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 > Nauru or Nuremberg? Australia - asylum seekers and war criminals > Comments

Nauru or Nuremberg? Australia - asylum seekers and war criminals : Comments

By Jane McAdam, published 16/12/2005

Jane McAdam argues Australia is protecting war criminals, but not asylum seekers, from torture.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
You need a tough hide to be Australian these days. Now we are schizophrenic!

I know we are supposed to go to water every time a lawyer says anything – particular a “Dr.” lawyer, even though she looks about 15. But, surely commonsense tells us that the authors of the 1951 Refugee Convention didn’t envisage the problem that would occur with asylum seekers and illegal immigration that has occurred 50 odd years later. Australia was never criticised as it is now. We well and truly took our share in the 50’s and 60’s.

Invoking a 54-year-old document just because nothing suitable has replaced it is dishonest, as is the mania for ‘international law’ which has never had the approval of international citizens.

As for all the legalistic requirements for extradition to countries that might use torture, give us break! There are any amount of really bad countries and regimes in the world to criticise before Australia
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 16 December 2005 11:11:21 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
The ambivalence of Australia's position on extradition versus our shameful treatment of asylum seekers and refugees strikes at both the racist bottom-feeder elements of our nation, and it goes all the way to the top - see Richard Ackland's opinion piece in today's SMH for a history of the attitudes and behaviours of John Howard down the years, see http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/12/15/1134500961607.html

Howard's attitudes are not unique to him as, I believe, it cuts across our nation. I see it in the people I talk to, many of whom are teachers, which horrifies me.

It would seem that once we accept someone, preferably of western background, we assume they can do no wrong, whereas if they are of non-western (especially "middle-eastern" or "Asian") then we want to keep them out lest they be guilty of the crimes we have been trying to pretend their western-origin counterparts have, supposedly, committed. Our record on handling ex-Nazi and Ustashi criminals should make us all ashamed.
Posted by jimoctec, Friday, 16 December 2005 11:15:21 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
Yes indeed, Leigh and jimoctec have identified our hamartias. We are a nation of xenophobes, bigots, racists, bottom-feeders, schizophrenics, and sufferers of poikiloderma of Civatte who respond to the dog whistle.

We now have the stentorian voices of Dr Jane McAdam and Germaine Greer reminding us of how vile we are. So we might ask: who in their right mind would want to seek asylum in this cultural wasteland?
Posted by Sage, Friday, 16 December 2005 4:06:49 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
Yep Leigh well said,
Now talking about Nuremberg trials, I can name an awful lot of Ploititions-Lawyers-Beurocrats- Community leaders –Looter class hijacker pseudo business men- pseudo Intellectual- and associated paracites: Just to name a few categories that need to be put on trial for national sedition and treason- lets not confuse the issue with events some on the left aspire; If not in total of the Ideology but the principle of the Ideology. But in true Orwellian use of emotion and linguistics, we need to actually deconstruct the hidden code and the deeply encrypted message such authors use and decipher it to its actual meaning. And it is not good for you and I, you sound surprised.
Posted by All-, Saturday, 17 December 2005 8:24:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a never ending stream of people who accuse us poor old Aussies as racist,bigoted rednecks.
Instead of thinking "asylum seekers" for some reason our twisted brains substitute the words,"opportunistic con men" or wonder if these people who are ,quite possibly, running from justice in their own lands.
Judging by the behaviour on one group in particular, the latter phrase could well apply.
But the bleating hearts prefer to believe the best of all the newcomers and the worst of the Australians.
It has been so for the past thirty years. This is why our nation is sinking under the stink of 'multiculture'.
Posted by mickijo, Sunday, 18 December 2005 2:26:35 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
mickijo

'There is a never ending stream of people who accuse us poor old Aussies as racist,bigoted rednecks.
Instead of thinking "asylum seekers" for some reason our twisted brains substitute the words,"opportunistic con men" or wonder if these people who are ,quite possibly, running from justice in their own lands.
Judging by the behaviour on one group in particular, the latter phrase could well apply.'

Branding asylum seekers as liars and criminals is a serious claim and should at the very least be backed up with some evidence.

Around 85% of asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and only a very small percentage are ever rejected on "character grounds".

Given the choice between deportation and detention, most asylum seekers choose detention and, considering the appalling conditions in Australian detention centres, this in itself speaks volumes. A recent report states that 35 out of 40 deported asylum seekers were found to be in danger upon arriving back in their homelands.

I presume the "one group in particular" is a reference to the "Lebanese gang" problem in Sydney. These Lebanese are second generation immigrants, not asylum seekers.

You obviously expend a lot of energy in hatred. Why don't you redirect some of that effort into learning a little more about the subjects you vilify so ignorantly.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 18 December 2005 11:45:04 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
Jane
You sure seem to have stirred up some parts of the community. There are many who fear (thanks to the line taken by the Howard government) that we are in danger of being swamped by millions of illegal migrants if we do not have harsh laws which enable us to imprison people for long periods without trial.
How many thousands are there in Australia who have overstayed their visas but have not been hunted down and imprisoned?

We live in a society increasingly governed by fear and so we tolerate the introduction of unjust laws in the belief that we will be protected.

I suppose that if the original inhabitants of Australia had had mandatory detention laws in place at the time of the arrival of the first fleet then things would have been different.
Posted by Peace, Monday, 19 December 2005 1:37:45 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
Dr Jane McAdam wrote of Australia's 'schizophrenic' implementation of international law'.

The inappropriate use of the term 'schizophrenic' distressed some readers by perpetuating the false notion that schizophrenia means 'split personality'.

SANE Australia StigmaWatch (www.sane.org) wrote to Dr McAdam on 27.01.06, encouraging her to use alternate language to describe a divided or opposite approach to law.

Dr McAdam replied by telephone on 01.02.06, thanking StigmaWatch for bringing the issue to her attention. She expressed concern that she had distressed readers and informed StigmaWatch that she would not be using the term 'schizophrenic' out of the medical context in future.
Posted by Media, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 2:15:41 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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