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

[Echidna66]

I hope they boot out every single asylum seeker to cambodia or anywhere but here..I dont one one single cent of the tax I pay to go towards an asylum seeker..Enough of it goes to all the other wasters we have here...

[Pumpkin]

This is the bottom line. Human rights should be sacred, regardless of the circumstances, for EVERYONE. We cannot (or at least SHOULD NOT) pick and choose who deserves the most basic human rights.

 

So many people appear more than happy to ditch the human rights of one group to deter the hordes of others.

 

What is the motivation for this disconnect? Racism? Possibly. Drawbridge mentality? Probably.

 

The 'trouble' with doctors working in these places is that doctors are trained to uphold medical ethics above all else. Doctors cannot refuse treatment to anyone. They cannot ethically harm anyone first and foremost. Paedophiles, murderers, even Liberal government ministers, they are all entitled to the best available treatment. The AMA, RACGP and RACP et al fiercely criticise mandatory detention and fully endorse Dr Young for standing up against it, because it actively causes harm.

 

State sanctioned harm to people who have committed no crime.

 

Crap on all you like with excuses like 'we cannot possibly take all the world's refugees' or false claims like 'they're all economic migrants anyway' but if YOU endorse indefinite imprisonment of already traumatised children in Nauru or Xmas Island, then I'd love to see how you'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was YOUR kids.

 

So do you really think that asylum should be granted on basis of ability to reach Australia? Or do you not think it should be on basis of need? Because there seems to be a lot of need in the world right now and then a lot of economic migration. And the economic migrants stand a much better chance of getting here.

 

As for indefinite imprisonment of asylum seekers, well this goes hand in hand with the right to seek asylum. You cannot spout about agreements over the right to seek asylum but then ignore that the country that hosts the asylum seekers has the right to detain until the case is decided, for however long that might take. And personally, I don't think everyone should have the right to seek asylum, I don't think I should be able to seek asylum in another country for example.

[Harpodom]

So many new names on my ignore list....

[flag of convenience]

I hope they boot out every single asylum seeker to cambodia or anywhere but here..I dont one one single cent of the tax I pay to go towards an asylum seeker..Enough of it goes to all the other wasters we have here...

 

Except it is goes to cost and cost plenty. I was going to comment a shame we can't boot out the haters to Cambodia, except Cambodia would be too good for them.

[tea4too]

So do you really think that asylum should be granted on basis of ability to reach Australia? Or do you not think it should be on basis of need? Because there seems to be a lot of need in the world right now and then a lot of economic migration. And the economic migrants stand a much better chance of getting here.

 

As for indefinite imprisonment of asylum seekers, well this goes hand in hand with the right to seek asylum. You cannot spout about agreements over the right to seek asylum but then ignore that the country that hosts the asylum seekers has the right to detain until the case is decided, for however long that might take. And personally, I don't think everyone should have the right to seek asylum, I don't think I should be able to seek asylum in another country for example.

 

 

According to official figures the vast majority of asylum seekers are genuine and not economic migrants. As such the government's own statistics confirm that these are not people simply trying to get in by the backdoor, yet the uneasy feeling and myths continue to suggest that the people arriving by boat are trying to secure to something they do not deserve.

 

Of course claims have to be investigated, but the reports and testimony of professional well respected people confirm that as part of that process, asylum seekers are being subject to horrendous conditions – a system that is described by eyewitness Dr Young as “designed to create a negative mental state. It’s designed to produce suffering. If you suffer then it’s a punishment, you’re more likely to agree to go back to where you came from”

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/-sp-australias-detention-regime-sets-out-to-make-asylum-seekers-suffer-says-chief-immigration-psychiatrist

 

I don’t think it’s a case of spouting about rights. Australia is not acting in accordance with the international laws it has signed up to, and already vulnerable people are bearing the brunt of those policies. Keeping people in harsh inhumane conditions for indefinite periods of time, only to decide eventually that they were vulnerable genuine asylum seekers all along…… what’s the purpose? To stop others making the same journey? If so, why is Australia signed up to the UN Convention? Tx

[flag of convenience]

I don’t think anyone has suggested an open door policy. However, Australia has signed up to the UN Convention to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how they arrive and whether they arrive with a visa or not.

