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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. All
James O'Neill,

I bet that you like most of the other left whingers on this site have never even read the UNHCR charter. If you had you would realise that:

1 the charter covers those fleeing war and persecution, not those seeking a better life style.
2 the charter covers only refugees that have landed on Australian soil and is silent on interceptions on the high seas.
3 the charter allows for detention until the refugee status has been determined.
4 once the asylum seeker has been determined to be genuine, he is to be given refuge, permanent residence is not required, nor is the acceptance of his immediate family.

So where is the coalition not complying?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 11:18:58 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
@Shadow Minister.

You would lose your bet insofar as my reading of the Charter is concerned. I cannot speak for others, Left, Whingers (sic) or otherwise. To answer your points seriatim:

1. Agreed, but those fleeing Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and elsewhere are doing so precisely because of persecution, threats to their lives etc. Australia played no small role in creating those push factors in the first place.

2. Not true.

3. It goes further than that. The status is to be determined by an independent properly constituted tribunal with a right of appeal. We manifestly do not do that. Our detention of children is also outside the limits of our international obligations of which the Refugee Convention is only one instrument.

4. Partially true, but one of the main points is that the mechanism to determine status used in Australia is outside the Convention. If it falls at the first hurdle the rest is meaningless.

As to your final question: just about in every respect.
Posted by James O'Neill, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 11:44:50 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 nation is waiting to hear from the PM what those circumstances would be that would ever justify torture.
Posted by SHRODE, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 12:14:50 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
Actually,war in a country is not an excuse for seeking asylum. There has to be a real fear of danger to AN INDIVIDUAL before he or she complies with the Convention. Nobody appears to be reading the Convention; Left or Right.
Posted by NeverTrustPoliticians, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 12:26:49 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
Shoude: the nation is waiting to hear from the PM what those circumstances would be that would ever justify torture.

If you are referring to the burnt hands claim, either you haven't been reading the Papers, watching the News on TV or you just plain don't want to acknowledge what really happened.

Come back, come back from wherever you are.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 12:40:59 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
Jo'N: my reading of the Charter is concerned.

You interpretation of the UNCHR is faulty. Read Article 31a. It says Coming directly from harm.

Jo'N: Australia played no small role in creating those push factors in the first place.

Wrong. Refugees were coming out of the ME long before any Allied Wars took place. You're probably to young to remember or don't want to.

SM: 2. the charter covers only refugees that have landed on Australian soil and is silent on interceptions on the high seas.

Wrong again. Show us, Page, Para, Sub-Para, Where is says Refugees have to be taken to Australia or any other safe haven when intercepted on the High Seas.

Jo'N: The status is to be determined by an independent properly constituted tribunal with a right of appeal. We manifestly do not do that. Our detention of children is also outside the limits of our international obligations of which the Refugee Convention is only one instrument.

See Article 12, Para 1. also Article 16, Para's I,2, & 3. It does mention Habitual residence. Meaning let out of the Detention Centre not while in the Detention Centre.

Jo'N: but one of the main points is that the mechanism to determine status used in Australia is outside the Convention.

No it isn't. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it so.

SM: So where is the coalition not complying? Jo'N: As to your final question: just about in every respect.

That is your opinion & you're wrong.

You should really get someone to help you with legal Interpretation. Remember the UNCHR is a Convention& Protocol, It is voluntary. It is not an enforceable Law.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 1:00:06 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. All

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