In aus.religion.christian Joan <> wrote: > "Richard Kerr" <> wrote in message

> .

[snip]

>> > Give the boat people a fair go. Process them quickly and let the lucky

>> > ones restart their lives here.

>>

>> Exactly. While everybody rabits on about the relative rights of us vs

>> them, the "flood" of "illegal immigrants" or our responsibilities under

>> law, we are in fact missing a very important point.

>>

>> It is important for us to be kind.

>

> Yes it is, to all, not just to those who can afford an illegal passage.

Have > you considered how unfair and unkind this is to those who have to wait? or

> is "showing" how kind Australia is to the world more important.

I do not believe for a minute that consideration or care for legal applicants is the motivation behind the popular support for refusing the tanker permission to land.

However, you still ask a good question, which deserves an answer.

My answer is: no; it would not be unfair on people making legal applications for us to allow these people to land and be processed. It is not as if we are proposing to give them immediate residency.

But it would be unfair, unkind, and uncompassionate for Australia to reduce or limit normal processing of legal applications based on handling of these the boat people.

Recall Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard -- all were paid the same wage, whether they worked all day, or just for a few hours towards the end of the day. Was this unfair on those who did the full day's work? Jesus suggests not: those who worked all day were paid in full the fair and agreed wage.

Similarly, we should establish fair and reasonable procedures and quotas for legal applications, and stick to them: regardless of what is happening to others. That is fair.

The Tampa is a special case, and we should consider what is fair and right in that case as well; and if we want to be the best people we can be we should also consider what is compassionate.

The downside for allowing the Tampa to land and discharge the people she rescued is that we incur expenses in looking after them, and that we potentially encourage more people to try and make the illegal journey to Australia.

I grant these downsides, but I am surprised (actually, I am not really surprised) that they carry much weight in this newsgroup. Since this is a supposedly a newsgroup for discussing Christianity, I think it appropriate to ask what Jesus would have done. This does not give a final answer to the questions for me (since I am not a Christian) but I find it interesting that no-one else has asked this question.

I suspect the reason is that Jesus' answer -- as is often the case in many issues -- would be unpopular.

There is only one credible answer to the question of what Jesus would do. He would have taken in the boat people, cared for them, and worried about the costs and consequences later, if at all.

Frankly, Jesus' teaching is fine for a single man or woman; but I have noted previously that it is not always completely appropriate for someone with a family. Same goes for a government; Jesus' individual example is not always a good guide for a national policy. Christians may disagree; but if so I would expect them to oppose the hardline policy supported by secular Australia right now.

I will proceed to consider some aspects of this one specific case, of the 434 asylum-seekers aboard the Tampa.

First of all, it should be noted that the master of the Tampa picked up the asylum seekers at the request of Australian search and rescue authorities. He diverted, guided by Australian aircraft, and rescued a large number of people from an unseaworthy vessel. Regardless of who they were, or why they were traveling, or how foolhardy their trip; surely everyone at least agrees that a rescue was appropriate.

Next, the Tampa started to sail for Indonesia. This was the right thing to do. The sinking ferry was from Indonesia, and they were in the Indonesian sea rescue zone (though the actual rescue was requested and co-ordinated by Australia). However there were several problems. Indonesia did not want them; and threatened to fire on the ship if it approached. The asylum seekers did not want to go back, and asked to go to Christmas Island instead. And also Christmas Island was the nearest port.

Someone here spoke of "piracy", as if the captain was forced to go to Christmas Island, and Ruddock has spoken of "duress".

No doubt the asylum seekers argued aggressively against a return to Indonesia, and apparently some threatened to jump overboard. But shouting and tantrums are not piracy, and neither are they truly duress. The captain remained in control, and he made the decision.

Faced with a difficult choice, he headed for Christmas Island: and it was four hours away rather than ten to Indonesia. Neither nation was going to make him welcome.

I consider that Indonesia is the worst villain in this drama; they had a clear obligation to allow the Tampa to dock. The rescue was in their zone of responsibility; the people had obviously come from Indonesia; and Indonesia was the nearest suitable port for a large freighter.

However, Indonesia's dereliction does not absolve Australia of all moral responsibility.

Australia requested the Tampa to make the rescue, and I believe that gives us some moral responsibility to support the captain in subsequent events. Australia (Christmas Island) was also the nearest port of call, and 438 extra people on a container freighter is (IMO) grounds for immediate response to the people involved.

Indonesia should certainly have been the ones to accept the rescued people. Their refusal to do so put the captain in a very difficult position. I wish we could have been more helpful; and I do not think the expenses, costs or consequences are so terrible that they would outweigh in the balance the concern we could have shown.

I am sure people will disagree over this: and in fact it seems I am expressing a minority view. No offense or personal criticism is intended at my colleagues who do have different views.

I do have one suggestion, however. If we are going to discuss this issue in this group; can we try and relate it to the newsgroup topic, of Christianity?

Cheers -- Chris