James
That is abundantly clear from the Convention …”

No it’s not. I’ve asked you to cite authority and you repeatedly give only your unsupported pontifications.

Show us where it says that in the Convention or any international obligation that Australia has actually signed.

Jayb

“Is that clearer?”

It’s clearer that you’re confused.

Being a Tamil, of itself, doesn’t make one a Tamil Tiger.

And being a Tamil Tiger, of itself, doesn’t mean one has committed a war crime, or is otherwise excluded by Article 1 F.

One might have. But one might not. It’s a matter of fact for evidence in a particular case. You can’t just decide it in the abstract by making up percentages about whole groups. The Convention proceeds by assessing individual cases, not just making up facts adverse to entire racial groups.

“JKJ: The fact they ALSO hope for a better economic life does not disqualify them from being a refugee.”
[Jayb quoting the Convention:] “If he is moved EXCLUSIVELY by economic considerations, he is an economic migrant and not a refugee.”
(emphasis added).

Now can you identify your confusion? The Convention is talking about if they want to move for a better life AND THEY DON’T have refugee status. I’m talking about if they want to move for a better life AND THEY DO have refugee status. Factually different.

Your persistent confusion notwithstanding, what I’m saying is legally correct, and what you’re saying is wrong. If people have refugee status i.e. well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason, the fact that they would ALSO improve their lot by migrating, does NOT somehow deprive them of reFugee status as you are mistakenly repeating.

“A person from the Local Village who just wants to earn money for his family back in Sri Lanka does not qualify as a refugee.”

I never said he did. But you have no way of knowing that, without hearing his claims.

“ It seems like 50% qualify for Article 1 F of the Convention & 50% qualify for Ch1. 62 (f) does it not?”

Made-up facts.

I said: “It seems like 50% qualify for Article 1 F of the Convention & 50% qualify for Ch1. 62 (f) does it not?”

JKJ: Made-up facts.

Made-up facts.

Would this make it less pedantic. “It seems like MOST of Tamils Tigers would qualify for Article 1 F of the Convention & MOST of Sri Lankans would qualify for Ch1. 62 (f) does it not?”

The Tamil Tigers were a rag tag Civilian Militia. Not a duly constituted Army. They were vicious in the extreme to anyone that did not agree with them.

JKJ: I’m talking about if they want to move for a better life AND THEY DO have refugee status. Factually different.

I guess that's where you & I disagree. I don't believe that any Sri Lankans qualify for Ch1, 62(f). I don't see how they would qualify in any way.

I don't believe that any Tamil Tigers qualify because of Article 1 F.

They were all very indoctrinated fanatics hell bent on getting their way. They would kill as many people as possible or die trying. which they did at every opportunity. It's very convenient to forget that fact after the peace is restored.

You sound like you would argue that Pol Pot & his Henchmen were just misunderstood good guys that would qualify for Asylum in Australia.

“Would this make it less pedantic. “It seems like MOST of Tamils Tigers would qualify for Article 1 F of the Convention & MOST of Sri Lankans would qualify for Ch1. 62 (f) does it not?”

That would make it less pedantic, and more probable – and would show that mine weren’t “made up facts”.

Do you know what’s called the “ecological fallacy”? If you put nine white marbles, and one red marble in a bag, and draw out one at random, it’s not going to be 90% white and 10% red, is it? That’s the ecological fallacy.

So here. The Convention doesn’t give refugee status to whole groups. It’s done on an individual basis. This means that even if your made-up statistics were true, it still wouldn’t mean the applicant in an individual case is or is not a refugee. You have to assess the facts; you can’t just make them up.

Also, just as you don’t know which Tamils are LTTE and which are not, the Sri Lankan security forces don’t know either. They fear and loathe them for the reasons you have given, and are motivated to treat all Tamil men of fighting age with suspicion. In practice, this often means that the young guy in the village who is *not* a Tiger, keeps receiving treatment from security forces, that comes within the Convention definition of persecution: such as:
• Repeated detention without charge or trial
• Repeated interrogation and physical mistreatment
• Arbitrary mistreatments that make it impossible to earn a living, such as taking their fishing licence.

Whether you like it or not, these mistreatments are common, and because the standard of proof is very low in refugee law, it means many Tamils come within the definition of refugee.

“I guess that's where you & I disagree. I don't believe that any Sri Lankans qualify for Ch1, 62(f). I don't see how they would qualify in any way.”

That’s called "sheer blind prejudice".

I have not argued that war criminals etc. should be accepted.

Therefore you still haven’t shown any error of mine.

James O'Neill,

Sorry to take so long to get back, but I read the judgement in question, and the main salient point about this judgement is that it was a EU court interpreting EU law affecting EU border protection. It has no bearing whatsoever on Australia.

This is completely aside from the fact that a handful of activist judges have tried to extend the EU jurisdiction outside of its borders.

The situation still stands that Operation Sovereign Borders does not violate any international law.

SM. We will just have to agree to disagree.

James O'Neill,

With all due respect, you claimed that Australia was breaking international laws with respect to the tow back policy, having a personal interest in the subject I have read the UNHCR charter and a few high level legal opinions on interceptions at sea, and have yet to find any judgement that definitively prohibits these interceptions and turnarounds.

I do not claim to be an authority on the subject, and I am willing to accept that I might be wrong. However, I need more than the assertion of another blogger.

So do you know that the tow backs are illegal or are you simply parroting an incorrect line spouted by activists?