Unbelievable II - The Year of the Dogs (sketch)
I just went to bed, and then I dreamed this. Or is it real? A country gone to the dogs. Pauline Hanson stands tall in front of the pack, holding the sausage promising legislation going through the Senate. The Turnbull dogs gets pushed forward by the leading attack dog Tony He would grab the sausage anytime. Brandis dog and Dutton dog have their day in the sun. Morrison dog just behind. One day he will lead the pack, today he smiles seeing how Turnbull dog gets agitated. So close to the sausage Pauline is holding! Woof! Woof! He knows he would be the same. A bit further away the Labor pack. They do not like the food Pauline is dishing out. But one day she will be needed, in case Shorten dog has its day? Shorten dog is sniffing the bums and wonders what to do next. He always thought, the fish & chips lady is harmless for dogs. After all, that is not the favourite dog food! Bummer. She managed to get the key to the dog food shed. That makes the kennel pretty wild! Woof! Woof! In the corner sits John Howard, the dog whistle in his hand. From "We decide who comes" to "Pauline decides who comes" in just 15 years. I am waking up and feel proud. Finally, it is time to get the brown shirts out. Proudly looking into the mirror before I am striding out into the New Liberated Australia! One Woman. One Voice. One Nation. One Führer. Pauline, I am ready. Just start kicking, as we did before! Asians, Muslims, Jews or refugees, whatever. Go Pauline! Heil Pauline!
P.S. I considered this piece as satire. So it does not imply that one of the politicians is a dog, or I am a Nazi. It is an allergic reaction of another round of this bizarre "refugee politics" started this week. As always, it is not about solutions, it is about political gain. Russell pointed to the U.S. election, asking "What's wrong with that country?" As a German migrant I ask this question about Australian politics for a while by now. Since 2001 the Australian politicians go to extraordinary lengths to make us believe that we still follow some basic law. Here one example, The Australian migration zone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_migration_zone "The Australian migration zone is a legal device created by the Australian government for the purpose of Australia's visa policy and immigration policy. .. On 16 May 2013, Australian Senate passed a bill to excise entire Australian mainland from its migration zone" http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2015/5.html ( Vogl, Anthea --- "Over the Borderline: A Critical Inquiry into the Geography of Territorial Excision and the Securitisation of the Australian Border" [2015] UNSWLawJl 5; (2015) 38(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal 114) "As a result of the reform, an ‘unlawful non-citizen’ entering Australian territory ‘at any place’ by sea is designated as an ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’ and as a consequence, may not make an application for asylum in Australia or for an Australian visa of any kind..." The article reminds us of the varying of reasons cited for this voodoo device as well. Australia is a signatory of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees). The "legal device" of the Australian migration zone was willfully created and redefined (the latest installment in 2013 was implemented by the Labor government under Rudd and with Chris Bowen as responsible minister, btw). It created the legal background to "allow" the detainment of arriving people on Nauru and Manus Island. It created a lot of issues which are highly problematic for Australia. It includes - an ongoing problem of practicly indefinite detention without a way out (in that regard it is our Guantanamo) - high financial costs - a range of badly designed contracts to third parties, mainly for the purpose to abandon responsibility - a reliance on third countries - strained relationships to our neighbours - a continuous chain of additional and highly problematic legislation to hide the effects of the implementations - continuous conflict with international agencies as the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner - attack on national agencies and staff in public service fulfilling their duties, as the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs - a moral justification for xenophobic parties which poison the political landscape even further - an overall poisoning of the political climate - a lack of peace of mind for every citizen when he feels forced by association to justify moral bankruptcy of his elected government I do not even mention "complications" as the involvement of our army in foreign countries where a high proportion of refugees is coming from (With war involvement comes some moral obligations, one can argue. It mattered a few decades earlier when Vietnamese refugees were resettled) The latest round of "ideas" complicates the resettlement of refugees even further. New Zealand, e.g. has no interest in complications related to the free movement of their people. Besides of Nauru and Manus, our detention centres on the mainland are keeping asylum seekers behind bars for a long time, and their treatment is far away from what somebody can consider as reasonable. Even given a simple present becomes a high act of bureaucracy. It is legislated cruelty and unworthy of a country which claims to be free and democratic. Internationally our reputation has gone to the dogs, no doubts about that. There is no way of getting this right, without a proper U turn which is starting with the basics : the compliance to our obligations and accepting responsibility and moral duties. The current concept of "Border Security" is as dumb as the Berlin Wall. The world is simply a little bit more complex so Australians should be educated enough (and be educated by the politicians) to know that you have to engage with it and look for practical and humane solutions instead of hiding behind some painfully constructed concepts to avoid this. Personally, I have given up on the idea of becoming Australian citizen for the time being. Good night Peter
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
The latest round of "ideas" complicates the resettlement of refugees even further. New Zealand, e.g. has no interest in complications related to the free movement of their people.
Since 'we' seem to be considering some 'brilliant' new ideas concerning the problem of refugees. How about : - simply eliminating the refugee camps ; this would be both more humane and save money - in the interim whilst checking identification and refugee status; allow them to seek work or apply for unemployment ; this latter whilst costing more money ie $14K/ year/ person ; is still vastly cheaper than refugee camp costs at ~$100K/year/person (based on the cost of incarceration ) and has fairly onerous identification requirements. Certainly a few will go "off the grid"; but statistically I wouldn't expect this number to be significant; because it will be just too difficuld for most people - when they are considered non-refugees or undesirable ; just fly them home and advertise the fact ! Certainly this costs money; but is again vastly cheaper than refugee camp costs (see above) ; it also has the effect of putting a ceiling on the proffitablity of people smuggling; which annecdotally may be as high as $50K/ refugee ... How many times would you spend $50K when you know the Australian government can and will fly you home for ~$ 3K ? -set up 'on-line' self-assessment proceedures and make these services available in refugee origin countries, and 3rd country refugee transit camps, so potential refugees can self-assess the difficulty they will face in achieving; refugee and cityzenship status; this option could also simultaneously reduce the final assessment costs ! regards Rohan McLeod
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Rohan McLeod via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Since 'we' seem to be considering some 'brilliant' new ideas concerning the problem of refugees. How about :
- simply eliminating the refugee camps ; this would be both more humane and save money
- in the interim whilst checking identification and refugee status; allow them to seek work or apply for unemployment ; this latter whilst costing more money ie $14K/ year/ person ; is still vastly cheaper than refugee camp costs at ~$100K/year/person (based on the cost of incarceration ) and has fairly onerous identification requirements. Certainly a few will go "off the grid"; but statistically I wouldn't expect this number to be significant; because it will be just too difficuld for most people
- when they are considered non-refugees or undesirable ; just fly them home and advertise the fact ! Certainly this costs money; but is again vastly cheaper than refugee camp costs (see above) ; it also has the effect of putting a ceiling on the proffitablity of people smuggling; which annecdotally may be as high as $50K/ refugee ... How many times would you spend $50K when you know the Australian government can and will fly you home for ~$ 3K ?
-set up 'on-line' self-assessment proceedures and make these services available in refugee origin countries, and 3rd country refugee transit camps, so potential refugees can self-assess the difficulty they will face in achieving; refugee and cityzenship status; this option could also simultaneously reduce the final assessment costs !
