And so it begins : http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/malaysiabound-deportees-on-hunger-strike-20110806-1ig17.html

When I say “it”, I mean the refugee industries latest academy award wining effort!

<< The first group of asylum seekers due to be deported to Malaysia have called for help and are starting a hunger strike, refugee advocates say>>
<< Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul said advocates received a distress call from one of the asylum seekers on Friday
"The short call said only, `We are in a bad way; we need help. We are starting a hunger strike'," Mr Rintoul said on Friday.>>

SPQR,

Your absolutely correct and Consequences of misinterpreting go beyond that. Each post here combined with newspapers are read in Malaysia of course.
I shudder every time I see people writing offensive things about sending people back to Malaysia. Millions of people live there very happily.
Poirot,
Its not a war zone and frankly our relationships is being damaged. You know it was asked of Animals Australia and RSPCA National for ten years to work with farmers and Muslim people here in Australia and places like Indonesia , Malaysia etc *instead of attacking and insulting them. They couldn’t see the sense in that and results are (& will be) a huge step *backward for animal welfare in Australia and every Muslim country on earth.
This is no different. The consequences could be worse for the very people who need it most- the real refugees . We need to protect not only the children that come on the boats but all people.

The only way to do that is to send a strong message to boat people smugglers they are out of business. So yes I support protecting children as well as others Poirot, is the answer to you question.

I don’t want to see the same mistakes with the boat people. I hate to see Australians insulting our Malaysian neighbors especially at a time we should be working towards strong relationships. We have done a deal and I agree with King Hazza, that its an agreement to a immigration intake.I would have thought that would be to your policy liking tbo.

Poirot,
I won’t be drawn into anything to do with that person & Lexi knows she’s one of my favored posters btw.
As it happens you do know because you were the only one to be a bit fair when the bully got me banned for something I didn’t do.
Out of this entire forum only one person was a bit fair.

That person was you & I thanked you for it on another site rather than keep raves in here.

Ammonite- the short answer is I think most voters- in some way or another, are hostile specifically to what is apparently our current intake of refugees (read, Muslims- though it might just be the fundamentalist ones being projected onto all).
It might extend to other ethnicities who have been taken as problematic to integrate- but you get the idea.
It comes down to the need to protect our personal security from such individuals, or compromise it for them.
With that in mind, the objective of our refugee policy is simply to do what it takes to stop people like that coming into the country, and bringing extremist theocratic mindsets with them.

However,
It seems the blanket ban on boats is in because aside from the likely chance that everyone arriving as a refugee is a salafist fanatic, is that it's the least complicated situation- and doesn't have the negative PR that we are being discriminant about who we are letting in, among a few other things.

Of course, the better option would have been to have strict character criteria as a condition of entry, and advertise our country as what the bad demographics would want to avoid. And revert processing to either passing the character test and being processed in the community, or being denied entry entirely.
Most other Western countries do exactly that.

Now for the reason to leave their country due to instability- that is absolutely true. What makes many dubious is that they continue to travel through neighbouring and more distant countries with the intent to reach Australia or Europe- implying that safety concerns ceases once they left their own country, and ambition takes over for the rest of the journey (as Malaysia has demonstrated- other countries along the way do harbor refugees too).

King Hazza

Like I said on another thread I don't always agree with you. And this is one of those occasions.

As has been stated many times, by many others I will try again to clarify my points. And I do have first hand knowledge having worked in the housing sector of the state government.

1. No terrorist risks him/herself by getting on a boat - no terrorists have been identified among any of the boat refugees. Sure there are persons of dubious character and that's why we require an assessment program.

Which brings me to:

2. Much more cost effective AND less stressful for all involved, to assess boat people onshore. Nauru, Malayasia - waste of money and no accounting of the delay and grief these processes cause.

I know there is no magic bullet, but we can at least react with simple pragmatism rather than appealing to the very worst of the Australian psyche.

Poor Fellow My Country.

Sorry Poirot, but I did think you had fallen victim too. a look at that posters last 100 posts is worth while,
I stand by my descriptions
I am a fan of yours Lexi and Morgans, but unable to hide my views on issues that divide us, look in fact while we are fire and water Ammonite thinks mostly as I do.
This thread divides us but it is as I think.
IF we could poll every voter here now to day, how many do you think would say stop the boats.
Am I wrong in saying most.
And if I asked how many support the greens stand on refugees, would it be unkind to say less than 1 in every 5?
This morning ABC did an on air interview with a refugee advocate, how many of us, how many conservatives, Labor, people in the street would walk across the street to support such a protest group.
Last sadly, GY may care to comment, I have not asked him to look at or act on any post except spam, adds and such for around three years.
I am no BULLY but can not ignore a poster who turns on almost every one in the end.
This issue is painful, children women, wanting a better life.
My belief is not based on hate or dislike it is in my country's best interest I think.
I however see every thread come back to variations of the live export debate.
Surely we need not mention that in such as this one?
And being judged on my views,any of them, but animal welfare most is disturbing.

Belly,

I don't think you're a bully either.

I have no doubt that you are correct in your assumption that most Australians would happily position every asylum seeker on a giant eject button and fire them into the stratosphere.... but as Ammonite observes, it's indicative of the Australian psyche....good ol' Anglo-Saxon Christian morality 'nall that....

I find it telling that most of the Muslim refugees emanate from countries where we venture, hanging onto the coat-tails of the U.S. We destroy infrastructure (and profit from its rebuilding) and decimate social structures - and then we feign outrage when these people begin pouring out and head in our direction - same happened to the Vietnamese.