The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Genocide in Sri Lanka: an inconvenient finding > Comments

Genocide in Sri Lanka: an inconvenient finding : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 11/2/2014

Similarly both Bishop and Carr have described Tamil asylum seekers from Sri Lanka as 'economic migrants', in order to send them back to Sri Lanka without processing their claims to be refugees.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
You are dead right Bruce-judging by the almost
overwhelming push-back this matter is very
inconvenient.
Posted by asho, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 1:44:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what's stopping Sri Lankan Tamils, who want to leave, crossing the narrow strait to India where many millions of fellow Tamils live?

The economy of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu is growing rapidly.

Haigh incorrectly seems to argue that Australia is the only option for Sri Lankan Tamils.
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 2:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James O'Neill

I was not questioning what should be in the UNHCR charter, or what your interpretation is, but what is written in black and white.

1. Agreed, we have no obligation to shelter economic refugees.

2. There is no clause in the charter dealing with refugees not within the territory of Australia. If you disagree, feel free to point out where it is included.

An excerpt "The Contracting States shall accord to refugees within their territories...."

3. Actually we have a tribunal with the right of appeal which is independent. As you say the obligations towards children lie outside of this charter.

4. As above this applies.

As I have shown above, we comply with the charter.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 2:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James O'N:
while I am sympathetic to your argument, I don't think you're right as to points 2. and 3. Can you cite authority in the Refugees Convention for what you're saying?

SM
Obviously the Refugee Review Tribunal is not independent of the Immigration Minister, on whose grace and favour the continuance of a member's contract depends.

For example I once had an RRT member approach me privately to disclose, in the hope that I would make public, directions from the Minister to members as to how particular cases were to be handled. The member was unwilling to go public herself because of fear of repercussions from the Minister. In other words:
a) it's not true that the RRT is "independent", and
b) it's a false and misleading misrepresentation which is constantly repeated.

Secondly, everyone is agreed that Australia's obligations extend to accepting refugees who apply onshore, and not to people who merely aspire to a better life.

But
1. most of the people in the world, including most refugee applicants, come from countries worse off than Australia. Therefore the fact that they may improve their economic lot by coming here, doesn't mean they are not refugees. It's a false dichotomy.
2. Since the refugee determination process is specifically set up to distinguish refugees from non-refugees, obviously there can be no objection to people applying for refugee status on the ground that they are "economic migrants" because the latter doesn't rule out the former, and
3. obviously it is unfair and prejudicial for Carr and his fellow d!ckheads to declare in the abstract that entire categories of people defined by race or nationality are *not* refugees when
a) how would he know? Does he know their cases?
b) they're running away from a country with a long and atrocious record of human rights abuses based on exactly the racial and national criteria in issue, and
c) if Carr was right, then no RRT decision would ever favour a Sri Lankan, would it?
Which is bigotted nonsense. Sri Lankan reffos are legion - for good reason!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 2:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JkJ: 2. Since the refugee determination process is specifically set up to distinguish refugees from non-refugees, obviously there can be no objection to people applying for refugee status on the ground that they are "economic migrants" because the latter doesn't rule out the former.

convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees

Article 1,
F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1," enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Article 35
co-operation of the national authorities with the united nations
2. In order to enable the Office of the High Commissioner or any other
agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, to make reports to the competent organs of the United Nations, the Contracting States undertake to provide them in the appropriate form with information and statistical data requested concerning:
(a) The condition of refugees,
(b) The implementation of this Convention, and;
(c) Laws, regulations and decrees which are, or may hereafter be, in force relating to refugees.

Article 44
denunciation
1. Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention at any time by a
notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. Such denunciation shall take effect for the Contracting State concerned one year from the date upon which it is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Cont
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 4:27:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

Your claims that the refugee review tribunal is not independent does not stack up, as a statutory body whose members are largely judges, who are appointed for terms of up to 7 years, the prospect for government interference is somewhat fanciful.

a) As refugee status can only be given to those fleeing persecution or conflict, economic migrants can be put on a plane and flown back to their country of origin.
b) The war in Sri Lanka is now over. Simply being Tamil is not a reason for refugee status.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 6:45:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy