A country disappears
Hi all, is is actually well known that Tony Abbott's father was fleeing the Second World War, arriving in Australia as a 16 years old in 1940? Julia Gillard came to Australia as a child because her parents found the warmer climate suitable for her, to help her to recover from bronchopneumonia. (for bot see Wikipedia) Does it say anything about the character of these people that they are on "stop the boat" campaigns and run "stop the boat" politics? The latest step, legislation to excise Australia's mainland from the migration zone, is in clear breach of the Refugee Convention and the Declaration of the Human Rights. "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." The declaration was proclaimed in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, chaired by the Australian Herbert Vere Evatt. Sorry, I don't get these politics out of my brain. 10 years after Tampa, and nothing has changed. Every week another twist in this sorry story. How long do we run this race to the bottom? That's where we are, in the eyes of the UN High Commisioner for Refugees. German newspapers believe we are the worst in the Western world, in this regard. Whether FAZ (considered as the leading serious conservative paper), Sueddeutsche (moderate left-leaning) or tageszeitung(left), they all apalled by our refugee policies. I just heard one comment by a Swiss journalist, to find here: http://www.drs.ch/www/de/drs/sendungen/rendez-vous/2753.bt10247056.html Interesting. what he has to say about the reasons why Australians have such a problem with refugees. First, it mentions the influence of the highly monopolist press. "It leaves a mark if you get told for 10, 20 years who bad the situation is." Isn't time to reclaim the national debate to return to meaningful politics? Here is my alternate policy: Increase our official intake (as we do:-). The numbers of refugees in Malaysia and Indonesia aren't that high that we get flooded tomorrow. Support Malaysia, e.g. to sign the Convention. They are thinking of it. If we take a fair share it helps them to deal with their intake. Negotiate on lines as: "we take one refugee, you take one refugee", to resettle them (not leaving them without papers or in pratically infinite detention). It is sharing the load. Financially the politics in place are a disaster. Detention centres are expensive. We could use the money in better ways. If people arrive we give them a "social year" in a camp while they are being assessed. There are areas that could do with initial government support to establish a self-efficient economy, to attract more people, to prevent country towns and regions to die. Let the refugees build their own infrastructure, with support from local business, so they learn a trade, learning the language and try to grasp what Australian society is made of. You could give them regional visas for the next three years. This allows them to establish themselfs in regional Australia, developing the country. We already offer this programm to skilled workers that arrive under the points system, I believe. (If they fail the mark but are slighly below they are allowed to work outside metropolitean areas). I could imagine that would get support. From the local people who would profit from the boost in their local economy, as well as from the wider public. I guess many people would consider it fair, because the refugees start with a contribution. It takes away fears - there is sufficient time to screen the arriving. And it gives refugees a start in the country, a way of settling in, to keep themself busy and having a future to look forward too. I guess the most would not mind. They had to endure so many things - they would do it happily if the prize for freedom and safety is a year's work. It may be not perfect but human and a starting point, I believe. Is that so hard to come up with something better than twisting the truth until there is nothing left? Regards Peter
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. In short, I think better policies would require more than a change of Prime Minister/leader of the opposition.
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
Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote:
Probably time to change the "media climate".
Yes, indeed, and that may have a chance of altering public attitudes.
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.
In whose course I had the privilege of studying international law. This is completely non-partisan advice from a supremely accomplished scholar who has an encyclopedic knowledge of international law, including, no doubt, that pertaining to refugees. While there will be certainly other lawyers who disagree, this opinion will rightly carry great weight in the international legal community and merits respect on all sides of the political dispute.
Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 7/11/2012 12:34 PM, Peter Ross wrote:
German newspapers believe we are the worst in the Western world, in this regard. Whether FAZ (considered as the leading serious conservative paper), Sueddeutsche (moderate left-leaning) or tageszeitung(left), they all apalled by our refugee policies.
They are beating the drum of a bizarre agenda. When Germany has done as much for refugees as Australia, then they will (A) have earned the right to comment on Australia and (B) demand restrictions of their own.
Everybody has the right to comment on whatever political matter they so wish. It's the essence of democratic politics and it transcends borders. To suggest otherwise is undemocratic. Newspaper editors and journalists in Europe are exercising their basic human rights when they justifiably condemn the Australian government's treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.
On 7/11/2012 7:51 PM, Jason White wrote:
Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 7/11/2012 12:34 PM, Peter Ross wrote:
German newspapers believe we are the worst in the Western world, in this regard. Whether FAZ (considered as the leading serious conservative paper), Sueddeutsche (moderate left-leaning) or tageszeitung(left), they all apalled by our refugee policies.
They are beating the drum of a bizarre agenda. When Germany has done as much for refugees as Australia, then they will (A) have earned the right to comment on Australia and (B) demand restrictions of their own.
rights when they justifiably condemn the Australian government's treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.
I don't think your response is at all by-partisan. I don't believe Australia's treatment of refugees is bad. I think Germany's is duplicitous. They are complaining about Australia doing far more than they are. They fail to mention that they are only taking about 5% of the responsibility Australia is. If Germany, and many of the other 18 nations, took up the appalling slack and did the humane thing by increasing their intake (20 fold in Germany's case) then Australia's refugee support resources wouldn't be so exhausted. The refugees would die in fewer numbers coming here and waiting in dangerous and pitiful conditions. Perhaps the German nation is so ashamed it is trying to direct attention elsewhere. Why not Australia? Most Australian's don't like their own country or think little of it. My concern is not for refugees coming to Australia but refugees everywhere.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
I don't think your response is at all by-partisan. I don't believe Australia's treatment of refugees is bad. I think Germany's is duplicitous. They are complaining about Australia doing far more than they are. They fail to mention that they are only taking about 5% of the responsibility Australia
If you look at a map of the world you will notice that refugees won't often arrive in Germany by boat because it's rather a long journey. Someone who was going from Africa or the middle-east by boat would find it a lot easier to stop in the UK, France, or Spain. Someone who was going mostly by land to Germany would probably stop in Poland, Italy, or France first. But that's not the issue, the issue is what happens to the refugees who do arrive. If Germany treats 100% of refugees in a manner that complies with all relevant international agreements and preserves their human rights then they are entirely justified in criticising the Australian government. But even if Germany were doing the wrong thing, that doesn't excuse us from our obligations. If you have ever read the Bible you might recall that the Samaritan didn't say "but the Pharisees aren't helping people". As the majority of the Australian population is Christian it would be nice if some of the positive aspects of the Bible were considered when determining government policy. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Mike Mitchell wrote:
On 7/11/2012 7:51 PM, Jason White wrote:
Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
They are beating the drum of a bizarre agenda. When Germany has done as much for refugees as Australia, then they will (A) have earned the right to comment on Australia and (B) demand restrictions of their own.
rights when they justifiably condemn the Australian government's treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.
I don't think your response is at all bipartisan. I don't believe Australia's treatment of refugees is bad. I think Germany's is duplicitous. They are complaining about Australia doing far more than they are.
You do not need to be a thin man to call a fat man fat. In any case, Germany's behaviour is not the issue here.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Mike Mitchell wrote:
On 7/11/2012 12:34 PM, Peter Ross wrote:
German newspapers believe we are the worst in the Western world, in this regard. Whether FAZ (considered as the leading serious conservative paper), Sueddeutsche (moderate left-leaning) or tageszeitung(left), they all apalled by our refugee policies.
They are beating the drum of a bizarre agenda. When Germany has done as much for refugees as Australia, then they will (A) have earned the right to comment on Australia and (B) demand restrictions of their own.
Well, first, I don't think that the German records are that spotless thar I need to defend that country in particular. Anyhow, the refugee laws are harmonized, I am not sure EU-wide, it may be the "Schengen zone" ( a group of European countries co-operating on border control issues) only. When you enter one of the countries you apply for asylum there. And Germany is right in the middle.. But, when you are successful, you have the freedom to move freely in the European Union. And many of them move to Germany. You can look at the European budget to find out how much Germany contributes to these EU politics. And nearly every Yugoslavian I met here has family in Germany too. I am living here now, for ten years, and I find the "boatpeople politics" hard to swallow. You would not win an election in Germany with these, I am pretty sure. You may win up to 10% fringe votes if you become a candidate of the Neo-Nazi NPD with these arguments (and maybe some in the CSU's Bavaria.. but that's a story for itself). The most Germans feel confronted by such opinions. The Australian politicians are fiddling with the migration zone to exclude the country. That makes it pretty clear that they are aware of the obligations and try every trick to avoid responsibility. The question is not: Is it a lawful thing to do? The question is: Do we think all means are OK if we can get away with it? And, yes, others are watching us, and we don't make a pretty picture. BTW: The up to 10% "fringe vote" means you get some seats in the parliament if you have proportional representation. Nobody wants to govern with them. In the Australian system both main parties are fighting for that fringe vote because to have them means to have the bums you need to govern. I have sometimes the feeling the "decent Australia" is taken for granted. Does it have a voice? Regards Peter
participants (6)
-
Jason White -
Mike Mitchell -
Peter Ross -
Peter Ross -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck