Dear ConservativeHippie,

A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting opinions
is fundamental to democracy. Governing parties must
resist the temptation to equate their own policies
with the national good, or they will tend to regard
opposition as disloyal or even treasonable. A democracy
requires its citizens to make informed choices. If
citizens or their representatives are denied access
to the information they need to make these choices,
or if they are given false or misleading information,
the democratic process becomes a sham.

It is therefore important that the media not be censored
that citizens have the right of free speech, and that
public officials tell the truth. Therefore when
some leaders conceal information from the public, or
lie, their actions are contrary to democratic values
and damage the public's faith in political institutions.
Also this prevents people from using their rights in a
meaningful way.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

I neglected to add that criticising a certain
government policy does not equate to being
"unaccepting of the decisions our government
has made."

BTW - If you want to be taken seriously and receive
a response to your future questions. Drop the
insults. I tried to answer your question in good faith.

You came back with:

1)" A typical and predictable response Foxy."

2) "...sitting on the fence pretending to be
the defender of the down-trodden..."

And so on.

From all that I must assume that you really were
not at all interested in what I had to say. All
you wanted was an excuse to vent your spleen.

Well, I hope you feel better as a result.
I however, now know who I'm dealing with and what to
do in future.

Foxy,

You and I will clearly never agree on whether the ends justify the means in stopping deaths at sea, but my comments on your links were based on whether the boats to the EU COULD be stopped and not whether they should. There is a clear link between the number of people migrating via illegal boats and those drowning (about 4%)

Even your link to the Telegraph's article clearly shows that the turn back policy works.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/stand-firm-on-boats-says-tony-abbott/story-fn9hm1gu-1227358293135

For the benefit of those who don't have access:

"The Prime Minister declared yesterday that stopping the boats was the key to beating people-smugglers, as it emerged the EU was in talks with Tunisia and other African countries to establish an offshore processing operation that took inspiration from Australia’s regime....

The EU talks began when Dimitris Avramopoulos, the member of the European Commission in charge of migration, travelled to Tunisia last week. Other countries that might take part include Morocco, Niger and Nigeria.

The plan was backed by Britain, Italy and Austria with support from Germany and France.

The idea of setting up the camps was raised last month at an EU summit called after more than 700 migrants were killed in a ­single week in the Mediterranean."

Foxy

I simply asked you and Suse to share your opinion, to provide a number but neither of you could commit. This is the reason I said your answer was typical, because it was exactly what I expected, its consistent with most of your previous responses to questions.

Rather than stating your opinion (which is what the rest of us are doing) on what would be an acceptable number of boat people to allow in Australia over the next 5 years, you prefer to rely on the decision and policy makers to come up with a number. But the policy makers have done that and you don't accept the current position. So its a stalemate. You don't like what is happening and you cannot provide a suggestion for a realistic workable alternative that would be acceptable to the general population of Australia.

Criticising is one thing but if you cannot provide an example of a workable alternative plan, with enough detail so we have an understanding of what you believe is better, your criticism is no more than the 'venting your spleens' you accused me of. I'm trying to get you to engage in a nuts and bolts discussion but its proving to be an impossible task.

This world wide refugee problem is scary. I didn't expect the population would reach such a critical point in my lifetime, but now I'm worried. As more and more take to seas in hope of a better life on the other side, this could escalate into the biggest humanitarian crisis we have ever witnessed. The answers to these people's problems need to be addressed in their own country, or they will take their problems with them to their place of refuge.

There's no point in continuing to try to make you see sense. As I've said before, you can't awaken someone who is pretending to sleep.

Poirot quoted a European spokeswoman;
She said "the European Union applies the principle of
non-refoulement," or no forced return under international law.

There is a misunderstanding in that statement.
It is the proper thing to do to return a distressed boat to its port of
departure if practical.
Almost all on here confuse boats with passengers.
The port of departure is a valid place to return a ship.
Its passengers are incidental.

It should also be remembered that Islamic countries are not signatories
to the UN Human Rights Treaty. They are I suspect signatories to the
law of the sea.

Bazz, "It is the proper thing to do to return a distressed boat to its port of departure if practical"

I once went into the relevant IMO and naval agreements and guidelines, but the advocates and apologists here were not interested.

The US navy and Coastguard have very straightforward policy and operational procedures that can easily be found and is well representative, a model, of the international consensus.