Fractelle;
>He never addresses the issue that detaining children indefinitely is
>nothing short of child abuse.

Surely taking the children from their parents would be the worse option ?
Do I hear complaints about stolen children ? Hmmm.

Bronwyn;
The crew would not bring the boat if they thought it could not get back.
In any case the Navy could take them off and return them to Indonesia.
I cannot understand your reasoning. The Law of the Sea required the
Tampa to take the passengers and crew to Indonesia because they were
in the Indonesian search and rescue area.
It is also allowable for a ship to not go out of its way if there is
a port on their route. The Tampa was on its way to Singapore.
Indonesian ports were still the closest and correct port enroute.
The Howard government only relented when the Tampa crew were threatened.
Really Bronwyn you and some others here, you need to get off your
cloud nine and join the real world.

The visa over stayers are as said on here a bigger problem, but just
because embezzlement is a less frequenct crime than burglary it does
not mean you ignore embezzlement.

*Yabby and his ilk continue to sweat bricks over boat people*

No Fraccy dear, we don't sweat bricks, we just point out the
ridiculous state of your argument, when your little heart hijacks
any kind of rational thought.

Fact is if the Federal Govt offered first prize to anyone who
got to Canberra in a clapped out, dangerous, unregistered car,
which could well kill them, there would be an outrage.

They are offering much the same thing in the leaky boat first
prize. Indonesians only send boats which are buggered by
their standards and have no further use, as they know it will
be a one way trip. Present Fed Govt policy is encouraging more
and more of them to have a go and win first prize. So they
are putting people in danger, by their Govt policy. If there
was no prize, there would be no leaky boats, simple.

*At 2600 kms north west of Perth*

Sheesh, that is closer then Kununnurra, which is 3000 kms by
road and is still in this State! Bronwyn dear, this is all
still Australia, its not just downtown Melbourne you know.

Four hours travel is hardly far, I spend that much time to
get to the city and back and used to do it 3 times a week.

*and means that refugee advocates can't give asylum seekers the ongoing support they need,*

which translated means alot of overemotional busybodies would like
to interfere with the due process of the law, to establish how
genuine these people really are. Hey they are free to fly to
Xmas Island, its still part of Austalia and they even
speak Australian and have Australian money there :)

You city slickers, sheesh, like rats in a cage, when we take
you out of your ratrace, you are frigging hopeless.

*at the remote island hellhole of Nauru*

Hellhole? ROFL Bronnie, you make my point for me, you need
to get out of Melbourne and see the real world out there.

Ludwig: << I'm hangin out to hear peoples' thoughts >>

Yeah right - so long as they share your misanthropic (or worse) obsession with boat people.

Horus - I don't believe that you've known and dealt with the people you claim you have. You heard those hateful fairytales on talkback radio, didn't you?

Bazz - it's not any sort of crime to enter Australia by whatever means in order to seek asylum. Your comparison is typically odious.

Same old bulldust, same old hate, same old selfishness, same old haters.

Nothing more to see here, I think.

Ludwig

<< 'Dog-whistling. Please Bronwyn, leave the pre-school vocabulary to Ceej. It doesn't become you. >>

I've used that term many times before. It's the perfect description for what you've done on this thread and whether it becomes me or not I will stick with it. :)

<< Bronny, I'll have to seek clarification. What deaths are you talking about? >>

At the risk of once more being labelled 'Madame Bullybum', I have already spelled this out very clearly http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3080#72514 and should not have to go over it again!

The deaths I'm talking about in the implementation of any 'Stop-the-boats' policy are threefold:

1) Asylum-seekers can and do drown when their boats are turned back to Indonesia by the ADF.

2) If they do make it back, they won't be given asylum there. They'll be warehoused indefinitely until another country can be found to take them in. Some have waited eight years already. No wonder they try their luck in a leaky boat.

3)The third alternative is that they're returned to their homeland, which again is happening aided and abetted by the Australian Government. They're thrown back to the same old dangers and many of them are actually in even greater danger through having tried to leave. It's against international law to 'refoule' refugees in this way and we already have many proven deaths on our conscience through doing this, and who knows how many others that remain undocumented. The Australian Government makes no attempt to monitor their progress once they've been sent back.

This is how we create death and misery when we 'stop-the-boats' as you simplistically claim we should do. I hope this is clear enough for you and if this doesn't prick your conscience, then you're a lesser person than I've judged you so far.

<< ... What deaths and misery was created by Howard's policies? >>

All of the above, plus the numerous wrecked lives of those asylum-seekers locked up for years in harsh and punitive detention centres. A vast mjority of them to this day suffer some level of mental illness as a result.

TBC

Ludwig (cont.)

<< What do you want to see happen in regards to onshore asylum seekers? >>

All asylum-seekers who end up in Australian waters should be brought to the mainland where they can be processed much more efficiently and cheaply than they are on Christmas Island. There are many government buildings available that could easily be adapted to fulfil this role. Initial health and security checks should take no longer than three months, or maybe six in busier periods such as the one we're currently experiencing.

After that initial period, they should be released into the community to await the decision on their application for asylum. They would live in low cost community housing and be given government assistance to learn English and become job ready. There are refugee advocacy groups, churches, other community groups and regional towns all over the country who would happily undertake to provide the support needed - to ease initial language and cultural difficulties and to help them transition smoothly into life in Australia.

Experience elsewhere indicates little or no risk of absconding. If treated fairly and decently and provided with support, why would they abscond and have to fend completely for themselves? And as pointed out over and over on these threads, the overwhelming majority of asylum-seekers are genuine. They are ordinary decent people who just want the same chance to live peacefully that you and I were privileged enough to be born into.

Many of them are highly skilled. The majority have skills and a working willingness that enables them to take on jobs many Australians won't. They want nothing more than to pay their way and contribute to the country that gives them a second chance at life. I know. I've met many asylum-seekers and I've yet to meet any that fit the deceitful and dangerous stereotype that Banjo, Bazz, Horus and co would have us believe.

This alternative model would employ many Australians and would cost the taxpayer far less than our current inefficient and inhumane offshore system.

"Dog-whistling" "I've used that term many times before. It's the perfect description for what you've done on this thread and whether it becomes me or not I will stick with it. :)"

Well I am disappointed indeed Bronwyn. In our discussions on this subject and others in which we have disagreed, we've always managed to uphold a good respectable dialogue. But that sort of silly labelling drags you down to a considerably lower standard of correspondence. I implore not to use rubbish terms like that, that are specifically designed to be blunt, rude or outrightly offensive.

Mind you, you are still about eight levels better on a ten point scale than CJ or Fracco! /:>)

But why on earth you have any problem at all with me raising this subject again, especially as it is in the news.... again...is just beyond me! I find it quite absurd that you are criticising me for simply raising the subject. Hey, if you dislike it so much, then why are you participating in this thread??

OK. Thanks for the double post addressing my questions. Again, eight points more than CJ or Frac for doing that, instead of just being puerile, hateful, slanderous and entirely negative like them.

I'll address them in the morning. All this lying around on da beach is really tiring. I'm off for an early night, camping out with the bush stone-curlews and squabbling flying foxes (;>)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz