In aus.religion.christian A ‘Net friend wrote:

> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:

>

>> In aus.religion A ‘Net friend wrote:

>> [snip]

>> > The point of my post seems to have entirely escaped you. This was

>> > not a serious suggestion at all. (I thought it was kinda obvious)

>> > For starters the number of ppl voting YES would be minuscule. (for

>> > obvious reasons).

>>

>> It was indeed obvious that your proposal could not seriously

>> be implemented, but I was nevertheless attempting to take your

>> hypothetical seriously and use it (as I thought was intended)

>> to bring out some of the issues.

>>

>> > You are happily ranting and raving about your perceived lack of

>> > compassion on Australia’s part, and of the Australian public, and

>> > what should and should not be and have been done. I am trying to

>> > personalize that, and suggest that if you, and others like you,

>> > were personally responsible for these ppl, would your attitude

>> > still be the same? I think not. When it is non personalized,

>> > and you can happily talk in abstracts like ‘Australia’,

>> > ‘Australian government’, ‘taxpayers’, etc., it’s very easy to

>> > be philosophical, idealistic, and take the moral high ground. But

>> > when the practical realities are considered, we need to find real

>> > and practical solutions. Australia simply cannot afford to keep

>> > taking these ppl. That’s the bottom line. Are you happy for our

>> > (limited) resources to be constantly channelled in this direction,

>> > and diverted from elsewhere, and with it’s ever increasing burden

>> > on the aussie taxpayer? I’m not. Running a country is little

>> > different from running a business or a household. Money comes in,

>> > money goes out. More cannot go out than comes in, without serious

>> > consequences.. and serious decisions need to be made about how

>> > the money is spent. Simple economics.

>>

>> I disagree, with respect.

>>

>> First, as indicated in my response to you hypothetical, my attitude

>> would not be different (I hope and trust) if I was saddled with

>> personal responsibility (appropriately scaled) for care of illegal

>> arrivals on our shores;

>

> Ah yes.. ‘Appropriately scaled’ being the keywords here. In other words

> you would not be prepared to throw your family onto the street so these

> ppl could have a roof over their heads. And you would not be prepared to

> bankrupt yourself either, would you? Of course you wouldn’t. In other

> words you would support them as best you could afford, BUT YOU WOULD DRAW

> A LINE with regard to that support. Well guess what, that is exactly what

> the prime minister is doing/attempting to do with the Tampa issue.

Yes.

I would draw a line a bankrupting myself or throwing my family on the the street. Similarly, I would expect the prime minister to draw the line before bankrupting the country or causing Australian people to become homeless.

We all have a part in discussing this issue, and contributing to debate on where a line should be drawn. With respect to illegal arrivals in general, I would like for us to support them as best we can afford. Actually, somewhat less than that. As a wealthy nation we can, pragmatically, afford a lot more than what we currently spend, but I would not want us to go overboard on this matter. What is overboard is, of course, a matter of opinion.

I would like us to do what we can to reduce the number of illegal arrivals; though not to the point of refusing normal aid to ships in distress, or to those who have made a rescue at sea.

In deciding where and how to draw a line, I would like Australia to continue to support the various conventions and treaties to which we are currently signatories, and I would like us generally to have a greater appreciation for the circumstances of refugees, including those who attempt an unauthorized entry to Australia. I would like us to recognize and take into account the extent of the refugee problem world wide, the relative good fortune we enjoy as a nation, and the existence of genuine needs on the part of refugees, including those driven to attempt the illegal and dangerous crossing from Indonesia to Australia.

With respect to the Tampa, I think the prime minister drew a line at the wrong place and at the the wrong time and in the wrong circumstances. I am in favour of options to reduce the extent of people smuggling, but not to the point of refusing to aid vessels in distress, nor refusing normally accepted support to vessels which have made a rescue at sea.

I think the best place to draw a line, pragmatically speaking, is in Indonesia itself. One good thing that has come from this whole affair is recognition of this obvious truth.

I frankly do not think our actions with respect to the Tampa are likely to make much difference at all to the extent of people smuggling.

>> and I think I am far from alone in this.

>

> Yes, you are not alone. Your view is shared by about 5% of the Australian

> public.

Quite so. (Actually, I doubt it is quite that low; but it could be so.)

Nevertheless, I am part of that public, and I think that with respect to the Tampa, opinion is not always well informed. We have seen this several times in the thread.

Best wishes — Chris