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 > How two lies became accepted folklore > Comments

How two lies became accepted folklore : Comments

By Marilyn Shepherd, published 21/10/2011

So, lie number one festers into a vile sore as we continue to jail innocent people who have the right to come and claim asylum here.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Shepherd's article, long on rhetoric though it is, has some value in that I was not fully aware of some of the legal aspects of refugee detention. But it remains unconvincing.

The UN treaties which Shepherd quotes extensively would seem to have been devised for people fleeing directly from a war zone or from a murderous government - involuntary refugees. It would not, or should not, cover those who go out of their way to make themselves refugees by raising money to get a seat in a boat, and destroying their identity papers on the way over.

A glance at an atlas shows that Australia is a very, very long way from most of the really opressive government's these days. So how, exactly, did the desperate, heart-rending dash away from oppression and violence of these refugees get them all the way to the bottom or the Pacific?

In any case, it should be noted that Australia has an annual refugee quota, with plenty of applicants from people in refugee camps with genuine, checkable stories of oppression and murder. Every boat person accepted, displaces one of those person in genuine need. The quota cannot be exceeded. I have no objection at all to accepting the people from the refugee camps, but Shepherd seems to have an objection.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 21 October 2011 10:29:23 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
"Australia has never been a leader on refugees even though we helped to write the Refugee Convention - we just like to pretend we are." Appreciate your article Marilyn Shepherd.

Australia's political procedure appears to be selective, bumbles and mumbles on blurring principals on all facts no matter how serious to suit the dress of the present major parties. Why is that?

One needs to credit Sarah Hanson Young for her work. For her honesty and transparent focus on the ill fate of those held in detention, endlessly .... With no whiff from the Government to alleviate the long-term suffering. I am ashamed of Australia and the way it treats these asylum seekers and those who stand up to demand a more humane approach.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-20/hanson-young-defends-pre-scripted-questioning/3582366

While on the topic of detention I add here the over-representation of Indigenous peoples caught up in the legal system.... Also going nowhere fast. This is to highlight the Australian political character when it comes to dealing with those at "risk," with disadvantaged backgrounds. A key fact in both issues points to a lack of legal resources to defend the rights of these individuals ... causing further burden, dysfunction and under-reported degrees of structural violence. Structural violence is the worst form of violence and is even more alarming when the character of a whole nation becomes disengaged because the national conversation reflects self-interested conspicuous agenda's of a few. We can resolve anything this way!

Never before do I know a time where citizens have felt more alienated from their political leaders or the media. It will cost.... regardless of the narrow focus and credit given to this economy.

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Friday, 21 October 2011 10:44:17 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
Correctionfrom above.

A key fact in both issues points to a lack of legal resources to defend the rights of these individuals ... causing further burden, dysfunction and under-reported degrees of structural violence. Structural violence is the worst form of violence and is even more alarming when the character of a whole nation becomes disengaged because the national conversation reflects self-interested conspicuous agenda's of a few. We can NOT resolve anything this way!

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Friday, 21 October 2011 10:49:00 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
How can you say these people have a right to be here, when they have paid their way through other countries. They are just que jumpers. Send them back to Malaysia and let them join the que again.
Posted by 579, Friday, 21 October 2011 11:22:18 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
Sadly for Marylin, this article actually proves that we actually have plenty of legal grounds to continue in the direction she insists we can't;

"Article 32 forbids expulsion from host territories for any reason other national security or public order"
And that is exactly what our government has been doing- any and every arrival has a potential security 'reason', and a definite 'public order' reason; so therefore, if we were to follow this rule down to the 't'- we would be assessing first their security and public order liability, and THEN assessing their refugee status. And we would also be instantly disqualifying the rioters and mouth-stitchers you mentioned from being acceptable as refugees and immune to expulsion as prove a solid security and public order threat.

"Australia has never been a leader on refugees"
That depends what you define as 'lead'- we arguably are the first of many western countries to start putting obstacles to access and gain citizenship in our countries, with distinct groups of refugees in mind. Seems it wasn't as unpopular among the international community as we keep being told.

"Imagine if our leaders today simply told the plain truth that under Australian and International Refugee Law anyone is allowed to claim asylum in this country and there is no crime in coming by sea"
I'd appreciate their honesty and then be waiting for them to resign Australia's signature and ratification to the international convention, and call for a reformed alternative both in the UN and domestically, that elevates the interpreted priorities in Article 32- which is a much fairer system.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 21 October 2011 3:41:49 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
Marilyn I can agree with some of your comments.

However I beleive that Australia needs to revisit the signing and continued support for the 1951 refuge convention, and subsequent laws and treaties.

The world is a different place, 1951 was a time of great change in Europe and Asia and other parts of the world.

We now live on a planet that is growing its population at a clearly unsustainable rate, the same goes for energy consumption, industrial food production, water use and contamination, climate and other issues too long to mention, afflict this finite resourced planet.

Australia needs to remove its obligations to the 1951 convention and develop a comprehensive plan that is fair and just for those seeking to make a better life in Australia. Current policy is not working and everyone is affected, the genuine refuge, the broader community and the tax payer in terms of government gaining the maximum benefit to the whole community for least fiscal outlay.

Effective policy and clearly stated laws would stop people risking their lives by travelling in unsafe conditions, remove the illegal boat people racket at its source in Indonesia and see all purported refuges assessed and granted assylum into our community if their status is deemed appropriate and lawful.

