Australia Frees Convicted Criminal Refugees- Bashing in WA

[Australian rePublic]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... urt-ruling
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... eople-free

So the Australian High Court, the highest federal or otherwise court, has deemed that holding people in indefinite detention is unlawful, despite the fact that we've been doing it for almost two decades. Most of them who were held in indefinite detention were there because they have committed crimes in their home countries, including a CONVICTED hitman and a CONVICTED paedophile. Convicted hitman Sirul Azhar Umar is not a citizen of Australia nor is he a legal immigrant. He fled his home country of Malaysia to Australia and has been in immigration detention ever since as we didn't know what to do with him, because he can't be deported back to Malaysia because he will face the death penalty. The federal government is looking to see what they can do with regards to these people, but the federal opposition is slamming the government for not changing the laws as a matter of urgency.

Okay, what the fuck? Why can't we deport this guy? Why can't we extradite him to death penalty countries? I understand that we ourselves don't have the death penalty, but he was found guilty of murder in an other country, why should he be our problem. Good job, you've basically told every criminal out there that if you commit a crime, just flee to Australia and you'll be free. Good fucking job high court. I mean, it probably is the law that they can't keep these people in indefinite detention, but the High Court should be able to use their fucking discretion, especially considering that our elected officials have bipartisan support of keeping them there. Good job high court, tell the world that if you commit a crime which is justifiably considered a crime (i.e. not something stupid like homosexuality being illegal or anything like that)- if you're found guilty of a crime which justifiably considered a crime, you can just flee to Australia and be free. Good fucking job high court, that's what exactly what we need. hitmen running fleeing the law coming here to live freely. I also agree with the opposition party (the Liberals) that the current party (Labor) needs to do more to strengthen laws so that we don't free fucking hitmen and paedophiles and let them free into the community.

But at least on the plus side, the federal government is seeing what they can do with them, and the federal police and state/territory police are all working together to monitor them. And at least the federal government has committed to reexamine the situation after the High Court has handed down the reasons behind the ruling

Anyways NSG, what do you think?

[Drongonia]

I'm not against the idea of refugee/immigration legislation having exceptions for people who risk death on deportation...

...except when they're convicted of a crime. The issue here is that the High Court would have found the death penalty for kiddy fiddling to be "manifestly unjust" or some other nonsense, which is an entirely separate issue. I've actually been working on a law regarding this, and immigration as a whole, for my IC nation - and I'd like it if real-world nations applied these principles.

Drongonia shall not allow the entry of more than 500 (five hundred) asylum seekers per year, except in circumstances where-
(a) -snip-
(b) Immigration officials can reasonably ascertain that the applicant will be in immediate and life-threatening danger should their application be denied; except where-

• (a) The immediate danger faced by the applicant is a consequence of fair and reasonable legal action undertaken by the applicant’s nation of residence

[Australian rePublic]

I'm not against the idea of refugee/immigration legislation having exceptions for people who risk death on deportation...

...except when they're convicted of a crime. The issue here is that the High Court would have found the death penalty for kiddy fiddling to be "manifestly unjust" or some other nonsense, which is an entirely separate issue. I've actually been working on a law regarding this, and immigration as a whole, for my IC nation - and I'd like it if real-world nations applied these principles.

Drongonia shall not allow the entry of more than 500 (five hundred) asylum seekers per year, except in circumstances where-
(a) -snip-
(b) Immigration officials can reasonably ascertain that the applicant will be in immediate and life-threatening danger should their application be denied; except where-

• (a) The immediate danger faced by the applicant is a consequence of fair and reasonable legal action undertaken by the applicant’s nation of residence

Firstly, the death penalty was the hitman, and, as far as I know, not the paedophile. I mean the paedo might also be facing death, I don't know, but I know the hitman is

Secondly, although deportation would be ideal, we don't have to deport him, but why can't we keep the hitman locked up in indefinate detention?

[Risottia]

Okay, what the fuck? Why can't we deport this guy? Why can't we extradite him to death penalty countries?

Because you think that the death penalty is wrong, and that the maximum penalty for any crime is life imprisonment. Simple.

[Page]

Secondly, although deportation would be ideal, we don't have to deport him, but why can't we keep the hitman locked up in indefinate detention?

In a country that does not practice capital punishment, life in prison is the absolute harshest sentence that can be imposed. You suggest subjecting people to the same conditions as would befall serial killers and mass murderers but without them ever having a trial in your own system.

[Gravlen]

Okay, what the fuck? Why can't we deport this guy? Why can't we extradite him to death penalty countries?

Because of the principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law

Under international human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement guarantees that no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm. This principle applies to all migrants at all times, irrespective of migration status.

I understand that we ourselves don't have the death penalty, but he was found guilty of murder in an other country, why should he be our problem.

Because it would be your act of removal / deportation which would directly lead to his death. Hence it would be your problem.

Good job, you've basically told every criminal out there that if you commit a crime, just flee to Australia and you'll be free.

I mean, that's silly.

First of all, the principle only applies where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm (death penalty). Plenty of crimes don't reach this level, and plenty of countries are able to treat their prisoners humanely.

Second, it's not like this only applies to Australia. This is a universal rule. See for example Soering v. The United Kingdom wherein the courts barred the UK from extraditing a German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder and the potential exposure to the death row conditions which would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment.

Third, as the Soering example shows, there are ways forward despite this hinderance. Soering was extradited to the US after the US and the State of Virginia committed to not seeking the death penalty against him. (He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms in 1990, but was paroled and extradited to Germany in 2019).

Good fucking job high court. I mean, it probably is the law that they can't keep these people in indefinite detention, but the High Court should be able to use their fucking discretion, especially considering that our elected officials have bipartisan support of keeping them there.

I agree that the court did a good job, ignoring political pressure and instead doing what they're supposed to: Rule on the law and the merits of the case. They should absolutely ignore whether something has bipartisan support or not.

Good job high court, tell the world that if you commit a crime which is justifiably considered a crime (i.e. not something stupid like homosexuality being illegal or anything like that)- if you're found guilty of a crime which justifiably considered a crime, you can just flee to Australia and be free.

You are aware that not all courts are independent, right? I mean, it is in a way what you're saying you want the Australian courts to not be either, that they should bend to the whims of politicians... But many courts can find people guilty of crimes despite the crimes never having taken place. There's good reasons to ask whether some foreign judgements were fair and if they can be trusted.

Good fucking job high court, that's what exactly what we need. hitmen running fleeing the law coming here to live freely. I also agree with the opposition party (the Liberals) that the current party (Labor) needs to do more to strengthen laws so that we don't free fucking hitmen and paedophiles and let them free into the community.

But at least on the plus side, the federal government is seeing what they can do with them, and the federal police and state/territory police are all working together to monitor them. And at least the federal government has committed to reexamine the situation after the High Court has handed down the reasons behind the ruling

Anyways NSG, what do you think?

It cause for celebration that the Court has upheld the rule of law and basic principles of human rights.

[Australian rePublic]

Secondly, although deportation would be ideal, we don't have to deport him, but why can't we keep the hitman locked up in indefinate detention?

In a country that does not practice capital punishment, life in prison is the absolute harshest sentence that can be imposed. You suggest subjecting people to the same conditions as would befall serial killers and mass murderers but without them ever having a trial in your own system.

No, I am suggesting that we never should have granted him asylum., or at the very least, keep him in immigration detention, away from the community. Why should he be free. No body is questioning whether or not the system in Malaysia is just, and he admitted to the crime, so he obviously didn't flee because it was an unjust ruling, he fled to escape the law, which is why he went to court in the first place in Australia and established this precident. He was responsible for establishing the precident. He admitted to comitting a crime, but still wanted to be free of the consequences. Why should we give into that? And I doubt that he admitted to the crime under duress. If he thought that the Australian criminal system wss unfair, he could have fled to any other country with a farer justice system. Now, he could have come to Australia in order and discovered that we were harsher than we thought, but I very much doubt that. Considering that he mamaged to get himself free, despite admitting to the crime, it seems like he's done his homework. I could be wrong of coarse, you what they say about assumptions afterall, but I fail to foresee how. And considering how far he actually got his case, stating in court that his admission was out of duress would probably be a cakewalk. So it seems to me to be obvious that his attitude is "yes I did it, but free me anyway". So here we have a hitman who's admitted to the crime whilst in the country he fled and went out of his way to avoid the consequences of it.

And he probably expected that he would be some level of free if he got out. I can't imagine he eould have thought that immigration detention is worse than prison

[Australian rePublic]

Secondly, although deportation would be ideal, we don't have to deport him, but why can't we keep the hitman locked up in indefinate detention?

In a country that does not practice capital punishment, life in prison is the absolute harshest sentence that can be imposed. You suggest subjecting people to the same conditions as would befall serial killers and mass murderers but without them ever having a trial in your own system.

So give him life in prison, or in this case, immigration detention, which is less shitty.

[Australian rePublic]

[
I agree that the court did a good job, ignoring political pressure and instead doing what they're supposed to: Rule on the law and the merits of the case. They should absolutely ignore whether something has bipartisan support or not.

I'll address the rest when it's not midnight, but that's actually a damn good point. I feel much better about the decision now, actually

[Australian rePublic]

--EDITED-OUT--

[Lucky12]

Hello Everyone, instaup

Australia's decision to release asylum seekers, convicted of crimes unrelated to their refugee status, reflects a humane approach to justice. Recognizing the distinction between legal infractions and their pursuit of asylum underscores a commitment to fair treatment and upholding human rights.

[Shangjunshu]

I am left leaning but there are some things I do not understand. Maybe do some rigorous psychological testing....

[Bradfordville]

I'd say give the guy the option. You can spend the rest of your life in a cell in Australia or go home and die. You can choose whichever seems like the less bad option, but being a free man again isn't on the table.

[Bradfordville]

Hello Everyone, instaup

Australia's decision to release asylum seekers, convicted of crimes unrelated to their refugee status, reflects a humane approach to justice. Recognizing the distinction between legal infractions and their pursuit of asylum underscores a commitment to fair treatment and upholding human rights.

If someone commits a serious offense like rape, they shouldn't be allowed in Australia. Fuck em.

[Australian rePublic]

Hello Everyone, instaup

Australia's decision to release asylum seekers, convicted of crimes unrelated to their refugee status, reflects a humane approach to justice. Recognizing the distinction between legal infractions and their pursuit of asylum underscores a commitment to fair treatment and upholding human rights.

What the fuck are you talking about? They're not legitimate assylum seekers, they're convicted criminals freeing the law. It's only been less than a month, and one of them is ALREADY iallegedly involved in a child prostitution ring

[Makko Oko]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12738565/Malaysian-hitman-free-High-Court-ruling-immigration.html
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... urt-ruling
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... eople-free

So the Australian High Court, the highest federal or otherwise court, has deemed that holding people in indefinite detention is unlawful, despite the fact that we've been doing it for almost two decades. Most of them who were held in indefinite detention were there because they have committed crimes in their home countries, including a CONVICTED hitman and a CONVICTED paedophile. Convicted hitman Sirul Azhar Umar is not a citizen of Australia nor is he a legal immigrant. He fled his home country of Malaysia to Australia and has been in immigration detention ever since as we didn't know what to do with him, because he can't be deported back to Malaysia because he will face the death penalty. The federal government is looking to see what they can do with regards to these people, but the federal opposition is slamming the government for not changing the laws as a matter of urgency.

Okay, what the fuck? Why can't we deport this guy? Why can't we extradite him to death penalty countries? I understand that we ourselves don't have the death penalty, but he was found guilty of murder in an other country, why should he be our problem. Good job, you've basically told every criminal out there that if you commit a crime, just flee to Australia and you'll be free. Good fucking job high court. I mean, it probably is the law that they can't keep these people in indefinite detention, but the High Court should be able to use their fucking discretion, especially considering that our elected officials have bipartisan support of keeping them there. Good job high court, tell the world that if you commit a crime which is justifiably considered a crime (i.e. not something stupid like homosexuality being illegal or anything like that)- if you're found guilty of a crime which justifiably considered a crime, you can just flee to Australia and be free. Good fucking job high court, that's what exactly what we need. hitmen running fleeing the law coming here to live freely. I also agree with the opposition party (the Liberals) that the current party (Labor) needs to do more to strengthen laws so that we don't free fucking hitmen and paedophiles and let them free into the community.

But at least on the plus side, the federal government is seeing what they can do with them, and the federal police and state/territory police are all working together to monitor them. And at least the federal government has committed to reexamine the situation after the High Court has handed down the reasons behind the ruling

Anyways NSG, what do you think?

Tbf, I think you have ranted a lot about Australia recently, not to say that your rants weren't valid, however I disagree with you on this one. Firstly, indefinite detention without charge is without a doubt a violation of human rights especially if you put them to work. The reason indefinite detention is illegal in this case is because it violates the right of habeas corpus and due process. Fun fact, Section 80 of the Australian Constitution mandates trial by jury for indictable offenses. Now here's a kicker, did those immigrants get that? Nope.

Regardless of what you may believe, they are on legal soil and therefore are under the authority of the Australian Constitution meaning they are protected the same as anybody else, excepting some circumstances. Now one thing me and you can agree on here is deportation. If they are not a citizen and did not enter legally, they should be deported irrespective of the circumstances.

Good job, you've basically told every criminal out there that if you commit a crime, just flee to Australia and you'll be free. Good fucking job high court.

I respectfully say you're off your knocker here on that comment. One decision by a court to treat people LIKE HUMANS, and not to mention EQUALLY, does not automatically equate to a high-crime paradise for the people of the world to come swimming on by. Besides, do you really think living as an illegal is easy? Hell no. Not everything is painted one color my friend, and I urge you to try some bifocals.

Finally let us stop at the Migration Act 1958, Section 198AD. The court found that certain provisions in the Migration Act 1958 regarding immigration detention were "beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth" and ordered the release of the plaintiff. The problem here had to do with this part in particular:

(1) An unlawful non‑citizen detained under section 189 must be kept in immigration detention until:
(aa) an officer begins to deal with the non‑citizen under subsection 198AD(3); or
(b) he or she is deported under section 200; or
(c) he or she is granted a visa

Nothing in here allows for indefinite detention. That's bullshit at that.

[Australian rePublic]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12738565/Malaysian-hitman-free-High-Court-ruling-immigration.html
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... urt-ruling
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... eople-free

So the Australian High Court, the highest federal or otherwise court, has deemed that holding people in indefinite detention is unlawful, despite the fact that we've been doing it for almost two decades. Most of them who were held in indefinite detention were there because they have committed crimes in their home countries, including a CONVICTED hitman and a CONVICTED paedophile. Convicted hitman Sirul Azhar Umar is not a citizen of Australia nor is he a legal immigrant. He fled his home country of Malaysia to Australia and has been in immigration detention ever since as we didn't know what to do with him, because he can't be deported back to Malaysia because he will face the death penalty. The federal government is looking to see what they can do with regards to these people, but the federal opposition is slamming the government for not changing the laws as a matter of urgency.

Okay, what the fuck? Why can't we deport this guy? Why can't we extradite him to death penalty countries? I understand that we ourselves don't have the death penalty, but he was found guilty of murder in an other country, why should he be our problem. Good job, you've basically told every criminal out there that if you commit a crime, just flee to Australia and you'll be free. Good fucking job high court. I mean, it probably is the law that they can't keep these people in indefinite detention, but the High Court should be able to use their fucking discretion, especially considering that our elected officials have bipartisan support of keeping them there. Good job high court, tell the world that if you commit a crime which is justifiably considered a crime (i.e. not something stupid like homosexuality being illegal or anything like that)- if you're found guilty of a crime which justifiably considered a crime, you can just flee to Australia and be free. Good fucking job high court, that's what exactly what we need. hitmen running fleeing the law coming here to live freely. I also agree with the opposition party (the Liberals) that the current party (Labor) needs to do more to strengthen laws so that we don't free fucking hitmen and paedophiles and let them free into the community.

But at least on the plus side, the federal government is seeing what they can do with them, and the federal police and state/territory police are all working together to monitor them. And at least the federal government has committed to reexamine the situation after the High Court has handed down the reasons behind the ruling

Anyways NSG, what do you think?

Tbf, I think you have ranted a lot about Australia recently,

Being an Australian citizen and resident will tend to do that to someone who is interested in politics

not to say that your rants weren't valid, however I disagree with you on this one. Firstly, indefinite detention without charge is without a doubt a violation of human rights especially if you put them to work. The reason indefinite detention is illegal in this case is because it violates the right of habeas corpus and due process. Fun fact, Section 80 of the Australian Constitution mandates trial by jury for indictable offenses. Now here's a kicker, did those immigrants get that? Nope.

Put to work? That's a new one, I haven't heard of that. But in either case, their case was heard in a court of law. Just a court of law in a different country, the country they happen to be a citizen of

Regardless of what you may believe, they are on legal soil and therefore are under the authority of the Australian Constitution meaning they are protected the same as anybody else, excepting some circumstances. Now one thing me and you can agree on here is deportation. If they are not a citizen and did not enter legally, they should be deported irrespective of the circumstances.

Not are they not Australian citizens, if they were citizens, they wouldn't have been in immigration detention in the first place. They are convicted criminals in their own countries.

Good job, you've basically told every criminal out there that if you commit a crime, just flee to Australia and you'll be free. Good fucking job high court.

I respectfully say you're off your knocker here on that comment. One decision by a court to treat people LIKE HUMANS, and not to mention EQUALLY, does not automatically equate to a high-crime paradise for the people of the world to come swimming on by. Besides, do you really think living as an illegal is easy? Hell no. Not everything is painted one color my friend, and I urge you to try some bifocals.

Finally let us stop at the Migration Act 1958, Section 198AD. The court found that certain provisions in the Migration Act 1958 regarding immigration detention were "beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth" and ordered the release of the plaintiff. The problem here had to do with this part in particular:

(1) An unlawful non‑citizen detained under section 189 must be kept in immigration detention until:
(aa) an officer begins to deal with the non‑citizen under subsection 198AD(3); or
(b) he or she is deported under section 200; or
(c) he or she is granted a visa

Nothing in here allows for indefinite detention. That's bullshit at that.

