Dear LEGO,

Thank you for your reply - much appreciated!

I still see no reply from Sarah and her side!

It goes without saying that technical problems, such as border-protection, must be addressed at each step and deliberated carefully: I can see more than one solution to the issue you raised, but I am sure that this is something which an independent country is quite able to work out for itself.

Thank you to all who have commented on my article. I welcome debate on the issues that I raised in my Opinion Piece. Due to the word length restriction, my response will come in two separate posts.

In all online discussion groups, my avatar is “Sarah Russell”. I have never logged on to any online site as “TimH”.

ConservativeHippie is correct. My Opinion Piece uses a feminist framework to interpret certain types of behaviour. In hindsight, I agree with both ConservativeHippie and onthebeach –it was cheeky to coin the acronym TATs. I regret doing this and apologise if this acronym offended anyone.

The primary purpose of my Opinion Piece was to describe certain behaviours that are sometimes used to silence debate. I chose to “rehash the Triggs debate now”, ConservativeHippie, because the way Tony Abbott treated Professor Triggs illustrated my point.

Tony Abbott decision to respond aggressively to Gillian Triggs (and also Juan Mendez, the author of UN’s “Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”) silenced a debate about the content of the report. Dismissing Professor Triggs as a “dishonourable Lefty”, as McCackie does, is another tactic sometimes used to silence debate.

Rather than attack Gillian Triggs, our prime minister could have chosen to discuss the content of the reports and its recommendations. Jonathan Green suggested a more respectful way for Tony Abbott to respond to the Human Rights Commission’s report.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/green-the-speech-abbott-could-have-made-about-triggs/6263032

I note with interest that Julian Burnside described Tony Abbott’s behaviour as “bullying”.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-a-bully-over-un-convention-against-torture-20150310-13zk4s.html

I also note with interest that Australia’s peak law bodies and academics support the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs. They go so far as to warn that attacks on her by the federal government are “a threat to democracy” http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/15/academics-and-law-bodies-warn-attack-on-gillian-triggs-threatens-democracy?CMP=share_btn_fb

I am not “kidding”, runner, about Professor Triggs being a role model for all of us who have been bullied by men in positions of power. I admire how she remained calm, particularly during the aggressive questioning during the Senates Estimates Hearing http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-estimates-turn-aggressive-as-coalition-senators-line-up-to-take-a-swing-at-gillian-triggs-20150224-13nmtx.html

The reason I am impressed with Professor Triggs is that she did not engage with the personal attacks. For example, she has taught me not to respond to people who call me a “cretin”, as dane did.

I am interested in evidence to support dane’s view that “white women are the most privileged species on the planet”. In my view, the prevalence of domestic violence, rape, glass ceilings, inadequate childcare, political underrepresentation, catcalling, bullying and financial disadvantage such as unfair pay and unequal superannuation all suggest a lack of privilege.

In response to Yuyutsu suggestion that I “hate” people with different views, quite the opposite is true. I learn a lot from talking with people who have different views, including those who have responded to my Opinion Piece. I certainly do not advocate people with different views living in different locations. I do, however, advocate people engaging respectfully with difference.

Unlike Shadow Minister and Lego, I do not believe that the The Human Rights Commission’s report was partisan. The interviews with children in detention took place between January 2013 and March last year (i.e. under both Labor and Coalition governments). The report criticised both Liberal and Labor’s policies that detain children.

Loudmouth brings to the discussion Professor Triggs response to Mr John Basikbasik’s complaint. It is my understanding that Professor Triggs reported that the government’s treatment of Mr Basikbasik was inconsistent with the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It seems reasonable to me that to hold a man for eight years after he has served his full prison sentence is something that requires at least the regular consideration of his case, as Professor Triggs suggested in her report

Sarah,

With all due respect, you have either failed to read what I wrote or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

My claim was not that the report was partisan, but that the timing of the delivery of the report was partisan, and for this we have Triggs' own words that she delay the release of the report. While the AHRC might have interviewing children until March 2014, it is entirely unnecessary to take 15 months to prepare a simple report on a couple of hundred child detainees that could be done in 3-6 months at worst.

As for Triggs' determination that John Basikbasik should be released from immigration detention and awarded $350 000 after beating his Australian pregnant wife to death with a bicycle was bizarre to say the least, especially since Triggs admitted that the detention was entirely lawful under the immigration act and the UNHCR charter as JBB was not an Australian citizen. For anyone that has actually read the charter, no country is obligated to grant asylum to a criminal even if that criminal is a genuine refugee.

I apologise, Shadow Minister, if I misrepresented your argument. I did not do this intentionally.

I agree that Gillian Triggs is an honourable person.

It is my understanding that the Human Rights Commission's report was delivered to the Attorney-General, George Brandis, in November 2014. However, it was not tabled in the Federal Parliament until 11th February 2015.

Regarding the timing of the actual Human Rights Commission's enquiry. Some people, such as Chris Kenny (The Australian, March 4th 2015) believe that Professor Triggs “failed to explain why she delayed the inquiry into children in detention”.

Ben Saul, Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney, on the other hand, believes the Commission has fully explained the timing of its inquiry. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/saul-attacks-on-commission-unbefitting-our-government/6115078

Irrespective of the timing of of the Human Rights Commission’s inquiry, the delivery of the report and the tabling of the report in parliament, I believe that either the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, or the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, orThe Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Michaelia Cash, should provide a substantive response to the Human Rights Commission’s report and its recommendations

Well done, Dr Russell!

Your response was a much more worthy effort than your original piece and I applaud you for it and more especially for the courage to apologise for an ill-considered approach to the original.