Australia found guilty of human rights violations.

[Forster Keys]

Double wut?

I guess he is saying that the Tamil who become 'boat people' are classified by the Australian government as a 'security risk' when they shouldn't be.

Yeah, fair enough.

[New Chalcedon]

As for the praise I give Fraser, his actions toward the Vietnamese refugees are a matter of public record, so I give credit where it's due.

It was different to either Sri Lanka or Afghanistan though.

Australia in Vietnam lost a war, and there were two sides. (Australia was there to support the US of course, "all the way with LBJ"). The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong won. It's pretty reasonable to assume that anyone leaving Vietnam had an expectation of being persecuted there: they were likely "our allies" in the war, not the winners of it.

Afghanistan was a war Australia (as a small part of coalition) supposedly won. Anyone leaving now for fear of persecution is either fearing future persecution (if the current government collapses), or they're from a region of afghanistan where people are still persecuted, or ... sorry to say ... they're losers of the war. "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" cuts both ways. I actually have a lot of sympathy for emigrants from Afghanistan, because I think it's a disaster waiting to happen. But the standard of asylum requires that the threat be immiment: "my country is going to the dogs and I'll be persecuted if it does" does not meet that standard, and furthermore some emmigrants from Afghanistan may actually be the losers of the war there: Taliban.

Sri Lanka though is the major source of boat arrivals to Australia. That's complicated. Australia wasn't much involved in that, so Australia doesn't bear any special responsibility. On the one hand, it's good to deal with a regional problem (of asylum seekers leaving their country by the shortest route to a safe haven). On the other hand, it was a rather brutal civil war, on both sides, and some of the emigrants may be fleeing "persecution" more properly called "prosecution". For war crimes.

Vietnam was a relatively simple case. Australia was the nearest developed country, Australia took sides in a civil war ... and lost. Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Somalia aren't such clear cut cases, for why refugees would head to Australia.

That said, I think asylum seekers should spend only a short time in custody. Either the immigration department is grossly underfunded that they can't do background checks within a few weeks, or there is a deliberate tardiness to release into the community (intended as a punishment). And once released, I think asylum seekers waiting for immigrant status should be allowed to take paid work.

Fraser didn't say we should take them in out of legalities: he appealed to humanity, not to the letter of the law.

I would be extremely impressed if someone managed to tunnel into Australia.

I'd be more concerned about what the hell they could possibly be looking for asylum from.

Yeah, point there.

I say it's too soft.

But it's a good policy so far.

mm-hmm. Besides the "you would say that, wouldn't you?" factor, there's also the point that you seem to be utterly, blissfully unaware of the way the refugees are treated: regular abuse at the detention facilities at the hands of the guards (for the most part), for months and years at a time, is the norm there.

Then again, given that Labor wants to rewrite the relevant international convention to completely abrogate any responsibility at all while sending the current refugees to a third-world hellhole (sorry, PNG, but between the climate, the politics and the poor economy, I think the term's apt) and Liberal wants to do the same, but send them to a godsforsaken island in the middle of the Pacific instead, I must admit to some curiosity. Oh, and both parties agree: all refugees should be automatically returned to their home nations, no exceptions, after a predetermined amount of time, and no-one who ever came here as a refugee should ever be eligible for citizenship here, no matter what.

Since you think that the above policies (as well as the ongoing, systematic and "unofficial" abuse of refugees in the camps without any kind of redress or oversight) are "too soft", I must admit to curiosity about what you think would be a good policy.

Perhaps you'd like to sink the boats on sight?

[Ifreann]

I would be extremely impressed if someone managed to tunnel into Australia.

I'd be more concerned about what the hell they could possibly be looking for asylum from.

Mole people.

[Forster Keys]

It's remarkably airborne game with a very strange way of passing. This is based on what happened to be on television in 2008 in a McDonald's in Oz and a few PE lessons a while back where we practiced the passing thing.

However, the statement is still totally nonsensical.

In thirteen years of schooling I never did any AFL in PE. That should tell you something.

Is this the time for an Aussie, Aussie, Aussie?

Which reminds me, neither Australia nor New Zealand tend to field teams in any sports wearing colours associated with their flags.

Well because we'd be identical.

League, Union, Aussie Rules or none of them?

NRL mate. AFL is aerial ping pong and hopelessly southern. Union has too much kicking and needless shit like scrums, rucks and lineouts.

[New Chalcedon]

Me too, actually.

But if you start near Cordoba, Spain, you could tunnel straight through to Hamilton, New Zealand... So somewhere you should be able to make a slight turn and Bob's your uncle!

I think the solid spinning iron core would be a bit of a barrier

Oh, hush with your geology, you.

[Gravlen]

Me too, actually.

But if you start near Cordoba, Spain, you could tunnel straight through to Hamilton, New Zealand... So somewhere you should be able to make a slight turn and Bob's your uncle!

I think the solid spinning iron core would be a bit of a barrier

That's a myth. The center of the earth is actually made of butter (often mistaken for a sun, probably because its warm glow gives heat and light to Arkadia.)

[Vitaphone Racing]

I think the solid spinning iron core would be a bit of a barrier

That's a myth. The center of the earth is actually made of butter (often mistaken for a sun, probably because its warm glow gives heat and light to Arkadia.)

Look, there's really only one way to find out. I'll get my shovel.

[Gravlen]

That's a myth. The center of the earth is actually made of butter (often mistaken for a sun, probably because its warm glow gives heat and light to Arkadia.)

Look, there's really only one way to find out. I'll get my shovel.

Shovel, pah! In my day we used a teaspoon, and would never even dream of complaining!

[Vitaphone Racing]

Look, there's really only one way to find out. I'll get my shovel.

Shovel, pah! In my day we used a teaspoon, and would never even dream of complaining!

We don't have those in Australia because it's un-Australian to drink tea. I'll get my beer spoon and start over again

[Abatael]

I say it's too soft.

But it's a good policy so far.

mm-hmm. Besides the "you would say that, wouldn't you?" factor, there's also the point that you seem to be utterly, blissfully unaware of the way the refugees are treated: regular abuse at the detention facilities at the hands of the guards (for the most part), for months and years at a time, is the norm there.

Then again, given that Labor wants to rewrite the relevant international convention to completely abrogate any responsibility at all while sending the current refugees to a third-world hellhole (sorry, PNG, but between the climate, the politics and the poor economy, I think the term's apt) and Liberal wants to do the same, but send them to a godsforsaken island in the middle of the Pacific instead, I must admit to some curiosity. Oh, and both parties agree: all refugees should be automatically returned to their home nations, no exceptions, after a predetermined amount of time, and no-one who ever came here as a refugee should ever be eligible for citizenship here, no matter what.

Since you think that the above policies (as well as the ongoing, systematic and "unofficial" abuse of refugees in the camps without any kind of redress or oversight) are "too soft", I must admit to curiosity about what you think would be a good policy.

Perhaps you'd like to sink the boats on sight?

Please expand on this alleged abuse. And these so-called refugees are NOT illegal immigrants, are they?

I think a good policy is simply not to accept refugees. If true refugees, that is, not illegal immigrants, are being abused without reason, then I think that should stop.

I understand Australia signed some covenant or whatever. I'd just disregard the covenant. I couldn't care less about it.

[DogDoo 7]

mm-hmm. Besides the "you would say that, wouldn't you?" factor, there's also the point that you seem to be utterly, blissfully unaware of the way the refugees are treated: regular abuse at the detention facilities at the hands of the guards (for the most part), for months and years at a time, is the norm there.

Then again, given that Labor wants to rewrite the relevant international convention to completely abrogate any responsibility at all while sending the current refugees to a third-world hellhole (sorry, PNG, but between the climate, the politics and the poor economy, I think the term's apt) and Liberal wants to do the same, but send them to a godsforsaken island in the middle of the Pacific instead, I must admit to some curiosity. Oh, and both parties agree: all refugees should be automatically returned to their home nations, no exceptions, after a predetermined amount of time, and no-one who ever came here as a refugee should ever be eligible for citizenship here, no matter what.

Since you think that the above policies (as well as the ongoing, systematic and "unofficial" abuse of refugees in the camps without any kind of redress or oversight) are "too soft", I must admit to curiosity about what you think would be a good policy.

Perhaps you'd like to sink the boats on sight?

Please expand on this alleged abuse.

keeping people locked up indefinitely is abuse. you can detain them temporarily, but you actually have to let them go at some point.

And these so-called refugees are NOT illegal immigrants, are they?

They may very well be. It is Australia's job to find this out. Until their status is determined they are NOT illegal immigrants but lawful asylum seekers.

I think a good policy is simply not to accept refugees. If true refugees, that is, not illegal immigrants, are being abused without reason, then I think that should stop.

I understand Australia signed some covenant or whatever. I'd just disregard the covenant. I couldn't care less about it.

Well, look who majored in International Relations

[Abatael]

Please expand on this alleged abuse.

keeping people locked up indefinitely is abuse. you can detain them temporarily, but you actually have to let them go at some point.

I'm still waiting to hear about some real abuse. And they are being let go at some point in time, are they not? "Indefinitely" does not mean "forever."

And these so-called refugees are NOT illegal immigrants, are they?

They may very well be. It is Australia's job to find this out. Until their status is determined they are NOT illegal immigrants but lawful asylum seekers.

Okay. That didn't answer my question.

I think a good policy is simply not to accept refugees. If true refugees, that is, not illegal immigrants, are being abused without reason, then I think that should stop.

I understand Australia signed some covenant or whatever. I'd just disregard the covenant. I couldn't care less about it.

Well, look who majored in International Relations

You're not assuming I even care about international law, are you?

[Gold state]

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.

Islamic countries have oil...

I to be honest think, the U.K shouldn't let any immigrants except for a few refugees and a few who pass tests. If they do detain immigrants then they should be told about their crimes and be allowed to appeal.

[Alyska]

No, hockey is. Australian football is playground stuff.

Hockey's weird. A bunch of people running around on astro-turf hitting a ball with a stick, which is quite hard to see on a television screen? Give me cricket any day of the week. Still rather watch hockey than netball mind.

I suspect he may be referring to ice hockey, which is a bunch of people skating around on ice hitting a rubber disk with a stick, which is quite hard to see on a television screen. And, oh yeah, occassionally they take a break from playing to beat the shit out of each other.

[DogDoo 7]

keeping people locked up indefinitely is abuse. you can detain them temporarily, but you actually have to let them go at some point.

I'm still waiting to hear about some real abuse. And they are being let go at some point in time, are they not? "Indefinitely" does not mean "forever."

I don't actually know

They may very well be. It is Australia's job to find this out. Until their status is determined they are NOT illegal immigrants but lawful asylum seekers.

Okay. That didn't answer my question.

Was your question about them not being illegal immigrants?

Well, look who majored in International Relations

You're not assuming I even care about international law, are you?

International Relations != international law. Ask the Israelis for tips on how to do the former (which is sort of a necessity for a functioning country) while ignoring the latter.

[New Chalcedon]

mm-hmm. Besides the "you would say that, wouldn't you?" factor, there's also the point that you seem to be utterly, blissfully unaware of the way the refugees are treated: regular abuse at the detention facilities at the hands of the guards (for the most part), for months and years at a time, is the norm there.

Then again, given that Labor wants to rewrite the relevant international convention to completely abrogate any responsibility at all while sending the current refugees to a third-world hellhole (sorry, PNG, but between the climate, the politics and the poor economy, I think the term's apt) and Liberal wants to do the same, but send them to a godsforsaken island in the middle of the Pacific instead, I must admit to some curiosity. Oh, and both parties agree: all refugees should be automatically returned to their home nations, no exceptions, after a predetermined amount of time, and no-one who ever came here as a refugee should ever be eligible for citizenship here, no matter what.

