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

[Harpodom]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/australias-cruel-asylum-regime-must-end-say-190-experts?commentpage=2

 

[h=1]Australia's 'cruel' asylum regime must end, say 190 experts[/h]

[MARYROSE02]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/australias-cruel-asylum-regime-must-end-say-190-experts?commentpage=2

 

Australia's 'cruel' asylum regime must end, say 190 experts

 

 

 

With no more boats arriving, it will end!

[flag of convenience]

If all of these nasty things are true, or even half of them, or even one per cent of them, why, NOBODY would ever want to come to Australia ever again as an illegal immigrant.

 

Wouldn't that be wonderful!

 

No it wouldn't and the Australian people will tell Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison in no uncertain terms at the next election.

 

If only you could comprehend they are not illegal immigrants they are in search of asylum and unless abscond while their need is being ascertained they are perfectly legal.

 

Besides the shocking treatment something I have written about long before the good doctor and other health professionals recently spoke out, it is blindingly obvious that are being made scapegoats of and act as a smokescreen which allow a lack of policy and public consultation on matters of national importance. The targeted audience applaud loudly many wanting even harsher measures against this vulnerable and vindicated group. Meanwhile the continued large importation of people and abuse by business of 457's continues unabated and unhindered. You won't hear the government talking on those matters only react on the defensive when raised.

[flag of convenience]

With no more boats arriving, it will end!

 

Until they resume which they will come the next political turbulence.

[flag of convenience]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/australias-cruel-asylum-regime-must-end-say-190-experts?commentpage=2

 

Australia's 'cruel' asylum regime must end, say 190 experts

 

 

 

I don't see why Australia isn't sanctioned by the UNHCR for its treatment. Why would Europe feel obliged to continue to receive many times more than Australia at the height of arrivals when they see Australia apparently getting away with breaking the agreement voluntary entered into?

[flag of convenience]

I feel exactly the same mate. I know others feel the same for exactly the same reasons too.

 

Too many people afraid or unwilling to put their head above the parapet on this issue.

 

A very sad indictment on this country I'm afraid. Scared of what I ask myself. To engage? To dissent? Not hard to see how the vicious side of politics can become all dominant due to a lack of willingness to take a stand and/or challenge.

[flag of convenience]

I’ve been a bit reluctant to post tbh, as this is specifically about Australian politics and in a way I felt it wasn’t my parapet to stick my head above.But I have followed the thread, as I wondered how people would respond to the link posted within the OP. When the chief immigration psychiatrist says that the immigration department ‘deliberately harms vulnerable detainees in a process that is akin to torture’ - I sort of expected that to be the focus of any posts that followed.

 

 

But the discussion so far has touched on previous wars, deserving and undeserving immigrants, the politics of asylum - with very little mention of the current treatment of people in detention centres where the atmosphere is described as “inherently toxic”. The article in the OP makes uncomfortable reading, particularly when you consider that around 80% of asylum applications are ultimately judged to be genuine. Vulnerable people, including children are being treated in a way that designed to cause suffering, and to all intents and purposes this is being done in the name of the Australian electorate. And tbh I don’t understand how anyone can accept that as being ok. For whatever reason. Tx

 

I don't have to be Australian to express a view or take a stand. More a question of decency and values concerning humanity. I have certainly been active in French politics, while a resident not French nor a citizen. We all have a right as universal citizens.

[MARYROSE02]

If only you could comprehend they are not illegal immigrants they are in search of asylum and unless abscond while their need is being ascertained they are perfectly legal.

 

Besides the shocking treatment something I have written about long before the good doctor and other health professionals recently spoke out, it is blindingly obvious that are being made scapegoats of and act as a smokescreen which allow a lack of policy and public consultation on matters of national importance. The targeted audience applaud loudly many wanting even harsher measures against this vulnerable and vindicated group. Meanwhile the continued large importation of people and abuse by business of 457's continues unabated and unhindered. You won't hear the government talking on those matters only react on the defensive when raised.

 

Firstly, there was no problem with 457 visa holders until Julia and her union mates go together to create a scare campaign.

 

Secondly, 457 visa holders cannot just waltz into Australia, without undergoing any checks, and without providing evidence of funds to pay for their upkeep whilst in Australia. No dole or benefits if they are out of work whilst here, remember.

 

Thirdly, even if boat people are all bona fida refugees, why does that give them the right to choose to come here, whilst we have no right to screen them?

 

And why are you never prepared to put a number of refugees/asylum seekers we allow into Australia. Either there is a limit, or there is none. Which is it to be?

[MARYROSE02]

I don't have to be Australian to express a view or take a stand. More a question of decency and values concerning humanity. I have certainly been active in French politics, while a resident not French nor a citizen. We all have a right as universal citizens.

 

Universal citizen? Oh yes, there should be no immigration controls on any country. Anybody who wants to come anywhere should be allowed to do as they please.

[Parley]

Socialist party I presume.

[MARYROSE02]

A very sad indictment on this country I'm afraid. Scared of what I ask myself. To engage? To dissent? Not hard to see how the vicious side of politics can become all dominant due to a lack of willingness to take a stand and/or challenge.

 

If you were running Australia's immigration policy, how many people would you allow in? Would you set any limits? If you say that anybody who calls themselves a refugee/asylum seeker has the right to come here, then there can be no limits.

[flag of convenience]

If you were running Australia's immigration policy, how many people would you allow in? Would you set any limits? If you say that anybody who calls themselves a refugee/asylum seeker has the right to come here, then there can be no limits.

 

This has been discussed with some repetition. It is crystal clear you have little regard for what is going on behind barbed wire in detention centres, especially those off shore, to which the post is about. No need to say more for my part on immigration matters which are likely used to divert attention away from the inhuman practices occurring to which to appear to take a degree of pride, being carried out in your name.

 

The real issues impacting this country would appear to pass you by completely. These have been outlined as well. No response of course as you prefer to continue with the same patter. May I suggest some diverse reading? If only to challenge your assumptions.

[MARYROSE02]

This has been discussed with some repetition. It is crystal clear you have little regard for what is going on behind barbed wire in detention centres, especially those off shore, to which the post is about. No need to say more for my part on immigration matters which are likely used to divert attention away from the inhuman practices occurring to which to appear to take a degree of pride, being carried out in your name.

 

The real issues impacting this country would appear to pass you by completely. These have been outlined as well. No response of course as you prefer to continue with the same patter. May I suggest some diverse reading? If only to challenge your assumptions.

 

If the treatment was as bad as you say, then people would no longer risk those horrible journeys to come here. During the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments when boats arrived almost every day, and thousands of boat people arrived, not counting the hundreds who drowned of course, there was a deafening silence when it came to calls for enquiries and inquests into treatment inside the camps. But as soon as Abbott comes to power, and a single boat arrives in over six months, suddenly there is a plethora of allegations of ill treatment. Why?

 

Any reading material you would direct my attention to will of course come courtesy of the likes of The Guardian, who have a vested interest in slagging off the Abbott Government.

 

You are still dodging the question I posed to you. How many people should we allow in? Either the figure is finite or it is not. Put it this way, if you were a people smuggler, how many people would you cram onto each boat? At what point would you say 'this boat has too many people for a safe voyage?'

 

And as I say ad nauseam, I am not opposed to Australia's official refugee intake. I am happy with Australia's immigration policies and the countries from which migrants are accepted.

 

I just will not accept that people in other countries have both the right to call themselves asylum seekers, and the right to choose which country they will seek asylum, and conversely, Australia does not have the right to choose which people, and how many, it will allow into our country.

[Harpodom]

Government told Tamil asylum seekers they would be forced onto lifeboats and dropped in the ocean

 

3 August 2014

Media Release – for immediate release

Lawyers for the 157 Tamil asylum seekers today revealed that Australian Government officers told the group they would be forced to go to India in three orange lifeboats dropped into the ocean somewhere off the coast of India.

Nine adults were instructed in English how to use the lifeboats and told they had to obey Australian Government orders to go on the boats.

The move happened on around 14 July while the High Court proceeding was on foot and after the group had already been detained on the Oceanic Protector for almost two weeks.

“The Government’s willingness to consider forcing 157 men, women and children as young as one onto lifeboats and dump them out at sea makes a complete mockery of the its claims to care for their wellbeing and for safety at sea,” said Hugh de Kretser, Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre.