 

The ‘process’ decides whether individuals are genuine and in the case of Australia, government statistics confirm that having been processed the vast majority are ultimately deemed to be genuine asylum seekers.

 

Per 1000 population, Australia takes 1.4 refugees, compared to 2.4 for the UK, 3.3 France and 4.7 Canada. As an affluent, civilised first world country it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect Australia to honour its commitment to the UN Convention. Either that or publicly acknowledge an intention to withdraw which might at least inject some honesty in the process, although I suspect as an affluent, democratic first world country that may be a political step too far.

 

In the meantime vulnerable people, including children, are held for indefinite periods of time in centres that are described as “toxic” by credible eyewitness testimony (see link n OP for example). I do not understand how any one can condone that. Arguments about numbers, genuine claims, false claims, etc etc do not justify the systematic mental torture of people deemed to be inconvenient.Tx

 

Yes indeed. I quoted similar figures many months ago on a similar thread. Interesting that Australia is well down the list in number of refugees per population accepted, yet creates such a lot of vile and negative comments in this country, not with standing an immigrant forum as this. Afraid it does not bid well for the direction Australia is rapidly moving and says even less with regards to the all too many tabloid Pom migrants on this forum.

[Echidna66]

Since when can anyone with a brain believe a single word any Govt says..Most of them are economic migrants, and even if they arent who the hell wants Australia swamped with millions of humans from impoverished countries who will be given preferance for everything over us who are already here??

[flag of convenience]

According to official figures the vast majority of asylum seekers are genuine and not economic migrants. As such the government's own statistics confirm that these are not people simply trying to get in by the backdoor, yet the uneasy feeling and myths continue to suggest that the people arriving by boat are trying to secure to something they do not deserve.

 

Of course claims have to be investigated, but the reports and testimony of professional well respected people confirm that as part of that process, asylum seekers are being subject to horrendous conditions – a system that is described by eyewitness Dr Young as “designed to create a negative mental state. It’s designed to produce suffering. If you suffer then it’s a punishment, you’re more likely to agree to go back to where you came from”

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/-sp-australias-detention-regime-sets-out-to-make-asylum-seekers-suffer-says-chief-immigration-psychiatrist

 

I don’t think it’s a case of spouting about rights. Australia is not acting in accordance with the international laws it has signed up to, and already vulnerable people are bearing the brunt of those policies. Keeping people in harsh inhumane conditions for indefinite periods of time, only to decide eventually that they were vulnerable genuine asylum seekers all along…… what’s the purpose? To stop others making the same journey? If so, why is Australia signed up to the UN Convention? Tx

 

I suspect they don't want to know the reality. Sooner keep their narrow prejudices intact than look at facts or think for themselves. Unless of course there are a lot of rather evil people out there that dwell on the harsh treatment being carried out on children, women and men not guilty of any crime.

 

Ignorance is certainly bless with many looking at the responses.

[Echidna66]

Yes indeed. I quoted similar figures many months ago on a similar thread. Interesting that Australia is well down the list in number of refugees per population accepted, yet creates such a lot of vile and negative comments in this country, not with standing an immigrant forum as this. Afraid it does not bid well for the direction Australia is rapidly moving and says even less with regards to the all too many tabloid Pom migrants on this forum.

 

Your obviously not from England and have not seen how England and its culture has been destroyed, by mass immigration.by mostly immigrants who dont mix and have no intention of mixing with people of their host country..

[flag of convenience]

Since when can anyone with a brain believe a single word any Govt says..Most of them are economic migrants, and even if they arent who the hell wants Australia swamped with millions of humans from impoverished countries who will be given preferance for everything over us who are already here??

 

Perhaps when the missing part does (if ever) turn up you will be in a position to make an informed judgement. The Govt has nothing to do with the conditions that set out who is or isn't a refugee. Who wants Australia swapped with a load if ignorant, ill informed proletarians? I don't know anybody that wants that just as I don't know anyone that wants Australia swamped from impoverished or otherwise countries.

