After last month shooting the messenger that was Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs by calling her report a “political stitch-up”, Abbott has once more taken aim at someone delivering an unpalatable message on his government’s pathetic record on human rights. This time the target is Juan Mendez the UN’s special rapporteur on torture. Mendez has found Australia is violating the rights of asylum seekers on a number of fronts under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The report highlights the cruelty that is the long detention of children, it found evidence of escalating violence in off-shore processing centers, and it found Australia was in breach of its human rights obligations to asylum seekers.
Does Abbott intend to do something constructive about this terrible situation highlighted by the UN and others, no! Abbott once again attacks the messenger. I never thought I would ever see Australia’s good name on human right being questioned in the way it has been recently. All thanks to a cruel and inhumane government led by one, Tony Abbott.

Don't u realise Paul that many (possibly most) Aussies see the corrupt UN as a terrible waste of money and an apologist for terrorist. They also largely instigated the gw scam. They are a disgrace.

Dear Paul,

Both major political parties have a lot to answer
regarding children in detention, as Prof. Gillian
Triggs and her Report have already pointed out.

Labor had very large numbers of children in detention
but they kept them for shorter periods. Liberals had
less numbers but they kept them for longer periods.
The record on both sides needs improvement, that's for
sure and possibly criticisms from international bodies
may help push the government into doing something
more constructive - than attacking the Human Rights
Commission President, or calling the Report a "stitch-up."
Perhaps the criticism may help for the report to be
taken seriously.
One can only live and hope.

A major difficulty with international organisations
such as the UN is that compliance with any resolutions and
rulings of its World Court are voluntary, as no country
is willing to surrender its sovereignty to an international
body. The UN is most effective when the nations are able
to agree on a course of action and mobilise their blocs
to support it. In this case - there are many nations
belonging to the UN whose own records on human rights
leave a lot to be desired.

Even so, the organisation does provide an influential forum
for world opinion, and while it does not always achieve
success, it surely helps to draw attention to problems
and possible solutions, which would be less likely to occur
without it.

Paul, when are you going to accept that these people are que jumpers. Besides, we can't cater fir our own people, let alone these so called refugees.

Charity starts at home Paul, and our home affairs and not being catered for at present.

The idea of Human Rights is a religious doctrine and God's law has no place in our modern society, Human rights cannot be allowed to trump civil rights or interfere with the liberty of Australian citizens.
HREOC is attempting to interfere with the political liberty of Australians on many levels, not least in that the race discrimination commissioner has clearly stated that he wants criminal penalties to apply to people who say certain words or string certain phrases together.

Rechtub, que jumpers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mpClSPyhk
What about the real queue jumpers, the Chinese parasite class who are buying their way into Australia? We all know how they make their money in the motherland, how 80% of Chinese live in poverty and are ruthlessly exploited by oligarchs and corrupt party officials, yet these gangsters have the red carpet rolled out for them by both Labor and the Coalition. Bob Hawke still had a mortgage on his Coburg home when he became prime minister, now he's worth an estimated $250 million which can be explained by his 90 some trips to China where he is engaged as a real estate broker, consultant and lobbyist.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chinese-secure-northern-foodbowl-as-row-over-ord-river-lease-continues/story-fn59niix-1226516223693

Paul1405,

The Greens would be in favour of course of Labor leader Shorten's plan to swamp Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane with ramped up migration from the middle East.

<October 25: Shorten delivered a speech advocating a dramatic increase in Australia's intake of refugees from the Middle-East:

"Labor believes Australia can play a greater role in the international effort to provide refuge to the persecuted. Nearly two million Iraqis have fled their homes in the face of the ISIL advance – and millions more have been displaced by the conflict in Syria...

"Given the scope and scale of the current crisis gripping the region, Labor believes that, as a starting point, those seeking refuge from the current crisis in Iraq and Syria should be taken in addition to the existing allocation..."

This is significant policy shift. Given that most asylum seekers who came to Australia during the Labor years came from the Middle-East, and the Sunni-Shia schism has displaced millions of people, this represents an open-ended commitment to accept "those seeking refuge", which points to a massive increase in the intake from the Middle East.>

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bill-shortens-bubble-starting-to-deflate-20150308-13y9x5.html

What a way to increase the work of Centrelink and the drain on the federal Budget. The NSW police already have a dedicated Middle Eastern crime unit as a result of the shootings, violence and other serious crime. The Greens and Labor would want to geld that unit to hide the fact. Reminiscent of the political correctness that concealed the Rotherham child sex trafficking.

Still, Shorten wants to increase the Labor vote and that is a sure way of doing that - more on welfare and more discontented voting Labor.

JOM they are que jumpers because they have passed through save havens to get here. They are coming for the benefits, and I guess who can blame them.

It's time Australia got out of the UN. It's a complete waste of money. It's nothing but a talkfest for making "Resolutions" no one takes any notice of anyway. & If the Parties don't take any notice of the Resolution they'll get angry & make another one for the Parties to ignore. Whoo Hoo!

Schrimple Sherloc

<<The Greens would be in favour of course of Labor leader Shorten's plan to swamp Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane with ramped up migration from the middle East.>>

Not that I'm aware of Beach. But then again I'm not as informed about all things Greens as a know all blow hard like your good self is. So you continually tell us how knowledgeable you are on all subjects. It amazes me what you can see from your dingy party HQ in that basement in Tempe! What ever you and Jim tell us, must be true. I'll just have to bow to your superior wisdom. You must look really something, goose stepping around in that snappy black uniform with those shiny black boots. Mate, you are all class in my book.

Dear Paul,

I've just recently come across the following
website which may be of interest to you:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/australias-troubling-asylum-seeker-policy/

I feel that it is relevant to your discussion.

Foxy,

Unfortunately the article 'Australia’s Troubling Asylum Seeker Policy' published by The Diplomat is all too true. I am ashamed of our treatment of children, and I am ashamed of our off shore processing facilities on Nauru and Manus Island.
Look at the attitude of our fellow 'forumites' from the rabid right and their postings here. They have no compassion, no feeling for people who through fate have been placed in a terrible situation. Just like Abbott the best they can come up with is lets shoot the messenger.

Abbott has been aided and abetted in this by equally disgusting policies of the Labor Party.

You know Paul my late father co-founded a Greens branch and was a lifelong leftist so I was raised in that milieu and aside from their views on asylum seekers I have a lot of time for that party. I'd suggest that if they ditch support for immigration they'll have working class people flocking to the Greens in droves, otherwise it's going to remain an inner city, elitist party.
Immigration hurts people like me, economically and in terms of safety and well being and it actually does nothing for the inner city trendies either it's just that by virtue of their wealth they can avoid the negative consequences of multiculturalism playing out in the suburbs.
Dropping support for immigration would double or triple the Greens vote overnight and branch membership would surge as well because people like me who absolutely detest the major parties would become involved.
True Australian values are the values of the old Left, only a return to unionism, trade protection, immigration restriction and progressive social policies can save us now.

Dear Paul,

I'm glad that you read the article I cited from
"The Diplomat". "The diplomat" we're told:
"is a leading online
current affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific
with analysis on politics, security, business,
technology, and life across the region. It has
an Asia Pacific regional outlook and a global
audience with a mix of on-the-ground reporting,
top analysis and opinion writing from world
renowned columnists." The Wall Street Journal
describes it as "one of the top 5 sites for
international news."

"It reaches a rapidly growing influential audience
of commentators, policy makers, and academics, with
its in-depth treatment of regional issues".

I've only recently discovered it - and found it to
be of a very high standard. It gives footnotes of
the sources on which its information is based -
which are most helpful.

I agree with you - our governments (past and present)
have a shameful official policy of deterring, detaining,
and deporting asylum seekers - and Canberra's 2013 policy
innovation of transferring maritime arrivals to remote
islands of neighbouring countries for offshore processing
is inhumane.

Surely there must be a better way of dealing with this
situation than having one of the strictest immigration
detention regimes in the world. Exposing people who
are fleeing from terror and persecution to conditions
that are so extremely harsh is a violation of human rights
and it is something for which we are being criticised
around the world. Where is our tolerance and
humanity for which we were known as a nation - when only
a relatively small fraction of the world's asylum seekers
seek refuge in Australia. (Only around 2 per cent of worldwide
claims) and a high percentage of these asylum seekers are
deemd to be refugees (88 percent).

It's something the government can no longer ignore. Doctors,
psychiatrists, even guards, have all spoken out about the
conditions in detention for both children and adults.
And the recent report by the Human Rights Commission has
further explained the severity of what goes on - blaming
both sides of politics.

