not refugees.

Another 50,000 or so forget to go home to safe countries like the US and UK every year and they are not locked up either.

Get a grip, stop looking to Europe to see what happens and look at Australia's realtiy.

We do not and nor have we ever had a "refugee problem" we are just pathetic.

I hope we do get a grip on reality Marilyn and heed Europe's failures,since they are witnessing the demise of their rich intellectual and cultural heritage through PC attitudes,lack of courage and listening to the likes of yourself,who see all Anglo Culture as an evil that must be purged from the face of the planet.

The European Culture has to be the most self deprecating civilisation of this modern era,who seemingly ignore the foibles of all other cultures.

There is no sin in being successful.

Hey Ranc
some of your points look good on the surface, and thats the danger.

Referring to my post as 'racist nonsense' would be valid if what I say depended on or was founded on dislike for people because of their race.

Your quite right, thuggery is thuggery. But if you extrapolate a little and connect this with real world events in Australia or lets say for example East Timor, you can see clearly that there is a point, a critical point, where the race issue is lost and the political/social dominance issue begins.

The Militia in E.Timor were not a different 'race' from the locals they were simply 'pro Indonesia'. So, the difference might be ideological as much as racial.

In the case of Sydney in particular, we crossed the 'thuggery' line years ago when it comes to the activities of middle east criminals.
Yes, sure, there are 'many criminals' in Sydney, but scrutiny of the big picture in Sydney reveals something far more socially sinister.

It just so happens that among this group, the common link is the Muslim background. From this, we cannot suggest (to use a cliche) "All Muslims are bad" of course not. That is not at issue.
What IS at issue is the cultural/religious dominance of a chunk of Australian territory !

As far as I am concerned, as long as we (Anglo/Northern Euro Aussies) can maintain complete cultural ascendancy by controlling the numbers and proportions of migrants from various backgrounds, then all are welcome within that managable framework.

If this conforms to your idea of 'racism' then so be it. Water off a duckies back 2 me :)

One serious danger is allowing family re-union to those with polygamous backgrounds. It gives a disproportionate migration opportunity to them.

You're right David.The richest cultures on our planet should be those with oil,since it is the cheap supply of energy which principally facilitates our living standards.

The Middle Eastern cultures with 65% of the world's oil should be the richist and most culturally advanced,yet more often than not the reverse is true.Why do they flee to Western Countries for a better life and bring their baggage of hatred and ignorance with them and destoy the very thing to which they aspire?

All the economic power houses of the world economy such as the USA EUROPE China and Japan are net importers of energy and often resources.They are successful because they have the discipline and work ethic to achieve.Your wealth is in your people,and when you treat half of your population as slaves,is it any wonder that the multi tasking women in their society add little to their failing economies.

There is indeed something very perverted about human nature that let's power and personal ego destroy the very thing that they yearn most,ie peace and prosperty.

YEP Arjay and Boaz racist, cultural supremacists. Your thinking and words confirm it while trying to refute it. My post reaffirms it.

Water off a ducks back -stop playing the poor little me victim Boaz. My post is a fair and contains nothing that could be remotely perceived as a personal attack. If reasoned argument about yourr opinions not you personally the maybe that is why you are unable to see the subtlies of racial and cultural supremacism that most of your rhetoric is couched in.

Ten points for razor scooters - zero for racist tootlers. (its dictionary its wrenched but what the hey)

Ranc.... I said cultural ascendancy, not 'superiority' in the qualitative sense...

This is an important point. Our culture is most important to 'us' who have it, while it might not be 'superior' to others, (in their view)thats not the issue, which is.. "Its ours".

I'm referring to Australia by the way, not the world. Each country has to answer these questions for themselves.

I'll freely admit that I would like to see and am always working towards a more "Christian" culture. But I do this by simply 'being' what I am, and engaging with people on the heart/mind level. In such cases as Catch the Fire, yep..I become quite active and vocal, because I see in that a direct threat to the culture we have. I'm sure a secular person would resent the idea that they cannot criticize Mohammed, or the Quran. They sure have a good run with Jesus and the Bible.

You cannot legitimately call this 'racist' because by doing so, you are also calling those who would seek to establish their own culture over ours in this country by the same tag :) see my point ?

You cannot say a defender of culture is racist yet a 'promoter' of a foreign culture is not.

You might have the fanciful idea that things should just be let go until some synthesis or new culture emerges without challenge, but I assure you, if such an approach was allowed, the one which came to the top would the one who's followers drove it there, and they would be very competitive.

You know the old saying about 'evil triumphing when good men do nothing'...well the same applies to cultural heritage mate.

