Winning the debate on asylum seekers

The polls probably correctly reflect the overall level of popular support for what the government is doing. That level of popular support in turn probably reflects the popular perception of refugees as a threat, either from the general feeling that any refugees are invading one's space or for the more specific perception of refugees as threatening a person's economic well being in a country where the screws seem to be tightening for the average person and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.

Our government's approach has historical precedents. The use of symbolism like stop the boats billboards and posters, the dehumanisation of asylum seekers by reducing them to numbers, the deployment of the navy, the polarisation of groups, the stripping away of culture and identity and the severance of all human connection is a poisonous brew that can only end badly. What it ultimately invites is a silent permission for inhumane acts.

Unfortunately the legal system can't effectively deal with this issue.

Legal experts have continued to highlight that Australia has no constitutionally enshrined Bill of Rights; that many important international treaties have been signed but not been implemented in Australian law through legislation; that Australian Courts can only enforce obligations under domestic law not international law; that it is difficult to get a ruling that the government has breached the Refugee Convention as there is no treaty body and one state would have to pursue a case against another in the International Court of Justice; and, as Professor Gillian Triggs points out, the common law can always be overridden by contrary and unambiguous legislation passed by Parliament and the courts are powerless if Parliament passes legislation that breaches fundamental freedoms.

So this is not a problem that the legal system can properly address. The only way it can be addressed is by changing the level of popular support for the fundamentally inhumane policies currently supported by 70% of the Australian population.

Changing the current popular consensus won't occur by confrontation. Part of the process of reducing this misplaced support non-confrontationally is understanding why people hold their views or beliefs, acknowledging that people have a right to hold different views on different subjects and then endeavouring to change those views.

Sometimes that can be done logically but in this sort of situation it almost certainly can't be done by logical argument alone. What I think is required is firstly, putting up simple objective facts about the situation; secondly, putting up logical counter-arguments as an alternative viewpoint rather than the correct or only way of properly seeing things, and thirdly, by focusing on arguments or approaches that create internal conflict or doubt in persons who hold those views. For example by focusing on the sense of justice and morality that most people claim to have.

Winning the argument and changing the current trajectory has to be done carefully and unfortunately will be a long term process. There is no instant fix. And regrettably it's not something that our legal system can fix.

Public protests and meetings certainly are helpful in showing governments and other citizens concern our concern about inhumane policies and their dire personal consequences for the people affected by them. But as I've said, I think we all need to work towards gently persuading that majority of Australians who support these policies that their fears are unfounded, that they have been manipulated by "dog whistle politics" and that their innate sense of humanity and fairness is a far better guide to how people – these real, individual people and their families – should be treated than the draconian policies of our current government.