akiralx Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I do not think the UN has any business dictating any country what their border policy is. Strip it down, this is not a refugee issue but a border control issue. Especially, if the UN is made of countries like North Korea, Nigeria, Iran all those countries that to this date are committing far worse atrocities. The US immigration detention centers are not any better than the Australians and their deportation policies even worse. But who dares to condemn the US in the UN? If you deny the fact that in this day and age people from poorer countries will do anything by any means to try to get to countries to get a better life (and I do not blame them and I thank god that I was born into the Western World), than you do not know better. The fact is, that majority of people claiming refugee status are only economical migrants, who were coached by the smugglers "what to claim and say". Can I just stop you there - I didn't bother to read the rest, as your statement is demonstrably false, as even Tony Abbott was forced to admit: the vast majority of those claiming refugee status turn out to be exactly that, refugees, and *not* economic migrants. The earlier part of your post is simple 'whatabouttery' - i.e. the practice of reacting to justifiable criticism (in this case of Australia's woeful border control policies) by scrabbling around desperately to find an even worse example. It doesn't wash any more. Australia should aim to match the best in the world, not the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I think in light of current events- every nation should be entitled to do what it wants to protect national security. I do not agree that Australia has woeful border controls. I think they are highly cautious - which may be for good reason considering there is a war going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Can I just stop you there - I didn't bother to read the rest, as your statement is demonstrably false, as even Tony Abbott was forced to admit: the vast majority of those claiming refugee status turn out to be exactly that, refugees, and *not* economic migrants. The earlier part of your post is simple 'whatabouttery' - i.e. the practice of reacting to justifiable criticism (in this case of Australia's woeful border control policies) by scrabbling around desperately to find an even worse example. It doesn't wash any more. Australia should aim to match the best in the world, not the worst. The best in the world..? And who might that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I think in light of current events- every nation should be entitled to do what it wants to protect national security. Within the bounds of accepted human rights, of which the right to a family is one. Breaching human rights generally leads to undesirable outcomes, as the United States found out with their torture program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 How much can you entitle to non-citizens? Isn't this a hugely grey area and one that should be approached with caution? Yes, illegal detention and ongoing torture is about as bad as it can get. Australia has made it clear that asylum seekers who arrive on boats will not be given a home here. That is a clear deterrent to those who wish to breach national security policies. There are always ramifications. There is a war going on. The cracks in national security have started to become clear. I'm honest enough to admit that in peace time a country can afford to take more liberties. In a war, everybody's liberties are thrown into chaos. Ironically, the desirable outcome is peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibbs Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 And Australia wants a seat in the UN Human Rights organisation? Well, if Saudi can be Chair of a UN Human Rights Council, I think we've a fair chance of at least getting a seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Simply stunning the liberties they afford to their migrant workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Non-citizens should not have their human rights breached. Absolutely it is a grey area and should be approached with caution, which is why any proceedings should be transparent, and judged by someone with extensive experience and a broad understanding of the legislation. Leaving aside asylum seekers, don't you think that those that have been admitted and have built a life here should have that taken into account? Isn't someone who has spent half a century here and nowhere else different to someone on a working holiday visa? The visa revocation thing has very little to do with national security in the cases presented thus far. We're not talking about terrorists here. I do not see the insistence of adherence to the charter of human rights as 'taking more liberties'. War is often used as an excuse for eroding human rights, which is what we have seen in recent times. It suits politicians to concentrate on something else. A classic example is the US approach to gun laws. In the Paris attacks, 129 people died with probably more to come, which has prompted an outpouring of emotion and tightened resolve in the 'War on Terror'. This is about equivalent to 4 days worth of gun deaths in the US, with pretty much zero political will to address this topic, which is clearly more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Non-citizens should not have their human rights breached. Absolutely it is a grey area and should be approached with caution, which is why any proceedings should be transparent, and judged by someone with extensive experience and a broad understanding of the legislation. Leaving aside asylum seekers, don't you think that those that have been admitted and have built a life here should have that taken into account? Isn't someone who has spent half a century here and nowhere else different to someone on a working holiday visa? The visa revocation thing has very little to do with national security in the cases presented thus far. We're not talking about terrorists here. I do not see the insistence of adherence to the charter of human rights as 'taking more liberties'. War is often used as an excuse for eroding human rights, which is what we have seen in recent times. It suits politicians to concentrate on something else. A classic example is the US approach to gun laws. In