Your proposals are quite similar in some aspects to the treatment given to refugees in Germany and other West European countries. E.g. the refugees are housed but not detained. There are temporary visas If somebody's asylum request was rejected but it is not safe to return him to the country of origin. In case it is safe, he can be detained near the airport for up to 4 days. The lawfulness of this is disputed. However, I find it refreshing to talk about 4 days of detention while we mistreat people for 1000 days and counting. I know that media loves to report about the AfD and street rallies against the current refugee politics, but it is worth noticing that the overall votes for anti-refugee parties is somewhere between 10% to 20%. The majority of Germans have concerns but support a human treatment of refugees in principle. I do not think that that is much different here. It is just that, for the time I live here, the politics seem to be targeted to please the 10% to 20% of people who do not care about human solutions. I still consider the article 1 of the German Constitution as the biggest gain I received in the process of unification. It starts with "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." It is a constitutional "insurance" I am actually missing here. The German Constitution sets a bar no politician in the country can lower. An independent Constitutional Court can invalidate laws if they found to be incompatible with the constitution. Regards Peter
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
In case it is safe, he can be detained near the airport for up to 4 days. The lawfulness of this is disputed. However, I find it refreshing to talk about 4 days of detention while we mistreat people for 1000 days and counting.
They can't even get to the German airport, because Article 26 deliberately punishes carriers (i.e. aircraft, ferry, bus operators) who allow refugees to board in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_refugee_crisis#Carrier.27s_responsibi... This forces refugees to use dangerous, illegal, and expensive routes, e.g. €10,000-€12,000 instead of USD$400 for Turkey to Britain. I'm not condoning Australia's policy of illegally torturing refugees, but policies in the Schengen Zone aren't all beer and skittles, either. Merkel is a notable exception; good on her.
I still consider the article 1 of the German Constitution as the biggest gain I received in the process of unification. It starts with
"Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
It is a constitutional "insurance" I am actually missing here. The German Constitution sets a bar no politician in the country can lower. An independent Constitutional Court can invalidate laws if they found to be incompatible with the constitution.
For the case of refugees, I don't think that's necessary. Australia signed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees, so our current policy is illegal. End of story. I'm not sure at a glance, but I'd also expect it to be covered by our (moral, not legal) obligations re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights although that leads me to this, hmmm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_...
Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
In case it is safe,
I still consider the For the case of refugees, I don't think that's necessary. Australia signed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees, so our current policy is illegal. End of story.
Illegal in what jurisdiction ? An Australian federal law, which conflicts with the Australian Constitution, is illegal in the jurisdiction of the Australian Federal Court; that is, that court has the power to declare that law unconstitutional and throw it out ! But thus far national commitments before the United Nations , are little more that statements of principle ie moral commitments Likewise the International Court in the Hague can make judgements of genocide etc; but as far as I know it has little power to enforce such judgements; given that national goverments, can simply declare that court to have no jurisdiction in their case. Perhaps in the future the United Nations Organization (or some successor) will morph into , a much maligned global "Government of the Federated Nations of Earth"; with something like a real international court and "Global Enforcement Body"; which has the actual means to enforce it's 'laws' In the mean time national governments can behave like the more or less benevolent thugs that they are ! An interesting piece of political 'theatre' which we may see one day; is the Sea Shepherd Organization; sueing the United Nation's for the cost of policing that organization's 'laws on whaling'. :-) regards Rohan McLeod
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 6:04:50 PM AEDT Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:
But thus far national commitments before the United Nations , are little more that statements of principle ie moral commitments Likewise the International Court in the Hague can make judgements of genocide etc; but as far as I know it has little power to enforce such judgements; given that national goverments, can simply declare that court to have no jurisdiction in their case.
War criminals can be deported to The Hague from other countries. This means that people like George W Bush aren't able to travel much nowadays. Also if we can just ignore treaties why does the TPP have to be enforced? Can we ignore that one too? Why does the US refuse to sign so many treaties if they can just be ignored? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 6:04:50 PM AEDT Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:
But thus far national commitments before the United Nations , are little more that statements of principle ie moral commitments Likewise the International Court in the Hague can make judgements of genocide etc; but as far as I know it has little power to enforce such judgements; given that national goverments, can simply declare that court to have no jurisdiction in their case. War criminals can be deported to The Hague from other countries. This means that people like George W Bush aren't able to travel much nowadays.
Yes; but I doubt the Hague will (or even could) force change in Australia's refugee laws; not with standing Australia's United Nation's commitments
Also if we can just ignore treaties why does the TPP have to be enforced?