 

Nothing to do with the treatment and conditions of those in detention centres though.

[flag of convenience]

Your obviously not from England and have not seen how England and its culture has been destroyed, by mass immigration.by mostly immigrants who dont mix and have no intention of mixing with people of their host country..

 

I'm obviously not a sensationalist England tabloid reader. On the money there. Mass immigration indeed. Only 13% of UK population foreign born. I guess that's why I couldn't perceive living outside of London, a city where around half the population was born elsewhere. Even better most folk take pride in the cosmopolitan, worldliness of one of the world's most dynamic cities.

Even better the ethnic's and foreign born very often friendly than the native English.

[Guest Andy]

I'm obviously not a sensationalist England tabloid reader. On the money there. Mass immigration indeed. Only 13% of UK population foreign born. I guess that's why I couldn't perceive living outside of London, a city where around half the population was born elsewhere. Even better most folk take pride in the cosmopolitan, worldliness of one of the world's most dynamic cities.

Even better the ethnic's and foreign born very often friendly than the native English.

 

I could have sworn that figure was 11% just a few years ago so a 2% increase in a few years is massive especially if it continues in that trend, potentially disastrous.

[Harpodom]

Looks like Cambodia is next. Jesus wept

 

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cambodian-deal-to-resettle-asylum-seekers-imminent-20140810-102ht3.html

 

[h=1]Cambodian deal to resettle asylum seekers imminent[/h]

[Guest Andy]

Your obviously not from England and have not seen how England and its culture has been destroyed, by mass immigration.by mostly immigrants who dont mix and have no intention of mixing with people of their host country..

 

That is certainly the case in some parts of the country.

[MARYROSE02]

I don’t think anyone has suggested an open door policy. However, Australia has signed up to the UN Convention to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how they arrive and whether they arrive with a visa or not.

 

The ‘process’ decides whether individuals are genuine and in the case of Australia, government statistics confirm that having been processed the vast majority are ultimately deemed to be genuine asylum seekers.

 

Per 1000 population, Australia takes 1.4 refugees, compared to 2.4 for the UK, 3.3 France and 4.7 Canada. As an affluent, civilised first world country it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect Australia to honour its commitment to the UN Convention. Either that or publicly acknowledge an intention to withdraw which might at least inject some honesty in the process, although I suspect as an affluent, democratic first world country that may be a political step too far.

 

In the meantime vulnerable people, including children, are held for indefinite periods of time in centres that are described as “toxic” by credible eyewitness testimony (see link n OP for example). I do not understand how any one can condone that. Arguments about numbers, genuine claims, false claims, etc etc do not justify the systematic mental torture of people deemed to be inconvenient.Tx

 

Just because those countries take a higher percentage, why does that mean that they are right and we are wrong? You talk about the systematic mental torture of asylum seekers but what about the systematic mental torture endured by our sailors, risking their lives every day trying to save the lives of people crowded into unseaworthy boats. What about the hundreds of people who have drowned? That does not happen now that Tony Abbott is in power. Why is that a bad thing?

[MARYROSE02]

Looks like Cambodia is next. Jesus wept

 

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cambodian-deal-to-resettle-asylum-seekers-imminent-20140810-102ht3.html

 

Cambodian deal to resettle asylum seekers imminent

 

 

 

If I follow your logic, then if you were shipwrecked and drifting in an open boat, you would reject being rescued if the ship that came first was from Cambodia?

[MARYROSE02]

So many new names on my ignore list....

 

How do I achieve your level of purity?

[MARYROSE02]

I could have sworn that figure was 11% just a few years ago so a 2% increase in a few years is massive especially if it continues in that trend, potentially disastrous.

 

13 percent out of 60 million, not an unreasonable figure, surely? What does that equate to, and how do we compare to, say, Japan, China, Russia?

[Guest Andy]

13 percent out of 60 million, not an unreasonable figure, surely? What does that equate to, and how do we compare to, say, Japan, China, Russia?

Well that would be the best part of 8m in Britain that is foreign born, a vast amount. And as I was saying in a few years that figure has gone from 11% to 13% and if the trend continues then that will like I said be disastrous.