This must no longer be swept under the rug.

Jay of course we can talk "Popularism", the be all and end all of politics is not just about winning votes, or being popular. In fact it is easy to achieve popular support in the short term at least, just tell the people what they want to hear. In my book what is more important is principles and what you stand for.
The Greens is a grass roots party and it is the membership which determines policy, not some pollster telling you what is now the flavor of the month.
I decry the Labor Party for its lost of Labor principles, I decry the Liberal party for its loss of liberalism. A party without real principles will soon lose direction and ultimately lose support.
I would much prefer to see our support grow by 1% per year through having a solid policy base, than by 10% per year with some short term popularism type policies.

Australia should have nothing to do with the refugees on Nauru or anywhere else for that matter. Refugees are a UN Problem not Australia's.

So just why doesn't the UN take over the Refugee Centres. It's because once they leave the UN Refugee Camps & go Country hunting for the best economic deal the UNCHR does not recognize them as being Refugees. They say so in their Rule book. I've provides that Article many, many times.

Now Indonesia is threatening to unleash 10000 of their unwanted moslem hordes guests on Australia.

The UN Human Rights committee is an ongoing joke.
The last time I remember them having a go at Australia guess who was chairman;
The Libyan Ambassador !
That same scene continues on. The next members are China Russia and some others.
It is a total insult !

Paul,
Politics is all about compromise, the Greens could be major players if they determined to represent a broader section of the community instead of restricting themselves to an inner urban elite.
Immigration, especially Third World immigration is deeply unpopular and widely resented in the community,it's a very real issue which is of great importance to voters. The way we're heading the formation of a hard right, populist party is inevitable simply because no other party will take the electorate seriously and a good many politicians seem to genuinely hate ordinary Australians.
So do you want the debate on immigration to be led by the Q Society and the Party For Freedom or by the party of social justice and equality?

paul and Foxy,
It is hard to believe you are still talking about the illegal entrants to Aus.

At least for now, it is over, finished, kaput. Mr Morrison implemented policies that has stopped the boats from coming, or were you asleep. Well you missed something special. No more shonks turning up on our doorstep. No more profits for people smugglers and no more drownings and no more kids (and adults) going into detention.

I see you are still peddling the same old worn out lines that were disproved years ago. Australians woke up to the fact that the 'asylum seekers' were simply gate crashers for economic gain and taking advantage of our generosity. Very few Aussies accept the speil that most were fleeing danger.

Of course Triggs report was political as she admitted and now the UN should be praising the current government for the massive reduction in kids in detention and the saving of lives.

I say a good 'well done' to the government but keep the system going. Do not relent. Reserve our compassion for those that deserve it.

This was the inheritance from Rudd, Gillard and the Greens,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

Dear Banjo,

All I can do is politely suggest for you to
read the website given earlier which I shall
list again for you here:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/australias-troubling-asylum-seeker-policy/

You may actually learn something.

Nothing is finished (people are still in
detention) - but it certainly is "kaput."
It was "kaput" right from the get-go. What we need
to do right now is fix the government's asylum
seeker policy which is a disgrace. We also need to
be told how many boats have been intercepted and
turned back. I guess we'll eventually find out
sometime in the future - one day - maybe -
but we've got buckley's
at present with the secrecy currently involved.

Foxy: What we need to do right now is fix the government's asylum seeker policy which is a disgrace.

Yes you’re right Foxy. We need to tell the UN to come & pick up their Asylum Seekers. We don’t want more potential Terrorists here.

Foxy: We also need to be told how many boats have been intercepted and turned back.

Too right we need something to celebrate after the last lot of Terrorists killings & a few attempts that were stopped.

Foxy:Australia’s troubling Asylum Seeker Policy.

I agree. It need to be tightened up, even more, especially with the threats of 10000+ Islamic Hordes being let loose from Indonesia.

What really troubles me is the Government stopping these people from leaving. The Government believes they can turn these people around. They wish.... Not a chance in Hell. Islamist are the ultimate fanatics. It’s best to help them, & their families, on their way. It’s even better to stop them before they get here.

Banjo: Very few Aussies accept the spiel that most were fleeing danger.

The only ones that are still fooled are Greenie fanatics & their fellow travellers & a few caring, nice but very naive people.

