Michael Duffy in the SMH on moral Confusion:
"The Chen affair has largely been framed as a balancing act between human rights and Australia's trade interests. But it's also a balancing act between the treatment of different social and ethnic types of refugee. The basic rule has been that poor Muslims come to Australia by boat and we lock them up (even though most are later proved to be genuine refugees) while wealthy Christians arrive by air and are allowed to live in the community while their claims are considered (even though most are later sent home).
The sight of Chen being treated with such concern by leading members of the Government is going to confuse a lot of ordinary people. There haven't been all that many Chinese refugees in the past decade, and the potential for category confusion is considerable. Some people might start wondering why we aren't locking up more illegals rather than fewer.
Possibly Howard's relative silence on the issue this week reflects an awareness of this that is not shared by some of his younger colleagues.
The new compassion in the Coalition for all refugees, not just Chen, raises some interesting questions.
Does it mean the toughness of the past was assumed? If so, what does it say about the moral seriousness of the Coalition - is the new compassion as false as the old severity?"
.
.
.
.
