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.