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...