Now a question.

These people that want to go to fight with ISIS but have been prevented from leaving Australia.

If one or a number of them murder someone, or blow something up, killing & maiming Innocent people, should we be able to sue the people in Government who stopped them from leaving Australia?

Maybe that should be a separate discussion. What do you think?

Dear Fox,

All I can do is politely suggest is for you not to cherry-pick, even from a site that obviously appeals to your world view.

Here is an article by Luke Hunt that gives tribute to the Abbott government's initiatives to stop the people smugglers in their tracks. You might also note the correct references to illegal immigrants:

http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/people-smugglers-feel-the-pinch/

Marvelous wasn't it how the Abbott government acted so quickly, resolutely and effectively to deter the foul trade that caused so may deaths.

Something you would expect that Australia's Human Rights Commission would be recognising and celebrating along with the UN. Mais non, the president of the HRC and the UN have other agendas apparently.

Open the other eye, you may actually learn something.

Beach, a very good article and relevant to 2013. We have moved on since then and issues have arisen, namely the treatment of children kept in detention and the human rights of others being held. Both Gillian Trigg, Australia, and Juan Mendez, UN, have highlighted serious breaches by our government in respect to human rights of asylum seekers being held on both Manus and Nauru. Do you care to comment on that?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-torture-report-united-nations-special-rapporteur-juan-mendez-responds-to-tony-abbott-criticism-20150310-13zrwz.html

Can't we have a sensible debate on this subject.
I think it is important we talk about the
isues throughtfully and rationally without
personal attacks and accusations like "cherry-pick," when
citing the facts from a very reputable website.

This should not be a contest of which government did what
(and at what cost to people). But an attempt should be made
to try to solve the problems that still exists. All sides of
politics should work towards this end instead of trying
to get political mileage out of it. Australia has signed
agreements and does belong to the UN and has to comply with
international laws. Globally we are being judged - especially
since we take in such a small amount of refugees and 88 percent
turn out to be genuine.

"Globally we are being judged - especially since we take in such a small amount of refugees and 88 percent turn out to be genuine."

This is an interesting statement as it is insinuating Australia is being judged negatively, but that all depends who you are asking? Sure the UN has its viewpoint and the UN is always happy to chime in when called upon for a favour from a like-minded group, political party or humanitarian organisation. For example when Helen Clarke's Labor Government was trying to ban spanking and the general populace was totally against government intrusion into family life decisions, UNICEF conveniently wrote a letter to Helen Clarke denouncing New Zealand's out dated children's rights, which she then used as 'proof' the world was watching NZ.

My guess is for the citizens of the USA, Great Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Italy and Greece who are aware of Australia's stance on illegal immigration and the successful control of its borders, 88% or more are applauding in envy.

The majority of people in Australia are indeed comfortable with the current level of immigration control. If we still believe in democracy, then the current immigration policy is aligned to will of the people. (well most of us)

As no more illegals are arriving by boat the number of children in detention will eventually be cleared. Perhaps the blame for the children's plight rest with their parents bad decision to sneak around the correct process.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

The following links may clarify things for you:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/australias-troubling-asylum-seeker-policy/

And -

http://theconversation.com/the-boats-may-have-stopped-but-at-what-cost-to-australia-30455

And -

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/abbott-has-stopped-the-boats-heres-what-we-need-to-do-now

When I did my trip to Europe & SE Asia I made a point of asking as many people I could what they knew about Australian Politics & Policies. Believe it or not only one person in Ireland had heard something & it was wrong anyway. Politician in the wrong Party. Recently I went on a 18 day boat trip to Hawaii. There were many different nationalities. Same Questions. Same answers, especially the Yanks. Some of them didn't know we spoke "American" before they came on the trip. I told them we don't we speak English. They said, Whaaat does thaaat Sooound liiiirke? Shakes head & walks away.

Hippy you are right the majority of people in Australia like the present Boat Policy & think it should be harder. Other stuff they mightn't like so much, like the Budget, but that's another Subject.

All we have to do now is palm the others off to somewhere else. Most of the kids there now belong to Parents that are a bad Suspect Terrorists & aren't allowed into Australia anyway. under UNCHR Rules.

What's the matter with turning over the facilities over to the UNCHR to look after? It is their job.

