Australia's detention regime sets out to make asylum seekers suffer

[flag of convenience]

Where do all your figures and percentages come from?? How do you know they are the truth?..You only have to arrive at Heathrow airport to see the reality of what has happened to the UK..

 

I suggest to go blind folded to Heathrow Airport next time. That way your eyes averted from all that disturbing alien presence around you. Muffs on the ears cut out the sound and problem solved.

 

Really are you serious? Heathrow Airport remains I think the biggest international airport in the world. What do you expect to find?

[Harpodom]

[h=3]Big Ideas[/h][h=4]Nick Bryant: The Rise and Fall of Australia[/h]

Nick Bryant is a BBC journalist who spent 6 years here and diarised this experience in his book The Rise & Fall of Australia - How a Great Nation Lost its Way. This is an outsider's perspective on contemporary life in Oz.

 

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/big-ideas/FA1308H055S00

[h=3][/h]

[Harpodom]

Big Ideas

 

Nick Bryant: The Rise and Fall of Australia

 

Nick Bryant is a BBC journalist who spent 6 years here and diarised this experience in his book The Rise & Fall of Australia - How a Great Nation Lost its Way. This is an outsider's perspective on contemporary life in Oz.

 

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/big-ideas/FA1308H055S00

 

 

Should be interesting. Haven't watched yet, but just laying down a marker for myself and others to watch it.

[flag of convenience]

For the 2013 program year 190,000 places were given to skilled and family migration. In the same period 20,000 places were given for humanitarian visas. This was an increase from 13,000 in previous years.

 

 

I am fully aware of immigration figures. There is no need to quote me on stats or figures. The 20,000 figure was a lifting by several thousand places in answer in part to the toughening of then government ALP policies.

Yes, however the increased numbers were not sustainable.

 

 

Australia has a population of approximately 23 million people. Europe has a population of approximately 740 million people. How can Australia possibly absorb the same number of refugees as Europe? This statement alone questions your credibility and understanding of basic issues.

 

This matters not very much as immigrants or refugees tend to gather in main centres where a community has already been established or where views towards foreigners are more enlightened.

 

You have a right to your opinion, but I disagree with you wholeheartedly, having lived in Australia almost all of my life. I find calling Australia one of the most racist countries in the world an outrageous statement.

 

Read what is written. Don't make up your own words and claim it mine. Australia comes from a history of being one of the most racially selective countries in the world. The policy in question only ended three generations ago, well within living memory. Indeed the change, especially in the past decade and a half has been formidable. Having lived in Australia most of your life perhaps you are not fully aware of the changes that have occurred in other countries over time as well.

A latter day throwback reaction could be measured in the rise of Pauline Hanson in the late nineties. Still generally none of the violent issues by sub groups found in some other countries thankfully.

 

What you so glibly attribute to good luck and fortune over two decades (what a long lucky streak), I attribute to hard work and a general sense of community and acceptance.

 

Our perceptions differ here. A good deal of luck and increasing wealth due to Australia being in the right place and having the desired commodities required, which allowed it to escape the GFC relatively in good condition. Court is out on how long the luck will continue but that's another thread. I don't think you can say Australians are hard workers as they tend not to be very productive. A lot would wonder about the sense of community quote as well. (been discussed on other threads, not for this one)

 

I agree, but not all information is factual either. Somewhere in the middle may lie the truth. It was not long ago that we were being told that Australian defense personnel were deliberately burning people’s hands to stop them going to the toilet. After investigation, the truth was that they burned their hands setting fire to their boat.

 

I don't think the truth was established as an independent inquiry was not undertaken. An internal inquiry is hardly non biased.The issue remains with the politicisation of the asylum issue to further political gain in the community. A somewhat risky measure for short term gain. Whatever reason it doesn't excuse the ill treatment of people in camps that should be closed.

[flag of convenience]

Should be interesting. Haven't watched yet, but just laying down a marker for myself and others to watch it.

 

Actually got the book. Pretty much on the money.

[flag of convenience]

Of course military personnel are trained to do their jobs in a professional manner, but that does not make them any less susceptable to physical and mental illnesses.

 

The people who own and operate the boats are criminals, operating an illegal and dangerous business. I cannot see why it is better for that business to continue than to be stopped. It stands to reason, that by stopping the boats, we are both stopping a criminal venture, and saving lives.

 

As has been noted previously. Few do something for nothing. Many Jew's paid to escape nazi persecution during WW2. Must would accept they had reason to fear. Risks were undertaken to reach freedom and money exchanged hands. The rational comment on today's asylum seekers would be they have weighed up the risk at sea to staying where ever they were. A hearing under international guidelines will determine the legality of their claim.

[MARYROSE02]

The people who own and operate the boats are criminals. That may not make the people who pay for passage on them criminals too, but how can anybody argue that it is better to let the boats come than to try to stop them? And the boats themselves are all unseaworthy and all overcrowded (more money for the smugglers of course) which is why so many of them come to grief, and so many people drown.

 

The crazy thing is that people who want an umlimited asylum seeker intake to Australia are more worried about what allegedly goes on in the detention centres than stopping the criminals who own the boats.

 

What was particularly annoying about the allegation against our sailors that they deliberately burned asylum seekers, was accepted as fact by both the ABC and the Fairfax Press, who then trumpeted it to the world. Ditto the allegations about trouble on Manus Island from the eye witness who wasn't there.

 

There are plenty of countries that do not operate open door policies to either asylum seekers or other migrants. Are they all racist? Should they be condemned for operating such policies?

 

Why is it that supposedly racist countries like Britain and Australia continue to be so attractive to migrants?

[flag of convenience]

Shows the desperation and plight of folk fleeing. One criminals are another's service providers regardless of the governments determination to demonise the process. People have and always will make money out of other's misery. It does mean the person is any less in need of some sort of refuge. Doesn't on the same hand mean they are either.

 

Why was it annoying? What was annoying was no real external to my knowledge investigation was conducted. So we are supposed to accept an internal inquiry as an end to the matter are we? The events on Manus Island have been clearly documented by people on the ground there over a long period, regardless of government attempts to silence them.

You should be ashamed constantly peddling out this untruth.

 

Which countries do you have in mind? Which countries lock up women and children? Please expand on your world view and enlighten us with your wisdom on the matter?

[ArthurPendragon]

As has been noted previously. Few do something for nothing. Many Jew's paid to escape nazi persecution during WW2. Must would accept they had reason to fear. Risks were undertaken to reach freedom and money exchanged hands. The rational comment on today's asylum seekers would be they have weighed up the risk at sea to staying where ever they were. A hearing under international guidelines will determine the legality of their claim.

Did they pay to escape to the nearest safe country?

[ArthurPendragon]

Shows the desperation and plight of folk fleeing. One criminals are another's service providers regardless of the governments determination to demonise the process. People have and always will make money out of other's misery. It does mean the person is any less in need of some sort of refuge. Doesn't on the same hand mean they are either.

 

Why was it annoying? What was annoying was no real external to my knowledge investigation was conducted. So we are supposed to accept an internal inquiry as an end to the matter are we? The events on Manus Island have been clearly documented by people on the ground there over a long period, regardless of government attempts to silence them.

You should be ashamed constantly peddling out this untruth.

 

Which countries do you have in mind? Which countries lock up women and children? Please expand on your world view and enlighten us with your wisdom on the matter?

Just curious. Escaping from Sri Lanka and then moving to safe India ( which last i read, has Tibetan Government in exile and has refugees from many nearby countries living there-Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Myammar, Tibet etc.), and then moving again to Australia because their friends and neighbors who are already there are doing good. Was this the intention of the refugee convention when it was signed ?

[Echidna66]

For all you asylum seeker supporters...If you havent noticed yet..unemployment in Australia is increasing rapidly, there are more and more Australian living on the streets-homeless, more and more Australians struggling financially, infrastructure struggling to keep up, cost of living exploding...So why on earth would anyone want more people here in Australia..especially economic migrants, most who cost a fortune to support..If they are not paying tax or working from the moment they arrive how are they of any benefit to anyone...?

[flag of convenience]

Did they pay to escape to the nearest safe country?

