What rights do refugees have under the 1951 Convention?
From the FAQ on the website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html • The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly defined conditions (Article 32); • The right not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31); • The right to work (Articles 17 to 19); • The right to education (Article 22); • The right to housing (Article 21); • The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23); • The right to freedom of religion (Article 4); • The right to access the courts (Article 16); • The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); and • The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28). Australia ratified the Convention in 1954. Please send it to your local MP. Thank you Peter
Peter Ross wrote:
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19); • The right to education (Article 22); • The right to housing (Article 21); • The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23); • The right to freedom of religion (Article 4); • The right to access the courts (Article 16); • The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); and • The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
Out of curiosity, are all of these rights guaranteed to .au citizens by the federal constitution (or whatever)?
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Ross wrote:
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19); • The right to education (Article 22); • The right to housing (Article 21); • The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23); • The right to freedom of religion (Article 4); • The right to access the courts (Article 16); • The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); and • The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
Out of curiosity, are all of these rights guaranteed to .au citizens by the federal constitution (or whatever)?
No. There are very few rights guaranteed in the Australian federal Constitution. Most constitutions of democratic states provide for human rights at least to some extent; the Australian situation is unusual in that those rights which are mentioned have limited scope. Certain additional guarantees (e.g., freedom of political expression) have been found by the High Court to be implicit in the text of the Constitution. For reference: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/index.html
Jason White wrote:
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Ross wrote:
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19); • The right to education (Article 22); • The right to housing (Article 21); • The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23); • The right to freedom of religion (Article 4); • The right to access the courts (Article 16); • The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); and • The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
Out of curiosity, are all of these rights guaranteed to .au citizens by the federal constitution (or whatever)?
No. [Details...]
So Australia has guarantees more rights to refugees than its citizenry? ;-)
So Australia has guarantees more rights to refugees than its citizenry? ;-) _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Quick, someone call ACA!
On 14 August 2012 13:49, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
thelionroars wrote:
So Australia has guarantees more rights to refugees than its citizenry? ;-)
Quick, someone call ACA!
It took me a while to work that one out. I presume you are referring to the idiot box...
Sorry I hope you did not spend too much time on that. Yes I was referring to that bastion of reasoned argument and excellence in journalism, A Current Affair.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:14 PM, thelionroars <thelionroars1337@gmail.com>wrote:
On 14 August 2012 13:49, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
thelionroars wrote:
So Australia has guarantees more rights to refugees than its citizenry? ;-)
Quick, someone call ACA!
It took me a while to work that one out. I presume you are referring to the idiot box...
Sorry I hope you did not spend too much time on that.
Yes I was referring to that bastion of reasoned argument and excellence in journalism, A Current Affair.
Curse thee!
....made me snort my coffee back through my nose and splatter half a cup all over the keyboard! BW
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Jason White wrote:
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Ross wrote:
• The right to work (Articles 17 to 19); • The right to education (Article 22); • The right to housing (Article 21); • The right to public relief and assistance (Article 23); • The right to freedom of religion (Article 4); • The right to access the courts (Article 16); • The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); and • The right to be issued identity and travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).
Out of curiosity, are all of these rights guaranteed to .au citizens by the federal constitution (or whatever)?
No. [Details...]
So Australia has guarantees more rights to refugees than its citizenry? ;-)
Here is the Victorian Human Rights Charter Act http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/your+rights/human+rights/human+rights+cha... Recognition and equality before the law (section 8) Right to life (section 9) Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 10) Freedom from forced work (section 11) Freedom of movement (section 12) Privacy and reputation (section 13) Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14) Freedom of expression (section 15) Peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16) Protection of families and children (section 17) Taking part in public life (section 18) Cultural rights (section 19) Property rights (section 20) Right to liberty and security of person (section 21) Right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22) Rights of children in the criminal process (section 23) Right to a fair hearing (section 24) Rights in criminal proceedings (section 25) Right not to be tried or punished more than once (section 26) Retrospective criminal laws (section 27) I am sick of this "boat people drama" going on for 10 years. It is the meanest, nastiest debate I came across so far in a democratic society. The refugees are Australia's Jews: Everybody has a free kick, they are always there to distract from problems, the are too powerless so you can do what you want with them, and you can come up with Orwell speech as "in order to save lives" (Gillard yesterday) if you lock them up and let them languish and hope that they all just vanish somehow, and don't care whether they are becoming mad or suicidal or in some circumstances commit suicide. Regards Peter
twb> So Australia guarantees more rights to refugees than its twb> citizenry? ;-) peter> I am sick of this "boat people drama" going on for 10 years. It peter> is the meanest, nastiest debate I came across so far in a peter> democratic society. FTR, my idle curiosity above does not mean I'm in the "boat people go home" camp; I don't even UNDERSTAND that camp.
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
twb> So Australia guarantees more rights to refugees than its twb> citizenry? ;-)
peter> I am sick of this "boat people drama" going on for 10 years. It peter> is the meanest, nastiest debate I came across so far in a peter> democratic society.
FTR, my idle curiosity above does not mean I'm in the "boat people go home" camp; I don't even UNDERSTAND that camp.
I did not think of you, or someone else specifically, being in the "boat people go home" camp. I guess there are many decent people here, as somewhere else in Australian society. It is just time to get rid of politicians who continue to kick powerless people as asylum seekers are. Tell your local member of the Parlament what you think of it! Regards Peter
Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote:
I guess there are many decent people here, as somewhere else in Australian society.
There are, including people who support and advocate publicly for the rights and interests of refugees.
It is just time to get rid of politicians who continue to kick powerless people as asylum seekers are.
I would characterize it as playing politics with the lives of the most vulnerable. The problem with processing asylum claims outside the migration zone is that the applicants have no access to judicial review of decisions that may be made against them. Immigration officers sometimes make serious errors, which can only be corrected if there is a court with jurisdiction to decide the cases. The grounds for judicial review of administrative decisions are confined to matters of law; the facts can't be directly contested in court, and, to avoid a misconception, courts don't entertain frivolous claims. So the result of bad policy is that claims are evaluated in circumstances in which there is no judicial oversight of administrative decisions.
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity, are all of these rights guaranteed to .au citizens by the federal constitution (or whatever)?
As said here, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights in a written form. Here one example where it makes a difference: The first chapter of the German constitution is such a "Bill of Rights". There is, amongst others: http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#16 "No German may be extradited to a foreign country." This would be quite helpful for Assange. While Germany went into agreements as the European Arrest Warrant, the accompanying law, "Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe" states clearly (amongst others, as the expectation of a fair process, no death penalty, and that the crime has to be crime according to German law as well) that - every court case related to the extradiction has to be clearly defined, and - a further extradiction into another country needs the approval by the Germans (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/irg/__11.html, sorry, just Germen) A German citizen knows that way where he is at, and that his government need to agree to a further extradiction as Assange may fear. I suspect the Australian government doesn't have an interest to clarify its position in the Assange case, and it does not have any obligation to do so. (Clarification: I don't want to start a discussion about "Assange - right or wrong?", I just use its case to show when a Bill of Rights makes a difference). Regards Peter
Hi all, some people in Papua Newguinea seem to have a problem with a detention centre there: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/media-barred-from-manus-isla... National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop, who is a senior member of the coalition government, has threatened to take legal action to stop the centre being built. ‘‘There’s no law in PNG that allows people to be detained without being charged,’’ he told Radio Australia’s Asia Pacific. ‘‘That is not legal here [in PNG] because it’s against our constitution, which safeguards and protects our people, if they’re taken in by police, or other authorities, they’re supposed to be charged as soon as possible for a particular offence.’’ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, there are public viewings for the "Go Back To where You Come From" series at SBS this week. http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/events/state/vic/ Regards Peter
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
So Australia has guarantees more rights to refugees than its citizenry? ;-)
No, the rights accorded to the refugees are operationalized in legislation. It's the same, for the most part, of the rights of citizens. A Constitutional right acts as a constraint on the parliament and the executive government and is required to be upheld by courts. This creates a stronger guarantee than merely relying on the parliament not to enact legislation that infringes human rights, as the Australian system does in the absence of a charter or bill of rights in the Constitution.
Quoting Jason White (jason@jasonjgw.net):
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity, are all of these rights guaranteed to .au citizens by the federal constitution (or whatever)?
No. There are very few rights guaranteed in the Australian federal Constitution. Most constitutions of democratic states provide for human rights at least to some extent; the Australian situation is unusual in that those rights which are mentioned have limited scope.
Certain additional guarantees (e.g., freedom of political expression) have been found by the High Court to be implicit in the text of the Constitution.
For reference: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/index.html
Interesting (and thanks). For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia also has a fairly decent summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Australia#Australian_Constituti... The UK's situation is also interesting: There is no explicit written constitution, but the body and traditions established by common law are regarded as embodying the country's constitution. -- Cheers, "Debian ist ein Textadventure." Rick Moen -- Klaus Knopper rick@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80)
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Jason White (jason@jasonjgw.net):
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity, are all of these rights guaranteed to .au citizens [Details...] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/index.html
Interesting (and thanks). For whatever it's worth, Wikipedia also has a fairly decent summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Australia#Australian_Constituti...
Now I feel guilty for asking Jason instead of doing my own fact check, since that's the page I would've ended up on.
The UK's situation is also interesting: There is no explicit written constitution, but the body and traditions established by common law are regarded as embodying the country's constitution.
Their constitution is unwritten, and is mostly based on common law and practice. In other words, they do something wrong and it then becomes the norm. -- Laurie Couturier, on the British legal system
Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
The UK's situation is also interesting: There is no explicit written constitution, but the body and traditions established by common law are regarded as embodying the country's constitution.
Yes, exactly. I haven't checked the details, but I would expect this to be qualified by European Union law nowadays, for example by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Quoting Jason White (jason@jasonjgw.net):
Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
The UK's situation is also interesting: There is no explicit written constitution, but the body and traditions established by common law are regarded as embodying the country's constitution.
Yes, exactly. I haven't checked the details, but I would expect this to be qualified by European Union law nowadays, for example by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Have the Poms decided they believe in the concept of Europe, yet? ;-> (There's a probably apocryphal story that the head of the Chunnel consortium has a framed Times of London headline -- that may be equally apocryphal -- on his wall to remind himself about the provincial attitude his office must push against: 'Fog Closes Channel. Continent Cut Off'.)
participants (6)
-
Brent Wallis -
Jason White -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
thelionroars -
Trent W. Buck