I would suspect that such multilateral treaties incorporate their own punitive enforcements; so more like a contractual than a legal requirement
Can we ignore that one too?
See above
Why does the US refuse to sign so many treaties if they can just be ignored?
I would suspect a mix of : 1/ Primarily to avoid accusations that they acted contrary to their commitments ; so just to retain the moral high ground , or if prefered, to retain credibility 2/ Secondarily to avoid whatever punitive provisions the treaties may entail To take a simple case of say some bilateral trade treaty between two nations; if there was some dispute; analogous to a dispute between two parties to a contract; - in Australia one party can force adjudication before an Australian court but inorder for a dispute between two nations to be adjudicated by the International Court at the Hague; I suspect the court would need both parties to accept it has jurisdiction; assuming even that it would accept the case regards Rohan McLeod
Quoting russell@coker.com.au (russell@coker.com.au):
Also if we can just ignore treaties why does the TPP have to be enforced? Can we ignore that one too? Why does the US refuse to sign so many treaties if they can just be ignored?
Off the top of my head, often primarily for reasons of domestic politics and legal consequences if they were to be adopted. Separately from that: The term 'treaty' is a problematic one within the _internal_, domestic USA legal framework because the meaning is, in software engineering terms, overloaded. Or to put it another way, the US Constitution dictates particular requirements and powers for a particular class of thing that it calls 'treaties', but most things called 'treaties' inside the USA are not in that class, but rather one of two other classes. Meanwhile, the meaning of the term in international law is clear and consistent -- and all three things with domestic differences are all just called 'treaties' from an outside-USA perspective. Covered at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause Article II of the Constitution (its major division defining the Executive Branch), Section 2, Clause 2 empowers the President to propose and be chief negotiator with foreign powers for written agreements that if then confirmed by vote of at least 2/3 of the US Senate, they become part of the body of U.S. domestic law, co-equal with statutes passed by Congress. Those are called 'Article II treaties', the only things _strictly_ qualifying as treaties. However, more often, the domestic side of an agreement with foreign powers gets implemented via a 'congressional-executive agreement (CEA)', an instrument negotiated by the President and then ratified by a regular majority of each house of Congress, or a 'sole-executive agreement', an agreement negotiated by the President alone without Congressional approval. Congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements are valid if they concern temporary matters. If they would purport to bind future Congresses or future Presidents, this can be done only with an Article II treaty. The third type, sole-executive agreement, is the most limited in its power: To be valid, it must need for enforcement only the defined powers of the Executive Branch such as custody of foreign policy, the role of commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and so on. If the agrement's scope requires use of powers reserved to the Legislative Branch (Congress), then one of the other forms of agreement would be required. As domestic law co-equal with Congressional legislation, all three types of agreement can be amended by subsequent acts of Congress. Also, just like domestic law, they may be subject to review and possible vacating by U.S. courts on constitutional grounds. Anyway, it has always and everywhere been the case that a sovereign power can ignore (abrogate) a treaty.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
They can't even get to the German airport, because Article 26 deliberately punishes carriers (i.e. aircraft, ferry, bus operators) who allow refugees to board in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_refugee_crisis#Carrier.27s_responsibi...
This forces refugees to use dangerous, illegal, and expensive routes, e.g. €10,000-€12,000 instead of USD$400 for Turkey to Britain.
A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I happened to travel on a bus up part of European Route E60, the portion of that motorwayfrom Bucharest to Vienna. Our guide says this has been in recent years the primary route used by migrants from elsewhere in Asia and Africa up into western Europe. He said that, since this has been happening, border officials at the point of entry into Austria have been doing at least visual checks of all motor vehicles, particularly since a lorry was found to have been sealed with dozens of migrants who had all suffocated to death. Because of the carrier controls you mention, the border officials' scrutiny is said to be primarily focussed on lorries, but they did give our bus a good look, too.
participants (5)
-
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck