In Texas recently a man beat to death a family friend he caught molesting his daughter. The authorities have found that he has no case to answer.

In north Queensland years ago, a woman was acquitted after fatally shooting her husband who had been bashing her for years (his drinking mates used to call to warn her when he left the pub to go home).

I vaguely recall another instance where an elderly man in Sydney killed an intruder and was not convicted of any crime.

These are examples of what might be called "natural justice" and I think that these outcomes are all correct. But it begs the question – when is it OK to kill another person? When is this justified? Who should decide?

It wasn't my intention but after reflection I can see that this topic might also relate to euthanasia.

when is it OK to kill. In many peoples eyes whenever an unborn baby is not wanted.

Wow Peter Mac! What a can of worms you've opened here. A veritable Pandora's Box of the discussion forum. Be interesting how long it can go before someone quotes religious text. ;)

Anyway, it is a contentious issue and also drags in other instances like the death penalty (not applicable in this country), abortion (for some), murder suicide. Killing an intruder would be unpremeditated and therefore the outcome/penalty would undoubtedly be different than if the elderly man had lured someone into his home with the INTENT of killing. That is murder with intent and should carry an appropriate penalty.

Would I go out and kill someone whom I PERCEIVED to be a threat to my children? No. But if a person physically threatened them, to the extent that their lives were in danger, I would not hesitate to protect them and if I killed that person in the process, so be it. A mother's protective instinct is a dangerous thing. Yet, paradoxically, I pick snails off the footpath so people won't squash them!

I am not a supporter of the death penalty (though I have never lost a loved one to violence, so am not really in a position to comment. I'm sure if I had I might feel differently). But it seems to me that we have many double standards in our society - it is okay for some governments to execute prisoners, yet abortion is still deemed illegal in many places. It is okay for governments to send young men and women off to war, yet it is illegal to end the suffering of the terminally ill.

All I know is if I were asked to end someone's life, there would have to be a very good reason, and I would have to be prepared to push the button myself, not ask someone else to do it.

So, when is it okay? Probably never. Possibly always. How long is that piece of string?

Actually, just thought of the perfect answer to your question, Peter. Continuing from my previous post: It is okay when it suits the law. It is not okay when it thwarts the law.

Peter, what surprises me is the judicial systems view on the worth of a human life here in Australia. If you embezzle millions from a large corporate or financial entity you could go to jail for a decade. If you murder somebody willfully but without horrid or distasteful overtones to the crime you get a decade non parole.

Yes, it is a fairly wide and emotive subject – to be honest, I hadn’t thought of abortion or capital punishment in the OP either but these are certainly other related issues.

scribbler – I agree with your reasoning of intent and I hope that most judicial processes get this right in the assessments on a case by case basis. I have stated that I think this has occurred in the examples I quoted. In a perfect world, the laws and judicial system that apply them should reflect the morals, views and wishes of the people so your summary, if applied without perversion, is probably right.

Unfortunately, I disagree with the verdict of a case in Perth this week where a man was convicted of murder because he pushed another man in a pub who then went through a second story window & died from the fall. Accepting that I only know what has been reported in the media, it seems to me that the intent was to push him and not to kill him. Was he a drunken violent idiot? – probably. Did the victim deserve his fate? – no. Do I sympathise with the family for their loss? – of course. But I don’t think it was murder. He “caused” the death of course and should be punished accordingly.

sonofgloin – does ten years for embezzlement = ten years for murder? It may do depending on the circumstances. Again, the penalties are set and applied by a system that attempts to provide punishment that fits the crime. Sometimes they get it wrong. If the embezzler cause an investment fund to collapse and cost thousands of jobs and retirement savings to be lost, there is a huge impact to many people. How does that compare to a kid that takes a swing in the heat of the moment and the victim hits their head on the road?

Can you provide the details of the case of “If you murder somebody willfully but without horrid or distasteful overtones to the crime you get a decade non parole.”?

Great question. Interesting topic. I wanted to join the military when I was YOUNG, and police, more recently. Being a Christian I REALLY struggled with that question. We are born to survive and in my mind that question is easy when your life is in immediate danger or the life of someone else. I would kill to save my family and myself. No question.

Of course there are variables as others have pointed out and one of those for me was volunteering to put myself in a position where I could be forced to take the life of someone else. Self defence is one thing, but taking on a job where lives can be lost is something else, in my opinion ... at the time.

In the end ... long story, short, etc ... I came to the conclusion that the internal debate for me was about intention. Or my personal reasons for joining the police or military. Ultimately, you will still be taking life to preserve other lives and those lives you might take come at you KNOWING your role in society and the possible outcome of taking on an armed police officer with potential life threatening weaponry.

Complicated topic, and that just touches the tip of my internal dialogue about it. I wound up not doing either of those jobs because the one I've got pays better, and is safer.

When is it ok to kill?

To me human life is so sacred that I would
like to be able to say - never.
But I can't. I have to be honest. I would
fight to protect myself, to protect my
family, my children and my grandchildren.

I also believe that a person who has a terminal
illness and is suffering greatly and the
preservation of their life helps no one
and is desired neither by that person nor by
those who love them most dearly, then their
doctors should be allowed to let that person
die in peace and serenity. They should not
hook that person up to machines that sustain
their lives and prolong their suffering.

I am against the death penalty
because I don't think its really about deterrence
but retribution - about society's revenge on a
person who takes another's life. Whether such
retribution is justified is not a matter of
measurable facts. It is a moral judgement for
each individual to make.

War - which has long been one of the nastiest of
all human endeavors - now threatens the survival
of civilisation as we know it - and perhaps even
the existence of our species. The nuclear age is
here and we are living in its shadow.
All over the world, hundreds of thousands of
scientists and engineers devote their skills to
planning new and more efficien ways for humans to
kill one another; millions of workers labour to
manufacture instruments of death; and tens of
millions of soldiers train for combat -
and some actually go to war. From a moral and even an
economic point of view, this vast investment of
human ingenuity and energy seems a tragic waste.

Excellent post Lexi - I agree totally.

Why no death penalty in Australia? If a dog bites a man, then by law it is put to death!

It is all hypocrisy and mere convenience to claim that human life is "sacred" and other life is not. Nevertheless, those who believe that humans are "special" in some sense or another must side with Runner. Further, those who believe that life must not be taken, should not produce life either, because every living being is bound to die!

No, human life is not sacred. The reason we do not and should not kill others (human and otherwise) is not because of the dead (and his/her family and friends), but because of what that makes of us - murderers!

I leave the legal issues for another day (as they stand they are quite arbitrary) and turn to address the moral aspects:

The great moral injunction is Hillel's Golden Rule: "What you hate done to yourself - do not do unto others". So to tell whether it is OK to kill X, ask yourself: "Had I been in X's circumstances, would I hate being killed?". There is no universal answer, so you must be honest with yourself:

Sorry, I clicked on the "Post" button by mistake while these were still my raw, unedited thoughts on the matter.

So to continue where it left off, with Hillel's test, you have to be honest with yourself: suppose X was about to do something bad - would you in his place have preferred to be killed rather than to proceed with that crime? If your answer is 'Yes', then you wouldn't hate being killed under those circumstances and so it may be moral to kill X, but if it's 'No', then it would be immoral to kill X.

The same test can apply in other circumstances. Euthanasia, for example - "would I, being in the position of this miserable patient, hate it if I was killed?" If 'Yes', then it's immoral to kill the patient. If 'No', then it may-be-moral.

Or take abortion: "Would I, in place of this embryo, hate it if I was terminated, as opposed for example to being born to parents who don't want me?" If 'Yes', then it's immoral to abort, if 'No', then it may-be-moral.

Or take war: "Would I, in place of this enemy soldier, hate it if I was killed instead of killing the 'good ones'?": Well if indeed the 'good ones' are so good, so morally and otherwise superior than the 'bad ones', then the answer may be 'No', in which case killing the enemy may-be-moral, but not otherwise.

Or killing animals: "Would I, in place of this cow, hate being slaughtered and eaten by people?": If 'Yes', then it's immoral to slaughter, if 'No', then it may-be-moral.

Hillel's test is NOT UNIVERSAL. Different people may give different answers and therefore it's quite possible that killing someone is moral for one and not for another. Much depends upon one's level of spiritual progress. So long as you feel that it's worthwhile to stay living no matter what, then you shouldn't kill others, no matter what! Once your conscience tells you that you rather die than conduct an atrocity, THEN it may-be-moral for you to police and kill atrocious criminals.

<<When is it OK to kill?>>

Depends what you mean by "OK"

Yuyutsu wrote << Hillel's Golden Rule: "What you hate done to yourself - do not do unto others." >>

Yuyutsu, congratulations. You've managed to quote scripture without actually quoting scripture. ;

Valid argument except for one thing. It is not only personal morals that will determine a person's answer to that question. It is also circumstance. And while my carefully nurtured morality, defined by my upbringing and experience, tells me that I would (or should) in almost every circumstance reply 'yes' to Hillel's rule, I know that my answer would change if I or someone I loved were threatened or in danger. It may also change if I had lost someone I loved, ie revenge.

You can't apply a rule therefore as the actions of most humans are determined less by logic and more by emotion.

What about the nearly 90 refugees that have died through Labor's negligence?

Given that there is an easy solution to hand, is this a premeditated killing?

Shadow Minister,
Please, I am begging you, do not bring party political policy into this. Surely there are some issues that are above your own brand of Question Time?

If you want to discuss the refugee situation there is a thread already established, or I might direct you to my comment in the 'Transformation of Tony' thread which poses one possible win-win solution and which I believe warrants some discussion.

Apologies.

SM,
Added to say that I think we have already established that policies established by any government of the day, (or GOD, as I Ike to refer to it) is responsible for death and the hypocrisy of death being acceptable when it suits the law/GOD is not limited to one single instance.

SM sad to see more playing with politics on that. Labor have failed to stop the boats but I'm not convinced that being better at putting up barriers to hinder the desperate is a more ethical position than doing so poorly.

Neither side of Australian politics can stand withnpride and say that they are doing our nation proud witn the answers they have come up with. There will always be deaths and suffering amongst refugees, we can and should do what we can to reduce both while trying to find a balance with protecting our own homes and community.

Whats the early death rate for refugees stuck in camps in transition countries with no hope for the future?

Its a messy business without easy answers. I know that if positions were reversed I'd not like to be stuck in a camp somewhere with no safe options for myself and loved ones. I'd not like to be stuck in a homeland run by religious zealots and tribal warlords. I also know that if another country did welcome me I'd make every effort to fit into the customs of thatcountry, to learn the language, obey their laws and make sure that the welcome was not misplaced.

R0bert

SM,

That's right there was a solution at hand, but the Coalition poo-pooed it because Malaysia weren't signed up to the Geneva Convention, which they would be mad to have done considering their geographic location. Despite the fact the Aus Government, as part of the deal, could play a hand in the treatment of refugees in Malaysia.

Then of course the Coalition have a policy which contravenes the Geneva Convention so why do you accept the blatant hypocrisy?

Back to the topic at hand.

It is never OK to kill; however sometimes it is excusable. It is not OK to kill people because you need their oil (even if you claim they had WMD).

It is excusable to kill someone if they attack you and threaten your life (however it is preferred if you just stop them killing you. Not always avoidable though).

Euthanasia? Passive is definitely OK if it's inevitable although technically you're not killing anyone there. Active? In some cases OK but many cases not OK, although excusable I think.

@ David Corbett

I would love to hear you expand on this point:

<< Malaysia weren't signed up to the Geneva Convention, which they would be mad to have done considering their geographic location>>

Why would it have been *mad* for Malaysia to have signed the Geneva Convention?

As Gillard and her cohort have made it perfectly clear is that the Labor/green/independent alliance won the election and have the right to govern.

The coalition have made it clear that the Malaysian solution which is the most abhorrent concept yet to be floated is not acceptable unless Malaysia signs up to the UNHCR charter.

The coalition has offered a compromise and is not prepared to capitulate further and off shore processing can continue with greatly reduced protection, but not with no protection. Labor can choose to work within what is available to it or do nothing. The do nothing approach they have subsequently chosen has predictable consequences, primarily continued deaths at sea.

With power comes responsibility. The deaths could be prevented, and Labor is responsible.

SM,
Okay, I'll bite. You can't state in one argument that one party's proposed solution would prevent deaths of refugees, while in another thread you argue that no proposal will stop the flood of refugees arriving by boat.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

And again, I stress, no one is arguing the hypocrisy in it being 'acceptable' or even 'inevitable' that people die through government policy (Iraq, Afghanistan, 'people overboard' as well as those you've already mentioned).

Back to the question at hand Peter Mac you ask

When is it OK to kill?

I say if you are a shooter and in a New South Wales national park the answer is; When the target is in your sights.

'Euthanasia' Peter than can be a can of worms indeed. I support euthanasia in extreme cases, like our 'gay marriage' debate another moral question. SM what's Tony's take on euthanasia (for humans)?

Abortion, I am opposed in principle to abortion, a Green opposed to abortion, but then again SM tells me he's pro gay marriage, wonders never cease.

Is war nothing more than legalised murder. As a pacifist I say yes.

Is the death penalty for crime, nothing more than state sanctioned murder, yes. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters others. More a case of economics and religious cleansing, an eye for an eye stuff, and save some cash at the same time.

yusu: Hillel's Golden Rule: "What you hate done to yourself - do not
do unto others".

Hillel's was a bit late. First record of that saying was Confusius 551 - 478 BC, Then Buddha, 563 - 483 BC A few others, I suppose. Then Hillel 110 - 10 BC, then Joshua ben Nazarene (AKA, Jesus) 4 BC - 29 AD.

If I caught anyone molesting my daughter or my granddaughter. ---- They're dead.

Dear Jayb,

<<If I caught anyone molesting my daughter or my granddaughter. ---- They're dead.>>

Nothing wrong with that, provided that you can honestly state: "If I were molesting someone else's daughter or granddaughter, then I were ought to be killed; I'd rather be dead than continue living so low".

Many people can make this statement with honesty and if you are one of them, then go ahead!

OTOH, Those who cannot honestly make such a statement should not join the police-force. It would be immoral for them to do so.

Dear Scribbler,

<<You can't apply a rule therefore as the actions of most humans are determined less by logic and more by emotion.>>

The golden rule determines whether an action may be moral: this is not to deny the fact that many people (and governments for that matter) act immorally. Emotions are never wrong, but acting on them often is.

the title of the post should have been when is it ok to kill an adult. Many who think that is very wrong squirm their way out of believeing its ok to kill a baby as long as its in the mothers womb.

Dear runner,

At the root of the abortion controversy is a
basic value judgement about the human status
of the fetus. If the fetus is considered a
baby, then abortion is a form of killing:
if it is considered a mere collection of
cells and tissue, then abortion is a morally
neutral surgical procedure. But the status of
the fetus is inherently ambiguous: it is
neither self-evidently a human being nor
self-evidently just tissue. For if these matters
were self-evident, there would be little
disagreement about abortion.

On the one hand, the fetus is not a human being in the
usual sense, for it is generally not viable.
Indeed, no society treats the fetus as human; for
example if the mother accidentally miscarries, the
fetus is not given a funeral, but is simply disposed of
like any other tissue.

On the other hand, the fetus is not like just any other,
tissue such as discarded nail or hair clippings. The fetus is
potentially a human being, one that might become as
alive and unique as the posters of this forum.

The conflicting value judgements about abortion stem
from this fundamental ambiguity in the status of the
fetus.

Few issues in recent years have so divided people
as has the morality of abortion.

I have two questions for you runner. I know that you
are against abortion.

1)Where do you stand on the death
penalty?

2) What do you think of people who bomb abortion clinics
and try to kill doctors who perform abortions?

Yuyutsu,

<<Emotions are never wrong. But acting on them often is. >>

Point well made. I need to ponder this.

"If I caught anyone molesting my daughter or my granddaughter. ---- They're dead."
Jayb, I to have a granddaughter and like you I may well react the same, rage is a powerful emotion. Would it be right to kill in those circumstances, no, understandable, yes.

Scribbler,

The answer to this post is the same as in the other.

Coming by boat with no paper means that the onus is put on the dept of immigration to prove that the "refugees" aren't genuine, and given that 30% are initially assessed not to be genuine, yet the courts grant 99% asylum shows how successful this is.

Given that there are millions displaced and hundreds of millions in areas of threat, the number of those that would be happy for a fully paid house, schooling, medical, and spending money is virtually limitless. Taking 100 000 a year or more does not mean that even more will still come by boat, and no one other that the greens have entertained this concept.

The solution is in labor's term "break the business model". The only proven solution includes off shore processing among other measures.

SPQR,

The Geneva convention puts undue onus on those countries that are geographically proximal to areas that produce the most refugees. It has been essentially abandoned by many countries because of this reason.

Under the convention, Malaysia would have to accept every single refugee that landed on its shores, which it could not possibly do. Australia wouldn't have signed it if we were sitting right next to Cambodia, Burma and central Asia, I guarantee it.

Of course, Australia would love all countries to sign up because it would mean that the thousands of refugees that flee conflict in central asia would have to be accepted by Malaysia or other countries in between here and there.

It doesn't mean Malaysia automatically treats all refugees badly (although they have questionable history in that respect). Being a signatory at the same time has not proven that a country will treat all refugees well or will keep to the terms of the convention (Australia being a very good case in point, but many European countries also).

On the other hand, Abbott's 'Turn back the boats' policy flies directly in the face of the Geneva Convention and is essentially the same policy as the Malaysia Solution without any agreement with the country where he is turning the boats back to as to how the dumped refugees are to be treated.

For the Shadow Minstrel to call the Malaysia solution "aborrhent" is complete and utter hypocrisy and only illustrates the blinkered view of the one-eyed Coalition supporters.

David,

The UNHCR is generally not referred to as the Geneva convention. The "Geneva" convention generally refers to acceptable behaviour in a time of war. Whilst the original UNHCR charter was signed in Geneva, the revision was signed in New York.

Having actually read the Charter, it does not cover anything that occurs on the high seas, only what happens when an asylum seeker arrives in the country (silent on turning boats back). Neither does it prohibit off shore processing nor does it require that refugees are granted permanent residence. (thus not excluding TPVs) So you claim that the pacific solution violates the UNHCR is pure bollocks on every count.

With regards the Malaysian solution, this was struck down by the high court primarily because it provided no guarantees of safety for those that were sent to Malaysia, at best a letter of intent. The standards of health care, etc were likely to be far below the standards on Nauru or Manus Island. So compared to the pacific solution, the Malaysian solution was far worse on simple humanitarian terms.

Finally, the 800 places in Malaysia were projected to be filled in a couple of months, so even ignoring the abysmal treatment of the refugees, the solution was destined to fail.

I am surprised David that you would support this solution.

David Corbett,

Firstly, I think you mean the Refugee Convention –NOT, the Geneva Convention.

Secondly, If you're flexible & practical enough to give Malaysia an out card because they are *geographic predisposed* to attract “asylum seekers”, why not also extend the courtesy to Australia whose *affluence predisposes* it to attract hordes of economic migrants posing as “asylum seekers”?

Ahh. The first Commandment to be broken. Thou shalt not kill. By whom, do you ask. By Moses, I reply. How? do I hear you ask. When he instructed his brother Arron to kill all those who were worshipping Idols.
Remember Moses had just come down from the mountain with the Commandments. He hadn't explained them to anyone at that time so they had no idea they were doing anything wrong, according to the Commandments. So Moses, who did know it was wrong, broke the 5th. Comandment. The very first Commandment to be broken.
Was he justified in doing so? No.

YuYutusu: "If I were molesting someone else's daughter or granddaughter, then I were ought to be killed; I'd rather be dead than continue living so low.
Agreed.

Ahh. The first Commandment to be broken. Thou shalt not kill.
Jayb,
I have always believed that that was meant to be thou shalt not murder.
There's a huge difference between the two meanings. One's justified the other is not.

Lexi

Microscopes these days shows quite clearly all the features of a human well before they are slaughtered.

You ask

'1)Where do you stand on the death
penalty? In very rare cases I think it should is appropriate. What punishment do you think should happen to Anders Behring Breivik? He seems very unrepentant and yet quite sane.

2) What do you think of people who bomb abortion clinics
and try to kill doctors who perform abortions? Murdering those who murder is plainly wrong although understandable in the case of killing the most vulnerable.

Individual: I have always believed that that was meant to be thou shalt not murder. There's a huge difference between the two meanings. One's justified the other is not.

God gave man the Commandments.

Then the Lawyers stepped in & stuffed it all up with interpretation.

Brevick, Guillotine, Guillotine.

People who bomb Abortion clinics, Guillotine, Guillotine.

Knit 1, Knit 1, Peal, Hee, Hee, Heee.

But Shadow Minstrel, the whole purpose of the Pacific Solution, Malaysia Solution or whatever Abbott calls his policy is to stop people leaving Malaysia or whichever country they have embarked from. that is what you want isn't it? For the refugees to not get on boats and risk their lives.

So the intention of all the policies is for refugees in Malaysia to stay, in the very conditions that you are deploring. So you want the refugees to stay where they are, but you deplore the Government taking them back there? Something is not adding up here. Is it just a case of see no evil?

The Pacific Solution stopped working because it stopped being a deterrent. Refugees realised it was still quicker and conditions were better if you got yourself on a boat and got sent to the Australian processing centre rather than wait for an opportunity in squalid conditions in Asia somewhere.

The Malaysia Solution was a true deterrent. It was the brainchild of the immigration department not the government, and in true Tony Abbott fashion he ignored the advice of the department because it didn't suit his political aspirations.

90 people dead unnecessarily today partly because Tony insisted on playing politics. Because Tony wants to be PM.

Oh, yep my apologies. I got my international treaties mixed up. Good of you to pick that up and use divert people away from the hypocrisy that is your entire argument.

Dear runner,

Thank You for responding to my questions.
And you certainly are entitled to your views -
although I find them somewhat harsh. I imagine
that most people would not want to see the
days of "backstreet" abortions by private
physicians or even untrained practitioners
returned. The great majority of the population
supports abortion in cases of rape, incest,
or a threat to the mother's health, but support
for a mother's right to abortion on demand
fluctuates between just over and under half of
the population. Even so, a newspoll taken last
year found that quite a few people do wonder
whether their own position on abortion is right -
regardless of whether they oppose or approve it.
It remains a very controversial issue.

You asked what punishment I would give Breivik?
I wouldn't. I don't live in his country and
I'm not qualified to pass judgement
on the man. I would leave that up to the courts
of his country and a jury of his peers.

People who commit murder, have broken the law
and should be tried according to the law. Be they
Breivik - or those who murder doctors who perform
abortions.

David,

The point of the Pacific solution is to prevent asylum seekers from dying at sea. The premise that all the refugees will continue to languish in Malaysia is false as many of the refugees are flying into Indonesia from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka before boarding the boats.

The people smugglers are in these countries selling a product to the people who have the means to come, who are seldom those really in need.

SM,

That's actually a falsehood people on your side of the argument rely on to justify your position

Corbet: That's actually a falsehood people on your side of the argument rely on to justify your position

Crap! Peter. Do you live in La La Land or are you smokin' somethin' ya not supposed to.

David Corbett,
Does the creation of refugees not come under when is it ok to kill ?
Does the agenda of sending people on a silent invasion on a leaky craft on the last leg of the operation not come under when is it ok to kill ?
Australia has an obligation to not turn away refugees. It has an obligation to save people in peril. It does not have an obligation streamline the invasion of itself.
There are countless uninhabited islands or remote islands long before they get to the boats to bring them here. What prevents them from setting up camp along the route ? I tell what prevents them, smarter people than here.

David,

Then it is a falsehood perpetrated by the government and newspapers from the left and right.

It is not only planes but also cashed up customer of the smugglers are leaving on boats organised directly from the countries concerned, with a stop over in Indonesia.

There are many refugees in need, most of those on the boats are not.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If most of the boat people are not refugees as you
now stated in your previous post - then how come under
the Pacific Solution which your party keeps claiming
worked so well - were most of the refugees eventually
accepted as genuine refugees into this country under the
Howard government? You can't have it both ways.

Also, don't you think that people are more than happy
to take the risk of travelling by sea - if they know
that eventually they will end up in Australia? That
certainly isn't any sort of a deterrant. Whereas
if they end up back where they started from - as in the
Malaysia Solution - that just might work as a deterrant
not to spend their money needlessly - if they're going
to end up back from whence they came.

In any case it is time that both parties got together
and genuinely tried to reach a satisfactory outcome.
The attitude of "My way, or the highway," attitude
has got to go. As has "It worked then it will work now."
This should be about genuine deterrants - and human life,
not politics. It's not all that hard to understand.

Lexi,

Less than half the asylum seekers that were sent to Nauru were settled in Australia.

Those cashed up "refugees" need enough money to get on a boat to feed and clothe the refugee for a decade. Most of those in the refugee camps don't have a fraction of the cash. These migrants are jumping the queue and stealing places from those far more deserving.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Actually the number that The Sydney Morning Herald
newspaper gives is - 96 percent of the refugees under
Mr Howard's Pacific Solution ended up in Australia.

And the refugee problem won't will continue because
neither political party is willing to sit down and
discuss solutions. Finger-pointing seems to be
more important.

Regardless of how cashed up they may or may not be, they still have the choice of persecution/death in their home country, Malaysian or Indonesian refugee camps or risking all they have including their lives to try and get to Australia.

Now if you don't want people risking their lives on boats, which I think everyone genuinely agrees, it means they are only left with two other options. Persecution or the very place you claim is abhorrent to be sending them to.

With the coalition policy, they either get towed back to where they came from (how is that any different?) or they get sent to an Australian run detention centre (better than Malaysian camps apparently) where they will most likely be resettled in Australia eventually. Hardly a deterrent.

Therefore the matter of people flying into Indonesia to jump on a boat is irrelevant because the people involved are still, for the most part, refugees fleeing persecution with the same options presented to them. The Malaysia solution, which I don't totally support, made the option of jumping on a boat more or less a waste of money because you would most likely end up back where you started. The pacific solution makes jumping on a boat the most attractive prospect.

Furthermore, the real cashed up refugees are arriving in Australia on planes and being resettled the quickest, often not spending much time in detention centers at all. Are they sent off-shore for processing? No. So the question has to be asked, why are the boat arrivals being so demonized by Australians

So accuse the govt of "killing" is ridiculous when the opposition's policy encourages people to risk their lives whereas the govt policy, which was opposed by Abbott, deters it.

David, in many ways you're right. But the problem with the Malaysian Solution is that it's "deterrent factor" will only apply to the first 800 asylum seekers, whether they arrive by boat or plane. After that, the rest will still need to be processed somewhere, which is why the government is now entertaining a combination of both policies. As we have already received over 700 asylum seekers by boat already this year, it is easy to see why the government thinks a compromise of sorts needs to be made.

Unfortunately, the Nauru or Pacific solution is viewed critically internationally as it incorporates detention and treads on thin ice regarding our agreements with international bodies. it is also not a 'proven' deterrent and any claim by the coalition that it is, is erroneous. The Howard govt got lucky in that their policy of offshore detention coincided with a drop in asylum seeker movements worldwide.

In short, both 'solutions' are very costly, achieve next to nothing as the majority of aslyum seekers who are approved as refugees are resettled in Australia anyway, and Australia benefits little.

