Merlin and his Political Protest (3 Viewers)

[tWiStEdD]

And if your read mine again, i'm talking about their status under Australian Law, and drew on the differences between domestic and international law.

 

[400miles]

I cant remember the beginnings of it, as it was a long time ago... but either way it would be foolish to assume that the Aust govt would do anything visibly illegal. What they're doing is, under Aust law, totally legal.

You need to understand the difference between domestic and international law. Domestic law is enforceable within the borders of the given country, International law is extremely difficult to enforce given that there are no international police and even if there were, they would be violating the sovereignty of a country any time they tried to enforce international law.


I never said what the Australian government was doing was illegal. So there's that part of what you said dealt with.

I do understand the difference between international and domestic law and if you point out any domestic law in which refugees coming to Australia is "illegal" then I'll concede the point.

I think I read it quite well.

 

[Ziff]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is the document that states those who seek asylum or refugee status on the shores of any other country are not illegal... that law is very much a part of Australia... Therefore "the people who have entered the country seeking asylum can be deemed "illegal" by the government" is wrong... Under international law they are perfectly legal.

Let's deconstruct this.
You say that the "declaration" is very much part of Australian law. In this case, if the government is deeming "refugees" illegal then what conclusion is to be drawn from this? Oh... maybe that you're implying what the government is doing is illegal!

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding or enforcable document. It is a declaration. It's symbolic and holds no meaning. The ICCPR (Concerned w/1st generation human rights) and ICESC (Concerned with 2nd generation human rights) (both 1966) are the international instruments which put the UN Declaration on Human Rights into force. Now, these conventions have been ratified by Australia but they have only been placed into Australian domestic law as a schedule under the HREOC Act (1986) which basically means they mean absolutely nothing. We ratified it, but it's not actually enforcable because it's not a law itself - it's just a schedule under this act. So it's not actually illegal. It's only illegal if it's in your domestic law and it isn't!

Anyway, under the Refugee Convention 1951 a refugee is a person with:

… a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality or of habitual residence, if stateless and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.

So if they don't meet that there's nothing illegal about rejecting them. You seem to assume that all the people coming here are refugees and they're not. They can seek asylum all they want but if they don't meet the criteria the government can turn them away.

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by Ziff
Let's deconstruct this.
You say that the "declaration" is very much part of Australian law. In this case, if the government is deeming "refugees" illegal then what conclusion is to be drawn from this? Oh... maybe that you're implying what the government is doing is illegal!

No, I'm not implying what the government is doing is illegal and I dont believe it's illegal. Wrong, yes. Illegal, no.
I'm saying that for us to call them illegal - which the government does not do - is wrong.

As for your definition from the UNDHR, that's completely fair. The goverment can turn away anyone that meets this criteria. Its found that 90% of those detained in detention centres meet this criteria. So a HUGE majority of the boat people are not illegal and are refugees. Hence it's not correct to label them as illegal. That is the point I've been trying to make. Your quote from the UNDHR does nothing to support your argument, I believe I've been arguing that quote the whole time.

So with that 90% turning out to be legitimate refugees I think it's quite fair for me to assume the people coming here are refugees. Many of them seem to fit that criteria....

Originally posted by Asquithian
Australian law only uses international law as an interpretive device...not as authority.

Ok, this keeps coming up and I concede... perhaps it's not authority and not enforceable. But show me any law which deems these people as 'illegal'. That's my point. It's wrong to label them illegal when there is no law stating that they are illegal. My international law is an example of why they're not illegal, but fair enough I guess it is irrelevant.

 

[katie_tully]

"The key elements in determining whether detention is arbitrary are whether the circumstances under which a person is detained are reasonable and necessary in all of the circumstances or otherwise arbitrary in that the detention is inappropriate, unjust or unpredictable. Further, detention will not be arbitrary if it is demonstrated to be proportional to the end that is sought.
Australia’s Migration Act 1958 requires that all non-citizens who are unlawfully in mainland Australia must be detained and that, unless they are granted permission to remain in Australia, they must be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. "
"The Department’s contract with its detention services provider requires the provision of food, shelter, clothing, bedding, health including mental health services, educational services and recreational activities for all detainees including children."

This all came from our own Human Rights website. It more or less states that people who are detained, by law, have to be given the same rights as a free person. If we don't detain these people, what do you suggest we do with them? Do you think if we set them free with a pat on the head, it's going to set an example for other people? Yes, we have a duty to aid those who aren't as fortunate as ourselves, but NO they do not have the RIGHT to enter our country illegally. Bypassing 13 countries and trying to hop onto our soil is not legal, nor is sewing your childs mouth shut in an attempt to be freed. Stop and think about the refugees who came here legally, who sought asylum legally, not those who came on a boat, threw their children off the side, sewed their mouths shut, refused to eat. They're being detained because the Government is processing who is a refugee and who is not. If they'd applied for refugee status in the first place, they wouldn't be detained. Dont try and say they had no chance or oppurtunity to seek asylum, that it was a spur of the moment flee from their country as it is a well documented fact some of these people PAID to board the boat.

It's all good and well for you people to say we should let them go, but where do you suggest we let them go to? Maybe you should look after them, they don't have any money, they barely speak English..
Oh and, while you're at it, if you feel so passionate about human rights, take in a homeless AUSTRALIAN for the night.

 

[katie_tully]

Perhaps you need to not take my words out of context. I clearly did not state that those who cannot speak English should not be allowed into the country, I merely stated that if we let these people go free, what the hell do you expect to happen to them? 4 years is a long time to be detained, and it's probably not getting processed fast enough.

And as for the yanks and the poms, tourism is a little different than fleeing a country don't you think? Especially when it is a major source of our economy...And as for the yanks and poms that move here permanently, stop taking everything out of context and changing it around. All people are welcome to join our society, but there are boundries and guildlines in the way this happens. There are reasons we don't just let anybody into our country. Stop and think about these reasons, and then consider why there is such a process in determining a persons reason to come to our country.

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by katie_tully

Oh and, while you're at it, if you feel so passionate about human rights, take in a homeless AUSTRALIAN for the night.

Don't attack my compassion. I'm as passionate about local social justice as I am about national social justice. I love the way you put "AUSTRALIAN" in capitals, as though because I'm of the same culture it makes their problems more important than someone elses.
I do a hell of a lot for social justice, and am currently involved in orchestrating an event in order to raise awareness and funds for St. Vinnies and their work with homeless AUSTRALIANS around my local area. So, don't attack me when you don't know what's going on.

"The key elements in determining whether detention is arbitrary are whether the circumstances under which a person is detained are reasonable and necessary in all of the circumstances or otherwise arbitrary in that the detention is inappropriate, unjust or unpredictable. Further, detention will not be arbitrary if it is demonstrated to be proportional to the end that is sought.
Australia’s Migration Act 1958 requires that all non-citizens who are unlawfully in mainland Australia must be detained and that, unless they are granted permission to remain in Australia, they must be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. "
"The Department’s contract with its detention services provider requires the provision of food, shelter, clothing, bedding, health including mental health services, educational services and recreational activities for all detainees including children."

Notice your first quote said that the people who were "UNLAWFULLY" on Australian soil would be detained. Statistics are that 90% of those held in detention centres ARE refugees and therefore ARE lawfully on Australian soil.

The debate at the moment is whether or not these people are illegal , not whether the detention centres conditions are fair. But now that you mention it, I met some people who had been in the detention centres and - in recards to the healthcare right you mentioned - they said that they got sick very often, and the majority of the time they weren't permitted to see a doctor and they just kept being told "Just drink water, just drink water".

This all came from our own Human Rights website. It more or less states that people who are detained, by law, have to be given the same rights as a free person. If we don't detain these people, what do you suggest we do with them? Do you think if we set them free with a pat on the head, it's going to set an example for other people? Yes, we have a duty to aid those who aren't as fortunate as ourselves, but NO they do not have the RIGHT to enter our country illegally.

What do I suggest we do with them? There have been MANY plans ochestrated by organisations that provide MUCH better alternatives to detention centres, similar to prison parole services - which actually get the refugess into the community and out of such horrendous conditions.
Did you know we're one of the only (as far as I know, THE only) country to detain refugees?
Did you know most of the ILLEGAL immigrants ARE NOT those who arrive by boats but around 5000+ British tourists who have overstayed their visas...

Bypassing 13 countries and trying to hop onto our soil is not legal, nor is sewing your childs mouth shut in an attempt to be freed. Stop and think about the refugees who came here legally, who sought asylum legally, not those who came on a boat, threw their children off the side, sewed their mouths shut, refused to eat.

Hmm, I'll stop and think about those refugees who came here legally... hmm, 90% of boat people detained in Australia turn out to be legitimate refugees, therefore coming here legally...
"not those who came on a boat yes, these days, often those who came on a boat.
"sewed their mouths shut, refused to eat" I wonder how bad conditions must be for someone to sew their mouths shut and refuse to eat. And in a moment if my internet stops stuffing up I can provide you with statistics of the HUGE amount of CHILDREN ONLY who self harm in the centres.
As for "bypassing 13 countries" Most of these countries are often too dangerous for them to go to. E.g: Afghani's can't go next door into Pakistan because they are often sent back to the Afghanistan government. Which, until quite recently, was the taliban.
Do you really think the refugees would bypass 13 good countries and come here to Australia where we lock them up for years?

They're being detained because the Government is processing who is a refugee and who is not. If they'd applied for refugee status in the first place, they wouldn't be detained. Dont try and say they had no chance or oppurtunity to seek asylum, that it was a spur of the moment flee from their country as it is a well documented fact some of these people PAID to board the boat.

Spur of the moment is right... "Gee, someone's trying to kill me, and I have the opportunity to save my life." I don't know about you but I'd choose "save my life".
And many don't have the opportunity anyway. We talk of queues, and you talked of them applying for refugee status in the first place. But in countries like Afghanistan - a place that breeds a lot of legitimate refugees - there is no Australian representation and no way for those people to apply for visas, there are no queues, and no way for them to apply for refugee status in Australia.

And yeah, many PAID to be on board this leaking boat, to have no food, to be scared shitless and to come to a country where they have been locked up in horrible conditions. So don't act like by paying for the boat trip means they have any less value as a refugee.

It's all good and well for you people to say we should let them go, but where do you suggest we let them go to? Maybe you should look after them, they don't have any money, they barely speak English..

Again, if you go to http://www.chilout.org/
you'll find there are many other options aside from detention centres.

 

[katie_tully]

HAHAHA, totally, totally out of context.
It is not about being afraid of these people. I'm not.
I am however more compassionate to my own countrymen who are less fortunate, and I believe our efforts should be put into elevating our own countries poverty problem first.
Homelessness affects;
54% adults over 24 years of age
10% under the age of 12 years
36% young people between 12 and 24 years
So, how about we shelter, feed, and give these people a job? What, because they didn't flee from a war torn country they're suddenly not good enough to help? They're not in dire straights, so forget about them?
If I were in the position to help these people, lord knows I would. Dont forget we have our own problems too, we're not a super country we cant help everybody, but lets help ourselves first.

 

[katie_tully]

"The key elements in determining whether detention is arbitrary are whether the circumstances under which a person is detained are reasonable and necessary in all of the circumstances or otherwise arbitrary in that the detention is inappropriate, unjust or unpredictable. Further, detention will not be arbitrary if it is demonstrated to be proportional to the end that is sought.
Australia’s Migration Act 1958 requires that all non-citizens who are unlawfully in mainland Australia must be detained and that, unless they are granted permission to remain in Australia, they must be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. "
"The Department’s contract with its detention services provider requires the provision of food, shelter, clothing, bedding, health including mental health services, educational services and recreational activities for all detainees including children."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice one sparky, but they're not my words. That's from our own HUMAN RIGHTS WEBSITE, OUR OWN LEGISLATION ON REFUGEES. THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE.

 

[katie_tully]

Well good, let's get off our arses and do something about it instead of sitting here arguing about it.

