"Dearest, sweet, gentle, loving Foxy", Joe... there is no need to be condescending of Foxy like that, you can stick it up me as much as you like, but Foxy does not deserve that nonsense, save the nonsense for me.

ALSO, You are concentrating on one aspect of the problem, and like others you come down hard on the crime and punishment aspect, I have no love for this bloke Prakash, no doubt he requires the maximum security, I'm not an eye for an eye person, so I don't favor breaking his arms and legs, athough he is guilty of worse crimes. On the other hand i'm not going to throw him a birthday party either.
Is that acceptable?

Hi Paul,

I suppose we all make the same mistake about that injunction: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" but when it was proposed four-odd thousand years ago, it was a massive advance on the ancient tribal and idiotically endless systems of vendettas - aitua. The principle was really quite sensible from a modern point of view - literally, an eye from the guilty in response for an eye from a victim, AND NO MORE THAN THAT. End of. Shake hands and make up. No more endless vendetta. Of course, it expanded the role (and the reach) of the Babylonian State vis-à-vis the family or the tribe.

But you don't have to go to any extremes :)

So are you suggesting that any sort of firm punishment for Prakash would be excessive ? No ? Then what ? Solitary confinement ? Yes/no ? No right to communicate with anyone ? Yes/no ? Perhaps a need for a very remote prison to isolate people like him ? Yes/no ?

Or should be be treated as just an ordinary prisoner with all those rights to communicate, since, after all, he may not have committed any serious crimes actually in Australia ? Perhaps a six-month suspended sentence, and a caution ?

See, you're not the only one who can take an argument to its silly extremes :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

As I stated earlier, people who break our laws should
be punished. They should have the full force of the
law brought down upon them. What that will be exactly
will be up to the courts to decide - depending on their
crime. I am not a lawyer or a judge and I am in no
position to make that sort of a decision.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I do try to quote from a variety of sources as my record
on this forum shows. However I am not impressed with
the type of media that wages a constant campaign to
smear and discredit every progressive and humanitarian
measure being proposed. I find it difficult when the
reporting consists of partisans offering nonsensical
arguments simply for political scoring.

In any case you have made your position quite clear.
I'll leave it at that.

Dear Paul,

Criminals and terrorists should be dealt with according
to our laws. We've both made that quite clear both now
and in the past. It would also help, in my opinion, if
Australian policy-makers were concerned to ensure that
ethnic enclaves were not created, as has happened in
countries such as Germany and Britain. We are fortunate
in this country that migrants take less time to feel
at home in Australia than those who migrate to
European countries. But we still have challenges, with
research showing some second generations of migrants
still feeling disconnected and not identifying themselves
as Australian.

Mainstream Australian culture can sometimes impose labels
on certain communities and this can encourage people into
identifying themselves other than Australian and take on
past ethnic conflicts.

What we want is the creation of an Australia that's inclusive
enough so that people don't feel they have to hold on to
those enmities from the past, because they feel that there
is a different way here. And that does not mean that we
excuse criminals, terrorists, or any kind of thugs.

Dear Foxy,

This topic has little to do with multiculturalism and immigration, it's more concerned with the dilemma of what to do with terrorists returning to Australia, given that the justice and penal systems may not be able to treat them as run-of-the-mill prisoners.

In other words, the government may have to move into new territory: clearly these murderers and rapists can't be allowed to mix with 'ordinary' criminals (or don't you agree ?). They may have to be isolated from any contact with other prisoners, and indeed with anybody (or can you think of an alternative?). They may have to be kept in confinement for life.

The bottom line is that they can't be allowed to influence anybody else towards their extreme-right-wing ideology. Or have I got that wrong too ?

Extreme confinement for life may breach some international covenants on the rights of prisoners. Gosh, what a shame. Alternatively though, they could be shot while trying to escape across the desert. That sounds fair enough. Sort of Babylonian, don't you think ?

Love,

Joe

Terrorists are not criminals - they are enemy combatants.

Enemy combatants when caught should never be despised, placed on trial, convicted or otherwise be treated as criminals. Rather, they should be locked up in P.O.W. camps for as long as they are deemed dangerous.

While in a P.O.W camp, they should be given the bare minimum conditions unless they are willing to work and pay for better comforts.

When is it safe to release them and what to do with them afterwards, is an operational issue which is better left for the military/security experts. Once it is no longer believed that they can do any further harm, they should be sent back to their countries of origin or any other country that is willing to accept them. If none are, but there are countries which identify with their terrorist cause, then they should parachuted over such a country.

Dear Joe,

I realise what this topic is about and as even you
concede we have to make sure that these people
do not influence others. That was what I was
trying to address. I am responsible for what I say,
not for how you interpret it.