While it seems there is no pressing current high profile news about this issue, I feel it is worth exploring some perspectives on the matter.
Perhaps it's good that there are no major influxes now, so we can discuss it more rationally.

Hypertheticals.

AFGANISTAN
is still under the Taliban, and the Buddhist statues have just been blown up. Buddhists are being hunted down, and beheaded for 'idolatry'.. some have turned up on Australia's shores claiming a well founded fear of persecution which by this time is well documented.

RUSSIA.
A new zeal has overtaken the government, to cleanse the country of all 'criminal' elements who are loosely defined as those of Chechen background. Systematic persecution based on race is occurring and there is strong evidence to support this. On the same boat are some Chechens from Russia.

GERMANY.
A powerful Left Wing government has been elected in a landslide.
They had a platform of ridding the country of all vestiges of National Socialism, and the Interior Minister happens to be of (atheist)Jewish background with strong connections to marxist radical groups.
He has unofficially started to round up all National Socialists, and imprison them under the newly beefed up Internal Security Act which allows indefinite detention without trial.
Some Germans are also in the same boat as the Afgan Buddhists and Russian Chechens.

None of the above have been convicted of any crime.

Do we accept all of them on the basis of the UN charter?

If not, why not?

If your question is "should the UN interfere in internal issues?" which seems to be your basic point.
- firstly the UN constitution cannot go into any country without invitation
- or Security Council approval and in all cares the Veto would be applied.
- the UN are peace keepers not expiditionary forces.
Simply put it the UN is not desgned for that.
Any other multi national force of UN members would need a UN resolution which they would be unlikely to get.
Therefore any force would probaby be led by the US and thereforehave some particular self interest at its base but based solely onthe information supplied it would all be much like the mating of sterile elephants lots of grunting and screaming at high level for no result just look at Zimbarbwe.

Thankyou examinator.. the question I'm exploring is really whether Australia should accept or not accept any of the exampled refugees.(based on the UN convention meaning)

The only connection with the UN is reference to the convention on refugees....

We are signatories to it..and thus, I'm asking if, on the basis of that UN convention, which mentions that legitimate refugees are persons who have a well founded fear of danger for political, or religious ideas, or ethnicity etc.

Thus, this question invites people to examine the political ideas of the applicants and question whether, on the basis of those ideas, we should or should not accept them into this country.

Recall we have 3 examples.

1/ Buddhist from Taliban run Afganistan
2/ Chechen from Russia
3/ National Socialist from Germany.

Keep in mind that a person might simply hold such ideas, faith (or be of a particular race-Chechen), and not have carried out any criminal or violent act by our law.

So, we are seeking to assess "Buddhism by religious ideology, Chechens by 'racial inclination' (perceived or real) and National Socialists by ideology.

One aspect of this issue is "While to be a member of a particular group may be illegal in the country of origin, it may not neccessarily be illegal in Australia",

So, while it might be argued by those 'against' accepting them that "They have committed a crime" (by belonging to a particular group) in their country, those advocating acceptance may also argue that to belong to such a group is not a crime in Australia.

I'm really not asking for 'mere opinion' here..but sound input based on the actual meaning of the UN convention. So, this post should tighten up the question a bit. Not 'do we think'...but 'by law/convention should we?'
cheers.

Polycarp,

If the UN Charters are to have meaning, they must, at their core, protect the rights of people from oppression, etc. So, your three hypotheticals should qualify such people to be deemed refugees. Being a refugee should have absolutely nothing to do with one's beliefs, ideology or religion, just that the person is fleeing unfair persecution of some kind.

That's the ideal.

A problem I can see in reality, however, is that, in order to make the situation manageable, Governments create artificial restrictions, as much to make it easier for their staff in their Immigration Departments as to control the numbers coming in. The problem I can see in widening the definitions of refugees is that a well-ordered country could have a deluge on its hands. So, in order to counteract that, even if there was a widening of the definition of a refugee, there always would be "flavour-of-the-month" refugees that would get in to the exclusion of others. But at least it's a start.