Get a grip... and see the light :)

Boaz: I am talking about your’s and other's attitude. I think it is both racist and cultural supremacist. Most people are Aristotelian thinkers. You tend to put things in categories. I am a bit more of a right-brainer. So I think in degrees. I am also mostly a non either/or thinker. I can't figure where that comes from because no French is in our genetic line. That is just the way I am. No apologies there. So I may get a bit more traffic through the old corpus callosum.

I think your thinking is Aristotelian and averse racist. There are covert, overt, aversion, mild, medium and hardcore. There is another kind but I can't think of it at the moment and no time to research it. But do you get my drift?

I am also mostly a non either/or thinker. I can't figure where that comes from because I am not French. That is just the way I am. No apologies there. And I refuse to accept that Aristotlean thinker because of their apparent ability to make a firm conclusion are superior to my thinking more diffused thinking which allows for the possibility of other conclusions that may be just as valid as mine.

I am a proud scatterbrain. Yes the far right racists and cultural supremacists will shop me for that but I won't be kicking windows over it. Their arguments are usually produced by others further up the chain and reproduced - they are political pawns.

You promote Christianity because you think it is superior. Why would work for something that you think is inferior? That is not logical.
The word has unfortunate connotations as historically it has suggested total racial or cultural supremacy.

You spend a lot of time denigrating and creating misunderstanding of other religions as well. That is because you see them as inferior in certain aspects. I do too but I also see and wish to preserve the positive aspects. I also see similar failings in or own culture and religions. But only in certain aspects

Rancitas continues. I don't condemn the whole because of the part. I don't promote the part as being representative of the whole and an interpretation of the whole as the whole. Racist tend to.

With respect. You are married to a person who is a different race. Let me tell you that there are many married misogynists, misanthropists in politics, married man-haters (ever notice that there is no flash word for male haters), so it stands to reason that a racist can marry inter-race. Hold it Boaz. Don't start kicking windows. No offence.

So your marriage doesn't convince me that you are not writing racist text. You are certainly not hardcore racist or deceptive (covert). However, from your words, position and attitude at times you do tend to aversion racist writing (averted state of mind). So while you may not personally feel any superiority in a human racist sense, your arguments are racist.

The anti-refugee mob's (and yours) central argument is Islam religion is fascist (which Muslims reject and usually debunk) and their culture is too far removed from "Christian" Australia to not degrade our way of life. On this they reject the human rights of refugees (at thus the Christian position).

That most refugees are Middle Eastern and Muslim, Sudanese Catholic, and non-European (white) then their identity is related to their skin tone. These days skin colour indicates the persons religion - a religion that is misunderstood and feared. So a racist sees a refugee, he sees an inferior human because he assumes they are true believers of an evil text.

This is confirmed when a person is hunted down and bashed because of their colour. The racism is confirmed when a refugee is locked up because it is assumed that they are anti-Australian. It is dinkum Australian vis the unAustralian immigrant based on skin colour. That is racist. That is cultural suprematism. Judge refugees on their actions and send the racist thugs to Iraq for a lesson on the reasons refugees come here. To escape from thugs in Iraq that think like the far-right over here. (:

Ranc...that was quite a mouthful... and clearly you have grappled and struggled with the issue :) well done !

I had no problem with most of what you said, except the last 2 paragraphs of section 2.

Let me re-state my basic position. I don't care what skin color or religion a would be migrant has, as long as 'we' control the numbers and conditions of entry to Australia. That way (Like Malaysia and most other countries which have a potentially dangerous ethnic mix) we can avoid the problems which are clearly evident elsewhere, and avoid an exacerbation of troubles like Cronulla.

The events in E.Timor right now, underline the correctness of my position. When the analysis is done, it will become clear that racial and ethnic, possibly religious but definitely also economic factors are at play in the political turmoil.

Human societies work best, with the least amount of trouble, when they are ethnically and culturally homogenous (or at least as far as possible). Its just a fact of life, does not even need to be argued or defended.

I don't see that such a view is 'racist' because the goal is social harmony, not the dislike of particular races per se.

You linking of 'skin color' with religion was off the mark mate. You yourself mentioned Sudanese Catholics and Middle East Muslims...both dark but different religion. One more acceptable the other less, to me (in terms of social harmony).

As to me being 'Aristotelian' :) hmm I dunno about that. As for me writing off the whole because of the part, thats not quite right.
I can recognize as much as anyone the 'nice' aspects of religion and culture, but also the dangers. In Islam, the dangers far outweigh the nice bits.

"Mohammed engaged in torture, extreme sexual gratification and dispossessed people of their land" .... denigration or historical fact ?

Rancitas - the word for 'man hater' - viz a viz the female equivalent for a misogynist is: 'misandrist' or if the politically correct insist that I should be non gender specific, it is called 'misanthrope'.

Hope that helps - Cheers!