 

I have no idea but few countries in own region have any obligation to accept refugees. Again mentioned perhaps one hundred times.

[flag of convenience]

Just curious. Escaping from Sri Lanka and then moving to safe India ( which last i read, has Tibetan Government in exile and has refugees from many nearby countries living there-Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Myammar, Tibet etc.), and then moving again to Australia because their friends and neighbors who are already there are doing good. Was this the intention of the refugee convention when it was signed ?

 

There are some issues with Tamil asylum seekers in Indian camps. India is not a signatory to the UNHCR Agreement. They do not have free conditions within India. If you are arguing the wording on the so stated Agreement , that is something else. I note Australia has yet to challenge the wording. Nor withdraw. As such the original agreement stands. But this thread is about the maltreatment of those in detention centres as stands at the moment.

[flag of convenience]

For all you asylum seeker supporters...If you havent noticed yet..unemployment in Australia is increasing rapidly, there are more and more Australian living on the streets-homeless, more and more Australians struggling financially, infrastructure struggling to keep up, cost of living exploding...So why on earth would anyone want more people here in Australia..especially economic migrants, most who cost a fortune to support..If they are not paying tax or working from the moment they arrive how are they of any benefit to anyone...?

 

So learn up and get on board the real issues with regards the abuse of employing 457's and backpackers going onto permanent visa's. Look at the overwhelming numbers still being admitted on immigrant visa's.

[MARYROSE02]

I have no idea but few countries in own region have any obligation to accept refugees. Again mentioned perhaps one hundred times.

 

So, far from being one of the nastiest countries on the planet, Australia is one of the few nice ones which does accept refugees, but that does not mean the numbers should be limitless, nor that anybody who calls themselves a refugee/asylum seeker has the automatic right of entry into Australia.

 

I also assume that if Australia was to withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees, you would be quite happy if Australia reduced its intake to zero, because there was no longer any obligation on Australia's part?

[MARYROSE02]

So learn up and get on board the real issues with regards the abuse of employing 457's and backpackers going onto permanent visa's. Look at the overwhelming numbers still being admitted on immigrant visa's.

 

You keep harping on about 457 visas yet it was Gillard and her union mates who whipped up the storm about alleged, but so far unproven abuse of 457 visas. If an Australian firm cannot find an Aussie to do a job, and it requires a certain skill, what is the problem with a 457 visa? Are they handed out free to anybody who asks for one? Do 457 visa holders have the automatic right to unlimited social services help in Australia, or do they have to bring enough money to pay for their own upkeep? Are they entitled to 'dole'?

 

And so what if a WHV person moves to a 457 visa? If they have a skill that is in demand, they have not engaged in any subterfuge. They still have to prove themselves fit and able to support themselves before getting a visa.

 

What do you want exactly? An end to all forms of legal migration, to be replaced by unlimited intake of alleged asylum seekers?

[MARYROSE02]

There are some issues with Tamil asylum seekers in Indian camps. India is not a signatory to the UNHCR Agreement. They do not have free conditions within India. If you are arguing the wording on the so stated Agreement , that is something else. I note Australia has yet to challenge the wording. Nor withdraw. As such the original agreement stands. But this thread is about the maltreatment of those in detention centres as stands at the moment.

 

Last time I looked, India was still a democracy, with a huge Tamil population in one of its states, and a relatively short distance from Sri Lanka, itself much more peaceful since the end of its civil war. I am also highly suspicious that former Tamil Tiger terrorists could come to Australia claiming to be asylum seekers, especially if they destroy all their papers.

[Harpodom]

Last time I looked, India was still a democracy, with a huge Tamil population in one of its states, and a relatively short distance from Sri Lanka, itself much more peaceful since the end of its civil war. I am also highly suspicious that former Tamil Tiger terrorists could come to Australia claiming to be asylum seekers, especially if they destroy all their papers.

 

Do you NEVER EVER, F$&KING LISTEN??

 

India isn't signatory to the convention. These people were living in camps having fled from Sri Lanka, with no work rights, no education, no future. Who knows what their life was like? I'm sure you couldn't give a flying f&&k though.