Is living as an illegal immigrant easy? No. Is it better to be an illegal immigrant in a country that freed you DESPITE your immigration better than prison? Many people would think so

[Shangjunshu]

If someone commits a serious offense like rape, they shouldn't be allowed in Australia. Fuck em.

Oh my god, a semi-reasonable liberal like myself. Make them a criminal colony or something. Australia is a criminal colony anyway.

[Australian rePublic]

Okay, what the fuck? Why can't we deport this guy? Why can't we extradite him to death penalty countries?

Because of the principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law

Under international human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement guarantees that no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm. This principle applies to all migrants at all times, irrespective of migration status.

I understand that we ourselves don't have the death penalty, but he was found guilty of murder in an other country, why should he be our problem.

Because it would be your act of removal / deportation which would directly lead to his death. Hence it would be your problem.

Good job, you've basically told every criminal out there that if you commit a crime, just flee to Australia and you'll be free.

I mean, that's silly.

First of all, the principle only applies where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm (death penalty). Plenty of crimes don't reach this level, and plenty of countries are able to treat their prisoners humanely.

Second, it's not like this only applies to Australia. This is a universal rule. See for example Soering v. The United Kingdom wherein the courts barred the UK from extraditing a German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder and the potential exposure to the death row conditions which would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment.

So, how does that change anything?

Third, as the Soering example shows, there are ways forward despite this hinderance. Soering was extradited to the US after the US and the State of Virginia committed to not seeking the death penalty against him. (He was sentenced to two consecutive life terms in 1990, but was paroled and extradited to Germany in 2019).

Good fucking job high court. I mean, it probably is the law that they can't keep these people in indefinite detention, but the High Court should be able to use their fucking discretion, especially considering that our elected officials have bipartisan support of keeping them there.

I agree that the court did a good job, ignoring political pressure and instead doing what they're supposed to: Rule on the law and the merits of the case. They should absolutely ignore whether something has bipartisan support or not.

Fair enough, yea, it's to have a court that operates like that UNTIL there is an unjust law in Australia, something that I ranted on and on and on about. Even if there was bipartisan support to not punish someone over an unjust law, the court would then be required to still punish the person. That's the problem with the letter of the law High Court rulings. And as I type this, I now realise that it is of upmost importance that I bring attention to the public and try to get them to rally their repeal

Good job high court, tell the world that if you commit a crime which is justifiably considered a crime (i.e. not something stupid like homosexuality being illegal or anything like that)- if you're found guilty of a crime which justifiably considered a crime, you can just flee to Australia and be free.

You are aware that not all courts are independent, right? I mean, it is in a way what you're saying you want the Australian courts to not be either, that they should bend to the whims of politicians... But many courts can find people guilty of crimes despite the crimes never having taken place. There's good reasons to ask whether some foreign judgements were fair and if they can be trusted.

Unless the person has actually admitted to the crime upon arriving in Australia, as is the case with the hitman

Good fucking job high court, that's what exactly what we need. hitmen running fleeing the law coming here to live freely. I also agree with the opposition party (the Liberals) that the current party (Labor) needs to do more to strengthen laws so that we don't free fucking hitmen and paedophiles and let them free into the community.

But at least on the plus side, the federal government is seeing what they can do with them, and the federal police and state/territory police are all working together to monitor them. And at least the federal government has committed to reexamine the situation after the High Court has handed down the reasons behind the ruling

Anyways NSG, what do you think?

It cause for celebration that the Court has upheld the rule of law and basic principles of human rights.

[/quote]
Again, until there is an unjust law

[Orcuo]

I am going go on a limb and say this probably isn’t an good idea.

[Australian rePublic]

I am going go on a limb and say this probably isn’t an good idea.

Considering that one of them has already allegedly been involved in a child prostitution ring, your gut is probably correct

[Australian rePublic]

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts ... 826fe9?amp

I was going to create a new thread about this, but my laptop has been out of action because apparently it takes more than 3 weeks to replace a fricken' charger, and I still have to wait indiffientely for that **sigh** and it was just easier to do this on my phone.

Anyways, one of these convicted criminals has allegedly bashed a woman in Perth five months after being freed. Good fucking jib Alabanese, good fucking job! You had five months to do something about this and now it's still crickets, and now it lead t the alleged bashing of a woman. Good fucking job! There aren't enough words for incompetance to describe Albanese and his federal government

[Haganham]

I think the government should force the judges to house these people in their children's bedrooms.