There are legitimate reasons to deprive a person of liberty. These include to bind a person to be brought before the court, to punish a person found GBARD of a crime, to effect treatment of a mentally ill person incapable of judging their need for that treatment, to prevent a breach of the peace, to control safety in an emergency, and to assess the legality of a person’s freedom of movement.

Depriving people of liberty for the purpose of sending a message to others not to follow in their footsteps even though they have a legal right to do so, is not a legitimate reason to confine someone. Yet that was the openly stated purpose of Howard’s strategy, and Rudd has only watered some of it down and arranged (with more than $50 million of taxpayers’ money) for the rest to take place somewhere that’s out of his control.

Setting aside the question of the asylum seekers, doesn’t the means and the ends make you afraid? How long before you receive a call from one of the people you care about, saying “I am safe but I can’t tell you where I am”?

There are morally defensible ways to slow down the smuggling trade. For example, to spend that $50 million towards assisting the UNHCR which Amnesty International reports today is not doing very well (see theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26252688-25837,00.html ).

I agree with what James said: “Is the requirement for deterrence worth the price of compromising human liberties in order to achieve it?”

And there are also a lot of questions about whether deterrence is effective anyway.

That doesn’t change my belief that Australian government refugee policy should be aimed at those most in need and that a system which prioritises boat arrivals over those unwilling or unable to go down that path is unfair and that unfairness can best be minimised by firmly discouraging boat arrivals.

As I stated earlier energies should be re-directed to increasing the volume of the refugee program and to giving greater support to such migrants when they arrive. To be focusing on creating a media frenzy each boat that arrives is counter-productive and only plays into the hands of those who are against the refugee program altogether.

Oh, and the remarks about Leninism, and all that followed, were good for a laugh. You will be pleased to know I have cancelled my plans to exterminate the kulaks as a result of your expose.

Who’s holier-than-thou? Like many, you disguise an attitude of detesting a class of people behind a compassion to others which rings false in my ear.

Your logic also brings to mind a Leninist sort of condemnation of someone for having been able to scrape together some cash. You do not know how long a person spent saving that money for a rainy day or how hard they had to work for it. Without looking these folks in the face as Michael Christopher has, how do you dare judge a person based on no knowledge, no crime being committed, and then to hide behind a false moral piety for those left behind?

And since you parenthise humanity when you say “discouraging boat arrivals (in as humane a way as possible)” I’m going to ask again (and again and again): Is the requirement for deterrence worth the price of compromising human liberties in order to achieve it?

To MPM I say this: white people from anywhere who claim to be refugees are instantly granted asylum, these days. Asians from anywhere, if they have enough cash, are also amongst the lucky.

Liz (12:35am this morning) was a bit bemused by my description of the Right being a long way from the recent history of Liberal government. Do you think the classical liberal principles are appreciated very much in the Party? Malcolm Fraser has often said they no longer are, but does he know what he’s talking about?

Just to clarify, I do not work for the special person who appears with me in my facebook photo, but I strongly support him.

I fully agree with your comments. Very well said.

“One minute they are child abusers, next minute they are deserving but those back in the refugee camp are more deserving, next minute they are terrorists….”

Do we know each other from a certain real estate context in Potts Pt, Sydney? Please feel free to add me on facebook either way.

And then, even let’s grant that you’ve got your reasons for hating them … is that hatred worth so much to you that you would rather we give up the civil liberties that this society is founded on, rather than simply accept that we don’t live in a perfect world and that we’ve got bigger fish to fry?

Yes just what I thought:

(Edit)

What, after all, is the point in spending so much time and trying so many different angles of argument, all having nothing logically in common, except a common theme of hating some people who arrive in a certain manner, and who will never affect his life, either directly, or even statistically by population pressure or drain on resources?

One minute they are child abusers, next minute they are deserving but those back in the refugee camp are more deserving, next minute they are terrorists. One minute they endanger their children by bringing them, next minute they are shamefully abandoning their children going on ahead by the most dangerous means and trying to arrange something safer for the kids afterwards. One minute they are a drain on our welfare, next minute they are so rich as to not need our compassion.

(Edit)

So James, by trying to shriek “Children Overboard !!!” all over again, you are, in practical terms, talking only to yourself.

Unless you get your information from the progressive liberal MSM you should know that children were indeed thrown overboard from SIEV vessels approached by navy vessels and indeed on more than one occasion.

Not during the “Children Overboard Affair” but that report was a communication misunderstansing between navy personnel and as a direct result of known past instances of children thrown overboard by asylum seekers.

This was brought out during the Senate Inquiry but not generally reported by the media loyal to Labor and loathing of Howard which is 95% of them and still is. The fallacy continues on and on and on