 

Do you really think that by virtue of being Tamil that they are welcomed with open arms, just because they are in Tamil Nadu? Are you REALLY that thick?

 

 

 

I thank flag for continuing to fight stupidity and ignorance

[MARYROSE02]

Do you NEVER EVER, F$&KING LISTEN??

 

India isn't signatory to the convention. These people were living in camps having fled from Sri Lanka, with no work rights, no education, no future. Who knows what their life was like? I'm sure you couldn't give a flying f&&k though.

 

Do you really think that by virtue of being Tamil that they are welcomed with open arms, just because they are in Tamil Nadu? Are you REALLY that thick?

 

 

 

I thank flag for continuing to fight stupidity and ignorance

 

Sod the bloody convention. I wish Australia had never signed it, if it means that any person, anywhere in the world can call themselves an asylum seeker, pay a smuggler for passage and then come to Australia and DEMAND to be admitted.

 

If you are fleeing persecution then you head for the nearest safe country, just like if you are shipwrecked then you thank God for the first ship to come along that rescues you.

 

Why did Australia sign the bloody convention in the first place? So that they would become liable for every would-be asylum seeker to come here?

 

You hate the countries that refuse to sign the convention and you hate Australia for wanting to control its own borders.

 

The bottom line for me is that Australia has an official refugee intake. I don't care if you think it should be more. And I want Australia to be in control of its own borders.

 

Presumably, you would be happy if all the world's ebola sufferers made their way to Australia? Never mind if we could not cope with caring for them, as long as they can get here, we MUST take them.

[Echidna66]

Asylum seeker intake - 0....457 visa intake - 0..That would be great...Maybe there would the be hope..

[Echidna66]

Yes but the Govt doesnt want to defend its borders..It just makes out it does..

[mickyb]

The Tamils who paid for the boats from India are significantly better off than half a billion Indians . Have any ' boat lovers ' protested outside any of the non convention embassies or written strongly worded letters ? It seems a bit daft that someone can go to India , for whatever reason , most probably financial and then expect australia to take them in. A boat full of Syrians or Iraqis is a completely different story . But surely every slum dog and pot wallah must have a legitimate claim?

India has 3 different categories along with employment rights for Sri Lankans . Some can work , some can live freely .

Al Jazeera reported them as financial refugees and interviewed ones who complained of no job prospects .

[Harpodom]

Sod the bloody convention. I wish Australia had never signed it, if it means that any person, anywhere in the world can call themselves an asylum seeker, pay a smuggler for passage and then come to Australia and DEMAND to be admitted.

 

If you are fleeing persecution then you head for the nearest safe country, just like if you are shipwrecked then you thank God for the first ship to come along that rescues you.

 

Why did Australia sign the bloody convention in the first place? So that they would become liable for every would-be asylum seeker to come here?

 

You hate the countries that refuse to sign the convention and you hate Australia for wanting to control its own borders.

 

The bottom line for me is that Australia has an official refugee intake. I don't care if you think it should be more. And I want Australia to be in control of its own borders.

 

Presumably, you would be happy if all the world's ebola sufferers made their way to Australia? Never mind if we could not cope with caring for them, as long as they can get here, we MUST take them.

 

You know what? Back in the 70's, I bet you would have been against Vietnamese boat people being allowed in Australia.

[mickyb]

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2014724123224469495

 

not the daily mail or one of murdochs rags . Read the words . Read the story .

Couldn't get a work visa . Time to try oz. .

[MARYROSE02]

Do you NEVER EVER, F$&KING LISTEN??

 

India isn't signatory to the convention. These people were living in camps having fled from Sri Lanka, with no work rights, no education, no future. Who knows what their life was like? I'm sure you couldn't give a flying f&&k though.

 

Do you really think that by virtue of being Tamil that they are welcomed with open arms, just because they are in Tamil Nadu? Are you REALLY that thick?

 

 

 

I thank flag for continuing to fight stupidity and ignorance

 

 

As a matter of fact, I DO think that Tamils would be welcomed back to their homeland, just as I would expect to be welcomed back to Britain. Israel, pariah state I know, nevertheless welcomes Jews from wherever they are in the world.