Since you think that the above policies (as well as the ongoing, systematic and "unofficial" abuse of refugees in the camps without any kind of redress or oversight) are "too soft", I must admit to curiosity about what you think would be a good policy.

Perhaps you'd like to sink the boats on sight?

Please expand on this alleged abuse.

Your wish is my command (yes, that was sarcasm).

SBS:

His bitterness is not towards his fellow guards but the Department of Immigration officials who run the camp. His assessment of them is shockingly blunt.

REPORTER: What was your view of them?

ROD ST GEORGE: I have worked with some of the - some of the worst, uh, criminals Australia has. And even they had a clearer sense of decency than what I witnessed there.

Amnesty International:

Children do not belong in detention.

This is a lesson that Australia should have learned long ago, and for a while it appeared that we did. In 2005, the Liberal Government stopped the practice, after years of detaining hundreds of children in wretched conditions and in the face of increasing public outrage. When the succeeding Labour Government came to power, they vowed never to detain children in immigration detention centres.

Despite all this, the detention of children has continued. Over recent years the issue has largely flown under the public radar thanks to clever wording on behalf of our politicians. Nonetheless, children are still being detained. Although they aren’t housed in the main detention centres with single adult men, there are well over 700 children currently in detention in Australia. Amnesty International recently visited a number of facilities where these children - some of them with families, some without – are detained.

also:

While more than a year in detention might not seem like much to some, it’s important not to forget that the sorts of conditions these men are living in. At over 2000 kilometres from Perth, Curtin is extremely remote. The area is desert-like, and the detention facility lies within the perimeter of an air force base – away from the prying eyes of the media and the public.

On the day we visited the centre the temperature was over 42 degrees. While the rooms are air-conditioned, the outside heat is oppressive. Essentially it’s a hot, red dustbowl, surrounded by tall electric fences. With expansion projects currently underway, the centre will soon be home to 1,200 men.

The Independent:

Within days of Australia announcing a draconian policy that will see asylum-seekers who arrive by boat resettled in impoverished, crime-ridden Papua New Guinea (PNG), claims have emerged of rape, torture and suicide attempts at an Australian-run detention centre on PNG’s Manus Island.

The list goes on, and on, and on....I downloaded, some few years ago, the 2006 Report by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and frankly the things in it - validated by a Liberal-majority Senate, as it was in 2006 - are shocking. One case was reported to the Committee of a twelve-year-old girl who'd been raped so many times - by guards - that she was both mute (due to the mental damage she'd suffered) and incontinent (due to the physical damage she'd suffered). Another was of a woman being raped - again, by guards - while her husband was made to watch. Then there were the many, many cases of sweatshop labour for the benefit of the (private) security contractors running the camps, the way those same contractors would routinely skimp on facilities they were supposed to provide (such as airconditioning for the 42C heat at the Curtin Detention Center). The list of those goes on, too. Unfortunately, the APH's website's been renovated several times since then, and my old link's no longer valid.

And these so-called refugees

"So-called"? Even under the draconian interpretation of "legitimate" used by the Rudd Government, over 90% of the asylum-seekers are found to be legitimately refugees - that is, in fear of life and freedom due to war or persecution.

So no: they are not "so-called" refugees, they are refugees.

are NOT illegal immigrants, are they?

Well, that depends. If you ask Tony Abbott, yes they are. And the Labor Government is tripping over itself in its efforts to out-Abbott Abbott on this topic and several others.

If you ask the law of the land, the answer is "no".

I think a good policy is simply not to accept refugees.

And where will they go, then? Somehow, I suspect that your answer approximates to "I couldn't give a damn if I tried".

If true refugees, that is, not illegal immigrants, are being abused without reason, then I think that should stop.

How generous of you! How truly remarkably touching, that you should consider the wanton abuse of refugees to be a bad thing....as long as the abuse is "without reason". Somehow, I suspect that you'd find most abuse very "reasonable" indeed. Such as the routine conditions at Baxter Detention Facility, which read like maximum security solitary confinement.

I understand Australia signed some covenant or whatever. I'd just disregard the covenant. I couldn't care less about it.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Your contempt for humanitarianism, basic decency, the rule of law, and keeping one's word are well known around here.

[Abatael]

Please expand on this alleged abuse.

Your wish is my command (yes, that was sarcasm).

SBS:

His bitterness is not towards his fellow guards but the Department of Immigration officials who run the camp. His assessment of them is shockingly blunt.

REPORTER: What was your view of them?

ROD ST GEORGE: I have worked with some of the - some of the worst, uh, criminals Australia has. And even they had a clearer sense of decency than what I witnessed there.

Amnesty International:

Children do not belong in detention.

This is a lesson that Australia should have learned long ago, and for a while it appeared that we did. In 2005, the Liberal Government stopped the practice, after years of detaining hundreds of children in wretched conditions and in the face of increasing public outrage. When the succeeding Labour Government came to power, they vowed never to detain children in immigration detention centres.

Despite all this, the detention of children has continued. Over recent years the issue has largely flown under the public radar thanks to clever wording on behalf of our politicians. Nonetheless, children are still being detained. Although they aren’t housed in the main detention centres with single adult men, there are well over 700 children currently in detention in Australia. Amnesty International recently visited a number of facilities where these children - some of them with families, some without – are detained.

also:

While more than a year in detention might not seem like much to some, it’s important not to forget that the sorts of conditions these men are living in. At over 2000 kilometres from Perth, Curtin is extremely remote. The area is desert-like, and the detention facility lies within the perimeter of an air force base – away from the prying eyes of the media and the public.

On the day we visited the centre the temperature was over 42 degrees. While the rooms are air-conditioned, the outside heat is oppressive. Essentially it’s a hot, red dustbowl, surrounded by tall electric fences. With expansion projects currently underway, the centre will soon be home to 1,200 men.

The Independent:

Within days of Australia announcing a draconian policy that will see asylum-seekers who arrive by boat resettled in impoverished, crime-ridden Papua New Guinea (PNG), claims have emerged of rape, torture and suicide attempts at an Australian-run detention centre on PNG’s Manus Island.

Is that it?

Also, is there anything more substantial about the rape and torture allegations than that? Like a court trial, an official organization's report on the matter? Anything better than that?

The list goes on, and on, and on....I downloaded, some few years ago, the 2006 Report by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and frankly the things in it - validated by a Liberal-majority Senate, as it was in 2006 - are shocking. One case was reported to the Committee of a twelve-year-old girl who'd been raped so many times - by guards - that she was both mute (due to the mental damage she'd suffered) and incontinent (due to the physical damage she'd suffered). Another was of a woman being raped - again, by guards - while her husband was made to watch. Then there were the many, many cases of sweatshop labour for the benefit of the (private) security contractors running the camps, the way those same contractors would routinely skimp on facilities they were supposed to provide (such as airconditioning for the 42C heat at the Curtin Detention Center). The list of those goes on, too. Unfortunately, the APH's website's been renovated several times since then, and my old link's no longer valid.

Now, that (the rape and that type of stuff) is abuse. Where are the sources for that?

And these so-called refugees

"So-called"? Even under the draconian interpretation of "legitimate" used by the Rudd Government, over 90% of the asylum-seekers are found to be legitimately refugees - that is, in fear of life and freedom due to war or persecution.

So no: they are not "so-called" refugees, they are refugees.

If it's laws are so Draconian, then why are, according to the source you gave me, nine out of every ten people refugees, when no other nation has that percentage?

are NOT illegal immigrants, are they?

Well, that depends. If you ask Tony Abbott, yes they are. And the Labor Government is tripping over itself in its efforts to out-Abbott Abbott on this topic and several others.

If you ask the law of the land, the answer is "no".

Okay. All that matters is the law of the land.

I think a good policy is simply not to accept refugees.

And where will they go, then? Somehow, I suspect that your answer approximates to "I couldn't give a damn if I tried".

Go to another country if they have to "go" somewhere.

If true refugees, that is, not illegal immigrants, are being abused without reason, then I think that should stop.

How generous of you! How truly remarkably touching, that you should consider the wanton abuse of refugees to be a bad thing....as long as the abuse is "without reason". Somehow, I suspect that you'd find most abuse very "reasonable" indeed. Such as the routine conditions at Baxter Detention Facility, which read like maximum security solitary confinement.

That's not abuse. Abuse is rape and torture. And what is that? Where did they get it from?

I understand Australia signed some covenant or whatever. I'd just disregard the covenant. I couldn't care less about it.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Your contempt for humanitarianism, basic decency, the rule of law, and keeping one's word are well known around here.

Good.

[Gravlen]

"So-called"? Even under the draconian interpretation of "legitimate" used by the Rudd Government, over 90% of the asylum-seekers are found to be legitimately refugees - that is, in fear of life and freedom due to war or persecution.

So no: they are not "so-called" refugees, they are refugees.

Wait... They know that the vast majority of boat arrivals (around 90 %) meet the criterias for asylum, while the asylum seekers arriving by plane has a much lower rate... And the people arriving by boats are the problem, where the solution is to not give them a secure process for determining their asylum status?

I expected the numbers to be flipped.

This... is actually more concerning than I first thought.

[DogDoo 7]

"So-called"? Even under the draconian interpretation of "legitimate" used by the Rudd Government, over 90% of the asylum-seekers are found to be legitimately refugees - that is, in fear of life and freedom due to war or persecution.

So no: they are not "so-called" refugees, they are refugees.

Wait... They know that the vast majority of boat arrivals (around 90 %) meet the criterias for asylum, while the asylum seekers arriving by plane has a much lower rate... And the people arriving by boats are the problem, where the solution is to not give them a secure process for determining their asylum status?

I expected the numbers to be flipped.

This... is actually more concerning than I first thought.

Think about it. If you came by plane then that means you live in a country with a functioning airport and Australian embassy, AND were able to convince the Australian embassy that you would eventually leave Australia.

It's basically just a 'fuck you for showing up uninvited.'

[New Chalcedon]

"So-called"? Even under the draconian interpretation of "legitimate" used by the Rudd Government, over 90% of the asylum-seekers are found to be legitimately refugees - that is, in fear of life and freedom due to war or persecution.

So no: they are not "so-called" refugees, they are refugees.

Wait... They know that the vast majority of boat arrivals (around 90 %) meet the criterias for asylum, while the asylum seekers arriving by plane has a much lower rate... And the people arriving by boats are the problem, where the solution is to not give them a secure process for determining their asylum status?

I expected the numbers to be flipped.

This... is actually more concerning than I first thought.

And people wonder why I'm kicking up a fuss about it! It's not only a humanitarian disaster, it's plain bad (as in: expensive, without any correspondingly good outcomes) policy. The cost of the various offshore "solutions" and mandatory detention as it is today (some $3-3.5bn to date) would have paid for every asylum seeker's accommodation and allowances outside of mandatory detention, with money left over.

But that's letting the darkies in and "being swamped by foreigners" (all 7-10,000 of them per year), and Australia has a long and ignoble history on that front.

[Blouman Empire]

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

Too late we sold it all to the Chinese.

[United Martains]

I'm Australian, and frankly I hate the government on this topic. There are thousands more pressing issues, yet this has become the big debate. Not only that, it is used as a tool to win elections, not to actually help people. We should just let them in, with any needed precautions, of course.
When Tony Abbott said "it's become a national disaster," I swear to god, a raged so hard. People are dying, and we want to send them to a disease ridden place to die slower. It's terrible.