I want to go a little deeper, I think open debate aways works.
On any subject.
Remember no issue you can name can be resolved in a way that pleases every one.
So in any debate an unhappy group, feeling betrayed will gather.
It may only be ten percent, but convince themselves the rest got it wrong.
But hidden within JG,s statement was this, she does not believe in political correctness.
I do not either ,in fact think it is a way minority views are often imposed on majority's.
Boat people is such, look into the eyes of those children.
But look also into the eyes of children who have sat for many years in camps looking for a life.
Is it wrong to say 20 million refugees wanting a new home can not all be accommodated?
Even now, here I want to say something else about migration.
But I can not, Yes I know my view is shared by more than half Australians, but to say it would bring the roof down on me.
Well, big shoulders, how much of our fear about boat people is driven by the average Australians fear of some cultures?
I am unsure we can truly talk about the subject.

<< …but to say it would bring the roof down on me. >>

Say it Belly! Express your opinions openly.

Your leader has denounced political correctness. You agree with her. So don’t be held back. You and all those on this forum who matter are quite capable of determining what might be a reasonable response to your views and what is over-the-top PC.

Or have you said what you said you can’t say?

Are your comments regarding concerns about boat people being driven by the fear of other cultures the comments that you said you can’t say?

I’m not trying to be smart of difficult. I’m just not sure how to interpret your last post.

In my years of participating at OLO, I haven't particularly noticed that "political correctness" has stifled debate on anything, least of all about asylum seekers. When I look at the commentariat and see the likes of Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Christopher Pearson, Miranda Devine, Janet Albrechtsen, Alan Jones etc etc, I don't see any great evidence of "political correctness" silencing anybody.

I'm wondering where, exactly, anybody's been constrained in expressing quite openly bigoted views by so-called "political correctness". It certainly doesn't seem to have been in Australia.

Indeed, that's why Gillard's superficially laudable call for open debate has been described as a 'dog-whistle'. The implied suggestion that debate hasn't been open until now is a covert call for a ramping up of the bigotry that is already being expressed quite openly.

To answer Graham's question, I don't think it will work any better in the National arena than it does here. While it's good to bring the ugliness out into the open so we know what we're dealing with, I think that the net result tends to be a hardening of existing positions rather than any move to consensus.

Yes, PC has never stopped robust debate on OLO but how do we have those conversations in the wider electorate about asylum seekers?

Open debate and discussion is one thing, but how do you quantify opinion other than through broad sweeping polls or focus groups? And perception does not always = fact.

The test of a successful debate would be it's ability to define exactly what the concerns are, if they are valid and what policies would increase public awareness or feelings of 'safety', particularly given as one writer put it the number of people who arrive by boat would not fill a football stadium.

Most of the fears appear to be (if we take OLO and other media at face value):

- lack of national security measures in screening asylum seekers and immigration applicants;
- perception of threat to lifestyle/laws should vast cultural or religious differences influence public policy in relation to democracy, women/children and the law;
- dislike of those who jump the queues or attempt to use asylum status illegally;
- fear of burgeoning cities and lack of infrastructure to cope with growing populations; and
- fear of terrorism and escalation in criminal activity.

This sort of discussion also crosses over and blurs environmental concerns including population sustainability when a one-in one-out policy would put paid to that, once a population 'figure' or range with some elasticity has been agreed (if that is at all possible).

Others may be able to add to the list.

ok Ludwig, but this will make me a bigot in CJ Morgans eyes.
I admire the bloke but differ greatly here.
Can we truly honestly talk about SOME Muslim culture I think is unwelcome here?
I can say openly I want far less intrusion in government and lives by Christian Church's can I say that about Islam?
Am I wrong to compare freedoms we give that we would never get in a Muslim country?
Today a screaming group gathered to protest about Gillards new actions.
One woman shouted that it was a dog whistle, and an attempt at populism?
Is popularism a crime? she went on to say pleasing the masses, most of us, was wrong!
We should do the right thing! her view of it I take it.
In fact we can not debate the Muslim migration issue here, if we tried to control some who would invade it we would destroy it.
Both yes and no have radical views.
I can not even list the reasons I do not want more such migration, Ludwig in Truth mate ,this subject remains a taboo.
Until we are truly able to hear the voices of middle Australia who in my view in growing numbers share my view we will be roped in by PC minority views.
Watch the insults come my way but know my view are those of middle Australia.

I would regard the continued denigration of people with the intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade (no pun intended) as being somehow "Un-Australian", PC gone mad. Yeah, our new PM is from Wales, what of it? The majority of our population is from the UK/Western Europe, so too the majority of our migrants. Birds of a feather flock together so to speak.

We aren't Europe, we aren't Asia... We are Australia, a whole separate Continent, which despite its geographical placement, had its Constitutional democracy built upon the same basis as the best Europe & Northern America had to offer. Saying we should be filling our queue with Asian migrants because of our longitude, is as facetious an argument as suggesting we should fill our migration queue with African & South American immigrants on the basis of our latitude... For the same reason, the suggestion we should modify our outlook on life based on either is specious... Australia is a Continent, like North America, Europe, Asia, Africa or Antarctica...

Or maybe we should we adopt the idea of pushing one another off the ice floe to test for sharks & seals like the penguins, simply because we neighbour Antarctica (both by longitude & latitude, so that suggests that is the one we should most closely conform to, guess what, we do... Especially in terms of population density, which is how most Aussies want it).