Sorry, most of you guys missed the point.

We have refugees who usually have a genuine reason for being a refugee but we put them in concentration camps in the middle of the desert yet we are comfortable with putting repeat child rapists back into the community. Repeat child rapists are trusted in our society more than a refugee from a humanitarian crisis or a war.

I would trust living next door to a refugee while they wait for the department of immigration to process their status. But they are out in a desert somewhere while I can get a child rapist implanted next door to me.

THE PAEDOPHILE SHOULD BE "OUT BUSH", NOT THE REFUGEE.

Legislation is ALL round the wrong way.

Thanks for the slack Spritegal.

Was an interesting look at everyone. Who's the attack dog?. Once again, please try and interpret content rather than react to a title of a post.

The government would lead us to believe that refugees are more of a threat than paedophiles because they are in internment camps in the middle of nowhere and we have repeat sickos living next door.

Thanks for clarifying, StG. Of course I agree with your second post, but unfortunately your initial post was sufficiently ambiguous that our resident refugee hater used it as a pretext for one of his typically ugly, hateful posts.

I accept that wasn't what you meant, but I guess you might need to be a bit more judicious in composing your next catchy headline :)

StG, thanks for the clarification.

I think you have a most unfortunate view of our asylum seeker problems.

There is no way that asylum seekers should be allowed to move freely in society. Experience overseas and early on in Australia was of asylum seekers absconding or otherwise not cooperating. That directly led to the detention centre regime. Razor wire and guards were then implemented after numerous breakouts.

The deterrence factor is also very important. There is the potential for hundreds of thousands of asylum seeker to mobilise and head for Australia, if we are seen to be a soft touch.

Of course Australia has every right to have full control over its borders, and certainly of any movement of people into this country outside of our legal channels.

So, as much as I don’t like Howard’s overall politics, I support him fully on his approach to asylum seekers since the time of the Tampa.

As for paedophiles, I don’t believe that they should just be locked up indefinitely, unless they have committed repeat offences and/or demonstrated no or poor rehabilitation.

I would say that refugees are most definitely more of a threat than paedophiles. That is not to belittle refugees or asylum seekers in any way, it is just a reflection of the potential magnitudes of the two issues.

SPRITEGIRL... your mild rebuke was timely :) and I accept it.

yes.. Stg's point was about the silliness of a legal system which allows paedophiles out....but really he must be reacting to an unusual case no ? I've not heard much of this kind of thing going on.

IMPORTANT QUESTION....

Stg.. you said "I'd be happy for a refugee to be housed next door" etc.. but not a Paedo.

FOOD 4 THOUGHT.

IF.....the 'refugee' planted next to you had a view that 'old men having sex with children' is NOT...paedophilia but rather.. QUITE acceptable... would you feel as comfy?

Which was my reaction to your point. I think you need to look much deeper than the simple 'physical presense' of a 'refugee' and into what 'values' they are bringing to Australia.

Ludwig: "I would say that refugees are most definitely more of a threat than paedophiles."

In the context of this discussion, I couldn't disagree with you more. So you'd prefer a convicted paedophile living in your neighbourhood than a few refugees? You obviously don't have children, or care very much about the children of others.

While I don't actually agree that paedophiles and other sex offenders should automatically be demonised, they are far more deserving of social antipathy than are refugees - whose only 'crime' is that they have been forced from their homelands by war, famine, or political and religious oppression.

Boazy: "IF.....the 'refugee' planted next to you had a view that 'old men having sex with children' is NOT...paedophilia but rather.. QUITE acceptable... would you feel as comfy?"

Yes, that's exactly what you meant the first time, wasn't it? You're such a hateful bulldust artist. So how many refugees regard "having sex with children" as being "QUITE acceptable", you old dog-whistler? Please provide verifiable evidence to support your noxious inference.

You really are a disgrace.