Great posts Bronwyn, CJ and Rapscallion.

Nothing more to add; just glad to see that you three have said it.

The other posts just make me damned sad.

I'm sure that David Silkoff feels he is a lone compassionate voice in the midst of the uncaring hordes. Such is the Jesus like cross such people bear. Unfortunately David, there is such a thing as democracy and 84% of people do not agree with you.

Unfortunately, you demonize such individuals as hateful yet these are only a small minority of the 84%. The rest are simply smart enough to know that an open door policy is a recipe for disaster. They want the traffic stopped,not the refugees killed.

You say that the Herald Sun holds back a "truly creative, expressive and psychologically healthy Australia". Yet when some express themselves you want to put them back into their box. I guess for you, a creative expressive Australia is having everyone believe what you believe. Now that's what I'd call a Monoculture.

Dear CJ
"rallying to the defence of Australia's worst gutter rag". Care to nominate Australia's best gutter rag?

Dear Blair,

Probably 'The Australian' (aka 'The Opposition Organ') these days. Once upon a time it was a good paper.

I'm confused by the legality (or illegality) of the asylum seekers' actions. In the days before I was an Australian citizen (or even a resident), could I have bought a boat and sailed it into Australian waters without breaking any laws? If so, what would have happened when I arrived at the coast - say, at a jetty in Broome? Could I have stepped off the boat and started a new life perfectly legally? Could I have headed down to the local courthouse or government office and introduced myself, and asked for a visa? Would this have been legal?

I'm not asking these as rhetorical questions. I'm actually asking because, as far as I understood, the asylum seekers who paid people smugglers to get them here by boat are breaking the law. If not international law, then certainly Australian law. Am I wrong here?

Again, I'm not trying to be smart (even if it sounds like I am). I'm trying to suss out how these people's actions are legal.

Shadow Minister,

There is little point in trying to argue with the likes of Bronwyn or any of the open-borders mob. They think that freedom of speech applies to them alone. Like Silkoff, they think that ideas expressed by anyone else are “odious”, “inhumane” and so on; any hysterical superlative they can grab at does the trick, or so they think.

They decide what is “moral” and “defensible”. They even have their own “legal” standards. When all else fails them, they go for the personal insult, suggesting that we are “illiterate”, “ignorant” or any new insult that happens to be fashionable for a short time.

These characters don’t seem to mix with anyone but their sort; and they think that all public opinion is to be found on OLO. They are used to having people agree with them, and vice versa, in their incestuous little groups and, therefore, they come up with shock, horror and indignation when people who have been around for a while and know more than they do about people put up contrary opinions. David Silkoff, the author of this do-gooding and judgemental article says, as an example, “It (opinions not meshing with his) does not marry with the people whom I see and speak with every day at work, or in the community.” He probably holds the floor with his opinions at work and, as in most workplaces, people usually ignore ear-bashers or go along with them in the hope that they will shut up; on the other hand, they might all agree with him, but they are still a very small group. As for his “community”, how many of the 20 odd million in the ‘community’ does he mix with – not those he disagrees with, I’ll wager!

Otokonoko,

Entering any country without permission (correct documentation) is illegal. You will find people trying to convince us that no asylum seeker entering by boat without documentation is illegal. To date, not one of them has produced, in black and white, evidence of their claims. I doubt that they will find it in an outdated convention.