"Under the Pacific solution, 30 percent were sent home, 43 per cent of asylum seekers resettled from Nauru and Manus Island ended up in Australia. The remaining were settled in other countries.--- The Pacific Solution goal was reducing the number of irregular entrants arriving in the Australian waters by boat. Arrivals dropped from a total of 5516 people in 2001 to only 1 arrival in all of 2002 after implementation of the policy. This may be partly due to the removal of the Taliban from power, however the War in Afghanistan itself was a likely push factor. The low level of boat arrivals continued all the way through the Pacific Solution period."

QED.

The following link may be of interest to
those wanting facts rather than misinformation:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

The historian can establish that an act took
place on a certain day, but this, by historical
standards, constitues only chronology. The moment
the historian begins to look critically at -
motivation, circumstances, context or any other such
considerations, the product becomes unacceptable
for one or another camp of readers.

So it is with the Pacific Solution hence the link
I gave - to make people look at global events -
at the time and what was actually happening and why.
Still some people prefer not to do that and to simply
keep repeating the party line.

One can only try.

Lexi,

You keep on dragging out this tired old chestnut. It doesn't even talk about the numbers of boat arrivals, and is marginally more relevant than the weather report.

According to the graph, the world wide asylum seekers decreased from 2008 to 2010. Yet the numbers of boat arrivals in Australia increased 50x.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There you have it in a nutshell.

I'll drag mine, and you'll drag yours -
and nothing will change. Boat people will
continue to come, they will continue to
drown, and die at sea. Because no matter
what is said and done - and neither side
willing to concede - the biggest pull
factor will remain - Australia. A wealthy
stable country with a high standard of
living. Desperate people are willing to risk
everything for that - and they will continue
to do so no matter what happens. You'd think
that the ocean itself would be a deterrant -
but obviously its not.

The thing about the pacific solution is you only hear about the small amount of boat arrivals. That doesn't count those that died on the way and it doesn't count the boats that were turned back. If anyone has data on the amount of people dumped back in Indonesia by the Howard government they're not sharing it.

Scribbler, I couldn't agree with you more. The approach has to be much more comprehensive than anything being offered at the moment, as well as humane. Of the goods on offer by the two major parties, however, the Malaysian solution was probably going to be the most effective at creating a deterrent. But as you say, it was limited at 800 people.

What I don't like is Abbott playing political games with people's lives. He knows Nauru won't be a deterrent any longer. The architects of the program have said as much. In fact wasn't it Metcalfe that proposed the Idea behind the Malaysia solution? Despite Abbott having been advised of this, he still sticks with it because it suits his political ploy for the keys to the Lodge. It is nothing short of reprehensible. Or as Bernard Keane wrote today: "evil".

Evil is having a solution to stopping the deaths and doing nothing. By David's logic, Labor is evil.

P.S. Only 5 boats were turned around.

There are as many boats arriving every 2 months as there were during the entire 6 years of the pacific solution.

In 2007 there were only 4 boat people in detention. QED the pacific solution worked. Even Labor belatedly admits that off shore processing is required after 10 years of bagging it.

As one writer stated a few days ago:

"If asylum seekers are willing to risk their
lives in the dangerous waters of the Indian
Ocean to seek a better life on our shores it's
unlikely that the threat of detention or
repatriation will have much of a deterrent effect."

The writer added:

"For the hard liners in the Coalition admitting
that asylum seekers can't be deterred is tantamount
to conceding the entire argument - after all the
consistent line of Tony Abbott, Scott Morrision and
their colleagues has been that John Howard solved
this problem and that Labor re-created it by going
"soft" on border protection... For the Labor party
such an admission would also create difficulties -
because it would mean the Opposition is correct
in its accusation that Labor has gone "soft" on
border protection."

The end result ends up with more recriminations,
more name calling, more blame game.

We can only hope that the Independents, and people of
conscience on both sides of politics will succeed in
forcing the hand of both parties to find a compromise
that will be acceptable to all.