 

[katie_tully]

So, don't get agitated here, but are you saying because our own people don't come from a country with a high poverty rate, they're less important?
Fuck people, don't get me wrong, I feel for these people coming here but we can't take on everything at once, and I am lost as to why we don't rectify the situating by starting at home.

 

[katie_tully]

Situation..haha

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by katie_tully
HAHAHA, totally, totally out of context.
It is not about being afraid of these people. I'm not.
I am however more compassionate to my own countrymen who are less fortunate, and I believe our efforts should be put into elevating our own countries poverty problem first.
Homelessness affects;
54% adults over 24 years of age
10% under the age of 12 years
36% young people between 12 and 24 years
So, how about we shelter, feed, and give these people a job? What, because they didn't flee from a war torn country they're suddenly not good enough to help? They're not in dire straights, so forget about them?
If I were in the position to help these people, lord knows I would. Dont forget we have our own problems too, we're not a super country we cant help everybody, but lets help ourselves first.

Oh stop play that card it's ridiculous. WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN ABOUT THEM. So much work gets done for them and always will, work that's AS important as helping any refugees that come here.

Originally posted by katie_tully
"The key elements in determining whether detention is arbitrary are whether the circumstances under which a person is detained are reasonable and necessary in all of the circumstances or otherwise arbitrary in that the detention is inappropriate, unjust or unpredictable. Further, detention will not be arbitrary if it is demonstrated to be proportional to the end that is sought.
Australia’s Migration Act 1958 requires that all non-citizens who are unlawfully in mainland Australia must be detained and that, unless they are granted permission to remain in Australia, they must be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. "
"The Department’s contract with its detention services provider requires the provision of food, shelter, clothing, bedding, health including mental health services, educational services and recreational activities for all detainees including children."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice one sparky, but they're not my words. That's from our own HUMAN RIGHTS WEBSITE, OUR OWN LEGISLATION ON REFUGEES. THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE.

Yes, but it seemed to me that you were using those quotes to prove to me that the refugees coming here were illegal. So, hun, I was merely pointing out that the law did not actually classify the refugees coming here as illegal.

 

[katie_tully]

I'm a redneck because I feel compassionate about Australians more than other countries?
I love Australia, I love that we are a free country. I know other countries arent as fortunate as us, and I am so happy to be this fortunate.
Call me a redneck, I'd help those in need here in Australia before I ran around and tried to help those who aren't.
HAHAH, and I know you're all now going to say bullshit such as "Oh, so people from other countries aren't worthy of help?"
No you fucking idiots, that isnt my argument at all. They deserve as much aid as anybody, but at this point in time my priorities are focused more on the women in australia who are homeless because of domestic violence, the children under 10 who are homeless, addicted to drugs and who are selling their bodies to survive.
It've never experienced war, I can't emphasise with these people, I sympathise...I've bever been homeless, but I see it often.

 

[400miles]

Why are we seperating them?
They're both major problems that need attention. Just because some people pay more attention to one and not the other doesn't matter, they both need to be helped.

The only problem I had here was when Katie Tully asked me that seeing I was being so compassionate I should look at AUSTRALIAN homeless people.
When realy she had no idea that I was.
And when really that's irrelevant in this argument.
And when really just because they're Australian doesn't make their need greater.

But yes, lets not seperate because we can't say which problem is bigger. But they're both big problems.

 

[katie_tully]

Then why isnt the problem as highly publicised as the refugee problem? Maybe we haven't forgotten, but the government has forgotten...Or maybe not forgotten, but the refugee situation is better political fodder than the homeless situation?

 

[katie_tully]

"FUTURE...Australias future is with immigrants...not with the homeless"
Homeless Australians aren't beneficial for our future, but immigrants are?

 

[400miles]

No the government has not forgotten.

You're always going to have problems that are publicised more than other problems. Doesn't make them worse or better.

 

[katie_tully]

Who's in contention for Prime Minister after John Howard, this coming election?

 

[Ziff]

Here's the stupid quote I was looking for but I couldn't find the one Peter Reith said:

"I mean you have to be able to say that there is a possibility that some people having links with organisations that we don't want in this country might use the path of an asylum seeker in order to get here"

- John Howard (2001)