On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Jason White wrote:
Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote:
Does it say anything about the character of these people that they are on "stop the boat" campaigns and run "stop the boat" politics?
It does, but I am more concerned about their thousands of sympathizers who make it electorally prudent for both Labor and the Coalition to support such policies.
Change the leadership of both parties and the political considerations driving these decisions would probably remain the same, at least in the absence of a Cabinet that is prepared to place principle and morality ahead of expedience - not a likely scenario given the composition of the larger political parties on the Australian scene at present.
Probably time to change the "media climate". At least The Age starts to print clear messages: --- http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/nauru-a-breach-of-rights-201... Nauru a 'breach' of rights THE indefinite detention of asylum seekers on Nauru is ''an egregious breach of international human rights law'', says the Gillard government's hand-picked human rights commissioner, Gillian Triggs. Professor Triggs, who was appointed human rights commissioner in June, told Fairfax on Tuesday that she would seek an urgent meeting with Immigration Minister Chris Bowen about Nauru when she returned from a human rights conference in Jordan. ''I have made my view really plain to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in saying that to detain people on this remote island, and delaying by at least six months their processing, and where they're advised that they will be kept there for five years, is an egregious breach of international human rights law,'' she said. ''Asylum seekers have a legal right under international law to have their claims assessed in a speedy and appropriate way, and this is at risk of being arbitrary detention.'' --- We had to cop that criticism "in Geneva, as part of the United Nations universal periodic review process, in which all UN countries have their human rights records assessed by fellow members." That is in clear contrast to Chris Bowen's pathetic "stand" on Lateline last week: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3623063.htm "Australia's actions here are entirely in accord with our signatory to the Refugee Convention. That is our very strong legal advice." He also says: Well, the Refugee Convention is an often-quoted and little-read document.." "a lot of people take the name of the Refugee Convention without actually acknowledging what it says. The Refugee Convention says that you shan't return people to countries in which they will face danger and that you shall enable them access to processing." Okay, there may be a bit more in the convention (I don't expect Bowen to read a whole document) but let's start here. So, Australia told Sri Lanka in Geneva to clean up their act, "stop its police and army abusing, torturing and mistreating its citizens, and must end the disappearances and abductions occurring across the country." Well, it did not stop Bowen's department to send back 125 asylum seeker to Sri Lanka. What did you say, Chris Bowen? "The Refugee Convention says that you shan't return people to countries in which they will face danger and that you shall enable them access to processing." So, it's time to put the pressure on - or we just give up and say: well, Australia is such a great country, we give a damn about our international obligations. And our own history. If it comes to asylum seekers, we are really a product of a prison experiment. For ten years lies, lies, lies. And no look from the outside to find out how ugly we are. Regards Peter