hasbeen “With rules of engagement like this, there is not much else one could assume”

that is what needs to change… the rules of engagement… consider those who violate our border security as the enemy (because they are not our friends) and treat them accordingly… I suppose the notion of “take no prisoners” is, politically, a little harsh but it works well as a deterent

Whistler “pussy cats if you fire across the bow of an intruder
you better have a nuclear weapon to defend yourself.”

No you don’t, just as the UK SAS stormed the Iranian Embassy in London a couple of decades ago and shot every terrorist (better dead than the wasted the costs of a trial) all you need is the balls to stand up for yourself

And that is what our illustrious prime minister is lacking … the balls.

Re “this thread stands accused of failing to protect women and children.

All I can say is “volenti non fit injuria”

If people attempt the illegal circumvention of Australia’s border laws, they are responsible for whatever harm befalls them.

“the solution is an equal rights constitution.”

Equal for who..

illegal, non-Australian, border jumpers

as well as Law abiding Australian Citizens?

Ain’t ever gonna happen

Even Krudd is not that stupid.. it is a slam-dunk election loser

CJMoron “to bring the ugliest Australians out from under their rocks.”
Ah yes.. and I saw your rock move….

I just love the way you answer your own comments

Procrastinator “I have a simple solution why not simply buy a Zodiac bundle our Xenophobes in and send them out (no guns) to discuss their views with the boat people,”

No.. send twits like you out in boats, under the same conditions, to explain how the “rule of law” works in Australia and how those who attempt to circumvent it have fail the “character test” for entry into Australia

Rstuart “Speaking of jellyfish,”

here you are ……

There seems to be some confusion on this thread.
The boat at Merak has nothing to do with Australia.
It was found in Indonesian waters by the Indonesian Navy and towed into
Merak.

Australia would not have made any promises that affect those on that
boat. About 150 I think on board there.
They are refusing to disembark, but whether they just stay on board
until the boat sinks is up to the Indonesians, none of our business.

Apparently anyone that thinks that the immigration policy should be biased towards those that make a donation to indonesian mafia, and a transportation system where most (but not all) asylum seekers survive,
are humane and everyone else, who thinks that encouraging women and children to ride on death traps is a bad idea, is a xenophobe.

CJ, Examinator, and Rstuart, how many must die before you admit that the boats should be discouraged.

I notice that none of you have actually contributed to the dicussion with concrete suggestions, but prefer to dish out the insults.

The initial reason for this post was that Rudd is trying to brazen out the fact that he made a special deal. No one, not even the asylum seekers believe this.

The perception (and reality) is now that the way to fast track your application, is to be rescued by an Australian ship.

Given the recent polls, if you put everyone that you define as a "xenophobe" on a boat, you would be very lonely.

I have no issue with asylum seekers, but the boats must stop.

Shadow Minister: "I notice that none of you have actually contributed to the dicussion with concrete suggestions,"

We are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention which says we must accept people that arrive on our shores; we also implement various conventions that say we don't murder (yet I see it is being proposed here), and that we won't allow people to drown through inaction on the high seas. Add that together and the boats can't be stopped. What bit would you like to change?

Yes, they can be discouraged. They are (hopefully) discouraged by the solution put in place by Howard. Since Howard laws haven't been changed, and his solution hasn't changed much since he abandoned the pacific solution as being too expensive, one hopes they are still discouraged.

But more to the point, all these points have been absolutely flogged to death over the last few days in discussions. You were part of most of them Shadow. Contrary to what you say, in those discussions suggestions were made, eg http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9668#155834 The only one I recall from you was the re-instatement of the pacific solution. I guess that was slightly more realistic the suggestion to shoot them on sight, but only slightly.

Speaking for myself, I am now heartily sick of the subject. And how you drag it all up again with something that, as Bazz said it at best vaguely related to Australia. For gods sake, give it break.

Rstuart:

My post was on the bare face BS that Rudd is dishing to the public and the effect it will have on the smuggling.

Like Helen of Troy, Rudd has the face that launched a thousand boats.

Until he relaxed the protocols, the handful of refugees was small and no one had died for a long time. That it is still topical is because the boats are still arriving on a daily basis.

The 1951 CONVENTION is exactly that. It is non binding: The gov has every right to adjust the protocols in the event of abuse of the system, is not obligated to accept the rubber stamp refugee status awarded by the UNHCR, and is free to use its own yardstick.

Secondly, the definition of refugee is very specific, many of those who have been waiting for years in Indonesia are not:

The reason for their flight has to be a fear of persecution;
The fear of persecution has to be well-founded
The persecution has to result from one or more of the 5 grounds listed in the definition, that is race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion;
They have to be unwilling or unable to seek the protection of their country.

How is the term 'refugee' misused?

The term has slipped into common usage to cover a range of people, including those displaced by natural disaster or environmental change. Refugees are often confused with other migrants.

In international law, the term 'refugee' has a specific meaning and is NOT to be confused with 'economic refugee'.

For example, now that the conflict in Sri lanka is over, the Tamils could be classified as economic refugees and deported.

Your suggestion of

"If you want to dissuade them, how about this: all Aussie asylum applications take a minimum of 2 years to process. If you need safe haven while we do that we provide off-shore refugee camps. we will check out your story and will send you home if conditions change." Is a bit more extreme than what I was thinking.