No, No, not the humanity issue these folk have been able to get reversed a judgment that says they should not be let in.
What are the implications for this country.
Who makes the law courts or Parliament?

According to the International Covention on Refugees and its implicable law all countries adherent to that Convention are under obligation to receive and process refugees to the best of their ability. It appears that the High Court is upholding that Convention to which Australia is a signatory.

As an example after World War II there were millions of refugees in Germany who had to be processed and assigned to various countries to be accepted by those countries according to their quotas. There is no difference between that situation and the current situation in our region. It does not mean that all these refugees will remain in Australia but maybe assigned to countries that are willing to accept them as has been the case to date.

It is unfortunate that the politicians have chosen to make an issue of boat people instead of undertaking their responsibility under the
International Convention of Refugees. There will always be refugee problems as long as wars, famine, climatic conditions exist.

When politicians are governed by their own interests and fail to abide by international agreements a higher authority has the responsibility to guide them in the right direction.

I may be wrong, I get my view from the print media, not always right.
But I thought the action was over some who had been rejected already.
If that is the case laws will be changed in Parliament.
Complex issue, many from all sides of politics are never pleased with judges over ruling existing law, in fact interpreting it differently is more like it.
We all surely want bad laws challenged and good ones upheld.
What costs are involved if this continues?
Like it or not we have a problem that is shared by the western world, people looking for a better life, safer, one it will continue to be a problem.

A recent Editorial by New Matilda, 11 November 2010, "A Fair Go in The Courts," had this to say: "This paves the way for all refugees to have access to a legal appeal. Previously only those who arrived by plane had that right. Now the High Court can make the final decision rather than a Minister who may be swayed by political opinion and an outsourced review provider who relies on the government to renew their contract. This judgement serves as a powerful reminder of the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy."

A reader wrote to The Age, "What the High Court managed to do was to defeat the tyranny of the majority in support of these loathed and faceless people who have been dehumanised to the point of non-recognition. Their victory stands as an historic warning to us all that the furtherance of basic human rights shall not be severed from the true spirit of our Australian democracy."

"There is no difference between that situation and the current situation in our region"
Actually there is; back then our intake were moderate-leaning people from civilized, moderate countries fleeing a tyrannical occupying militant power (dictator regimes).
These days, our intake (although primarily still level-headed people), now includes absolutely violent, tribalistic and fundamentally religious people who, in past cases, have remained extremely hostile towards the host population that took them in.

So long as we judge case-by-case to weed out the second group from the first to be deported while the rest are processed in the community, I believe most Australians would be completely fine with.
That way, we ensure our intake weeds out the violent cut-throat shariah-leaning people that I imagine most Australians supporting boat policy want to keep out, without getting the (non-Tiger) Sri Lankan, Tamil, and also Papuan/Pacific and Moderate Muslim refugees stuck along with them.
I imagine this would get a lot of support, but of course I am sensible enough to actually ask everyone else who is opposed to refugee policy if they agree with me.

I love this quote:
"Their victory stands as an historic warning to us all that the furtherance of basic human rights shall not be severed from the true spirit of our Australian democracy."
ie- in the spirit that Australia isn't actually that democratic at all. It's a case of might-makes-right by the strongest lobbying or administrative body calling the shots.

In the event of an appeal the High Court will determine who will be given refugee status. We can only presume that with due process the
applicants will be thoroughly investigated and unsuitable applicants, rejected. No government can completely guarantee the social suitability of any prospective migrants or refugees. All it can do is ensure that applicants are aware of the laws of the country by which all are expected to abide.

Absolutely spot on Lexi. It is a disaster on the world stage that Australia could advocate a policy such as offshore processing of refugee's in the first place.The reasoning behind such policy is based on xenophobic assumptions and racial hysteria.

Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison in particular have advocated and promoted such thinking
and the Gov't to it's discredit has followed suit.

Surely, "anyone fleeing another war torn part of the world and claiming refugee status should be afforded the due process of law afforded to ourselves, in order that we ourselves be considered civilised,fair and just".

Thankfully the Judiciary are independent of the political process in this country and we should all fear the day that this were not the case.

If laws had already been passed by politicians that deny natural justice to genuine refugee's in this country and those laws were the laws that judges had to interpret, then we could already consider ourselves official international pariahs and in the Zimbabwe class both morally and legally.