[tea4too]

Just because those countries take a higher percentage, why does that mean that they are right and we are wrong? You talk about the systematic mental torture of asylum seekers but what about the systematic mental torture endured by our sailors, risking their lives every day trying to save the lives of people crowded into unseaworthy boats. What about the hundreds of people who have drowned? That does not happen now that Tony Abbott is in power. Why is that a bad thing?

 

The figures are statistically comparable (numbers per 1000 of population), and therefore make it easier to see how the world is responding to the needs of genuine asylum seekers. If we all aimed for the lowest common denominator personally I think the world would be an even poorer place.

 

I can’t know how the professionals managing the boats feel about their task but I would guess that most will do their job professionally, as they have been trained to do. The people desperate enough to take to the boats in the first place are not breaking international or Australian laws and do not deserve to be subject to a system of torture as a result. I keep referring to the link in the OP because this thread is about the treatment of people once they arrive on the ‘safe’ shores of Australia. However according to the the chief psychiatrist for the past 3 years (OP) the system deliberately inflicts a degree of harm on vulnerable people that cannot be remedied by medical care. In my view there is no justification for that. Tx

[Raul Senise]

You don't detect an omission in your opening statement with regards to population? Working in the industry (business) as it would appear, the fact that one million migrants have landed on these shores inside three years rather than the small numbers of asylum seekers seems to warrant a comment on the latter rather than the former.

 

We certainly have the resources to do more. This government has reduced intake while furthering a harder line policy for mainly political reasons, being the only policy that wins over an element of the population. No one has said all must be given permanent residence as many poorer nations have hundreds of thousands within their territory. Uganda was an interesting one a Sudanese refugee was telling me some months ago of his stay there.

He could work and start a small business without issues from the local population.

 

The current policy is populist rather devoid of policy besides harshness and learnt from Howard days of talking tough to win over the Pauline Hanson supporters and appease the right of the So termed Liberal Party.

Obviously the right balance hasn't been obtained. At least with ALP harsh policy came with increased numbers. Opposite with the tea party we now have in place.

 

Australia is not in the same boat as you say as Europe, but in many ways better able to absorb the same numbers than Europe being a long standing settler country. Outside of certain European capitals these folk are highly visible and no more welcomed than to Australia. In fact race plays more an issue than here outside the cosmopolitan centres.

Regardless of public sentiment governments do not create the faux panic found in Australian politics and are far more statesman like in the main, not drumming for the lowest common denominator votes.

 

Australia is a highly sought after destination but hardly alone. AS for asylum seekers some 200,000 + are again likely to seek asylum in Germany this year. Not all will succeed but their right to be heard is recognised.

 

Australians have had little say with regards the multi cultural society that has been established over the past few decades. Do you really think a vote would have agreed with doing away with the White Australia Policy at the time? As is commonly noted Australia is still one of the most casually racist countries in the world.

 

Of course good luck and fortune over the past twenty plus years has kept social cohesion largely intact as most benefited one way or another from the economic conditions prevailing. The rise of Hanson still witnessed about a quarter of the population agreeing with her philosophy. I doubt if it would be too much less today if push came to shove.

 

It is polarising and not a little class/education based.

 

The harsh realities are not just fragments from refuge advocates with an agenda. That is very wrong. Charges of inhuman conditions akin to torture of varying degrees have been released by medical health professionals, Salvation Army and other on the ground NGO staff that witnessed too much to remain quiet. Even under duress to do so.

 

I do recognise asylum seekers would of course be of little interest to anyone in the "migrant business" though.

 

I think you response highlights my point.

 

I simply highlighted some realities of the situation and conceded that each side of the argument has merit and that compromise on both sides is required.

 

You have shown very clearly that you will not accept any compromise. You seem to believe that any opinion except yours is wrong and will shout down anything thing which does not conform to your myopic view.

 

And as so often happens you resorts to personal attacks with comments such as “asylum seekers would of course be of little interest to anyone in the migrant business".

The fact that I am in the Migration business and may have firsthand knowledge of some facts seems to have escaped you completely.

 

Unfortunately, in my opinion, such stringent and uncompromising tactics as yours will only harm any resolution to this issue.

[MARYROSE02]

The figures are statistically comparable (numbers per 1000 of population), and therefore make it easier to see how the world is responding to the needs of genuine asylum seekers. If we all aimed for the lowest common denominator personally I think the world would be an even poorer place.

 

I can’t know how the professionals managing the boats feel about their task but I would guess that most will do their job professionally, as they have been trained to do. The people desperate enough to take to the boats in the first place are not breaking international or Australian laws and do not deserve to be subject to a system of torture as a result. I keep referring to the link in the OP because this thread is about the treatment of people once they arrive on the ‘safe’ shores of Australia. However according to the the chief psychiatrist for the past 3 years (OP) the system deliberately inflicts a degree of harm on vulnerable people that cannot be remedied by medical care. In my view there is no justification for that. Tx

 

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.

[Raul Senise]

You don't detect an omission in your opening statement with regards to population? Working in the industry (business) as it would appear, the fact that one million migrants have landed on these shores inside three years rather than the small numbers of asylum seekers seems to warrant a comment on the latter rather than the former.

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.

 

Obviously the right balance hasn't been obtained. At least with ALP harsh policy came with increased numbers.

Yes, however the increased numbers were not sustainable.

 

Australia is not in the same boat as you say as Europe, but in many ways better able to absorb the same numbers than Europe being a long standing settler country.

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.

 

Australians have had little say with regards the multi cultural society that has been established over the past few decades. Do you really think a vote would have agreed with doing away with the White Australia Policy at the time? As is commonly noted Australia is still one of the most casually racist countries in the world.

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.

 

Of course good luck and fortune over the past twenty plus years has kept social cohesion largely intact as most benefited one way or another from the economic conditions prevailing.

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.

 

 

The harsh realities are not just fragments from refuge advocates with an agenda.

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.

[Echidna66]

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..

[flag of convenience]

I think you response highlights my point.

 

I simply highlighted some realities of the situation and conceded that each side of the argument has merit and that compromise on both sides is required.

 

You have shown very clearly that you will not accept any compromise. You seem to believe that any opinion except yours is wrong and will shout down anything thing which does not conform to your myopic view.

 

And as so often happens you resorts to personal attacks with comments such as “asylum seekers would of course be of little interest to anyone in the migrant business".

The fact that I am in the Migration business and may have firsthand knowledge of some facts seems to have escaped you completely.

 

Unfortunately, in my opinion, such stringent and uncompromising tactics as yours will only harm any resolution to this issue.

 

I wonder what first hand knowledge you feel you may process being in the business as a migration argent? Nothing to do with the running of detention centres or what materialises inside them and only an opinion being expressed. If a rather arrogant one I might add.

 

I have been high lighting the realities of the situation from past personal experience, along with the present personal experience of people in a professional role now concerned with the matter. You clearly have not kept with previous remarks or have ignored them or are in fact under a particular opinion yourself under the guise of a considered response to come to the conclusion with regards compromise.

 

It is the present and past governments that have not been endeavouring to outdoor one another in brutality towards asylum seeker and hence forgo any compromise in order to win votes. Nothing to do with compromise from those against how the system has turned out. What compromise can there be against such a system now in place? Rather a clear perspective from those against the demonization and ill treatment of people.

 

Ignorant statements should not be allowed to pass unchallenged and while I don't for a moment expect to change the views of the un caring, ill informed or have no problem with the ill treatment of those committed no crime, that does not mean those folk that do not accept such practices should remain silent. There are plenty of instances in history when good folk said too little .

 

Your response only highlights my initial comment with what knowledge you may feel you possess on the matter through virtue of being a migrant agent? Nothing has appeared obvious from what you have compiled, besides the apparent disdain expressed by having your view challenged.

 

Unfortunately, in view in my opinion does next to nothing to bring additional light onto the matter apart from a feeble attack on myself. Further with such stringent views being held on all sides little in the way of resolution would be remotely possible on this or likely any other forum.

The issue being not to resolve but not to let the haters get all the space.