We do not have this policy and until we do the current mess will remain. Notwithstanding this, many people travelling by boat to our shores do have dubious backgrounds and they have freely admitted this to authorities that process them when apprehended.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 21 October 2011 3:44:13 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
On the subject of lies... and lies that fester into vile sores...

Is the author of the article the same Marilyn Shepherd who wrote on Crickey in answer to the question: Were Customs and the Navy ready for Christmas Island rescue?

<< I suspect the truth is they were bored, had a hang over because they do booze a lot on Xmas Island or they were involved in the drug smuggling ring under cover of their work.>>

shepherdmarilyn
Posted Wednesday, 22 December 2010 at 1:57 pm

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/22/were-customs-and-the-navy-ready-for-christmas-island-rescue/

Hmmm!
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 22 October 2011 9:23:55 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
Thank you for this well-researched article Marilyn. Firstly on King Hazza's point "this article actually proves that we actually have plenty of legal grounds to continue in the direction she insists we can't". I'd say rather that the article demonstrates that politicians can turn laws in whatever way suits them. All they have to do is decide (on voters' behalf) what they want to have happen, and it can be made to happen, even if what they (we) want is to mentally and financially brutalise vulnerable people for political purposes.

However I'm not particularly interested in laws and soforth so I'm going to go a bit pie-in-the-sky if I may.

Geoff of Perth says "We now live on a planet that is growing its population at a clearly unsustainable rate, the same goes for energy consumption, industrial food production, water use and contamination, climate and other issues too long to mention, afflict this finite resourced planet."

Putting two and two together, I would be interested to know what might be the effects of much freer migration on the world's population, energy consumption etc. Intuitively you would think that having large numbers of people move from low energy-consuming countries to high energy-consuming countries would cause higher energy consumption overall. And yes I'm sure this would be true in the short term.

But what of the long term? Is it possible that free migration, accompanied by responsible global efforts to reduce energy consumption and an international arbiter that safeguards the most valuable public goods - ie oxygen-producing and arable land - from profit-making activities that would destroy them, might actually reduce population growth and energy consumption in the long term? Or that it would at least distribute the global population along lines more or less equivalent to both economical and environmental sustainability? Might not a global economy based as much on environmental sustainability as well as economic sustainability intrinsically entail uninhibited migration?

And I've never understood how you can argue for free trade without arguing for free labour mobility - so come on Australia, let's make it happen, because we can!
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Monday, 24 October 2011 12:22:38 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
Sam,
I loved your pie in the sky stuff:

"I've never understood how you can argue for free trade without arguing for free labour mobility"

"I would be interested to know what might be the effects of much freer migration on the world's population, energy consumption etc"

You might actually have stumbled onto something. There is another line that - horse and carriage like - goes together real well with your first two.

"Think globally, act locally"

Put 'em together and what have you got bibbidi-bobbidi-boo

Tell ya what:you tell us where you live and I'll gather up a couple hundred of that cities " tired,...poor...homeless and tempest tossed" and deliver them to your door.

That would at least distribute the cities population of down-and-outs along more equitable lines.And I'd wager, it would pretty much mirror what would happen on a national scale, with "free labour mobility"

So come on [Sam], let's make it happen, because yes [you]can.

But I suspect your wont have much pie-in-the-sky stuff left after they raid your pantry.
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 October 2011 9:24:13 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
Hey wow, someone actually replied!

Unfortunately SPQR, you've completely missed the point, which is: we're all in this together. Think globally, act globally.

Mass migration's going to happen anyway sooner or later so I just think we might as well prepare for it and manage it properly.

'spose I'll just have to find someone else to discuss this with...
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 10:06:54 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
Sam;
In the first case, the legality is perfectly sound, and it boils down to how well voters and constituents can influence the politician's thought processes. And either way you look at it, the voters are the people that must reap the consequences of the decisions.

Secondly, on global issues, the simple answer is that by refusing and preventing people from overpopulated areas from moving to places with a lower population, the overpopulation and corresponding destabilization is isolated into those nations where the population is unstable, while the countries that did the right thing reap the benefits of their responsible practices; the alternative is that people that tried to manage themselves responsibly are punished by being forced to shoulder and reward the very people that did the wrong thing at their own permanent expense.
More importantly, when these low-populated countries improve their consumption and pollution patterns, they personally stand to benefit- rather than merely offset the burden that others are placing on them- and the environmental impact is actually reduced- not merely spread among more people.
The result is, people in low-populated countries actually have a REAL motive to do the right thing for population and consumption, as their environment improves with the global environment as far as their corresponding actions go.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 11:44:04 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 solution lies in raising the conditions in the Third World so that peoples of those nations can enjoy the same opportunities and services of the First World. Overpopulation is one of the problems from an environmental position, moving populations around might work to a certain extent but it is bandaid stuff until the causes and effects are addressed.

Trouble is where to start?

I tend to think the world is going through some sort of evolutionary process at the moment in a number of spheres: the effects of Western interventions, civil war, access to information via the internet, increases in those seeking asylum (mainly movements from East to West), tensions from fear of multiculturalism and religious differenes. How it will end is still not clear.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 11:55:51 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
Raising standards of living in the third world as Pelican said is a good place to start; finding a way to make crop exports more affordable in the third world is another.
Probably the same goes for contraceptives.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 4:31:21 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. 3
  5. All

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