We can thank our forefathers that treating refugee's in this manner will ultimately prove un-constitutional and so it should be.

Here Lexi is the point that always gets me in trouble.
Make no mistake, a unionist forever, Labor center unity I am proud of it.
A child of the true left I evolved, to be proud of my party's ability to be the voice of many, not the best opposition ,forever.
This issue, like twenty more, is emotive, it divides us, it hurts the humanity and the pain.
But we should not be blinded to its implications for our country.
DO WE forget the refugee camps in Asia? those waiting to come?
Are boat people more in need than them? why? because they can pay to come.
The issue for me is are our laws our freedoms to be constantly used to,,do what?
Parliament if both party's, those who represent 85% of us get to gether and make laws that stand.
We Australians must confront this issue,not xenophobia, not racism, not uncaring unseeing, I understand the pain the deaths the hope behind this international tragedy.
Can we, must we,impose ever growing population growth on our country.
For some, do not scream,, rebut if you can, a home land within My home land is the wanted outcome ,not multi culturism.
Greens will continue to vote green, but both party's the only ones who can rule, know this issue is far from easy, votes change on it.

We have to look at the bigger picture - we have agreed to take in a certain quota of refugees - we have agreed to be part of the global solution on this far reaching global problem, all our High Court has done, and in my opinion, rightly so, is given the refugees access to legal appeal. We have argued this topic for decades and in my opinion
this is a correct step for the judiciary, - to take politics out of the equation.

Well "we" didn't actually agree at all; one politician did so without asking, and in light of new developments to which the old document seems to fall short of addressing results in new domestic laws being made, and these are at loggerheads with the old agreement.
I think we should have the option to either demand the law is reformed or remove our signature.
The semantics of our implication in the agreement could be taken anywhere.

But you are right in analyzing all considerations (with your total posts in this topic).

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not easily acquired. It is one that I am still learning. Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable generalisations every time however it is important not to sound too dogmatic and also to try to listen to the other person's opinion otherwise you will be deemed to be pig-headed and will subsequently be ignored. After all no one supports an abusive, or illogical debater I'm sure on that we can both agree.

I don’t want more people in Oz, particularly these people who are here because of our welfare system, why else would they have left countries more in keeping with their religious, & social beliefs.

If those who want them in are not prepared to sponsor them, & support them until they are self supporting, I don’t see why I should support them.

I can see no reason why they should come in uninvited, with lies to get classed as refugees, & then be supplied with more than many Ozzies have. The thousands on public housing waiting lists should have first access, not these illegal entrants.

If it was known that housing was not to be given to them, & those who can not prove their identity would be repatriated, by force if necessary, this rip off merchant flood would rapidly run out of puff.

Time to get real folks.

Lexi again I welcome you, your arrival to OLO and hope earnestly you stay.
It is my view you put your point well, but it is only a small part of this many sided issue.
You and I must not ignore this fact, in using these folk as part of our total in take we discriminate against those who wait.
Emotive, yes but true, we selectively give those who can afford to come priority over those who can not.
Are we to blind ourselves in the name of political correctness to the fact this is not just Australia's problem.
How many, surely millions, want to find a better life in the western world.
And my side issue, what damage is being done by this in Europe, the Nordic nations victimize them selves by being welcoming.
What if we took the warm and cuddly greens and such open door policy.
How many more would come, what of the true poor waiting in those camps for a call that can never come.
The rather weak idea , such are the thoughts of the true left, that governments should not have the right to be gate keeper ,but the courts is impressive in its disregard for us all.

While I wanted the thread,still do, to be about boat people and the law it is about other things too.
Refugees world wide you can not isolate that fact.
And if we except it will get worse before it gets better we can make start on fixing it.
Worse? what if Afghanistan gets worse how many, Pakistan, what if North Korea's population bred to be slaves sickens of starvation?
Burma, call it what you like but we can and will see it fall apart.
Zimbabwe it too will fall refugees are not going away.
The that blind useless UN that sat on its hand and saw murders in Africa and south America the Balkans and name it they did little, can be re crafted.
Humanity needs to care find homes and answer why not start by making by any means the homes these people run from livable.
Good hearted concerns for these folk is ok, but please understand, note it , real concerns held by real people will change governments on this issue.
My concern about single race enclaves is held and will grow if we fail to understand it is based not on racism not on xenophobia but on a devision set by the very people who I'm concerned about.

The judges of the courts are only human - or we hope they are human, I wonder how many of the people on these posts have witnessed the damage or benefit that has arisen from those boat people that have been accepted, or are they already unnecessarly biased. I am not aware that I have ever seen one, let alone seen how they live, and have no intention of condemning any, I also will not be singing praises about someone I have never seen irrespective of their country of origin. Of those people who have seen and got to know any of them, what did you find or are you all making a blind stab, after all most of our earlier boat people were brought out in prison ships, how did your ancesters get here?

Things that the convention on refugees does not require of Australia:

1- To allow in economic refugees (those fleeing poverty only)
2- to allow in people with criminal records
3- to grant refugees permanent residence
4- To accept any outside organisation's assessment of refugee status.

Lexi says:

//According to the International Covention on Refugees and its implicable law all countries adherent to that Convention are under obligation to receive and process refugees to the best of their ability.//

Ya know wot lexi ? it ALSO says that people who have committed offenses or criminal acts are NOT covered any longer by such provisions.

-RIOTS or RACIST ASSAULTS in detention camps=Criminal behavior.
-TAKING OVER SHIPS= criminal behavior.
-CREWING BOATS containing country shoppers is CRIMINAL behavior.

So..in short, we don't need half backed biased prejudiced selective quotations of the UN conventions, we need BALANCE and ACCURACY and fairness to Australia also

Indeed Lexi, so far I'm impressed that we, and most others in the topic are getting into specifics about the case and avoiding generalizations or irrelevant semantics of other policies to somehow weigh for or against one policy or another.

Be interesting to see your further contributions.

I do not feel comfortable in the company of those who claim many/most/some are criminals.
I do feel at ease in saying to compare this with our convict past is,well it is silly isn't it?
Laws will be implemented to see judges, a group known to think other than most of us at times, can not change the intentions of government.
But how many have not come in contact very real contact with refugees?
Some streets in some suburbs are no go areas for me or most of you, care to say it is not true?
I understand the humanity of these poor beggars, even the financial refugees status of many if not most of them.
Can we stop pretending we all are unafraid of the implications of less than 1% wanting to change our way of living?
Nice to be nice but not blind, our problems have not yet started.
Boazy, we do not agree but in my lost years of following your dream and your God I found the bloke great, it was followers like you who turned me away.
These folk while a problem are not to be hated as you seem to.

Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 13 November 2010 10:21:25 PM

" ... In the event of an appeal the High Court will determine who will be given refugee status. We can only presume that with due process the applicants will be thoroughly investigated and unsuitable applicants, rejected. ... "

I saw Julian BurnSide

(an individual I admire)

speak about it recently from memory. The issue was that the changes instituted by the clowns in the ALP post the Howard era were considered not to constitute "due process," a principal enshrined in our system of law, and struck down accordingly.

I think it unlikely that many cases will make it to the High court, notwithstanding it has "original jurisdiction" in all matters pertaining to Treaties as defined in the Constitution.

..

Posted by Belly, Sunday, 14 November 2010 8:25:38 PM

" ... Laws will be implemented to see judges, a group known to think other than most of us at times, can not change the intentions of government. ... "

To me, the above statement shows how clueless you are regarding the Judicial system and its processes *Belly* and I refer you to *Lexi's* comments visa vi "the independence" of the Judiciary in the Australian (arguably lopsided) 3 branch system of Guvment - Legislative, Executive and Judiciary.

..

Thereafter, I think it was *King Hazza* who said something to the effect that we should have the right to withdraw from the Treaty. Well, I am reasonably certain that we can, however, there would likely be serious international consequences (entailing exactly what I am not sure) if we did.

Dream On a few questions.
In your opinion are laws in acted on behalf of judges or the Parliament?
Are laws in your view to protect and serve who? Parliament,the Crown or population.
Are those laws crafted for the service of most or the few.
Once law can it be changed.
Your reference in the international laws on refugees,are you sure those laws discriminate against those refugees in favor of those who can afford a boat trip.
Are financial refugees true refugees?
How do you compare those Mexican refugees flooding across American borders, do they have the right to forever challenge that country's rulings?
Dream On are the hundreds of thousands trying to get into Europe in trucks and trains to use those laws unchallenged forever to bankrupt country's with legal bills.

Dreamon, I don't think there would be as big international consequence as people in Australia would have us think;
We could easily conspire with most countries in Europe, along with the USA, to jointly demand a massive reform to the law to render what we do, perfectly legal- as they seem to be following policies in the same vein as ours.

"Who makes the law courts or Parliament"

The parliament makes the laws. The courts administer them. The laws parliament makes must not conflict with the constitution. It is the job of the courts to decide this. The executive cannot interfere in how the courts behave. The excutive has the power to change the laws to address the issues the court has made.

Flo,
Agreed, it is basically how i also understand the process.

The Parlement makes the laws in keeping with the current needs within the boundaries of the constitution. If the legislation is poor or illegal then the courts will find it out. The current case is clear as a breach of the constitution.

So why is there so much out rage with the extremists. Probably because the crude blunt instrument they are trying to employ has been shown for what it is, illegal in a civilised and compassionate society. Fortunately for us our democracy is robust other wise these people would have the constitution over ruled and their opinion imposed as the majority irrelevant of it being only one opinion. Funny how when you place extreme values on any way of life you get the same result.

The claim is always that this is being done against the majority opinion, but if that were true then why did this opinion not get a majority vote. People are confused and tired of being yelled at by the extreme right in this country, they are becoming a risk to stability and democracy by their insistance that any alternative to their view is a risk to our way of life and national security when the they are a threat to the separation of our courts and independence of the constitution with their ideology. The true power lays with the constitution and the separation of power not the loudest and richest lobby group.

If that's the case Niarbe we should have a referendum on the issue- in fact, we should have a referendum on all issues- that way there is no "far right"- there is only the people picking precisely what policy they want governing their country.

Alternatively, we could directly elect ministers for each portfolio individually- that way any party will only get into the roles people actually want them to- and if people are generally left wing- but want to retain this border policy, they are free to elect left-wing candidates in most houses, but a "strong borders" candidate for immigration.

(I might also add that Australian voters can in fact change the constitution)

Nairbe do you see me as right,now think about this.
Greens are not the only party 85% would not ever vote for them.
I Challenge the view any one who cares other than your way is wrong.
In fact I think you are aware this action won nothing the wish of both sides and most Australians will see gaps filled.
One last thing, how do you think a refugee who has waited in a camp feels knowing hundreds are here to stay while he/she waits.

In fact we have had many chances to make alterations to our constitution and have turned almost all of them down. Why?
One can only guess but it would seem that the majority of Australians don't trust the politics that lead to these votes, hence i would agree let's have a referendum. On what i'm not sure because it would require the changing of matters that don't only pertain to boat people and the electorate will kill it dead.
The opportunity to make changes to an unjust and now illegal action was the labour parties when elected in 07. They promised but failed. I see the 2010 election as a strong vote of no confidence in the main parties. With the whole disaster that labor made of governing it should have been the liberals vote for the taking, yet that poultry 15% as Belly puts it swung to a party that stood alone against the two parties that seemed determined to lay waste to common decency and that elusive Australian way by persisting with the politics of hate and fear. Liberal would have had 10% of that vote if they could have eaten humble pie and done the right thing. Yes i believe that the boat people issue was the defining issue at that election, the labor faithful held firm the many who pined (not christopher) for the good old days went liberal but our conscience looked for an alternative.
From my posts you should see i don't like the current situation but cannot agree with the way we treat these people. The answer is not to treat them so poorly they don't want to come, it is to understand why they want to come and try to effect change in their countries through cooperative intervention not force and condescendence. Work with our neighbours to stop people smuggling not treat them with suspicion.
Our constitution is there to assure we stay the course not fall to reactive moods, it has served us well in it's short life. Not all change is good, especially reactive change.

All seven judges agreed in a single judgement that the government was wrong to deny asylum seekers who tried to come to Australia by boat access to our legal system. From my understanding I believe that the High Court decision was simply a change to make it a fairer system for all refugees. That is, asylum seekers arriving by boat will be treated with the same rights as those arriving by plane, including a full right of appeal. I do not believe that it changes any other law -
and people will be assessed as they have been to date. That is people with criminal records will not be admitted. If anyone else has added
information on this topic - by all means please put it forward.