JO"N: tried to discuss the issues in terms of international law, and in particular Australia's responsibilities therein. I have maintained that Australia is in breach of its obligations under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol to the Convention, both ratified by Australia and therefore part of our domestic law.

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

The UNCHR Convention & Protocols are just that Conventions & Protocols. Not Laws. It does state that it is hoped that the signature States would adhere to the Convention & protocols but if we don't like some part of it we don't have to abide by it. We can pull out of it anytime we like with a years notice.

The only mention of the UNCHR C & P's in the Migration Act is a mention in the definitions. It does not state that the UNCHR C & P is an Australian Law.

Please try & stop trying to make out that it is. You are manipulating the truth. I guess you work on the old adage that if you say something enough people will believe it's true.

JON,

Either you are unfamiliar with the law, or you are deliberately ignorant.

Doc ExCom No 8 of 1977 contains a set of "recommendations" to which Australia has no obligation to comply.

Bakhtiyari v Australia Case 1069/2002 and A v Australia Case 560/1993 are more than a decade old, and are just about the only cases where the UNHRC differed from the Australian courts and immigration dept.

JayB & SM. You both seem to miss a fundamental point. Once a country ratifies a Convention (and in the Refugee case the Protocol) then the provisions of the convention/protocol becoming legally binding on the State Party that ratifies it.

One can, as has been noted, remove oneself from that obligation by giving notice and waiting the requisite period. Australia has not done that and has given no indication of any intention to do so. Unless and until it opts out of the Convention then it is legally binding.

Australia pretends to be a good international citizen but the reality is otherwise. The events on Manu Island this week are but another stark example. The High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva has only yesterday publicly expressed concern over Australia's policies. Is he also a winging leftie?

JO'N: Once a country ratifies a Convention (and in the Refugee case the Protocol) then the provisions of the convention/protocol becoming legally binding on the State Party that ratifies it.

It is not a Law. It is not binding. If a country has issues with a part of the C & P then thy are not obliged to abide by that part.

Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
considering that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed at
Geneva on 28 July 1951(1), covers only those persons who have become refugees
as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951,

For a start. Considering that new refugee situations have arisen since the Convention was adopted and that the refugees concerned may therefore not fall within the scope of the Convention,
D.
“THE CONFERENCE,
28 United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 37
“Considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position, “RECOMENDS that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international co-operation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement.”
E.
“THE CONFERENCE,
“EXPRESSES THE HOPE that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees will have VALUE as an example exceeding its contractual scope and that all nations will be guided by it in granting so far as possible to persons in their territory as refugees and who would not be covered by the terms of the Convention, the treatment for which it provides.”

Article 36
Information on national legislation
The Contracting States shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the laws and regulations which they may adopt to ensure the application of this Convention.

The UNCHR C & P has to fall within Australian Migration Laws, of which we have advised the UN.

JayB: I am obviously not going to convince you of the error of your interpretations of the relevant provisions of international law. Can I therefore refer you to an article by Hugh Tuckfield in The Diplomat www.thediplomat.com published on 18 February 2014.

Perhaps after reading it you will accept that mine is not a lone voice in maintaining that Australia is in breach of its international obligations.

Mr Tuckfield has some other observations to make that I think confirm the stance I have taken in the course of these comments.

JO'N: the error of your interpretations of the relevant provisions of international law.

Once & for all. the UNCHR C & P, IS NOT a LAW. It is a Convention & a Protocol. Australia cannot be Prosecuted for not honouring it's commitment in full. There is no provision in the Convention or Protocol for prosecution.

I really don't care how many Left Wing, Politically Correct, do-gooder, whinging Greenies you can drag out of behind a tree. They're are not worth a pinch of $#!t.

My apologies in advance Graham.