Another 'Net-friend wrote: .

If we want to offer an alternative to the razor wire I think we need to do exactly that. Words, or even street theatre, are going to be a lot of fun and may impress our friends but I believe that the effect may be counterproductive on the rest of the population. It's called polarisation, and it's very evident in the refugee debate.

For example, we could open a detention centre. Shock! Horror! A church-run detention centre?

Yes. And fund it for three years say. Make the deadline upfront. We are funding it for three years, a gift to the government for this pilot period.

No razor wire. That is obscene and unnecessary. But secure. Do what is necessary, however reluctantly, to make it secure.

Probably a very small effort. One family? Two? It's going to be expensive. Jesus gave us some parables about scale. Isolation? Arrange for people to come in, both church people and others. Security with so many visitors.....!!!! I didn't say it would be cheap or easy. Just possible.

As dignified as possible within the limitations of budget and security.

Aims? To show that the razor wire isn't necessary. To help those we can help, however few they may be.

Outcomes?

More dignity for those involved. It has been said privately to me, and I believe it, that conditions at Villawood Detention Centre are worse than at Silverwater Gaol. So there is much room for improvement!

Ask for government funding to continue past the end of the pilot period. Say right from the outset that we will continue the program at a charge to the government equal to what it would cost to keep the same people behind the razor wire. That's a commitment.

Hopefully that would more than cover our costs, perhaps spectacularly so. If so, the extra funds can be used to expand the program. If not we have learned something very painful. I would say still keep it open and try to fund it, just as a way to help the people. That's a commitment as I said. But obviously that would not have the political clout of what I hope for, to show that humane treatment can actually save money.

If this funding doesn't eventuate at all we also have a very difficult decision! I would say close it, there are probably better ways to spend our money. Not easy. Not a desired outcome.

On the other hand, if it works very well, there might even be the prospect of funding to expand the program during the pilot period. That would be very exciting, and worthwhile. And very dangerous! The expansion phase is what bankrupts many small businesses. There are similar dangers here.

I'm not even saying this is not happening already! I have no idea. I know of several UCA people already offering practical, loving help, of which this is a logical extension. But in the media all I see is a wall of unproductive hype from both sides.

And while we talk, people suffer. That was my point in the first place.

There are of course problems of privacy and security in identifying people and programs that are actually happening. But I think we can do better. So far as the current media coverage is concerned, it would be very hard to do worse.

And the irony is, I still think that most of the media are trying to be on our side!

Food for thought?