This family of cheats and liars is old news. They were the only family of illegals whom the Government treated correctly and got rid of, albiet after a long time and great cost to the Australian taxpayers. No sympathy is deserved.

The fact that most 'refugees' are allowed to stay once they arrive here - it's too much trouble for the Government and DIMIA to do the right thing and get rid of them - shows just how bad the Bakhtiyaris really were.

Marilyn Shepherd is a well known serial pest and apologist for people pulling the wool over the eyes of our inept immigration department party and government.

Thanks for the article with some insights into the family and there time in Australia.
I am curious to know how the family is now, and where are they living?

The article was longggg on 'emotion' and very short on fact.
It was also biased.

It was also guilty of selective omission.

I read that the Father was working IN PAKISTAN as a plumber of sparky or something, so... whether they were originally Afghani or Pakistani is moot.. they were NOT ASSYLUM SEEKERS.. because they had it already, and even employment... whats to be fearful about in that ?

If their cousins were granted assylum the most this says is:

They may have come from a threatened tribe in Afghanistan, but.. the cousins probably came FROM Afghanistan to seek assylum. But again, I just ask 'why did they not move to PAKISTAN where Baktiari senior already had work ?

It still boggles the mind how those in the 'refugee industry' can think we are so dull of mind and absent of brain power, that we don't know what a rule or a law is, and when people are flouting it.

Also, I am determined NEVER to be softhearted on 'economic and opportunistic' illegals coming here to wave MEXICAN flags once they get a few hundren thousand..OOPS..no.. sorry, thats the AMERICAN situation.. but people don't change.

No amount of hand wringing, and tugging at our heart strings over this detention centre guard or that one, or Dimia or Vanstone, or the tooth fairy will change these fundamental issues.

I'm happy to be corrected on this, but if anyone does, give the FULL STORY.

On the issue of the West Papuan 'assylum seekers' I have some VERY stern words...

IF YOU WANT TO COME HERE FOR PROTECTION..OK.. (but PNG is a tad closer) BUT DO NOTTTTT COME HERE TO STEP OUT OF PLANES WAVING SEPARATIST FLAGS.. WE ARE NOT YOUR POLITICAL PLATFORM, WE ARE AT BEST A COUNTRY OF REFUGE.

While we may sympathize with your cause, assylum is not about propoganda, its about safety not about your politics. (Christian or otherwise)

footnote...unless of course we want to be increasingly regarded as "The Enemy"..white-anting the Republic of Indonesia.

And they were so badly treated that on the Lateline program the following selected comments from the family....
ALAMDAR BAKHTIARI: The thing I want to say is...first of all I would like to say sorry to the Government. It was all advocates, all the lawyers forcing us to fight against the Government which we were not doing it....
AND
MONTAZAR BAKHTIARI: The lawyers didn't really help our family at all at the end and I just would like to say that whatever goes on from now on, on behalf of my family I would like to say that they have nothing to do with our family anymore and if anything is going on we would like to negotiate with the Government as a family and I would like all the advocates, all of them, not to do anything to the Bakhtiari family anymore because I don't my life to get even riskier and riskier just because of them

SO they still want to come and live in this brutal and rascist country...

Really the tragedy in all this is shallow self interest groups not doing what is best for the family. We do not hear many (any?) investigation of the people involved in getting these poor people to lie and make things worse. Typical leftist media selective journalism.

What Crap,

They need to be middle class to pay to get here in the first place.

They dont need the help, have no respect for our country and then like liars, blame others.

We should have sent them back staright away, not wasted a second, and made an example out of these cheats for all their comrades to see.

[Deleted for having absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Poster has been warned.]

[See above!!!]

Oh sheesh, My heart Bleeds....

"Ali back to Baxter like a criminal" - yeah - duh! Entering the country without a visa is unlawful.

What these parents did to their children is unforgivable. They are simply unfit parents, and the gulible victims of the lies don't just stop at the innocent children dragged through the refugee process. Even people like Marilyn Shepherd was sucked into the Bakhtiyari lies.

Using a one year old to gain a family reunion visa - fair dinkum.

"..initial set back of the High Court decision they were optimistic about their future" WTF! There is nothing "initial" about the High Court! Who the hell would encourage optimism after a High Court ruling?!

Before the High Court there is the initial DIMIA rejection, the internal DIMIA appeal, the Ombudsman, the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal Court. In all of these, DIMIA would have had to show reason why the application was refused. One loss and the Bakhtiyaris stayed.

The problem here is that Australia is probably too nice to people who are obviously rorting the system. This costs the taxpayers a fortune. The kids with phones and parties! Oh what rough treatment when there are plenty of Australian kids without phones and parties and three square meals a day!

While there is sympathy for the children who are the innocent pawns in this game, there is none for the parents.
Sending them back was the best thing, they were not "asylum seekers", [how misused that phrase is], they were opportunists who were only too willing to live on the Australian tax payers back.
How much did they cost us, from beginning to end? It would be a huge amount and all for nothing.

Actually, Ali lived as a genuine refugee in Sydney for 28 months after telling the government that he had lived and worked in the Pake Hotel, Rawalipindi, Pakistan from March 1998 until September 1999 after being tortured and imprisoned by the Taliban. His father had been murdered while he was in prison. His original statement made on 29 October 1999 can be found at www.adelaide.indymedia.org.

An example of the truth can be found at the senate site for the committee investigation into the migration act in the October 7 transcript.

It transpires the whole case against Ali was a mistaken identity.

DIMA knew he was in Sydney, knew Roqia and the children were Afghans because they had used ASIO to check the Pake Hotel and found them in 1999.

DIMA thought another Afghan man was from Pakistan, not Ali and not his wife and children.

DIMA forced a four year detention term on children they knew were always from Afghanistan and the other person deemed to be a Pakistani was in fact an Afghan, like Ali, they just came from the same district.

Marilyn's article pushes all the right buttons and leaves the reader an emotional wreck.

I do remember the Bakhtiyari Acting Toupe being in this country. By the time they left Australia even they were unsure of their nationality.

Marilyn says in her article that one of the guards, Tess, came to realise that the children had suffered trauma and needed to be treated with care. Is there any record of the children getting psychiatric care in Indonesia for their trauma? Does the condition of trauma become more severe the further south you travel? Is there any record of psychiatric care given to those asylum seekers who are repatriated after their applications for asylum have failed? Is there any record of the ongoing psychiatric care given to successful asylum seekers?

Marilyn tells us that Roqia was considered a flight risk, so Mazhar was born under guard. The concern was that she would run from the hospital minutes after giving birth, leaving her baby and five children behind. Marilyn, do you remember the mass escape of detainees from Villawood who wanted to be left alone to practice their religion?

Marilyn says that the lawyer for the Bakhtiyaris, Jeremy Moore, was stricken after an unfavourable court verdict. At this point my rheumy eyes shed tears for the lawyer until I realised that a nice fat taxpayer cheque would have salved Jeremy's hurt.

Marilyn stated that Roqia, Ali and their children only ever wanted a free life away from the wars and dangers of Afghanistan and the precarious existence of Afghan refugees squatting in Pakistan. Indonesia, a country at peace with its citizens, offers that and more. The Bakhtiyaris, being eleutheromaniacs, could have stayed in Indonesia to enjoy a tranquil and hopefully long life. Many thousands of Australians fly to Indonesia each year for holidays.

Marilyn, this is from Dictionary.com...Kidnap: To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.

Marilyn sounds like a committed Jesuit.

Marilyn,

DIMIA did not FORCE any detention upon anyone. Assylum (or should I say Detention) Seekers are free to leave the country whenever they wish.

The Bakhityaris chose to stay in detention.

If so called "asylum seekers" reach a safe place, such as Indonesia ,haven't they lost the tag 'refugee' now that they have found 'refuge'?
Why are they still termed "asylum seekers" when they have willingly left that place of refuge and are no longer seeking genuine asylum?

I would bet money that Australia's foolishly generous welfare system be a contributing factor to the dtermination of this family to remain here at all costs. They were not content to remain in an Islamic country, instead they chose to risk entering Australia illegally - they would certainly have not gotten govt. handouts in Indonesia. I doubt they would have been given a house to live in, gratis, either.

Many children have been traumatised while in detention but Marilyn Shepherd never mentions the fact that the behaviour of other detainees is a very large contributing factor to the situation.

Wasnt the uncle in this family the one who threw himself on the barbed wire? Who would do this in front of children? The lip-sewing was done in full view of children also. And how about the reports of child sexual abuse carried out by detainees? Yet we are supposed to believe that these saintly asylum seekers would never lie in order to remain in this country and behave with dignity at all times.

And this family still wants to live in barbaric racist Australia. Amazing. I dont recall the 'national outcry' referred to by MS - perhaps the only outcry emanated from the fools who would open our borders to every 'asylum seeker' with a sad story.

It's like being stuck in a timewarp reading these comments.

If the parents do something we must punish the children.

If the children are distressed because of the behaviour of adults it is the children's faults.

Who asked a little baby if he wanted to be locked up, how about a 3 year old?

You don't seem to understand that the children were never asked anything at all. This is a story about DIMA manipulating the birth certificate of an Austrailan born baby to make him have a different nationality. Do you think that is an OK thing to?

It is also a story about Australia being aware for 4 years that they had mistaken the identity of an innocent woman but kept her locked up anyway and then deliberately sent her to the wrong country.

For the record - Pakistan never interviewed anyone in this family, never gave permission for them to be in Pakistan and never gave them papers to be in Pakistan. It was not this family who lied it was DIMA.

Marilyn, thank you for your article. I am not sure what to be disturbed by more - how people are treated within the detention framework or the alarming comments this article has evoked. What we believe is determined by many factors and media is a substantial contributor but there also seems to be a racial element or is it fear? The roots of prejudice have grown deep.

Maralyn

Did you ask the one year old child and the three years old child if they were happy with their parents' dishonesty? Why not? I think that counters your argument.

This is an old and dead story, and they still want us to cry tears of grief. There is an ongoing battle by these bleeding hearts to have us believe that this family is still a worthy cause. Australians are sympathetic to genuine assylum that enter legally. We have three plane loads of genuine seekers a week landing in Australia. Forget the criminals and concentrate in helping the sincere.

I attended the enacting of the story in Belvoir St theatre Sydney [only because my son-in-laws employer was a corporate sponsor]. It was a political drama done to gain public sympathy for the family. The 400 champaign sipping, diamond ear ring set stood around wringing their hands at the injustice of DIMIA. If they had decided to take up a collection it would have raised $$millions; and the Bakhtiyaris family could have returned to Pakistan as multi-millionaires. It was all a propagander stunt as was the families events in Womera.

To me it gave justice why we had to go into Afganistan to halt the stream of illegals like them entering Australia.

More left wing SOBS(Soft Option Brigade} There are millions of people on this over populated planet who are more deserving,so some are suggesting that a mere 20 million Australians should be the bleeding heart pancea for all the world's ills.

Shouldn't other nations start to be responsible for their own actions?The west developed the technologies for better food production and medicines for disease that normally kept populations under control.Now we have have more poverty due to bleeding heart good intentions.

If other nations breed themselves into poverty,how is it our responsibility to be take one and all so we too can live in such poverty?

It is better that we help these people in their homelands and yes aid should be given on condition of both good governance and birth control measures.

Seeing an intruder on the forest floor, the baboons swarmed out of the treetops, arses aglow with the hue of a Maximum Homeland Security Alert.

Goading one another to ever greater extremes, the pack circled inward until their quarry, tired by the unequal struggle, was torn to bloody shreds. Having no practical use for their kill, the baboons were content to settle for a warm glow of superiority, so necessary to an existence spent in perpetual insecurity.

Even so, the baboons slept with one distrustful eye open that night, wondering who was going to be next.

* * *

Meanwhile in Canberra, DIMIA had Australia's shrivelled heart in a bottom drawer, for safekeeping. The heart was waiting for a superior lifeform to discover and rehydrate it.

.... a marsupial perhaps.

Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464,
Obviously you cannot offer any opinion worth reading. So I suggest you look down your street to find some person less fortunate than yourself and offer a hand. If this was to happen worldwide who would leave their community for the unknown?

Obviously this family had nothing to offer their community, even though they were safe in Pakistan. Greed and selfisnness led them on until they illegally landed in Australia. We would have 2/3 the worlds population here if we opened the doors - then where would be the Australians to support them on welfare. They are here for our welfare and free ride. Let them build up their homeland so they no longer rely on Western charity.

[Deleted as per below.]

[Deleted as completely off-topic. Poster warned.]

Seeing an intruder on the forest floor.. the Baboons restrained their urge to attack.. of two minds, many were of the opinion that the intruder was a serious threat... others, the predominating voices saying 'no... just a friendly visitor'

The intruder, a Chimpanzee, being a scout for the rest of the troop.. decided the Baboons were weak, so left the area, called the rest of the troop.. which came shrieking through the jungle.. waving mexican flags.... and attacked the Baboons, delcaring that Now.. Los Angeles is in fact 'Mexican'(Chimp) territory rather than Baboon territory.

Philo mate.. Chris's warped view does serve a purpose.. it provides an opportunity to show the reality happening before our eyes daily in America, and if we fail to take heed of a) That reality and b) The mind blowing denial that people like Chris represent.. we will be in serious trouble if we are lax in our border protection and scrutiny of all would be comers to these shores.

There is a noticable trend on our northern shores..

1/ INCREASEs in the number of illegal fishing boats
2/ INCREASEs in the levels of aggression shown by them, overcome only by warning shots from a 50cal machine gun.

Chris, don't sleep mate, the chimps might steal ur food and re-name your street :)

A brief timeline shows that Roqia Bakhtiyari arrived in Australia on New Years Day 2001. She gave birth to Mazhar on October 15, 2003. I wonder if refugee 'activists' and Jesuits might have suggested to Roqia that it might be a good idea to become impregnated as it would strengthen the family's application to stay in Australia.

Marilyn, I own an opera house at Bennelong Point and I'm thinking of selling. Are you interested?

The spin this auther puts on her articles was exposed on another blog, some time back, in a thread on the Siev X. It was claimed that a search for a missing Customs vessel was more intense than the search for the Siev X (on racist grounds) even though both were in the SAME area. The customs vessel was just off Cape York and the Siev X was in Indonesian waters 4000 kls away. Yeah, thats close!
A direct slur on our Search and Rescue personel

It was also inplied that Australian Defence/security personel were involved in a sabotage of the Siev X.

She also denied that the Tampa was hyjacked even though the Master told an inquiry that he altered course to Christmas Island because he feared for the safety of his crew.

I think it best that the rantings of this auther be ignored.

Marilyn Said:

"If the children are distressed because of the behaviour of adults it is the children's faults."

No it is there parent's fault.

"Who asked a little baby if he wanted to be locked up, how about a 3 year old?"

The parents by not presenting with identification papers and a visa.

"You don't seem to understand that the children were never asked anything at all."

Again, the parents.

"This is a story about DIMA manipulating the birth certificate of an Austrailan born baby to make him have a different nationality. Do you think that is an OK thing to?"

DIMIA didn't manipulate the birth certificate. Unlike the USA, birth in Australia conveys no special citizenship or residential status. The Citizenship Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aca1948254/) is very clear on how citizenship is aquired. The gready, self-indulgent act of procreating just because you can do that in America back-fired on the Bakhityaris.

"It is also a story about Australia being aware for 4 years that they had mistaken the identity of an innocent woman but kept her locked up anyway and then deliberately sent her to the wrong country."

No. It is a story about someone who comes here, without proof makes false claim and a country's right to determine who lives here. These determinations made under existing law, agreed to by our democratic institutions and upheld by our impartial courts.

My suggestion to you, is that if you want to help genuine refugees, fly overseas and actually help people in the refugee camps.

And once again, Marilyn, how much did this one family cost the Australian tax payer in total?
Were the family paid to leave fairly peacefully?
Lastly, how about watching over the rights of lowly paid Aussies who cannot get medical treatment, Housing, who pay more that they should for gas, electricity and telephones.
Spare a bit of time for them, even if they are only Australians

it doesn't mean living in peaceful and prosprous country bring changes among the people that EVERY THING IS OK AROUND THE WORLD. i can better understand the circumstances Bakhtiari family migrated from their country. i am working in Afghanistan for almost 1 year. i've closely ovserved the relationship among the tribes and ethnics. as far as the B. Family is concerned, if they really belong to Afghanistan so they deserved to quit their country for various reason. there are still commnaders who dominate the regions and take the example of Afghan National Assembly, most of the members have been warlords. there are still more than 18,000 illegal armed groups and more than 1,000,00 tons of ammunition stored under the custody of warlords and other people. land mines kill and disable people everyday. poverty is unbearable and it is pity to see Bakhtiari Family back in the country in this situation.
just imegine, if they are Pakistani. I have come to know that they belong to Shia sect of Hazara ethnic Muslim. anyone know what's happening against Shi'ite Muslim in Pakistan or Iraq? they are in constant suicide attacks of Al-Qaeda.
i just hope people would open their eyes and see the facts. like Bakhtiary family there are thousands of families who should be evacuated from here in Afghanistan.

Phil you shed light onto the situation. It was good to hear your understanding of the issues in Afganistan.

Not so the mean and nasty, the holy rollers and those who have only recently made Australia home.

I had thought that Arjay had mellowed, maybe had found peace, but no - the venom is still strong.

What the author makes clear is that DIMIA deliberately withheld information. With the Cornelia Rau and Solon cases to name a few, it is not surprising that DIMIA is not functioning appropriately.

What I would like to know is why so many people so love to spill their bile about someone who is a little different from them.

Many of the views posted here are purely xenophobic. As Xavier Herbert noted "poor fellow my country"

Nice try Marilyn but you're wasting your time.

Compassion and fair play in this country are generally reserved for those who meet a certain profile.

People naturally tend to believe things that justify their own prejudices.

I've seen people insist that the most outrageous lies are true, long after they've been proven false or retracted by their authors, and statistics are often chosen selectively to prop up feeble arguments.

Religious and racial bigots are the worst of them all and this type of article attracts them like pit-bulls onto a pre-school.

So we have the Babbling Buffoons of Chris Shaw and the "Aka Phobia" [ie fear of logic] from our eloquent less courageous intra-intellectuals,but none that dare debate my few short sentences of reality and logic.

I suspect we have a few immigration lawyers and leftist do-gooders pushing their SOB story barrows of guilt,to further weaken our society and thus premote their agenda of anarchy.

This open border mentality comes from the lunatic fringe dwellers who mostly don't have real jobs and indulge too much in the wacky tobacci.

Well ,they'll have to do a lot better than cry Xenophobia or racist,since ordinary Aussies see through the BS and the hidden agendas of self interest.

Ok Arjay,

How much of this international poverty is the result of actions by the West - direct and indirect?

How much foreign homelessness and social upheaval is the result of Western political interference in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

How many legitimate governments have been overthrown and supplanted by West-sponsored dictatorships to meet our economic and political requirements?

Slavery wasn't abolished by the US, it was exported - into the sweatshops they set up in other countries to exploit their resources.

Modern terrorism isn't the problem - it's the symptom - of repeated acts of betrayal and repression by a perceived enemy, particularly over the last century.
It's not a spontaneous event. "Terror is the war of the poor, war is the terror of the rich".

So what are the victims in these countries supposed to do? Stay home and write Letters to the Editor? What would you do to save your family in the same circumstances?

Taking the moral high ground and blaming the victim is easy. Finding a way out of this mess won't be.

I wonder who is displaying the real self-interest here?

wobbles - you're wasting your time appealing to humanitarianism or pointing out facts about human suffering here and abroad. Its just not "Australian" for many in this forum.

Sigh!

Now we are getting of track

Here we go again with the attitude that the West is all to blame. Again the developing countries people lack intelligence and common sense to deal on equal terms with the West. And so the West is exploiting them as these people lack the smarts to be involved in the world economy. This attitude smack of “the natives” cannot handle dealing with the world. A racist attitude again. I think most reasonable people believe all people have the mind to be treated on equal terms. So they should somewhat take responsibility for there actions if they exploit their own people.

“The sweat shops to exploit”. In Asia these become the driver of the economies especially when Western countries move jobs offshore and people complain in the West about losing their jobs. So these ”sweat shops” should not be set up because it is demeaning to the local population, again this racist attitude that they do not deserve these jobs. So we should keep it all in the West?
Terror is the war of the poor….Tell that to OSBL. How much is he worth again? Seriously lack of clarity and reasoned argument do not help in these discussions.

Big Fish,we are giving most of our jobs in the form of manufacturing,and IT to both India and China.Why are we also giving them aid?

We have no choice,if we are to be apart of this "Globalised Community" there is a price.Energy,human resources,and technology is the secret to prosperity.As China and India come on line they will push the price of energy and resources higher.We have experienced a reduction in our living standards recently due to higher oil prices and so it will continue.So as the poor countries put higher demand on energy and resources our living standards will fall.Now China and India have such and abundance of cheap intelligent labour we will see the price of our labour fall dramaticly.It will take a long time before human populations no longer out strip energy and resources.There are just too many people on this planet that can gainfully be supported to anywhere near our standards.

Unless there is enormous scientific discoveries in energy and resource production soon,our living standards will continue to fall as the poor will take our energy,resources and jobs.

Just look at the United States which has 12 million illegal immigrants.The rich love it but the middle class and working poor just see their living standards being pushed lower.

No matter who gets into power at the next election,our living standards will continue to fall.

Surely it is time for the Federal Government to resolve this whole illegal immigration mess by abrogating the Refugee Convention and bringing back the Dictation Test.

The world population is going to increase by at least 50% over the next 30 years, while the end of the age of cheap energy is going to cause substantial cuts in the standard of living everywhere. Australia does not have the space or the resources to make any impact whatever on this situation, and can only act to defend itself. It is not going to be a happy time to be alive.

Thank heavens we have a sea boundary.

The West is so easy to blame for everything. Yet nightly we see the bombing of civilians and religious places,suicide killers with no western association killing their own kind.
While some third world countries plead poverty, there is never a shortage of rifles and rocket throwers being paraded through the streets by brainwashed blood thirsty young men.
When our country was threatened by the enemy sixty years ago, we did not flee to another country begging "asylum", we fought for the ideals and the nation we believed in .
The West is not responsible for those who will not fight an honourable fight.

i believe the bakhtiyaris story and think the way they were treated is horrible. i would like to know how they are because i heard they were being shot at or were on the list to be shot at. i have heard they must pay about $500 000 just to come back into the country, this is a very expensive cost as my mum doesn't even make that much and she is a 'middle-class citizen' as someone put it. i also believe they are definitely not cheats and liars.

brown_eyed_girl,
There is an obvious lack of credibility in your conclusions. It semms to be based in emotional sympathy and not fact and law. There are 50,000,000 people who are equally deserving who would like to come to Australia; it is just that you have not heard their tearie story.

The Bakhtiyaris cannot come here as refugees as that claim has been rejected. They maybe able to come here as skilled migrants who impose no dependency on us as taxpayers. Hense the requirement of $500,000 to show they can add to Australia, and not continue their parasitic dependency. However since we treated them so badly according to you why would they want to come here? Its our welfare and free meal tickets isn't it?

I suggest you find recent refugees who have legally arrived in Australia; their stories are even more horrifying. They have been verified as genuine refugees. How about you try befriending a Sudanese family.

The fact that the Baktiyaris spent a short time in Pakistan does not alter the legitimacy of their claim.

Like thousands of others from Afghanistan, they fled over the border in fear of their lives but soon found Pakistan was not going to provide the safety they had hoped for. The Pakistani government supported the Taliban and forcibly returned many refugees, particularly those from the oppressed Hazara group as the Baktiyaris were.

Besides, other asylum seekers in Australia at that time were granted visas despite having lived several years in countries such as Pakistan and Iran.

Marilyn

Thank you for your article and for your selfless efforts in supporting refugees.

BOAZ_David

For someone who professes to be a Christian, you show a distinct lack of Christian charity. Perhaps you could quote some words of scripture that support your position.

And don't dig up some obscure text from the Old Testament. Quote the man himself from whom Christianity was named. I'm sure the Jesus Christ who showed kindness towards prostitutes and lepers would never turn his back on refugees.

Bronwyn,
Were the Bakhtiyaris in fear of their lives while in Indonesia? Indonesia is a moderate Muslim nation; they could have easity settled there.

There seems to be another purpose other than refuge that motivated them; and that was economic. So I believe they were economic opportunists, admiring our welfare system.

We pay taxes to acess our money if we fall on hard times. That every other poor person in the world sees it as their opportunity for a hand out is nothing more than envy and greed. Australians are generous when it comes to charity to needy peoples in catastrophic, oppressed and displaced situations. We want to determine who receives welfare from our savings. There are millions of more deserving people than the Bakhtiyaris, yet a few bleeding hearts have put all their energy into this one rather curious family.

I personally support destitute, oppressed a displaced peoples by giving finance to Aid Agencies working in Refugee and developing poor countries. It is better to assist these people in their own countries rather than bring them to Australia to live on our welfare system. A family receiving $200 each week in a poor country places them at the top of society. A family in Australia on $200 a week blaces them below the poverty line.

Philo

<< We pay taxes to acess our money if we fall on hard times. That every other poor person in the world sees it as their opportunity for a hand out is nothing more than envy and greed. >>

This is an arrogant statement on your part. We pay taxes because we have little choice. People in poor countries do their best to provide for their families and their future - in the only way they have open to them - by working their fingers to the bone. They work in a way we have never had to. You need to consider yourself fortunate to be born into a wealthy society. We are lucky, that's all, not superior.

<< There are millions of more deserving people than the Bakhtiyaris, yet a few bleeding hearts have put all their energy into this one rather curious family. >>

Refugee advocates did this because this family was clearly wronged, just as they have assisted many other deserving refugees but without the media glare generated by the Baktiyari case.

Besides, by the time the Baktiyari case was making headlines, Western nations were dropping bombs on Afghanistan. I would have thought that this fact alone added considerably to our responsibility to at least offer temporary protection to these people.

<< A family receiving $200 each week in a poor country places them at the top of society. A family in Australia on $200 a week blaces them below the poverty line. >>

This is irrelevant for a family fleeing for their lives. It's a point that people like you just don't seem to understand.

Bronwyn
for someone who wants to be taken seriously, you come up with some pretty shallow stuff at times.

Would you show charity to a man intent on raping you ? Would you show charity to a person intent on stealing from your home ?
Someone seeking to challenge your countries foreign policy ?

The point I'm making, is that charity is for those truly deserving of it.. and the device which divides between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' is the LAW.. both the constitutional type and the moral law.

I'm quite charitable to those who are in genuine non self inflicted need. For those who choose to disobey the laws of their own land, or ours, I'm charitable to the extent that I say the law should run its course.

I am more sympathetic to the West Papuans, as they are Christian, but here is my problem.... Some of them, waved separatist flags when they disembarked from planes here. That is the point where they need more of a rebuke than a reception. The concept of assylum is about one thing..and one thing alone.. SAFETY... not a platform for political propoganda. While I totally identify with their cause, it is not up to THEM to come here and make noise about it in the public media. I wouldnt have a problem with them sharing in private or church meetings when invited to do so. But no matter how I personally feel about their cause, we must apply both political common sense and lawful processing.

"Morally" (In my heart) I am on the side of the West Papuans, but I am also under obligation to "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars" and this includes supporting their lawful processing.

Rather than me quote a whole stack of verses about our Lords words, how about you go and read the WHOLE of Matthew or Luke or Mark or John or better still all 4. You will find them yourself. After all, you banned me from quoting scripture in another post :)

Listening to the ABC this morning I heard Father Bob who has a parish in Sydney? Melbourne? talking about his work. Part of his duties is helping 'Street Kids',hundred of whom are living on OUR streets.
Where are the lawyers,activists,sympathetic hearts trying to do good for these children?
Is it the fact that they are Australian children that makes them of no interest?
I think this shows up a hell of a lot of hypocrits.

AKA said......

*What I would like to know is why so many people so love to spill their bile about someone who is a little different from them.*

Well, of all the statements in the various contributions which deserve the sternest of rebukes, this one is king !

The idea that you can reduce this important subject and the well thought out positions adopted by people to such a naive and simplistic emotional knee jerk "Oh..they are different, we must hate them" kind of thing is as scandalous as it is misconstrued.

AKA your comment is well qualified to be one of the all time most DANGEROUS statements I've seen on OLO. Why dangerous ? because you think the issue is about spilling bile just because people are 'different' ? Rediculous ! Allll of us are 'different' and we don't spill our bile about those differences in Australia ! This has NOTHING to do with would be assylum seekers/economic opportunists/country shoppers (Thanx Leigh) being 'different' it has EVERYTHING to do with them flouting our laws, and our border security.

Believe me, OR.. believe what you are witnessing on TV daily from the USA, where Latino illegals are massing in the streets and making claims like 'We did not cross the border, the border crossed us' a clear reference to the conflict between America and Spain/Mexico which resulted in the present border position.

Plainly these Latino's are not on about 'jobs' they are about 'jobs and reclaiming LOST TERRITORY !' Which puts their political status on a par with terrorists and 5th column invaders.

We have a chance to PREVENT such an eventuality in Australia by ACTING DECISIVELY AND EARLY.

My caps are not shouting, but they sure are spoken with a good deal of passion.

Bronwyn,
Again I ask the question. What threat did Indonesia pose to the Bakhtiyaris? Perhaps you do not understand the question? Why were they fleeing Indonesia for their life as you claim? They had more in common with the Indonesian culture than Australia. They did not have to risk their lives in a leaky boat or being captured by border protection. Until I can receive an acceptable answer to this question then it is obvious I will not understand. Is Indonesia an equally hostile envirionment to their branch of Islam? If so; are we also required to ask is the Bakhtiyari's branch of Islam a threat to our national security.

To quote your point: "This is irrelevant for a family fleeing for their lives. It's a point that people like you just don't seem to understand.

Philo,

Asylum seekers coming via Indonesia cannot apply for refugee status in that country simply because Indonesia is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Most South-East Asian countries are also non-signatories.

In fact, Australia was considering it's own withdrawal back as far as 2000, but until it withdraws it is bound by certain obligations (most of which it is trying to avoid).

Meanwhile Australia has refused to sign newer conventions (such as those against torture etc).

Most of the issues mentioned in previous posts are also explained at this link:

http://www.chilout.org/information/facts_v_myths.html

No doubt, many posters would disagree with the content at this site because it may challenge some long-held prejudices.

When one is flee<ing for ones life, safety is the issue not wether a far away country is a signatory to some treaty. They never approached any Australian embassy seeking refugee status. We do have one in Indonesia.

They lived and worked in Pakistan for some time. If they were fleeing Afganistan why did they hesitate for some time in Pakistan, they must have felt some safety there. They could have equally settled in Indonesia with the same illegal intent under which they entered Australia, and live among the diverse nationalities there. No; it appears they were not more than economic opportunists. They would work here hidden in some underhand workplace, or until they were arrested as illegals.

If they were bonifide refugees they could have applied to Australian officials on their way for refugees status and be introduced legally rather than take a criminal risk of just arriving and merging into our society. They did not seek refugee status until after they were captured. They were happy just to float around in our society unregistered. So refugee status was not the foremost thought on their mind.

Philo,
"Australia has not taken a single refugee from the UNHCR in Jakarta – from the so-called 'queue' - for more than three years. This is despite the rhetoric from Australian politicians for asylum seekers to be processed in Indonesia."

Rather than fill in paperwork at an Embassy, you can claim refugee status once you set foot on a nation's soil - that's why the government is systematically excising certain parts of our territory.
(That was actually the main reason for Federation back in 1901- not lofty dreams of nationhood but to keep out the Chinese.)

There are 2.5 Million refugees in camps in Pakistan already - not much of a future there I'm afraid. Iran and Pakistan held more than 2 million refugees in 2000 and we collectively panicked over 4174 arrivals, to the extent that when a boat appeared on the horizon on Melbourne Cup Day, an emergency session of Parliament was convened to close a potential loophole.

Nevertheless, despite the institutionalised demonisation and fear mongering, the overwhelming majority of refugees have been found to have bona-fide refugee status after all, so is it the method of arrival or the people themselves that causes such animosity?

I don't see the same degree of emotion against the recent Papuan arrivals so I'm guessing it's the country of origin that's the problem.

I saw the same thing over the Asian boat people in the 70's but the government at that time didn't exploit these people for political gain or try to shirk it's international obligations.

What would you do for your family and how far would you go under the same circumstances?

Philo.. you have a good point mate.. The issue IS.. "Safety" not 'country of preferred choice'.

From the moment they step out of the 'Safety' loop..they are no longer genuine refugees. So, yes.. consider this:

OPTION 1 Run into the Australian Embassy in Jakarta and request processing. Legal, Safe, Protected.

OPTION 2 Give all your money to a criminal peope smuggler, take your chance on an unseaworthy boat, battle harsh unforgiving seas, with 'a' chance (if ur really lucky) to reach Australia.
Dangerous, questionable survival, unprotected.

The fact that they choose option 2 makes it abundantly clear they are not assylum seekers but "country shoppers".

Wobbles as much as confirms this in his response to Philo.

hey Wobb.. you claimed there are 2.5 MILLION refugees in Pakistan. Hmm.. would you like ALL of them to come here ? I can promise you one thing, if we followed a 'gentle gentle/softly softly' border control approach THEY WOULD BE ALL ON THE NEXT SHIP.

Yep, a slight exaggeration to make a point, but a valid point.

To allow uncontrolled entry to Australia is socially and policitally dangerous. Notice the result HAPPENING BEFORE OUR EYES in Los Angeles ? Notice that as the laws are being tightened THERE IS A RUSH to enter the USA ?

Notice how 'THEY ARE CLAIMING RIGHTS TO THE TERRITORY' ? ("We did not cross the border, the border crossed us")

Notice the 'OPPORTUNISTIC POLITICAL PARASITES' Some latino socialist lady is running a huge protest with the theme "The Republicans HATE Latinos"

Wobbles.. you and other 'bleeding hearts' (don't mean to be offensive there) can rave and rant all you like.. WE ARE SEEING the confirmation of our position on daily TV.

BOAZ_David

Don't you read others' posts? Wobbles had already succinctly answered the point you laboured so painfully with your Option 1 and Option 2.

No one is advocating "uncontrolled entry to Australia" as you incorrectly suggest. As a wealthy AND CHRISTIAN country however, surely we have a global responsibility to at least give temporary protection to the small trickle of boat arrivals who have risked their lives - and quite legitimately - to get here.

I'm still waiting to see some words of JC's that would support your hateful and UN-CHRISTIAN attitude towards those less fortunate than yourself. And no I'm not finding them myself. You're normally a bible quoting junkie so why the sudden reticence now?

Bronwyn,
Why do we encourage any to come to Australia? Our first priority ought to be to assist and teach people in practical ways to develop their own country as a peaceful and productive nation. We are a desert nation of 24,000,000 with less than 1/4 working to support our society. We do not have the resources to continually take in people from poor nations and place them on our welfare assistance.

We may at present be wealthy, but in the next 100 years we will not have the natural resourses to maintain that wealth; especially if our population doubles and our creative skills are lost. The current movement is to buy our food and machinery from overseas because it assists developing countries and is cheaper. Farming in Australia is more expensive and our work standards are higher. There are too many people living off other peoples productivety. Our wages and conditions must fall as more and more imports enter Australia which will reduce our standards of living.

The good Samaritan, gave healing, accomodation in an Eastern inn and finance to assist the assulted man left for dead on the road; he did not say he could come and live in his house.

Your point, "As a wealthy AND CHRISTIAN country however, surely we have a global responsibility to at least give temporary protection to the small trickle of boat arrivals who have risked their lives - and quite legitimately - to get here."

European governments made the foolish mistake of allowing millions of 'asylum seekers' and 'refugees' to enter their countries. Look at those countries now. Far from showing gratitude, or even the desire to integrate into the countries that have given them a second chance in life, these people have systematically attacked welfare and health systems to the point of breakdown; Muslim 'immigrants' have been responsible for a startling increase in all kinds of crime, not to mention the rapes of European women carried out by Muslims in every country where they have been allowed to settle. This happened in Sydney, the gang rapes carried out by so called 'refugees' whose parents were allowed to enter this country with no background or criminal record checks by an ALP government determined to capture the Muslim vote. That worked well, didnt it?

At what point should this never ending stream of 'refugees' be curtailed? When they have finally outbred us and their oft stated desire for Australia to become an 'Islamic country' is a reality? When the streets of Sydney are too dangerous to walk in because of driveby shootings and armed robberies -- oh thats right, this is already a reality ..

Nothing will be solved by forcing Western countries to accept people who are completely incompatible with our values and mores, or by transferring the problems created by religious Fascism, primitive tribalism and dictator governments to civilised countries.

Anyone who doubts this need only visit France - or Denmark - or Sweden - or the UK - or Germany ... every one of these countries are heartily regretting their lax attitudes to 'open borders'. Those who know the situation in Europe, yet continue trying to pressure Australia into emulating the cowardly decisions of European governments can only be called traitors.

Philo

You are wrong to assume that refugees are a drain on society. They may need government and community assistance to begin with but most have trade or professional qualifications and are perfectly capable of supporting themselves and their families once they get back on their feet.

Australia is currently experiencing negative natural population growth. So surely we can afford to provide protection for 10 to 20 thousand refugees a year without placing the pressures on our carrying capacity that you allude to. It's the skilled migration program aiming to attract over 100 thousand people a year which is more likely to exacerbate population pressure. I would argue that this number be reduced in favour of assisting those who far more desperately need our help. Especially when you consider that many of these skilled migrants are being poached from countries that can ill afford to lose them.

BOAZ_David, As I mentioned above, history has shown that going to the Embassy in Indonesia hasn't worked for anybody for the last few years so it's not surprising that some would seek an alternative. That's what gives the smugglers a market in the first place but risking your life on the high seas seems a pretty extreme way of "shopping".

I'm not saying I disagree with all parts of the policy and I'm certainly not advocating a free-for-all, it's just that I'm trying to keep some sort of perspective about the whole thing.

Yes this is a problem, but it's not the "crisis" the government would have you believe, when you consider the thousands of illegals already walking the streets that came by other means, not to mention the hundreds that are now being imported as cheap labour. I wonder how many of them will be going home after their Visa expires.

These people are not a serious threat to our society and are at most an inconvenience. True, some European countries are having problems but their refugees have been in the tens-of-thousands and Europe has a history of oppressing minority groups in any case. If would be unreasonable to expect such a rapid surge in immigration to pass without problems.

I'm also a little disappointed in how easily people can be fooled by this government who exploited and exaggerated the situation in order to win an election and have now painted themselves into a corner, morally speaking.

A perfect example of both Wedge and Dog-Whistle politics in action at the same time.

If you want a clearer picture of what's really happening, ignore the shock-jocks, tabloid TV and the Daily Telegraph and read some of Hansard from time-to-time, and I don't mean the ten second TV grabs that go to air.

Oh, and no offence taken - better a bleeding heart than no heart at all.

Wobbles
that was quite a good post :)

Yes.. I am sympathetic to the view that 'Wedge politics' and sound bites are certainly not a glowing commendation for our political mentality. Its also a bit of an insult to a thinking electorate.

Sadly, most people who are consumed with consumerism and are persuaded that the daily grind is their lot in life, probably do most of their political thinking on such a basis.

I'm all for humane treatement of people, and having lived a very basic lifestyle for 8.5 yrs, as a missionary, trust me when I say that just to have the simple neccessities of life, such as a roof and some walls.. food and a nice cuppa and a biccy, is very humane. I don't find the detention centres inhumane at all. What I do find is that people who are in the 'refugee business' be it lawyers or migration agents or the socialist alliance etc exaccerbate the problem by conveying the message that if you can create havock and disruption "It might help your cause" (whereas in reality it helps the cause of those seeking their pound of flesh from them)

Lets get back to fundamentals.

By coming to Australia, risking all they do, they are in fact 'choosing' Australia as their preferred destination. This is not what the UN charter is about, which is 'safety'. As long as we continue to recognize this, then detaining people until an ultimate destination is found (a host country)which might be Australia, is not wrong.

The Alternative, of allowing them to live and work in the community, will probably prove MORE disruptive if they are denied refugee status, as they have put down roots already and formed relationships.

There is a frustrating loop here. I am all for 'quick' processing.
Barriers are:

1/ Discarded documentation
2/ Appeals against decisions <-- this is where 'long stays' begin.
3/ Refugee Industry people seeking political or personal milage from their plight, including relatives who may already be here.

Personally, I don't feel cultural,linguistic or religious factors are sufficiently taken into account. If you have been reading some of my other posts, you will see this as in harmony with my own strict policy of selective migration based on cultural/social/political compatability. I find the UN charter on human rights re 'discrimination' as laughably naive and plain wrong.

Wobbles (continued)

We must avoid at all costs the message "If you can get here, you can stay here" for obvious reasons.

The reason for the rebellion and animosity in the detention camps is not at the conditions in my opinion, it is about the possibility that they may not be allowed to remain in their 'shopped/chosen' country.

The fact that they are willing to risk a dangerous sea voyage is in fact strong evidence that 'this' is the country of their choice, but unfortunately, an assylum seeker does not have the luxury of such a choice. They have the issue of safety and that alone.

Your comment about better a bleeding heart than no heart at all is certainly true. But there is another side to that coin.
If that 'heart' is more directed to outsiders than ones own family, does it not raise some questions ?

Vigilance and Policy based on:

1/ An understanding of human nature
2/ Historical examples without number.
3/ The social integrity of our existing nation.
4/ The clear and contemporary example of problems in the USA with illegals 'asserting' themselves. ("We did not cross the border, the border crossed us")

Is not heartlessness, in fact I tend to think it is a heart for those nearest and dearest. Don't we prioritize the allocation of our 'heart' in daily life ? :)

BOAZ_David,

Thanks for your well expressed and well considered opinion.

You've given me some valid points to consider.

Thanks also for not being one of the screaming zealots that prowl some of these threads.

Perhaps we will cross paths again on another thread. We may have more in common than it seems.

Until then, all the best.

B_D,

I agree with all you said and you stated it well. wobbles also said he "guessed it was the country of origin that was the problem". That is wrong and nor is it racism or prejudice.

Most Aussies feel we are being taken advantage of by the ME assylum seekers because they have passed through, flown over or bypassed other countries of safety to get here. The last leg of their journey involved leaving physical safety to embark on a perilous
voyage,putting themselves, and children, at risk. The object being to get access to our welfare system. Here we keep them totally and provide free legal advice, and allow numberous appeals to unfavourable decissions. The distruction of any documentation also impedes our varification of their claims. They are free to leave our country at any time.

Most people believe that our criteria for refugee statue is far easier than the UN criteria, and if the UN criteria was applied few would qualify. If they can stay long enough we will then ease or bend our own rules to accomodate them.

The Papuans will garner public support because they have came here directly and have only to establish persecution. Their processing did not take long. We are willing to give them sanction but if they use us as a political platform their support will wain

Someone said there are 2.5 million refugees in camps in Pakistan, millions of homeless people in hundreds of camps looking for help. All those unfortunates would be Muslims driven out of their homes by ..Muslims.
Surely anyone can see the deep faultlines here, a religion,not race, that seek to kill its own people and drive the rest out of their homes.But if the wind shifts ,the same refugees would turn and do exactly the same to their predators for the same religious reason.
We have made a big mistake in allowing the followers of that religion into this country. Now we have to put a watch on them to make sure they do not harm us for the same religious reasons. We offer them charity , what do they offer us?

Bronwyn is quite wrong when she says that we would have negative population growth without immigration. If she checks the ABS figures she will see that approximately two babies are born and one net immigrant arrives for every person who dies. It is true that the fertility rate is slightly below replacement level, but there is still enormous momentum due to past high fertility rates. This is because most of the deaths are occurring in the small elderly generation while most of the births are occurring in the big young adult generation. Even if immigration stopped tomorrow, the population wouldn't start to decline for nearly another 40 years, and it would be much longer before it would be smaller than it is today. Australia isn't going to run out of people any time soon.

She should also check the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is on the Web. Refugees are instructed to seek asylum in the first safe country they come to, which is the case for the Papuans, but certainly not the Bakhtiyaris. They are entitled to refuge and decent treatment, but not permanent residency, citizenship, or First World standards of living in the country of their choice.

Bronwyn, you say you don't want a free-for-all, so how would you avoid a repeat of the European experience? If people can avoid deportation and live freely in the community merely by hiring a people smuggler and destroying their travel documents than it is only fair to call yours an open borders position, if not de jure, then de facto.

Divergence,
It is my understanding that it is not the case that a refugee must seek asylum in the first country he or she arrives in.

Furthermore, the country concerned must also be a signatory to the 1951 Convention and many countries are not, so it is conceivable that, depending on the route taken, several countries may need to be be crossed before asylum claims are possible.

If I'm wrong could you please indicate the relevant Article Numbers in the Convention.

If you're right, then why don't the West Papuans just travel to Papua New Guinea? It's much closer and can be accessed by land.

Hello David I see you are still singing the same old song. Now perhaps in light of the treatment of West Papuans who have just been given refugee status running away from Indonesia you could tell us all how anyone could be safe in that brutal place?

The refugee convention does not and nor has it ever hinged on the person stopping at the first place they reach but on getting to the first country where they can legally apply for protection. Even DIMA know that - it was in a discussion paper they wrote in 1999.

This is the story of a baby, I am so sorry you are so cruel that you cannot understand that simple point. Just a little shi'ite Hazara baby boy with no safe place to be in either Paksitan or Afghanistan because he was born here.

In light of other shocking stories out of DIMA perhaps you need to look at their behaviour instead of blaming young kids.

Marilyn Shepherd,
Your emotive ignorance colours your view. I have not seen David blame any young child for the Bakhtiyaris families situation. "In light of other shocking stories out of DIMA perhaps you need to look at their behaviour instead of blaming young kids."

Thousands of young children die each day in Africa from poverty caused by war, so one stateless child in good health you expect us to cry for, and give refuge because their parents were deceptive and illegal entrants. Cry instead for sick African children starving under the opression of warlords. Stop the continual pity for one safe child instead work for safety of the thousands who die each day in terror

Facinating !

"your Cruel"

"You blame the Baby"

This sounds to me like the old 'guilt trip' parents often use against children. OR.. the sound of threatened vested interest ?

Then there is : [the first country where they can legally apply for protection. Even DIMA know that - it was in a discussion paper they wrote in 1999.] <-- source ?

1/ West Papuans..
(remember now, I am totally in sympathy with their situation, believe it or not. But I'm trying to keep my personal feelings out of it for the sake of consistent policy)

Would it be "illegal" for them to make it to PNG which is closer, and more culturally compatable for them ?

As an Aussie, I am very concerned that they took our offer of assylum as a licence to promote political causes. (even ones which I support)

2/ Middle Easteners.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that Australia is the FIRST and CLOSEST 'legal' opportunity for them to claim refuge ? How about Pakistan ? oooooh.. no no no no.. we must not have that must we..... because the REALITY is that Pakistan
-'Takes a long time' (thats impatience)
-'Is dangerous' (Thats deception)
-'is economically unattractive' (Thats greed)
-'is.. this
-'is...that

i.e. bottom line; Pakistan (or similar country in the area) is not the 'preferred socio economic' choice. But it sure is the FIRST/CLOSEST/LEGAL (I'm open to correction there) place for Afghanis.

So, can we remove 'emotive blackmail' from the discussion and stick to the policy issues :)

On the West Papuans.. the best thing they could have done when given assylum is shut the heck up..and speak QUIETLY to our government about what is going on there. That is a way of not causing the sensitive Indonesians who are culturally 'Asian' not to loose face (a fate only one step short of death for most of them.)

What we are up against there, is greed and power, and unless we are prepared to go to war with them, the WP situation will probably shape up as they want it to, sadly.

Wobbles:

See article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention:
"1. The contracting states shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

Directly doesn't necessarily mean closest, i.e. Papua New Guinea rather than Australia, but it does mean they can't automatically (without penalty) go through other countries to get here. The test on whether they can move on through a third country is whether their lives or freedom are in danger there, not on whether that country is necessarily a signatory to the Convention.

I can't beleive how heartless you lot are! You quote snippets of media reports about the family's history as a means by which to deny them an ounce of compassion! As if any of us know the ins and outs of their situation, or what they faced in Pakistan or Afganistan! As if any parent would keep their children in prison for four years if they had a decent home to go to elsewhere.

It makes me sick that people can buy the unfeeling rhetoric of the government like "they are criminals because coming here without a visa is a crime." Get a clue! They're called asylum seekers and seeking asylum is not a crime, its a bloddy right as declared by the UN.

And, even if they are found not to be genuine refugees and are ultimately sent back to wherever they came from, how can we possibly justify locking children behind barbed wire fences for four years while we work that out?!

All I can say, is i hope those of you without a shred of human compassion or decency one day find yourself in a similar position to this family because you clearly are incapable of any basic empathy otherwise.

katie, they are asylum shoppers, not asylum seekers. Please use the correct terms in future. They are; behind the razor wire; in a hot desert location; they think Australia is treeless; and, all boats contain genuine asylum shoppers.

Sage - I'm not quite sure what cynical point your trying to make here....however in response to an earlier comment from you decrying the conclusion that these children might be traumatised....yeah, i think any young child might feel traumatised by living behind barbed wire for four years, watching your family be torn apart, treated without compassion by the authorities and witnessing horrors such as self mutiliation by desperate fellow detainees.

The evil of our system of detention is that they come here from traumatic circumstances and we immediately go about traumatising them further.

Forget the politics for two seconds and have a heart for innocent children in an awful situation through no doing of their own.

katie180,
I dear and wonderful friend of mine died yesterday at 94 years she was a nurse in WW11 her husband spent three years in a Japanese prison in Burma with Weary Dunlop. You want to talk about imprisonment talk to a few old diggers in WW11 and learn how they survived. They never sewed up their mouths, threw themselves on razor wire, destroyed their housing etc etc. Were they desperate to go home? You bet! Were they badly treated? You bet!

The Bakhitaryi family could have left the camp in Womera at any time if they decided not to contest the decision made against them and return to Pakistan. They were not imprisoned against their will, they were free to leave but chose not to.

Divergence,
According to the Expert Roundtable organized by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees and the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva,
Switzerland, 8–9 November 2001..

5. Thus, Article 31(1) specifically obliges States not to impose penalties on refugees falling within its terms.....

and

10. In relation to Article 31(1):
(a) Article 31(1) requires that refugees shall not be penalized solely by reason of unlawful entry or because, being in need of refuge and protection, they remain illegally in a country.
(b) Refugees are not required to have come directly from territories where their life or freedom was threatened.
(c) Article 31(1) was intended to apply, and has been interpreted to apply, to persons who have briefly transited other countries or who are unable to find effective protection in the first country or ountries to which they flee. The drafters only intended that immunity from penalty should not apply to refugees who found asylum, or who were settled, temporarily or permanently, in another country.
The mere fact of UNHCR being operational in a certain country should not be used as a decisive argument for the availability of effective protection in that country.
(d) The intention of the asylum seeker to reach a particular country of destination, for instance for family reunification purposes, is a factor to be taken into account when assessing whether s/he transited through or stayed in another country.
(e) Having a well-founded fear of persecution is recognized in itself as ‘good cause’ for illegal entry. To ‘come directly’ from such country via another country or countries in which s/he is at risk or in which generally no protection is available, is also accepted as ‘good cause’ for illegal entry...

w, our expert panel, our High Court, holds a different point of view than the one held by the UNHCR. Parenthetically, our High Court's decision touched on our sovereignty and also the ability of the government we vote for to put in place laws that apply to us and others. You must remember w that our constitution pre-dates the UN charter on refugees by some 46 years.

Sage,

That may be the case, but if we're not willing to comply with International Conventions, we should withdraw from them totally, particularly when our support (like the Rodent's word) is determined by local political demands. (aka Sovereignty?)

For someone with a fetish for "sending a message" to others, it's at odds with his moral stance on many other matters.

Our refusal to sign the Convention against Torture for example,was made soley to keep our prisons and detention centres from outside scrutiny.

However, as I recall, our Government has used International UN Convention non-compliance by another nation as an excuse to take us to war.

wobbles,
It appears there are some 130 countries that have signed onto the Refugee Convention 1951 and a casual look at my globe shows Aus to be one of the futhest from the ME. Only NZ is futher. Incidently, Egypt, Iran and Turkey are signatorys to the convention. Out of 130 countries, I wonder why the asylum seekers would come here and risk the lives of their children on a leaky, overcrowded and unreliable tub. The parents are totally responsible for putting their children at risk and in detention.

Katie. You and Ms Sheperd have something in common. after spin and accusations of racism and prejudice fails you resort to personal attacks by claiming others are heartless and cruel. You know I for one give to various charities, some of whom direct funds overseas, and am a service club member which gives time and funds to assist all maner of causes. I bet some of the kids that get my funding are more destitute and deserving than those you give to. How could you be so cruel as to ignore the more deserving?

You need a reality check. There are plenty of kids here that desperately need help, not even to mention those in Africa.

Banjo
So, because there are other people in the world worse off, we should do nothing to help those in need who are on our doorstep?

I am not arguing that the kids we lock up in detention centres are any more deserving of compassion and assistance than others around the world, such as in africa as you mention. My point is, at what point did we as a nation decide that we can accept the indefinate imprisonment of children who have done nothing wrong? I'm sorry, but even if the parents are to blame for their situation (and i dont believe any of us are in any position from our limited knowledge of the details to make any decent or rational assessment of the parents' decisions, but that's irrelevant to my point) does that make it ok for us to abuse these children further? If they don't deserve to be here, then ok, send them back. But why must we lock them away for four years and scar these children while we work that out? The argument of whether they should be here, whether they're really refugees, whether they should have landed somewhere closer, is totally irrelevant to the point I'm making. The fact is, when they are here it becomes our decision as to how we treat them. I beleive that the way in which someone treats those most vulnerable and powerless is a true reflection of their character. And it disgusts me what our nation's detention policies reveal of this nation's character.

I actually believe that treating people, any people, with basic human dignity is fundamental and one's right to be treated with dignity and compassion cannot be overruled because they didn't follow all the rules in the way in which you'd like them to.

And Philo - does the fact that the family chose not to go back to Pakistan and rather remain imprisoned in Australia not maybe suggest to you that they fear what is waiting for them at home is worse?

Wobbles:

The clear intention of article 31 is to bar asylum shopping. Has Australia signed up to any reinterpretation?

Refugee numbers have fallen off lately, but that situation is not going to last. The real problem is that it would require 2-3 Earths to give decent living standards to everyone, without counting any negative impacts due to peak oil or climate change, even if all the resources were divided equally and managed in the best possible way. If you doubt this have a look at the Redefining Progress site on environmental footprints and compare environmental footprints and ranks on the UN Human Development Index. The problem exists because, with some notable exceptions in East Asia, the Third World people themselves decided to use the gains of the Green Revolution for population growth rather than higher living standards or development.

Now numbers are again pressing on resources. According to the World Watch Institute site world grain production per person peaked in 1984. Rwanda is a good picture of the future of many of these places, even if the conflict is ostensibly about politics, religion, ethnicity, or something else other than access to resources. Joseph Gasana, Rwanda's former agriculture minister, wrote an article in the July 2002 Worldwatch magazine with a table showing the relationship between calories per person and massacres in the different districts in his country.

This leaves the developed countries with a choice, repudiate the international agreements and close down the borders, or, because of the huge numbers of arrivals, see their own countries become as poor, unequal, and environmentally degraded as the places people are risking their lives to escape. The Prime Minister is using a tough on asylum seekers policy to disguise the record high and unsustainable immigration program he is running for the benefit of the corporate elite. I often think I should cheer you refugee advocates on your way and wait for the backlash. Unfortunately, it is likely to be accompanied by big votes for the Far Right, ethnic hatreds and even considerable blood on the streets.

Divergence,
The meetings held in 2001 were to clarify and detail Article 31 interpretations and included representation from Australia. The conclusions represent the understandings that resulted from these meetings. There were also specific outcomes regarding the incarceration of children which we have also unilaterally ignored.

I agree with your observation that global resources are a growing problem and I believe that this is the real reason behind the political and social situation we find ourselves in today.

The idea that we can be wealthy only by making somebody else poorer is historically the type of thing that causes revolutions. Terrorism for example, is (of itself) not the problem, but the symptom of a deeper problem already rooted in the poverty and oppression forced by some countries onto others.

I'm actually not a refugee advocate, just interested in truth and fairness. I have no moral commitment and feel no personal guilt in the outcome of individual cases, it's just that I don't like the idea that the plight of these people is being exploited for domestic political gain. If there's a link (no matter how indirect) between incarceration of children and keeping DVD prices low, I can't do anything about it but I don't have to like it.

I was personally in the situation of monitoring the media for about 10 hours a day between 2000 and 2002 and could see how it is used to manipulate public opinion and still despair at how easily it can be done.
I also have an associate who was a researcher for certain newspapers during the Nugan-Hand bank and oil crisis days in the 70's and he confirms all my suspicions about how the system works.
Politicians try to create, manipulate and use public opinion for their own purposes and the "bread and circuses" analogy has never been truer.

Finally, I think we've already seen the start of "blood on the streets" as well as emerging neo-fascism and ethnic hatred in this country. This is the natural outcome of the manipulation I mentioned above.

Dear Wobbly one..

Now...you know why there is a saying "The Devil is in the Detail"

(a) Article 31(1) requires that refugees shall not be penalized solely by reason of unlawful entry or because, being in need of refuge and protection, they remain illegally in a country.
(b) Refugees are not required to have come directly from territories where their life or freedom was threatened.

The question I ask is this:

'What where the lobbying forces and the underlying ideologies about a 'new world order' which lay behind such a decision ?

As far as I am concerned, Australia should RESCIND any connection with such a treaty OR.. add an exemption proviso (we do have a number, I'm not aware of any re this matter) to the effect that in the interests of sovereignty and national security we REJECT the findings of the 'expert' panel on this matter.

The real world impact of an interpretation as you have shown, is that national sovereignty ceases to exist, and that assylum shoppers actually run our country.

We also have to ask "Who's interests does this serve" in global geopolitics? Nothing happens without someones 'interests' being at the root of it. To what degree did those "Interests" effect the findings of the committee ?

If those "interests" are in conflict with our own... we have to draw a line.

Its always worth considering this.

Divergence.. WELL SAID mate.. nice to see some common sense and well argued positions being presented here.. Katie.. learn from this, ur too emotional.

Hey Wobbles.. that last post of yours was very good. On the manipulation of public opinion etc.. right on !...

The trick is.. for us to be sufficiently confident about our position regarding issues, that we are not sucked in by such manipulation.

We are most manipulatable when our peceived interests are threatened.
If the feeling of threat is based on purely greed, we have a problem. If it is based on sound reasoning, history and experience, we will not be so vulnerable.

There is plenty of room in proper interpretation of the expert committees views to rule out assylum shoppers who came via a number of countries to here, specially that they may have relatives already here.. = "Family reunion by stealth and cunning"

We need to separate the individual cases like the Baktiaris from the broader picture of policy.

Katie

They didn't want to go back to Pakistan (where he had work) because of a 'fear' ? good grief.. that would apply FARRRRR more realistically to EVERY single one of the TWO POINT NINE MILLION Christians in Pakistan who are persecuted every freaking day !

Would you accept 2,900,000 new Christian Aussies?

How many thugs fleeing the law in their own countries have landed here claiming 'asylum'?
How can you tell the sincere from the insincere? What harm are you doing to your own society and your own country by taking people on their own say so?
Consider the harm that is being rained down on Australians through a certain group who were taken in and given shelter and life then have turned around and threatened us with bloody terrorism?
When is a refugee not a refugee but a violent,fanatical, killer who will repay our kindness with the worst he can do.
Please spare us little homilies on how racist WE are.

The unfortunate reality is that Wobbles won't admit to the fact that most of the "ethnic hatred" eminates from our Muslim population and political correctness is the vehicle for their bile and hatred.

Katie,
The facts are that you and Ms Sheperd have used the assylum seekers children simply as an emotional argument in your quest to open our borders, with no thought for what is best for Australia. Neither of you have put forward any practical way of dealing with the problem of illegal entries. You want us to receive them and let them loose into the community.

By the way, after the survivors of the Siev X got back to Indonesia, the boats stopped coming. What happened to the "hundreds" of assylum seekers waiting to come here? Where did they go? Or did they simply stay in Indonesia? Does anyone know?

It is good to see they are not coming here for now.

The unfortunate thing is that Arjay can't see that the hatred against Muslims is just as institutionalised in Western society.

People will believe anything that justifies their personal prejudices- whether it's children overboard, 4-star luxury detention centres, hordes of refugees coming here to rape our white-women or even whether or not a dingo killed Arazia Chamberlain.

They will latch on to any outrageous statement made by some insignificant crackpot or pore over obscure religious texts to find signs of conspiracies when what they are really tring to do is reassure themselves that their personal prejudices are valid.

Even after some things are demonstrably proven to be untrue, some people refuse to accept they may actually be wrong.

Yes (some of) the Muslims do have a problem but it's certainly not all one-sided.

When it all comes down to basics, the facts are for many in these Forums appears to be that

1. "We don't like Muslims"
2. "We don't want them here"

Everything else is just window dressing and grandstanding (myself included).

Wobbles,have a look at the Koran that postulates that we the "infidels" ie. that we the non believers must be converted to Islam or destroyed.I have yet to hear one Muslim to actually decry Osama Bin Laden as a murderous facist.Just ask any Muslim in Australia if Osama is a great man.You will never get a definite answer,just equivocations to deflect true analysis of their real intentions.No other group in our society causes us such angst and violence,yet we put up with this nonsense from a group that is less than 5% of our population?

If Muslims are really offended by their radical nutters and want to be accepted by all Aussies,why are they not protesting against the lunatic murderous parisites who feed off our Western affluence and good will.I have yet to see or hear one voice of protest,let alone a single street march of solidarity with fellow Australians that condemns the lunatic extremists.

In reality they don't have the courage of their religious convictions when presenting a facade of peaceful good intentions.
Muslims seek power via Western ingenuiety and good will,but where is Allah?

Even with all the Muslim violence we experience in Sydney our own State Govt is in denial and doesn't have the courage or the political will to confront it.

Arjay , the Bible ( which has a statistically higher number of violent passages than the Koran) suggests the Christian God is more violent toward unbelievers. For example, He orders his followers to kill all those of a different religion, including family members, friends and even their cattle, whereas the Moslem God simply requires the enslaving of non-believers. (See Deuteronomy 13:6-15 vs Koran 9:29, and Deuteronomy 20:13-16 vs Koran 47:4 to name just a couple). There are many more examples I can provide on the same theme - and also some in the other direction as the need arises. As I have said elsewhere, the use of selective religious texts isn’t a sound basis for a rational argument but is apparently a valid reason on both sides to kill people.

Bin Laden was given specialist medical treatment in a military Hospital in Pakistan and a US Hospital in Dubai during July 2001 (in the presence of the CIA) , as well as emergency treatment the day before the 911 incident, despite being a wanted man. Perhaps somebody in the West still had a use for him. The financial and business ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families are also well documented.

There have already been many public statements denouncing fundamentalism made by various Muslim representatives but apparently not enough to satisfy some people. However, when some crackpot makes a statement in support of fundamentalism, the media is all over him.

Why then don’t our own religious leaders speak out against every single injustice in our own society?

Why don’t our Japanese, Bolivian, Honduran, Spanish, French, Phillipino and Columbian residents speak out about the terrorism still happening in their former countries?

Probably because the overwhelming majority of people (who are decent law-abiding citizens) don’t feel the need to be active apologists for the actions of a few people who aren’t wrapped very tight.

I don’t have to justify everything said by a Pope or Archbishop supposedly on my behalf, nor am I guilty of atrocities performed by Christians by implication of religious association.