Australia found guilty of human rights violations.

[New Chalcedon]

Well, this is not a pleasant topic for me to address, but I don't see anyone else doing so.

Australia has been found guilty - for the first time in history - of broad violations of human rights law by the UN Human Rights Council. The Council has particularly condemned Australia's policy of indefinite detention for refugees with adverse security findings, without informing the refugees in question of the causes of the finding or permitting them to appeal it.

I apologise for not providing the primary documentation (it seems hard to find it on the UNHRC website) but this is nothing new. As of 2006, Australian Senate reports were decrying the cruel and inhumane conditions imposed upon refugees in Australia, and we frankly really, really need ot pull our socks up on this matter.

I have on many occasions been told about the time immediately after the Fall of Saigon in 1975, when tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, to be welcomed and provided for by our Liberal (i.e., "conservative") Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and I am frankly ashamed to admit that today, we - the people of Australia - are failing to live up to the example set for us by our parents and grandparents. We are not welcoming these people in the spirit of humanitarianism and tolerance, we are not fulfilling our obligations under international law and we aren't even treating them with basic decency!

What's more, the situation is getting worse, not better. Undeterred by the UNHRC finding, Labor and Liberal and each pledged to excise the entirety of mainland Australia from the "acceptable" zone for refugees to arrive in. Labor has pledged to resettle them in Papua New Guinea (thus far without securing the agreement of Port Moresby) and Liberal wishes to restart the so-called "Nauru solution". We have no plan to take these people in, no plan to provide even basic needs for them, let alone offering them a new homeland, and no plan to actually be anything but racist fuckwads. Nowhere outside the Greens is a voice being heard saying, "Let's do the right thing"; instead, whichever party forms government after the upcoming election will do so on the back of promises to be even harsher - promises prompted by a racist and xenophobic media which treats every new arrival as a purposeful and deliberate affront to Australian sovereignty, not an appeal for help and humanity.

What's happened to my country? I want it back.

NSG, what do you think? Is Australia being too harsh on asylum seekers? Too lenient (ha!)? Something else?

EDIT: Thanks to Gravlen, whose search-fu is apparently stronger than might right now, links to the two decisions are here and here, and the committee's statement is here.

[Vicswampia]

They are guilty...of having an annoying accent.

Seriously though, Australia has a history of mistreatment of refugess and non-white immigrants (although things have been improving A LOT so far) so I'm not surprised.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Is this the issue of refugees sailing to Australia on crudely-made rafts, a journey in which many die? I saw a debate on this once.

If I recall correctly, the debate turned to whether or not passing Australian ships should pick them up to prevent them from dying on the rest of the journey. I believe one Australian politician argued that they should still send them back despite the high chance of fatality.

[DogDoo 7]

Good deal. Now lets see what your government does about it. My government has a broadly similar policy (except without even the pretense of a system to process asylum requests), except we're more known for flipping off the UN instead of engaging with them.

[Gravlen]

Australia’s detention of 46 refugees ‘cruel and degrading,’ UN rights experts find

GENEVA (22 AUGUST 2013) – Australia’s indefinite detention of 46 recognized refugees on security grounds amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, inflicting serious psychological harm on them, a UN Committee has found after examining their cases.

The Geneva-based Human Rights Committee said Australia should release the refugees, who have been held for at least two and a half years, and offer them compensation and rehabilitation.

The refugees -- 42 Tamils from Sri Lanka, three Rohingya from Myanmar and a Kuwaiti -- brought their complaints to Human Rights Committee, arguing that they were unable to challenge the legality of their detention in the Australian courts.

They had been recognized as refugees who could not be returned to their home countries but were refused visas to stay in Australia because they were deemed to pose a security risk, and so were held in immigration detention facilities.

The Committee, composed of 18 independent human rights experts, found that the refugees’ detention was arbitrary and violated Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)*, which states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The Committee reached its conclusion based principally on the fact that the refugees were not told the reasons for the negative security assessment and so were unable to mount a legal challenge to their indefinite detention.

“The combination of the arbitrary character of (their) detention, its protracted and/or indefinite duration, the refusal to provide information and procedural rights to (them) and the difficult conditions of detention are cumulatively inflicting serious psychological harm upon them,” the Committee members wrote in their conclusions adopted on 25 July and made public on Thursday.

This constituted treatment contrary to Article 7 of the ICCPR, under which “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” they added.