The UN charter lists four purposes and seven principles. The seventh of which states, "The UN accepts the principle of not interfering in the actions of a member nation within its own borders..."

So as RobP suggested, Australia can decide which refugees it will accept and why.

Hopefully it will chose on humanitarian grounds, in keeping with the sustainability of the population size, its continent can support.

Of course pressure can always be applied on the Government from
various sources, if there is a disagreement on the decisions made.

Polycarp your question was easy to understand should we except such as migrants.
Well yes ,but, Nazis? sorry no way for me, that is not PC is it? but no way can I say in the name of humanity we except groups as migrants who do not share our ideals, who in fact do not believe in humanity.
We must confront the fact each new Iraq or even Zimbabwe will see more migration.
Each case should be judged on its Merritt, but if the UN was even worth treating seriously they would have a real role to fix things like Zimbabwe and we know they are useless.

Good thoughts from one and all ..

for me, I'm just wondering..do any of us see specific dangers in accepting some political or ideologically bent people here?
Belly has a view there.. and Foxy seems supportive of us selecting in our best interests..

What is likely to happen if for example we accepted all 3 of our hyperthetical refugees here?

cheers

Some may wish to comment on the following story about where 'ideologies' can lead:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/25/2285395.htm

Speaking to Triple J's Hack program, Keysar Trad revealed that he once proposed to another woman with the consent of his wife, Hanefa.

"I certainly would not have entertained the thought of having a relationship without a religious marriage," Mr Trad said.

"Rather than entertain any thoughts of an affair, I thought the only decent thing to do was consider a proper commitment to that person."

Hanefa Trad admitted some of the marriages were about men wanting sex with more women.

But she said if the relationship was done in the right way it could avoid the man going to a prostitute or dating a woman for one night and leaving her.

Bigamy and polygamy are illegal in Australia but in the Islamic community, people get around the laws by marrying in religious ceremonies performed by Sheikhs.

Comments?

Dear Polycarp,

When people are accepted as migrants
into any country around the globe
they are asked to pledge loyalty
to that country and its people, to
respect their rights and liberties and
above all to uphold and obey that
country's laws.

The various idealogies of the refugees - has not been
a problem for Australia in the past.
Migrants were required to have
an overriding commitment to Australia.
Their different experiences,
their diverse backgrounds and cultures,
have all served to enrich
that shared commmitment.

I don't see why this should not continue.

Hi foxy

do you not see potential problems in the story link?

and this one?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23922968-5010800,00.html

There is an interesting quote of an Indonesian man toward the lower part of the page about 'Not needing wifes permission'......

but.. national socialism.. u don't see problems there either?

Dear Polycarp,

I did look up your first website:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/25/2285395,htm
"Islamic Leaders Call For Recognition of Polygamous Marriages."

And I admit that I was not too concerned because and I quote from
the article:

"Attorney-General Robert McLelland is standing firm on the issue,
saying the practice is against the law."

"There is absolutely no way that the Government will be recognising polygamist relationships," Mr McLelland said. "They are unlawful and will remain as such."

Therefore I didn't see a problem. If you break our laws, you're going to be punished. That's it. End of problem. Polygamy is not allowed
in Australia. If you don't like it - migrate to a country that allows it - or suffer the consequences of breaking our laws.

The second website you gave I couldn't access - could you give me
the numbers again or the subject matter so I could google it.
Thanks.

Polycarp in no way bigotry just fact I have never once heard Trad say something I agreed with.
While I may well be wrong, we all are sometimes I doubt he believes some things he has said.
And I do not think he speaks for most Muslims in this country.
May I ask you this? given refugee migration is based on giving a new start to some have you any problem with us reviewing who should come to stay?
I have no regard for racism, even when its some migrants who now live here against us but some we surely must not let come.
Not all from a group but those who may well be Nazis, or say Robert Mugabe's followers after the eventual fall of that dictatorship should we let them come?

Hi Belly... agreed :)

Foxy.. I appreciate the point you made about what the Attourney General said...

I read that also.

If you were a passionate member of that faith,
and looked around.. don't you think that
identifying political opportunities might
be something which would cross your mind?

"Silma Ihram, an Anglo-Australian convert
to Islam and one of the pioneers of Muslim
education in Australia, believes it is time
the issue of multiple partners is
debated in Australia."

This information about her might add to the debate here...

http://www.silmapol.blogspot.com/ she is also a political candidate.

Perhaps she wants to change the Law which the attourney General referred to?

Regarding National Socialist ideas.. this might prove informative

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/skinhead-international/skins-australia.html

This also
http://www.jewishmag.com/48mag/nazis/nazis.htm

I guess, I see merit in evaluating firstly the 'ideas'
on which a political or religious position is based,
and then examining how this might impact on our society,
and then making rules which can
protect us from such things..

I would struggle also to accept anyone of 'Communist' belief as an immigrant.

foxy,
"Therefore I didn't see a problem. If you break the laws, you are going to be punished. Thats it End of problem. Polygamy is not allowed in Australia. If you don't like it - migrate to a country that allows it- or suffer the consequences of breaking our laws."

Thats good in theory, but there are instances where the laws are broken and the government turns a blind eye. FGM is a glaring example. Dispite all states making it unlawfull, it is still being carried out here and some girls are being sent overseas to be 'done'.

There is evidence freely available at hospitals of girls having suffered FGM. One Sydney hospital treats some 50 patients a year for post FGM problems. Yet not one instance of the parents being charged.
The last letter I received from the NSW Health Minister related to this was that they are carrying out an education programme and there are CULTURAL ISSUES. The education has now been going for about 14 years and still Aussie born girls are having pieces of flesh cut off them illegally. And the Government is concerned about cultural issues!

So the Government turns a blind eye and few others are concerned. Is it not the same with polygamy?

Dear Banjo,

Of course it's the same with polygamy.
I suppose my previous post was rather narrow.
But I simply don't know what the answers are.
It's a complicated issue - isn't it?
"You can lead a horse to water..."

What do you do with people who are determined
to have it their way - break our laws etcetera.
You can't place them all in jail.
Deport them?

Would careful screening prior
to accepting them into the country -
really work? (I assume that gets done anyway).
In any case, they can always lie through their teeth
if they're that determined to get into
the country.

If you or Polycarp can think of an
answer, I'd like to read it.

foxy,
Specificly, in relation to FGM, I see no reason that the Governments should not enforce the laws. It is a barbaric practice and Aussie girls should not be subject to it. We should deem it intolerable.

Polygamy is a kettle of fish. If a person willingly enters into it, I don't see a problem any different than somebody keeping a mistress or a man friend. However if a person feels compelled for any reason, such as religion, they should be able to opt out and the original spouse should also have a veto right. It may work in countries where the male is lord and master and the wife is totally subservient but i cannot see it formally happening here to any great extent. The problem I see now is that (say) a man has a legal wife and has another wife or two, sanctioned by his religion but not legal, his children from the latter two wives are kept by the taxpayer on single mothers benefits. If we made polygamy legal surely we could find ways of ensuring that he pays for all his kids. Perhaps someone will come up with good reasons against polygamy. Fancy letting the two go shoping together and they could gang up on the bloke. Then there is the prospect of two mothers-inlaw, interesting prospect! And the costs.

On the original question of this thread, All three groups are eligible because of our non-discriminarty immigration policies. I notice Belly is not keen to allow Nazis in and Polycarp is not so keen on Communists either. I think we should have discriminatry immigration so we can choose who we allow in. For example if a group utterly refuses to integrate and is contemptious of our laws then we should stop allowing them to come, in our own best interests.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for responding so quickly.

You've given me plenty to think about.

I'm still not sure about discrimination
against certain groups.
How do you decide which group?

It may be only a small minority
within any one group
that breaks our laws.

I think that their community leaders
should also be called to account.
Especially the ones wielding influence.

I'll have to think about that one...

foxy,
Further to the immigration matter. I don't think we can discriminate on political issues. We once had a referendum on outlawing the Communist party and the vote was no and that set a precedent in relation to the validity of all political parties. Fair enough.

We can discriminate on cultural grounds and the Minister or cabinet be the decission maker. The one I would recomend to be excluded from further entry are those the are contemptous of us, our society and laws.

For example, If the Croats and the Serbs cannot hold a social soccer match without riots and fighting that results in gunshots at buildings and cars burnt, etc. We do not need their old world hatreds and if they don't stop then stop allowing them in. Similarly, the Lebanese Muslims don't get on with anyone, even other Muslims, and hold our laws in contempt, appalling social conduct. We could stop further entry of them. We do not have these problems generally from other Muslims. Those groups the continually flout our laws in relation to cockfighting should also be stopped. Those groups that continue to carry out FGM should also be prevented from further entry.

There may well be others but that will do for starters. The aim being to encourage an harmonious society in line with our basic culture.

Dear Banjo,

My husband would fully agree with what you're saying.

As I said previously - I have to think about it
a bit more.

I admit I have a problem with generalising and putting
people into "groups."

Because amongst each group - there's always exceptions -
people who don't agree or fit into that group.

I'll have to get back to you on that one...

I'm off to a wedding, so I'll post when I get back.

We in Australia MUST learn from the experiences overseas,especially in Europe.Refugees being allowed into Australia must be screened for adaptability on the basis of custom,tradition and religion. In fairness to them we should be fully up-front with them regarding what we expect from them, tell tem what our customs,traditions and religions are and what we are prepared to allow and WHAT WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE ON.

Australian society can only be enriched by peoples from all over the world coming to Australia with their unique dress and dietary traditions, their languages and customs and their music and songs and dances. We would love to share our country with them I welcome them with love and open arms.

There is NOTHING wrong with wanting to protect what is our own. If anyone charges us with racism over this issue then so be it. They can call us whatever they choose to. The fact remains that those we do not want to share our lives with are NOT WELCOME and they better not come, or if already here, then they should LEAVE..And if they have managed to sneak in with lies and pretensions then we have the right and should have the stomach to deport them. The only rights refugees have in Australia are those we give them in exchange for what they give us that is acceptable by our own standards.

socratease

socratease,
Agree completely and I take it you also include immigrants as well as refugees.

As you say, we need to be sure those contemplating coming here are fully aware of our society and the way we live. For too long we have simply relied on word of mouth. The friends and relos already here want others to come so paint a picture to encourage, which may not be altogether accurate. The informaion has to be given before the decission is made to come here.

If they were aware of our society, I just don't understand how people of a completely different culture would want to come here. then try to maintain their old culture.

Banjo
Let me tell you why there has been an eruption of Muslims all over the first world countries.
.(1) There are educated and liberal muslims who have found that unemployment has driven the uneducated,unemployed,frustrated and angry muslims into the arms of Wahabist/fundos who have exploited them to make life untenable.These are the real refugees who have been displaced not by war but by choice to free themselves of the mad turbanned and bearded and very ignorant mullahs and imams,bigots and racists that they are.

(2) Then you have the Wahabist-driven Third Caliphate madmen who plan to rule the world and convert everyone to Islam,if you go by the ravings of the imams from Finsbury Park in London. Ali Bakkar Bashir ,the spiritual leader of JI in Indonesia, has openly declared that northern Australia and Queensland,and all the islands in between including the Philipines are part of the Third Caliphate. To this end, Al Qaida has attacked Afghanistan and are busy in Iraq. They have cut the world into portions that are to be conquered.

Along with the liberal and educated Muslims who have fled their homelands for the reasons given above have come "sleepers" ,the core of hundreds of bigoted racists of the Third Caliphate. The trial is currently underway of elements of this mob led by Ben Brika who last year planned to infiltrate the MCG and kill as many of us as they could to begin the assault and create panic.

I must say that many Muslim countries are opposed to this sort of interpretation of Islam, countries like all the North African rim.Iran and Syria too are opposed to it.So is Saudi Arabia, strangely enough the home of the Wahabists!! and the prosperous and liberal orientated UAE. Look what happened in Syria when the Muslim Brotherhood posed a threat to the government. They trapped them all in the towns where they had collected,ringed the entire area with tanks and artillery and levelled the whole lot killing tens of thousands of them.
.

socratease

Dear Banjo,

Well I'm back.

After reading what Socratease had to say,
I admit, it makes a lot of sense.

I have to agree with him, and you.

Foxy and Banjo

I am all in favour of accepting refugees and sharing our resources with them.They have my sympathy and support.
When I see Vietnamese,Chinese and Sri Lankan young people going arm in arm with Australians I feel a warm glow of the mutuality that is expressed.They will prove an asset to our community in the future.

What pisses me off no end is when so-called refugees turn up and make demands that run contrary to our tradtions,mores and values and then want to overtly and covertly threaten us with destruction and death if we fail to get what they demand.
Muslims demand we recognise and legalise polygamy and accept the implementation of sharia to meet their needs. A man like Keyser Trad was unemployed or at best had an insecure source of employment but he had a wife and NINE kids and wanted to marry again,and as he said he had actually proposed to another woman. There have been many others living on the dole who also want the imam to grant them multiple wives...each Muslim woman bears about 6 kids so that they want us to finance their kids and wives. In most Muslim countries only about 1% have multiple wives because most of the men are too poor and uneducated to have their claims legalised.Most of the countries where they have fled are poor and life is too vulnerable to suport polygamy. It was never intended for every man.Here they are happy to live off tax payers and want us to subsidise their indulgences. That's some bloody cheek!

What do they have to offer Australia?Currently there is a trial under way of the worst of the rotten bunch who had planned to blow up the MCG during the '07 Grand Finals.Imagine the massacre! Another had tried to blow up Lucas Heights Atomic Reactor.
Look at the contribution they are making to life in the UK and EU !!
They want all! They have ambitions of establishing The Third Caliphate all over the world.
Why the hell do we have to have them here!

socratease

"What pisses me off no end is when so-called refugees turn up and make demands that run contrary to our tradtions,mores and values and then want to overtly and covertly threaten us with destruction and death if we fail to get what they demand."

Which refugees do this, socratease?

"There is absolutely no way that the Government will be recognising polygamist relationships," Mr McLelland said. "They are unlawful and will remain as such."
.
The truth is that ample of men are living also in de facto relationships while married and Centrelink still pays for their de facto wives as if they are in a marriage. The only thing missing is the wedding with the other women.
.
I view Centrelink should not make payments based upon a De Facto situation as it is contrary to one man-one woman marriage.
.
The commonwealth has Subsection 51(xxvi) by which it can discriminate against any race provided it does do so for a specific race and all people of that race are discriminated against. Otherwise the Commonwealth cannot discriminate and all laws must be throughout the commonwealth.
As such, if the Federal Parliament doesn’t desire an influx of a certain race it can legislate against that particular race, failing to do so the Federal Government has no power to discriminate against any particular refugee.
This is very important as otherwise pending the bias of the Government of the Day to any political race/religion we could be swamped with a particular race and in time suffer the consequences for this.
A blend is in my view the best option.
The Commonwealth is not allowed to determine refugees as to their religious beliefs as the Commonwealth is strictly prohibited by the Constitution to do so, as such persecution regardless of the reason of it is what is relevant.
The United Nations has no position to interfere with the constitutional provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia therefore neither can dictate which refugees are to be accepted or not.