When Susan Harris Rimmer (''Borders erected around unlimited right to detain'', July 30, p13) says that the asylum-seeker reforms offer a major improvement for those on the mainland, but that they do not address the discriminatory treatment and processing that exist simply ''by reason of a person's mode of arrival'', she engages in ''furphying''.

Obviously a person's ''mode of arrival'' is of no consequence: it is really a person's documentation to prove his/her antecedents which is almost always lacking; documentation that would establish that a person is a genuine asylum-seeker.

Generally, persons in real need of asylum have no chance of making it to Australia such as the many Christians raped, robbed, threatened, murdered, beaten and kidnapped in Iraq.

How many have managed to make it to these shores via some back door?

Have any Australian authorities ever gone to Damascus to enable those long-suffering Iraqi Christian refugees to resettle in this country?

Henk Verhoeven, Beacon Hill, NSW

Put sexuality aside

What a victory for common sense that the couple involved in the ''unwanted'' IVF twin debacle have lost their case (''Lesbians lose damages case'', July 25, p1).

At best, they may be guilty of nothing more than being opportunistic.

At worst, selfish, conniving and vengeful.

After all, those who conceive naturally do not have this avenue of suing available if we discover we are carrying more than our ''ideal'' number of foetuses.

I fail to see, however, the relevance of the partner being a woman.

It is a fact that this case involves a lesbian couple, but to label them as such at every opportunity suggests that their sexuality is a factor, and the traits mentioned above are elements of their sexuality.

I do not believe this is the case.

Would this case be any less scandalous if the couple involved were heterosexual IVF recipients, or are we suggesting that a straight couple would not behave this way?

If they were of another social group would we label them ''the Muslim couple'', ''the Aboriginal couple''?

I doubt it.

It seems that reports of this case are confusing the unwanted twin case with the issue of same-sex couples accessing IVF services, or adopting, which is as emotive, albeit a totally different issue.

Let's just stick to the facts that a couple got more than they bargained for, and acted in a way that most of us find incomprehensible, and not infer that it is in some way due to their sexuality.

L. Noble, Jerrabomberra, NSW

Veil on Turkey's rule

There was a time when Turkey's secular system of government was considered a true model of stability in a region littered with authoritarian regimes.

Alas no longer, as Adrian Hamilton describes the tension between forces or autocracy and democracy doing battle for the country's soul (''A bitter power struggle for the soul of democracy'', July 30, p13). The ruling Islamic party, which was fairly and democratically elected, is at risk of being outlawed by a constitutional court, being accused by the military and fiercely secular ruling classes of trying to turn Turkey into an Islamic state.

Curiously, if a government with an Islamic agenda were to be elected elsewhere in the Middle East, there would be much hostility from the West.

Apparently, Turkey is a special case, as Hamilton calls upon the West to ignore the debate about religion, Islam and the veil, and back the democratically elected Government.

What a splendid notion, but what about also supporting the democratic aspirations of the rest of the people?

Sam Nona, Burradoo, NSW