The Human Rights Committee said that Australia is obliged, under Article 2 of the Covenant, to provide all 46 refugees with effective remedy. This includes releasing them under individually appropriate conditions, and offering them rehabilitation and appropriate compensation.

Australia is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future, the Human Rights Committee concluded.

The Human Rights Committee monitors implementation of the ICCPR by States parties. It considered this case under the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant which gives the Committee competence to examine individual complaints.

The Committee's two decisions can be found here: :

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/AUS/CCPR_C_108_D_2094_2011_20720_E.pdf

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/AUS/CCPR_C_108_D_2136_2012_20721_E.pdf

[Quintium]

So, when are they going to complain in terms like these about the human rights violations in all islamic countries in the world? Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have labour laws and immigration schemes that, practically, amount to slavery, and violence is very common. So far, when it comes to immigrants, it has been mostly or even only western countries that have taken the blame.

[Steve Smith]

They are guilty...of having an annoying accent.

Seriously though, Australia has a history of mistreatment of refugess and non-white immigrants (althought things have been improving A LOT so far) so I'm not surprised.

Seems endemic to all places settled by Brits, this mistreatment of nonwhites. There's even anti-Muslim politicians down under, just like up here at home. In America.

[The balkens]

well, that was unexpected.

[Molsona]

If they don't want to let foreigners in their country, that's their decision which they have a right to make. You cant force them to let everyone into there.

[Greed and Death]

If Australia has mineral wealth the US needs to liberate the hell out of them.

[New Chalcedon]

Australia’s detention of 46 refugees ‘cruel and degrading,’ UN rights experts find

GENEVA (22 AUGUST 2013) – Australia’s indefinite detention of 46 recognized refugees on security grounds amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, inflicting serious psychological harm on them, a UN Committee has found after examining their cases.

The Geneva-based Human Rights Committee said Australia should release the refugees, who have been held for at least two and a half years, and offer them compensation and rehabilitation.

The refugees -- 42 Tamils from Sri Lanka, three Rohingya from Myanmar and a Kuwaiti -- brought their complaints to Human Rights Committee, arguing that they were unable to challenge the legality of their detention in the Australian courts.

They had been recognized as refugees who could not be returned to their home countries but were refused visas to stay in Australia because they were deemed to pose a security risk, and so were held in immigration detention facilities.

The Committee, composed of 18 independent human rights experts, found that the refugees’ detention was arbitrary and violated Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)*, which states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The Committee reached its conclusion based principally on the fact that the refugees were not told the reasons for the negative security assessment and so were unable to mount a legal challenge to their indefinite detention.

“The combination of the arbitrary character of (their) detention, its protracted and/or indefinite duration, the refusal to provide information and procedural rights to (them) and the difficult conditions of detention are cumulatively inflicting serious psychological harm upon them,” the Committee members wrote in their conclusions adopted on 25 July and made public on Thursday.

This constituted treatment contrary to Article 7 of the ICCPR, under which “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” they added.

The Human Rights Committee said that Australia is obliged, under Article 2 of the Covenant, to provide all 46 refugees with effective remedy. This includes releasing them under individually appropriate conditions, and offering them rehabilitation and appropriate compensation.

Australia is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future, the Human Rights Committee concluded.

The Human Rights Committee monitors implementation of the ICCPR by States parties. It considered this case under the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant which gives the Committee competence to examine individual complaints.

The Committee's two decisions can be found here: :

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/AUS/CCPR_C_108_D_2094_2011_20720_E.pdf

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/AUS/CCPR_C_108_D_2136_2012_20721_E.pdf

Thank you, Gravlen - the two links have been placed into the OP.

[DogDoo 7]

So, when are they going to complain in terms like these about the human rights violations in all islamic countries in the world? Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have labour laws and immigration schemes that, practically, amount to slavery, and violence is very common. So far, when it comes to immigrants, it has been mostly or even only western countries that have taken the blame.

Is Saudi Arabia a signatory to the various refugee conventions?

[New Chalcedon]

If they don't want to let foreigners in their country, that's their decision which they have a right to make. You cant force them to let everyone into there.

Actually, we agreed to let them in when we signed the Convention relating to the status of refugees in 1954. We said that we'd take them in, that we'd treat them humanely and that we'd give them a fair go....and we're breaking all three promises we voluntarily made.

That whole "we decide who comes here and how" bullshit doesn't fly in the face of commitments we, as a nation, chose to make.

[Oppressorion]

Good deal. Now lets see what your government does about it. My government has a broadly similar policy (except without even the pretense of a system to process asylum requests), except we're more known for flipping off the UN instead of engaging with them.

It would help a great deal if, when posters wrote "my government", "my nation" "my healthcare system", etc, they would actually name said country, and not presume that everyone knows what they are talking about.

[Avenio]

So, when are they going to complain in terms like these about the human rights violations in all islamic countries in the world? Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have labour laws and immigration schemes that, practically, amount to slavery, and violence is very common. So far, when it comes to immigrants, it has been mostly or even only western countries that have taken the blame.

As much as I'd hate to make you stop beating your beloved dead horse, they already have.

[Napkiraly]

If they don't want to let foreigners in their country, that's their decision which they have a right to make. You cant force them to let everyone into there.

Human rights trumps national sovereignty.

[Wind in the Willows]

They are guilty...of having an annoying accent.

Seriously though, Australia has a history of mistreatment of refugess and non-white immigrants (although things have been improving A LOT so far) so I'm not surprised.

I love the Australian accent.

[Bezombia]

I came here expecting one of two things:

1: Cloning superhumans
2: Human centipede

I was of disappoint.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

If Australia has mineral wealth the US needs to liberate the hell out of them.

LOL!

[New Chalcedon]

So, when are they going to complain in terms like these about the human rights violations in all islamic countries in the world? Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have labour laws and immigration schemes that, practically, amount to slavery, and violence is very common. So far, when it comes to immigrants, it has been mostly or even only western countries that have taken the blame.

Is Saudi Arabia a signatory to the various refugee conventions?

No. Neither is the UAE. And as pointed out by Avenio, the Human Rights Council has repeatedly criticised both nations on related grounds.

Here're the signatories:



Bright green countries are parties to the 1951 convention, yellow to the 1967 protocol expanding its geographical reference, dark green to both, and gray to neither.

[Vicswampia]

They are guilty...of having an annoying accent.

Seriously though, Australia has a history of mistreatment of refugess and non-white immigrants (althought things have been improving A LOT so far) so I'm not surprised.

Seems endemic to all places settled by Brits, this mistreatment of nonwhites. There's even anti-Muslim politicians down under, just like up here at home. In America.

Exactly.

A little out of topic, is there anything to read about the British Historical Racism?

[Rand al Thor]

I like Australia but they deserved this. Hopefully the U.N. will go after other developed nations who do similar things next. Looking at you there 'merica.

[Wind in the Willows]

So, when are they going to complain in terms like these about the human rights violations in all islamic countries in the world? Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have labour laws and immigration schemes that, practically, amount to slavery, and violence is very common. So far, when it comes to immigrants, it has been mostly or even only western countries that have taken the blame.

This as well.

[Tsaraine]

So, when are they going to complain in terms like these about the human rights violations in all islamic countries in the world? Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have labour laws and immigration schemes that, practically, amount to slavery, and violence is very common. So far, when it comes to immigrants, it has been mostly or even only western countries that have taken the blame.

I feel the need to point out that this is a fallacy of some kind, probably with a funny name. Pointing out that other people have things worse does not make a situation less bad; and this one is pretty bad. As a New Zealander, I'm kinda congenitally required to dislike Australia (right up until I'm required to do the ANZAC solidarity thing with Australia) but even so, I thought Australia was less bad than this. Modern, wealthy, democratic nations should really not be committing human rights violations. I hope that the Australian government finds some room for compassion and human decency within it (even if that takes away from the poison and venomous spines Australian wildlife is required to possess).

[DogDoo 7]

Good deal. Now lets see what your government does about it. My government has a broadly similar policy (except without even the pretense of a system to process asylum requests), except we're more known for flipping off the UN instead of engaging with them.

It would help a great deal if, when posters wrote "my government", "my nation" "my healthcare system", etc, they would actually name said country, and not presume that everyone knows what they are talking about.

The one and only Jewish State (tm).

We have a bit of an issue with Sudanese and Eritreans coming here. I don't want to derail, but I think our treatment of these alleged refugees is broadly similar (and terrible) to Australia's treatment. Except I don't think the Australian Interior Minister is calling the boat people 'cockroaches' and 'cancerous tumors' and 'a demographic threat to the Jewish character of the State.'