the Paris attacks, 129 people died with probably more to come, which has prompted an outpouring of emotion and tightened resolve in the 'War on Terror'. This is about equivalent to 4 days worth of gun deaths in the US, with pretty much zero political will to address this topic, which is clearly more important. You're right. At best the situation can be described as a conflict of errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Well, if Saudi can be Chair of a UN Human Rights Council, I think we've a fair chance of at least getting a seat. Got to get the votes first. Saudi influence not to say money smooths the way. Australia on the other ground appears to claim the moral high ground to which it is not entitled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Got to get the votes first. Saudi influence not to say money smooths the way. Australia on the other ground appears to claim the moral high ground to which it is not entitled. Yes, we try to get in on legitimate means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Well, if Saudi can be Chair of a UN Human Rights Council, I think we've a fair chance of at least getting a seat. I am not aware Saudi attempts to claim the moral high ground as Australia appears to. Saudi has the influence due to its economic might and war on terror. It is totally corrupt and deserves to be treated with contempt. At least the House of Saud bring a degree of suability, something from assured, going by recent history, with any replacement regime put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yes, we try to get in on legitimate means. Well it hasn't actually followed the charter that it signed up to. UNHCR as been rather critical of children in prolonged detention and off shore detention in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockinTas Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 The UN Human Rights Council lost credibility with me when Saudi Arabia was elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Well it hasn't actually followed the charter that it signed up to. UNHCR as been rather critical of children in prolonged detention and off shore detention in general. Yes, that is a tricky one, as any "rights" afforded children can't realistically preclude their parents. And at what age does this change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speakeasy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 The UN Human Rights Council lost credibility with me when Saudi Arabia was elected. Oil sure is a greasy substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yes, that is a tricky one, as any "rights" afforded children can't realistically preclude their parents. And at what age does this change. I'm still awaiting the result of a UNHCR meeting the other day with the expectation, some form of condemnation , would come down on Australia. I understand there is work behind the scenes going on. The opening of Nauru Detention Centre, allowing free access being a prime move. Turnball is unhappy as how things stand one expects and seeking further resolutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNC FABS Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 ok, so am I reading this right. If I only have a visa and get arrested for anything (dropping litter, car crash, traffic violation) . I will have my visa cancelled and be locked up on Christmas Island, until I'm sent back to the Uk (if it still exists by then). Although if I get the years under my belt and get citizenship I will be safe (or have to give up my Uk status, to be only Aussy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amibovered Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 ok, so am I reading this right. If I only have a visa and get arrested for anything (dropping litter, car crash, traffic violation) . I will have my visa cancelled and be locked up on Christmas Island, until I'm sent back to the Uk (if it still exists by then). Although if I get the years under my belt and get citizenship I will be safe (or have to give up my Uk status, to be only Aussy). No, this applies to people from New Zealand who have specific conditions in their visa, although if you commit a serious crime you could be deported, assuming Australia still exists by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I think you have to do something pretty serious to be deported, usually involving a jail sentence. Even then they don't usually do it, more's the pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 ok, so am I reading this right. If I only have a visa and get arrested for anything (dropping litter, car crash, traffic violation) . I will have my visa cancelled and be locked up on Christmas Island, until I'm sent back to the Uk (if it still exists by then). Although if I get the years under my belt and get citizenship I will be safe (or have to give up my Uk status, to be only Aussy). The threshold is a 12 month jail sentence. I don't think you'll get a 12 month jail sentence for dropping litter so you should be safe with that one. The same goes for most car crashes - provided you don't kill someone while over the limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNC FABS Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 but I thought this guy was arrested for no real reason ?, only being a bike gang member, or did I read it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 but I thought this guy was arrested for no real reason ?, only being a bike gang member, or did I read it wrong? Yes, he has not committed any offence and was not allowed any legal representation, in fact no judicial process took place. Dutton just made the decision to ship him off to a detention centre offshore. If an Aus citizen who had not committed an offence was incacerated indefinitely in somewhere like Bali solely on the approval of a politician without any due judicial process taking place, I'm pretty sure the Aus media, and many who seem to endorse our government's actions in this area, would be pretty steamed up about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I'm not sure exactly why they are detaining him. There are numerous flights to New Zealand every day so they could just deport him immediately without any detention. He would be free to reapply to come back to Australia from NZ if he wished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.