This debacle is just another version of Howard’s Pacific Solution. It’s sloppy, immature, inhumane and plain ridiculous. We’re going to look really good, when we start herding off pregnant women, kids and others at the point of a gun. Wilson Tuckey’s solution, to bring in the army just showed what a maniac he is. have our military, with guns drawn on Indonesian soil. Sounds like an invasion to me, a militant and bullish act, that could invite a similar response. Now wouldn’t that be something to be proud of! War with our neighbours, who we carry on are our friends. My god, if this is how we treat our friends, god help us! We’d lose as indeed we should!

These people have sold their homes, or families have probably pitched in so they can get out of the way of the bloodshed. Also, if it’s not a crime for the asylum seekers to seek refuge, why are those who bought the boat to bring them here charged with crimes, that carry a mandatory 20 yr jail sentence. It’s our justice system being abused by politicians. Those who saved the Jews were heroes, those who help those tortured souls via our acts of violence are called ‘scum’? Confused!!!

After the Vietnam War, there were over a million people seeking refuge. Malcolm Fraser and Fred Chaney fought the racists in their own ranks, proceeded in a humanitarian manner, and the rest as they say, is history. Why not allow people who are found to be correct in fearing for their lives, to settle here and make up part of the 150,000+ immigrants each yr. This seems to be a commonsense solution. We still exercise control over “our borders”, and incidently, what about those arriving by plane? What precautions, checks, personnel etc are there to protect us from the 50,000 or so who are probably illegally residing here as I write? Of course, most of them are white and speak English as their first language, so they can’t be a threat can they? Truly, I despair! If we want to be recognised as a ‘grown up country’ we should start acting like it. Kevin Rudd wants us to have a permanent seat at the UN, Why? When we can’t abide by the obligations we’ve said we’re supportive of - human rights, the Migration Act etc?

Kevin Rudd was in an ideal position to act as a leader in the first instance, instead of carrying on like an immature child, fearful of the big bad media backlash. The racists and the Howard descendents will bang on anyway. Nip their nonsense in the bud, by telling the Australian people the facts - give an Address to the Nation. That’s leadership, not this childish BS going on now. I think we have a damn cheek, to expect a poorer country than us take on our responsibilities. There are over 250 million people in Indonesia, as opposed to our 22 million. Countries in Europe have 100% and more people turning up on their doorstep, due largely, to our horrific acts of violence and killing in Afghanistan. Talk about damned cheek! We’re (with the coalition of the killing) who’ve helped render a couple of these countries to almost total destruction, and we won’t take responsiblity for it. Great messages of adult responsibility to our young people.

My prediction: the Oceanic Viking will be left where it is for long enough that it’s clear that the refugees aren’t going to go ashore peacefully, and more importantly, Kevin’s credentials as harsh (but humane) are enforced, at which point we’ll declare that this is an exception, a special case, and let them into Australia.

A question: I see a lot of people saying that we should discourage people from taking to boats, for their own good. Is that really true? Is it better to live and die in a refugee camp than to take a chance at sea?

If the boat of 78 win their concessions the smugglers will have a new business model. Insist on every possible concession or threaten something really awful. Maybe even children overboard. Will every future boat load use the same tactics? Maybe that doesn’t really matter as the numbers are very very small, unless the Australian electorate decides we have lost our border protection. A party desperate for an election win will have a gift if they offer a harsh “we will decide who…etc” policy. Then all refugees that follow will pay the price for the intransigence of the boat of 78.

If I were on the Oceanic Viking and fleeing from death or torture for my family and was told to go ashore and stay in the detention centre that is only marginally better than that from which I sped and get assessed for resettlement in Australia I would say “yes please can I be first on the queue”.

The boat of 78 risks alienating people who would normally be their supporters.

Such an amoral appointment that must have signaled to the ALP tribe that surely everything is opportunism and spin now, so why co-operate on diverse other issues the leader wants help with. The ALP ‘team’ is now infected with the same spiritual sickness that fatigues the Coalition. The Iraq war should see the demise of the Liberal National coalition and at this rate it will pull down Rudd’s leadership.

Oh that’s right. It was Simon Crean who opposed the Iraq war. Not Kevin Rudd. Back then as shadow foreign minister he was agnostic.

(Obama on the other hand was against it from the start. )

And then there is Rudd’s cynicism on the environment. Really he’s looking pretty threadbare on the moral goodwill front - so essential to generating consensus on diverse fractious matters - when he has to wheel his wife’s record on disabilities out on national tv.

If the objective of the asylum seekers is to escape persecution in their own country, then this would achieve their stated objective and they could have no objection to this solution. Since there would be no benefit to be gained by undertaking a long and perilous sea voyage, would this address the safety issue raised above by Bernard, and would it cut out the market for people smuggling?