“… while I agree with limiting absolute numbers of immigrants to Australia on environmental grounds, I advocate increasing the proportion of refugees among those who we do allow to migrate to Australia.”

Absolutely CJ.

Lets reduce immigration to at least net zero and increase the refugee component. That is, reduce the total to ~30 000 per annum and double the refugee intake to make up the bulk of that; perhaps up to 28 000.

My main concern about refugee influx that could lead to social upheaval is outside of our formal immigration channels, through the onshore asylum seeker method.

I’m also concerned about our current high immigration rate leading to social upheaval. But I’ll leave that subject for another day.

At the time of the Tampa, in August 2001, there was an enormous escalation in the number of asylum seekers mobilising towards Australia. Strong action was needed. We were on the cusp of having an asylum seeker issue ten or maybe a hundred times worse than what eventuated. I reckon that could have caused some pretty major social disruption. So I support Howard’s so-called Pacific solution, and I think that anyone who doesn’t, fails to realise just how serious the situation was then or how important strong border protection is.

I fear that we could face a huge and much more determined influx of desperate people as climate change bites.

Individual, there is an enormous spectrum of cases that fall under the banner of paedophilia, ranging from people who commit a single offence of a very minor type that just falls within the accepted definition and who are totally remorseful and reformable, to multiple repeat offenders who are clearly psychopathic.

We cannot lump them all together. We cannot treat them all the same. Each case needs to be treated on its merits.

Many paedophiles CAN be safely returned to society. The trick is to have the right sort of rehabilitation and monitoring regimes…. and certainly NOT to just say that once someone has been labelled a paedophile, they have no chance of returning to mainstream society and are either forced to stay in prison or live on the fringes or in a surreptitious manner.

With respect, it is precisely the sort of people that hold the strongly polarised views that you seem to hold, that lead to pressure for authorities to not tell the community about paedophiles that are being accommodated in their area.

Vigilantism is a major concern, undertaken by those who may know nothing other than that a certain person has been convicted of paedophilia, without knowing the nature of their offence or their rehab… and without wanting to know.

“However, when someone is deliberately falsely accused then that individual should get much, much more support then what they get now.”

Of course. But let’s extend that to many convicted paedophiles. Many are genuinely remorseful and need a lot of support, not only for their own good, but for that of the community.

“A paedophile IS NOT A NORMAL HUMAN BEING…”

Um, sorry, but a paedophile very often is. This sort of thing, as with all manner of other crimes, has been with us since the dawn of civilisation. It can be thought of as normal, within the very wide gamut of human behaviour.

Don’t get me wrong. I am repulsed by child molesters and the like. But I’m just trying to inject a bit of balance into the discussion.

Ludwig,
I know that a balance is needed. we need a balance in society. We're losing the see-saw effect in what's acceptable & what's not. We now have too many who say "something needs to be done" sitting at one end of the plank. Anybody can say that but who knows what that something is. You say "The trick is to have the right sort of rehabilitation and monitoring regimes......" Well, what is that trick ? Ludwig everyone on these forums basically wants to see a better society & many want "something" done about it. Why can't people agree that if someone did something wrong retribution is in order as is punishment. What exactly is the difficulty in grasping that concept. There are too many in our midst who are so wharped that they are incapable of distinguishing between right & wrong. Do you really believe that as you say "a single offence of a very minor type that just falls within the accepted definition" would be seen as such by a parent ? Why is it always us that is asked to show compassion ? How about asking those "remorseful human beings" to control themselves up front & we wouldn't need this discussion. I know these are harsh words Ludwig but I have spent half my life amogst people who are always "sorry" after an offence & before the next one.

Ludwig

"Many paedophiles CAN be safely returned to society. The trick is to have the right sort of rehabilitation and monitoring regimes…. and certainly NOT to just say that once someone has been labelled a paedophile, they have no chance of returning to mainstream society and are either forced to stay in prison or live on the fringes or in a surreptitious manner."

I applaud this statement. I agree we need a nuanced approach to what is a wide ranging and complex problem. We don't know the history of these people. We haven't heard the courtroom proceedings and don't know whether or not there may be extenuating circumstances. Let's leave it to the judicial system which is across all the issues relating to each case. It may not get it right every time, but it has served Australia well over many years and on balance has arrived at the best decision in the vast majority of cases. There are no simplistic solutions to this problem. The sight of vigilante crowds hurling abuse and baying for blood is quite ugly and a rather disturbing development. As well as punishment, we have to look at the trends in society which are helping shape these people. They are not born inherently evil, a set of circumstances over time has created that compulsion to abuse. Our task is to find out what these are and to do something about minimising them.

Ludwig

"I support Howard’s so-called Pacific solution, and I think that anyone who doesn’t, fails to realise just how serious the situation was then or how important strong border protection is."

Those who don't support Howard's so-called Pacific solution are very likely to be the people who know firsthand the way it slowly but surely destroys the lives of those caught up in it. If you had visited Nauru for yourself I'm sure you would never make that statement. There are men there now who have endured unimaginable torture and horror and they are spending their days just waiting with nothing to do and no future to plan for. They will all end up with mental problems to one degree or another. One there at the moment has shrapnel embedded in his brain and is receiving no medical treatment. These men (and one is only seventeen) are proven refugees, but all are just left waiting in limbo for another country to accept them. It will take years, if it ever happens. We are destroying these men's lives no question about it. The so-called Pacific solution is only a solution if you can ignore the individual lives it ruins. Your argument is that these men are expendable for the greater good of Australia. I don't buy it. It's inhumane and immoral. It's also stupid because these people would contribute like no others if given a second chance at life.

“Those who don't support Howard's so-called Pacific solution are very likely to be the people who know firsthand the way it slowly but surely destroys the lives of those caught up in it.”

Bronwyn, they can see how hard it can be for some of those caught up in it. But they can’t see much else.

They can’t see that if our border protection had been much weaker, vastly more people would have been caught up in it. If we had accepted all asylum seekers that came our way, we would just be asking for a massive escalation in numbers.

And if that had been the case, sympathy or tolerance from the Australian general public and politicians would have been much less and people would have been dealt with much more harshly.

Dealing with desperate asylum seekers has surely got to be one of the most difficult things for any country or government to do. Dealing with them in a humane way while upholding refugee criteria, border-protection policy and deterrence is just fraught with difficulty.

There are always going to be glitches. We can’t expect everyone to be treated entirely equally, no matter how we might try.

But I think that it is now time for those on Nauru that have been found to be refugees to be accommodated in Australia. The deterrence message is strong enough for that to happen without triggering more boatloads heading our way. So if we can just quickly deal with those that are caught in limbo and hopefully put a lid on the whole business, that would be great.