LF,

While I agree that Nauru needs to be dealt with, I don't agree with the left whinge spin that the asylum seekers are subject to abuse, or the racist allegations that the Nauruans are all violent rapists.

However, I still have severe reservations about the "Malaysian solution" as the Malaysians as well as not being a signatory to the UN convention are well known for being xenophobic often to the point of violence, such that I believe that they are still far safer in Nauru.

The other issue is what to do with roughly 10 000 of the 50 000 asylum seekers now in Aus that are clearly economic migrants?

Nauru became a signatory to the convention to do the deal with Oz and get it through our High Court. That doesn't mean life is any better for refugees there than it could be in Malaysia.

At least the religion of the great majority of refugees is shared with in Malaysians, and any assurances by the Malaysian gov't should be considered sincere.

Labour seriously thought it would get the MS through the HC and I'm presuming that.

Those processed as economic migrants, onshore or offshore, should be sent home, including those arriving by air.

Regarding the behaviour of Nauruans towards refugees, why are you sure what you know, SM, and why then would you say Nauru needs to be "dealt with" if the situation is as satisfactory as you believe?

Instead of secrecy, a selection of free representatives, who agree with the general principle of offshore processing and resettlement, should be placed at the centres and report openly to parliament regularly with ear to the ground information.

where I said above, "......and any assurances by the Malaysian gov't should be considered sincere", I meant assurances of intent. If it turned into a Nauruan type mess it would also have to cease.

Luciferase: At least the religion of the great majority of refugees is shared with in Malaysians,

You should have added, in Malacca, that's the only place in Malaysia that have a large population of Christians (Catholic). The National Religion of Nauru is Catholic. There are some SDA's.

I don't see why the Nauru Government would want, or allow, such a poisonous Religion to take hold on their peaceful Island.

"I don't see why the Nauru Government would want, or allow, such a poisonous Religion to take hold on their peaceful Island."

Well, it did. However, its people and police haven't responded accordingly, if at all religion is the root of their issue with refugees.

PS, Nauru has no "national" religion. Its constitution provides for freedom of religion.

Luciferase: PS, Nauru has no "national" religion. Its constitution provides for freedom of religion.

But, they are mostly Catholic, not moslems as you claimed.

Luciferase: <At least the religion of the great majority of refugees is shared with in Malaysians>

True but the Malay's don't want the Fanatics, which is what they are.

JB: Why would Australia foister Islamic people onto a Christian Community against their will.

Meaning the Nauruan's, who are Catholic. Not the Islamic Detainees.

Luciferase: I propose the Malaysian Solution be tried

Why would Malaysia take on potential trouble makers? They have enough troubles with the fanatics they have.

No hand the Camps over to the UNCHR & wipe our hands of the situation. After all it's their job. Isn't it?

Luciferase, Why do think the UNCHR won't have anything to do with the Nauru & Mannis Island Detention Camps? Can you answer that? What do you think there reason would be?