Australia found guilty of human rights violations.

[Gravlen]

Iceland?

Bingo!

Anyway, I really hope that Australia deals with this in a constructive manner, since it could provide us with leverage to change Israel's policies towards the Sudanese/Eritreans here. And conversely, if Australia ignores this, it will provide ammunition to the ethnocrats here who want us to lock all the black (and non-Jewish) people up in the middle of the desert indefinitely, and not even make the pretense of adjudicating their claims.

That's one of the big problems with this. It creates ripples, and the Refugee Convention is vulnerable in this time of migration. Politicians in other countries are already saying "if Australia can do it, why can't we?"

[Vilkavis]

Too harsh, an embarrassment, and completely illegal.

I'm writing a report on it at this very moment. There are so many flaws, it's unbelievable. Nonrefoulment protocals are being breached as refugees are being deported to an unsafe region, whose living standards are below that of UNHCR mandates. Meeting international standards will likely lead to a perception of 'special treatment' of mainly Muslim refugees by the mainly Christian PNG residents. In a country already rife with ethnic tension (so much that the Australian government maintains a travel warning on PNG), this is a recipe for disaster.

The PNG Solution is a racist, neo-colonial policy. According to a poll of about 6,000 readers on a News Ltd website (I forget which paper, and I don't have the link at the moment), most Australians support the Greens' refugee policy.

Here's a part of my draft that I think is relevant:

"Even if Papua New Guinea was free of these flaws, there is still no guarantee that refugees will enjoy welfare and security they would in Australia, as PNG has actually opted out of seven obligations under the CRSR (Rimmer, 2013). These include welfare provisions that entitle the refugee to equal treatment in terms of employment, education and housing. The government has promised to provide these rights to refugees resettled under the PNG Solution, yet they will not do so for other refugees. Not only does this create a subclass of refugees (in many ways reflective of Australia), but the standards of living mandated by the United Nations actually exceed that most PNG citizens. This is a recipe for disaster in a country that often suffers from ethnic tension, to the point that Australia’s own Department of Foreign Affairs maintains a travel advisory note, regarding the high likelihood of ethnic tension to escalate into violent clashes (O'Sullivan, 2013). Adding further to this already uneasy environment is the fact that the majority of refugees intended to be deported to PNG are Muslim, whereas the majority of Papua New Guineans are Christian. Ethnic tension coupled with religious tension, not to mention the resentment that will be caused by the appearance of ‘special treatment’ will undoubtedly end in severe violence and the continued persecution of refugees."

tl;dr any chance of persecution breaks nonrefoulment policies, PNG solution is illegal.

[Libertarian California]

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.

[Libertarian California]

Wut?

Australian football.

Which isn't real football.

The Aussies took after us and made their own version of football.

It's something only the cool countries do.

[Greed and Death]

So America shall occupy Australia. America will send its Hispanic population to strip mind Australia's mineral wealth.

Two birds with one stone, America gets the Minerals and xenophobes in america no longer worry about losing their Jerbs.

[Frisivisia]

Nuke all metropolitan centers.

[Greed and Death]

Australian football.

Which isn't real football.

The Aussies took after us and made their own version of football.

It's something only the cool countries do.

I do not know how cool anything played on an oval can be.

[Cetacea]

Australian football.

Which isn't real football.

The Aussies took after us and made their own version of football.

It's something only the cool countries do.

if by Us you mean Irish than mebbe, the Australian version is most definitely based on Gaelic rules

[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.

The complain about the pre-2006 restructuring HRC may have been valid, but the post-restructuring HRC (while still not perfect) is certainly more evenhanded than the old version.

[Forster Keys]

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.

Yeah! Clap that idiocy! Amnesty International (for instance) never criticises Saudi Arabia at all! It's all a conspiracy against the white man by cultural Marxists. How dare they criticse a Western country in one of the countless reports they make that cover human rights violations all over the world.

[Forster Keys]

The Aussies took after us and made their own version of football.

It's something only the cool countries do.

if by Us you mean Irish than mebbe, the Australian version is most definitely based on Gaelic rules

And a local Aboriginal game.

[Forster Keys]

The Aussies took after us and made their own version of football.

It's something only the cool countries do.

I do not know how cool anything played on an oval can be.

It isn't cool at all. /NSW

[Vitaphone Racing]

AFL is superior to rugby union, rugby league and soccer. /Vic

[Seitonjin]

Embarrassing... But darkly humorous...

[Forsher]

well, that was unexpected.

Not really. It's pretty bloody plain to see that Australia's treatment of what I am going to continue calling "boat people" is wrong even with a fairly limited knowledge of the topic. I knew what the general thrust of this thread was going to be based just off the title.

However, in contrast to the above, I wasn't really expecting anything to actually happen. As has been pointed out this is somewhat consisent with the old "White Australia" policy so...

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.

Feesh and Cheeps, mate.

Wut?

Australian football.

Which isn't real football.

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.

Australian football.

Which isn't real football.

IT'S A BLOODY MAN'S GAME ORRIGHT?

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.

IT'S A BLOODY MAN'S GAME ORRIGHT?

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 do not know how cool anything played on an oval can be.

It isn't cool at all. /NSW

League, Union, Aussie Rules or none of them?

Anyway, I suppose the only real solution is to process the applicants really quickly and then, because this is Australia, create some legal mumb-jumbo that says no. Probably cheaper that way as well. Ideally, though, Australia would be more open and let them in. In the long run, it'd be better for the country.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Australia being found guilty of human rights violations shouldn't be that surprising to anyone given the all-out war we've declared on (illegal)* asylum seekers since 2001. At the same time, I personally can't find a practical approach to dealing with asylum seekers which satisfies
a) Australia's obligation to offer refuge
b) My own conscience
c) Not create massive loopholes in Australian immigration law

I don't personally agree with a flat out refusal to consider anyone for asylum in Australia if they arrive illegally and I certainly have major ethical problems with sending them to PNG (like shit, PNG is a third world country probably worse than where they came from) but I can see exactly why Rudd & Co. thought this was a good idea; it completely destroys the people smuggling industry.

Likewise with detention; yes locking up children seems cruel and sadistic but there's really no other way to determine if they are who they say they are, they're genuine refugees and they aren't attempting to exercise an immigration loophole to get an easy visa into Australia before releasing them into Australian society. If we're intending on releasing them into Australian society first before we do all this; what's the point of evaluating them in the first place?

I'd feel better about the whole thing if we improved standards in detention centres, increased our refugee intake, vastly reduce the time it takes to process claims and made it much easier to apply for asylum in Australia through proper channels. That way, people in detention centres wouldn't be stuck for months in misery culminating in depression, people who are trying to bullshit the system could be turned back earlier (or at least told to apply through the correct channel) and far less people would have to consider buying a ticket to freedom.

Most of Australia seems to either think we should completely open the borders and let everyone in (impractically ridiculous) or we should stand on the beaches and rake any motherfucker with an autocannon if they sail too close (sickeningly ridiculous). I'm hoping to Christ we find a happier medium.

* I'm putting illegal in there since Australia is reasonably receptive towards refugees in general provided you didn't arrive on a leaky boat and went through the proper channels. And if we're only referring to Australians who live in the inner-city, not certain suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney and not certain communities over the great dividing range; that's where the animals live.

[DogDoo 7]

The Tamils I know, who vehemently oppose the Sri Lankan government, are decent people. There should be a distinction between honest dissent and terror.

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.

[Costa Alegria]

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.

At the same time, you don't simply get on a fishing boat will all your family and friends and rock on up to Australia expecting the Australians to roll out the welcome mat. Hell, when a bunch of them were detained in Indonesia, they all claimed they wanted to go to New Zealand. Our government promptly and politely told them to "get paperwork or fuck off".

And Vitaphone Racing does make a very good point. Australia has a problem with "boat people" and it does have issues with people wanting to traffic people to Australia for money. With the way they're going about it does seem a little dubious but perhaps the Australian government could raise a serious issue to the UN about the human trafficking that occurs with refugees.

[Kingsley Bedford]

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.

you have a problem with our accent... that's your problem. But don't bring that into this debate.

[Kingsley Bedford]

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.

At the same time, you don't simply get on a fishing boat will all your family and friends and rock on up to Australia expecting the Australians to roll out the welcome mat. Hell, when a bunch of them were detained in Indonesia, they all claimed they wanted to go to New Zealand. Our government promptly and politely told them to "get paperwork or fuck off".

And Vitaphone Racing does make a very good point. Australia has a problem with "boat people" and it does have issues with people wanting to traffic people to Australia for money. With the way they're going about it does seem a little dubious but perhaps the Australian government could raise a serious issue to the UN about the human trafficking that occurs with refugees.

The fact is that Australians are fed up with the arrivals, the trouble they cause in the detention centres, and of course the fact that they are coming by the boatload each week, we're fed up with hearing how more asylum seekers are dead as another overcrowded boat has capsized on its way to Australia. The election coming up is the real reason for this change in policy. Labour is taking a tough stance in order to match what the opposition has been promising all along "to stop the boats" this is political, an attempt to win back the election win that is slipping further away from their grasp.

[AiliailiA]

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

LOL!

I'm glad you like greed and death's joke. If you hang around you'll hear it again ...

Damnit, Obama send the army to liberate Australia.

The French don't suck. You lose.

Keep up talk like that and I will have Obama liberate the hell out of France.

I think the above is a call for America to liberate the hell out of Denmark.

You have not be talking to the SO CAL people I have have you?

No Cal is clearly and oppressive regime. Failing secession by So Cal the next GOP president should declare a state of emergency and liberate the hell out of No Cal.

The British are obviosuly so oppressed as to be afraid to express dissent so they need american military might to liberate the hell out of them.
I did not say it was in the UDHR. I said it is a univeral human right.

the US must liberate the hell out of Canada.

America must liberate the hell out of Australia and return guns to the populace.

We must liberate the hell out of Australia.

How dare they insult my President, we must Invade Russia and liberate the hell out of them!!!

The time has come to liberate Australia.

I'm starting to believe in Europe everybody hates everyone else.

It is like America in the 1950's.

We should come liberate the hell out of them

We must liberate the hell out of Russia.

We should liberate the hell out of Pennsylvania.

It seems Algeria has oil, the US needs to go liberate the hell out of something.

I guess it (calling it CSG) just caught on. I'm not sure why we had to have a different name for it to the rest of the world.

If you keep making up words we are going to liberate the hell out of you.

I think g&d has another joke too, but I can't remember it just now

[DogDoo 7]

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.

At the same time, you don't simply get on a fishing boat will all your family and friends and rock on up to Australia expecting the Australians to roll out the welcome mat. Hell, when a bunch of them were detained in Indonesia, they all claimed they wanted to go to New Zealand. Our government promptly and politely told them to "get paperwork or fuck off".

And Vitaphone Racing does make a very good point. Australia has a problem with "boat people" and it does have issues with people wanting to traffic people to Australia for money. With the way they're going about it does seem a little dubious but perhaps the Australian government could raise a serious issue to the UN about the human trafficking that occurs with refugees.

uhh...it doesn't matter how you arrive if you are claiming asylum. there is no such thing as 'illegal entry' for asylum seekers. now, practically speaking, they actually have to enter the country in order to request asylum, although in the case of interdiction in international waters, they are considered to have entered the country of the interdicting vessel.

[Costa Alegria]

Uhh...it doesn't matter how you arrive if you are claiming asylum.

That's not the point. You can't just get on a boat, go to Australia and claim asylum. That's not how the system works.

[Vitaphone Racing]

That said, claiming asylum in any country is a whole lot more complicated than getting off a plane and saying "no I don't have a Visa, I'm here to claim asylum" and walking straight into the community as a happy new citizen. And most people who oppose the system we currently have in Australia don't seem to have a grasp of this which sorta undermines the position of anyone who wants to have a legitimate discussion about refugees here in Australia. So I wonder if the problem in Australia because we demand refugees jump through a ridiculous number of legal hoops before we consider them for visas or because the system we set up to handle refugees is in a pathetic state? I'm leaning towards the latter option at the moment. Either way, something needs to change.

[Kingsley Bedford]

At the same time, you don't simply get on a fishing boat will all your family and friends and rock on up to Australia expecting the Australians to roll out the welcome mat. Hell, when a bunch of them were detained in Indonesia, they all claimed they wanted to go to New Zealand. Our government promptly and politely told them to "get paperwork or fuck off".

And Vitaphone Racing does make a very good point. Australia has a problem with "boat people" and it does have issues with people wanting to traffic people to Australia for money. With the way they're going about it does seem a little dubious but perhaps the Australian government could raise a serious issue to the UN about the human trafficking that occurs with refugees.

uhh...it doesn't matter how you arrive if you are claiming asylum. there is no such thing as 'illegal entry' for asylum seekers. now, practically speaking, they actually have to enter the country in order to request asylum, although in the case of interdiction in international waters, they are considered to have entered the country of the interdicting vessel.

If you want to claim asylum legally, you have to get a visa to come to Australia as a visitor and claim asylum once you're here. You go through official channels. These people just meet with people smugglers and are snuck into Australia by fishing boat by the several hundred (usually 600 onboard a boat that can only hold 75). They arrive illegally with no visa and paperwork and are usually intercepted by our navy who transfer them to detention centres where they are held while we process their asylum claims. We've been doing this for years and now we've decided it has to stop, you need to come legally if you want to be settled in Australia, if you come legally we will accept you with open arms, but if you come illegally... you won't be allowed to come to Australia. It's a simple as that. It's our country, we have a right to do what we want and they're very lucky that we've been so lenient for so long, but those days are over. Come legally or not at all.