“The clients we spoke to were terrified at the prospect of being dumped in the ocean on lifeboats but were told they had to obey.

“What ever your personal views are on politics and refugee policy, this move was an affront to human decency.

“We have been told that on around Monday 14 July, 9 adults and 2 children were removed from the rest of the 157 in the group. The 9 adults were taken to a number of orange lifeboats and told that they would be put in them and would need to navigate them to India.

“They were instructed in English how to use the lifeboats. All of them speak Tamil and only 1 or 2 spoke a little English. They were told that each boat would have 50-60 people on it.

“When they refused, saying they had no experience in operating or navigating a boat and couldn’t take responsibility for ensuring the safety of the people on board, the officers told them it was an Australian Government decision and they had to obey.

“The 9 adults and 2 children were then separately detained from rest of the 157 for four or five days. Each day they were extremely fearful of what was going to happen to them. Then they were taken back into the three main rooms and reunited with the rest of the group. The entire group was then terrified that at any moment they would be dumped in the ocean.

“It’s not clear why the Government eventually decided not to proceed with the lifeboat plan but the whole episode reveals the desperate measures they are prepared to use regardless of the human cost.

“Secret detention on the high seas, trying to dump families in lifeboats in the ocean, secret overnight transfers, misleading the public, frustrating access to lawyers and to the courts – such behaviour from the Government is trashing the foundations of Australia’s democracy. Respect for the rule of law, open and transparent democracy and fundamental human rights are some of the things that have made Australia the great country it is, but this Government is seemingly willing to trash them all for a few cheap political points in the opinion polls.

“I was struck that despite everything they had been through, our clients thanked the Australian Government for bringing them to the Australian mainland. Now they’ve been secretly transferred to Nauru and given the reports of the state they arrived in, I’m deeply concerned about their wellbeing.

“These 157 men, women and children have been subjected to a level of cruelty and callousness that has no place in modern Australia,” said Mr de Kretser.

The Human Rights Law Centre has been told that:

 

 

• The majority of the group are Christians.
  
• They raised the Virgin Mary flag on the boat to seek her protection for the voyage.
  
• They are Sri Lankan Tamils.
  
• They are fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka.
  
• Some of the asylum seekers arrived in India less than 6 months ago. (We were only able to speak to 15 of the 107 adults on board.)
  
• The asylum seekers revealed a precarious existence in India where they were denied basic legal rights including being unable to lawfully work, send their children to school or have freedom of movement. (India is not a party to the Refugee Convention.) Some revealed safety fears in India also. (We were unable to explore these issues properly with the 15 clients we spoke to and were urgently seeking proper legal access to all 157 asylum seekers in order to advise them on the option of speaking to Indian officials in Australia.)
  
• While detained on the Oceanic Protector between around 29 June and 25 July, the asylum seekers were locked in three separate windowless rooms (the 9 adults and 2 children who were separated for four or five days during the lifeboat incident were held in a fourth room).
  
• They were only allowed out of the rooms for meals and spent around 22 hours day inside the rooms.
  
• On a number of days they were locked in the windowless rooms for the entire day because the weather was rough.
  
• They did not know where they were.
  
• Families were separated – fathers were placed in separate rooms from women and children. Fathers were only able to see their family 3 or 4 times during the on-water detention.
  

 

Further points

 

 

• The asylum seekers were not permitted to have a change of clothing until we intervened on their behalf after speaking to them for the first time on 11 and 12 July, when they had already been detained for around 11 days.
  
• Despite Minister Morrison conducting a press conference early on Friday afternoon 25 July confirming they would be brought to Australia, the 157 asylum seekers were not informed of that news until we spoke to them late that afternoon..
  
• In Curtin Detention Centre, the asylum seekers asked for phone and internet access in particular to let relatives know they were safe. They were told they would have phone access on Saturday 2 August. They were transferred out of the detention centre on the night of 1 August
  

 

The Human Rights Law Centre has been working with Shine Lawyers and a team of barristers led by Ron Merkel QC to assist the asylum seekers. We obtained client approval to release this information on Friday 1 August.

The Press Conference Scheduled for 11am on Monday 4 August will proceed: HRLC office Level 17, 461 Bourke St, Melbourne.

More information: Hugh de Kretser 0403 965 340 or Tom Clarke on 0422 545 763 or tom.clarke@hrlc.org.au

 

http://hrlc.org.au/media-release-government-told-tamil-asylum-seekers-they-would-be-forced-onto-lifeboats-and-dropped-in-the-ocean/

 

 

If you read this account and conclude either:

 

1. it sounds like reasonable treatment, what do they expect, the Hilton?

 

or

 

2. they're lying, none of this is true

 

Then you need to go back to school and learn how to be a human again.

 

Sorry if that offends.

 

Actually, I'm not at all sorry.

[MARYROSE02]

How do you know if it is all true? Because they, and their biased lawyers SAY it is? We've heard enough lies in the past - allegations of RAN sailors deliberately burning asylum seekers - LIES, 'Eye-witness account of ill-treatment on Manus Island' - except she wasn't an eye-witness, she just heard allegations, told the Herald, which printed it as an eye-witnesss account, before admitting it wasn't further down the article.

 

India may not be a signatory to the UN convention, but it is still a democracy, with a large Tamil community, so why wouldn't they want to go there?

 

I'm not ashamed to be an Australian reading this. I've heard too many lies in the past about our alleged inhumanity. It does not seem to put many people off from wanting to come here. When they stop wanting to, or, start fleeing Australia to seek asylum in other more humane societies, well, I might believe it then.

[Guest littlesarah]

I'm curious about why you think the government would be any more likely to tell the truth than refugee advocates (many of whom work pro bono).

[Xenon4017]

I just will not accept that people in other countries have both the right to call themselves asylum seekers, and the right to choose which country they will seek asylum, and conversely, Australia does not have the right to choose which people, and how many, it will allow into our country.

 

Well, would you accept the first part on its' own? That anyone can claim asylum anywhere. That it's not illegal to do so?

[Xenon4017]

I'm curious about why you think the government would be any more likely to tell the truth than refugee advocates (many of whom work pro bono).

 

The fact that they work pro bono indicates that they are committed to the cause. But it might lead to some cognitive bias. Their default position is that refugees should be accommodated in the community; and they're prepared to gather data that supports this. And highlight any incidents that show other treatments in a bad light. Governments have an agenda too of course. I don't believe they _really_ care how many refugees get settled here. They're more concerned with what effect the adoption will have on their support at the next election.

[ArthurPendragon]

How do you know if it is all true? Because they, and their biased lawyers SAY it is? We've heard enough lies in the past - allegations of RAN sailors deliberately burning asylum seekers - LIES, 'Eye-witness account of ill-treatment on Manus Island' - except she wasn't an eye-witness, she just heard allegations, told the Herald, which printed it as an eye-witnesss account, before admitting it wasn't further down the article.

 

India may not be a signatory to the UN convention, but it is still a democracy, with a large Tamil community, so why wouldn't they want to go there?

 

I'm not ashamed to be an Australian reading this. I've heard too many lies in the past about our alleged inhumanity. It does not seem to put many people off from wanting to come here. When they stop wanting to, or, start fleeing Australia to seek asylum in other more humane societies, well, I might believe it then.

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/how-157-lankan-asylum-seekers-landed-in-australia-from-india/20140805.htm

 

Most of the Sri Lankan Tamils had come to India and settled down in and around Pondicherry. They also made arrangements with lawyers in Australia to fight their case for asylum there based on human rights issues.They then contacted Lankans staying in the refugee camps in Tamil Nadu who put them in touch with the human smugglers. The Lankans had to pay Rs 50,000 per head for the arduous and risky journey to Australia.Once they neared the Australian shore they sent a distress signal. The Australians saved them on humanitarian grounds, but when the lawyers descended as if on cue, the Australian government placed them in isolation.An Indian government representative met them as the ship was flying an Indian flag. The refugees on the advice of their lawyers refused to meet the Indian officials. This was because they did not want the Australians to differentiate the ones who had come from Lanka and the ones who had come from Indian refugee camps.

[Raul Senise]

(many of whom work pro bono).

 

I believe the figure paid by the Australian Government to fund legal aid for Refugees last year was around the 50 million dollar mark.

[MARYROSE02]

I was reading in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday about continuing problems funding medical and nursing home care for people living in country areas of New South Wales. Yet some people want Australia to let an unlimited number of asylum seekers in and care nothing about the cost and logistics of such a policy. Presumably they expect that other areas of the economy will just have to wait because the needs of the asylum seeker are above all other needs.

 

I can well believe that $50 million for legal aid for refugees, plus the other costs for sending the RAN to rescue people from unseaworthy boats, not to mention the strain on the mental health of sailors from the dangers of their duties. (Who cares about the sailors' mental health? Far more important is the mental health of the asylum seekers.)

 

Either the Australian Government controls who is allowed to come here, or we operate a complete 'open door' policy.'

[Xenon4017]

I was reading in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday about continuing problems funding medical and nursing home care for people living in country areas of New South Wales. Yet some people want Australia to let an unlimited number of asylum seekers in and care nothing about the cost and logistics of such a policy.

 

The two issues may well be linked, but not in ways you first thought.

 

Perhaps your first impression is that if we weren't spending money on refugees/legal aid/rescuing them etc, then more money would be available for fund aged care.

 

Obviously, short term, any savings would drop straight to the bottom line, which appears good. But why is nursing home care so expensive now? More old people, sure. And the wages for those that care for them has gone up. (Probably from an artificially low base, but that's another story). The real question is how are we going to cope with an ever aging population? Though immigration. But if we only draw from the skilled migrant pool, can we be sure that they'll be willing to do the menial jobs? And if they aren't, do we simply up the salary until they are? Or, do you deliberately recruit the under-educated but over-willing.

 

My point is that quite often, an influx of refugees can have positive effects on the adopted economy. A good example is Uganda, where Idi Amin well and truly threw the baby out with the bathwater in the 70's.

[MARYROSE02]

The two issues may well be linked, but not in ways you first thought.

 

Perhaps your first impression is that if we weren't spending money on refugees/legal aid/rescuing them etc, then more money would be available for fund aged care.

 

Obviously, short term, any savings would drop straight to the bottom line, which appears good. But why is nursing home care so expensive now? More old people, sure. And the wages for those that care for them has gone up. (Probably from an artificially low base, but that's another story). The real question is how are we going to cope with an ever aging population? Though immigration. But if we only draw from the skilled migrant pool, can we be sure that they'll be willing to do the menial jobs? And if they aren't, do we simply up the salary until they are? Or, do you deliberately recruit the under-educated but over-willing.

 

My point is that quite often, an influx of refugees can have positive effects on the adopted economy. A good example is Uganda, where Idi Amin well and truly threw the baby out with the bathwater in the 70's.

 

Perhaps if they are all sent to country areas, but most just want to come to Sydney and Melbourne.

 

I noticed that some of the people who advocate an unlimited refugee intake, think that the 457 visa intake is too high, though those people always come in with money and skills.

[Paul1Perth]

I feel exactly the same mate. I know others feel the same for exactly the same reasons too.

 

Too many people afraid or unwilling to put their head above the parapet on this issue.

 

There's stacks willing to put their head above the parapet, as you call it. Problem is if they don't have the same view on the situation as you then they are wrong and nothing id going to change your way of thinking or theirs.

 

Whether you continue on the forum or not doesn't really matter. Forum's come and go, people get fed up with them and they disappear. Because this one has a lot of people check it out who are after information on emigration then it's got a good chance of carrying on. All the political, money issues, law, property, asylum seeker posts are just extra entertainment and might give people a bit of an idea of how people already living here think.

[MARYROSE02]

There's stacks willing to put their head above the parapet, as you call it. Problem is if they don't have the same view on the situation as you then they are wrong and nothing id going to change your way of thinking or theirs.

Whether you continue on the forum or not doesn't really matter. Forum's come and go, people get fed up with them and they disappear. Because this one has a lot of people check it out who are after information on emigration then it's got a good chance of carrying on. All the political, money issues, law, property, asylum seeker posts are just extra entertainment and might give people a bit of an idea of how people already living here think.

 

Of course, anybody who has the least 'anti-asylum seeker' view, is immediately labelled a racist, which is the standard way for 'the left' to stamp out discussion of a viewpoint they disagree with. (pace 'Climate Change', 'Any pro-Western, pro-capitalist view.')