@Paul1405, Friday, 13 March 2015 4:31:44 AM

Would I care to comment? But I already have done so. Read to the post you are supposed to be responding to. This one,

onthebeach, Friday, 13 March 2015 1:37:08 AM

You and Fox are adept at totally ignoring the evidence and argument dispelling or even questioning your own posts. Instead you shift the goal posts and bowl up the very same stuff again. Fox always goes one better by claiming the high moral ground and lecturing other posters. Then regurgitates the same stuff.

It is only to be expected that Fox and you would want to ignore the article I linked to from the site that Fox recommends. It doesn't suit your political spin and Abbottophobia.

The simple, incontrovertible fact is that Abbott and his government solved the very difficult mess created by Rudd's stupid, ideologically driven abolition of Howard's Pacific Solution. Labor and the Greens have the blood of hundreds on their hands. - You know of course that your arrogant, insensitive, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young shrugged her shoulders when asked about the hundreds of drownings at sea.

I'm sorry Foxy but those articles didn't clarify anything for me in regard to who's judging Australia's immigration/refugee/illegal boat people.

What those articles did reveal is that the authors have no concern about letting thousands of uneducated and/or unskilled people come into Australia and go straight on the dole. The last article actually stated our welfare system could handle the additional burden.

There was also no mention of the real elephant in the room - being the boat people are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka which means most of them are Muslim.

It's uncool and politically incorrect (racist in the view of Paul1405, Poirot & Suseonline) to ask "Do we need more unskilled uneducated Muslim immigrants that will fail to assimilate and most likely never get off the dole?" It is not racist of course and it's what most Australians are asking, with a firm answer of NO already in their heads.

We need to be selective with our intake of Legal immigrants and send the cue jumpers packing. I fully support admitting and caring for our quota of legal refugees; hopefully people that will be thankful rather than arrive with a chip on their shoulder and a determination to change us after they arrive.

The comfortably well-off Greens' Bob Brown, Senator Sarah HyphenatedHyphen and others never did take any of those buff young male economic migrants in themselves, did they? So much for their own personal commitment.

This was the inheritance from Rudd, Gillard and the Greens,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

Dear ConservativeHippie,

From reading your post it appears that you have
bought the myths being spread about asylum
seekers. Kindly read the following link which
explains the realities:

http://www.news.com.au/world/ten-myths-around-asylum-seekers-arriving-on-boats-in-australian=waters/story-fndr2ev-1226676024840

cont'd ...

Dear ConservativeHippie,

I forgot to add that you have surprised me.

The organisations that have criticised Australia's
treatment of asylum seekers are listed in the
links I gave you which you claim you couldn't
find. Try again. Beginning on
page 2 of the first link for starters
and go from there.

Cheers.

Fox,

You persist in using the politically correct 'asylum seeker'. However the site you gushed about as a "a leading online current affairs magazine.. of a very high standard" uses the correct 'illegal immigrants'.

See here (where PM Abbott is also lauded to putting the people smugglers out of business, which unsurprisingly you also in denial about),

http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/people-smugglers-feel-the-pinch/

otb,

No - I persist in using the correct term.
You do not.

The link you gave is about the smuggling trade.

All I can do is politely suggest to you to
read the link given in my previous post about
the ten myths surrounding asylum seekers.
And, if you still have any doubts I suggest
you contact the Human Rights Commission on the
issue - you can Google it.

I shall repeat that asylum seekers who arrive in
Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal
activity, nor are they immigrants. The UN Refugee
Convention (to which Australia is a signatory)
recognises that refugees have a right to enter a
country for the puposes of seeking asylum, regardless
of how they arrive or whether they hold valid identity
documents.

Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into
Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum
seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving
on boats or without authorisation. Australia has a proud
history of boat people and other asylum seekers becoming
good citizens. 88 percent of asylum seekers have been found
to be genuine refugees in the past.

Foxy the UNCHR does not recognize these people as Asylum Seekers, Refugees, yes, but Asylum Seekers, No. The reason is that once they have left the first place of Safe Refuge they no longer qualify if they leave. They then become Economic Migrants.

Article 31

refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee

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, ("Coming directly" is the Key here.)

62 (f) Economic migrants distinguished from refugees
62. A migrant is a person who, for reasons other than those contained in the definition, voluntarily leaves his country in order to take up residence elsewhere. He may be moved by the desire for change or adventure, or by family or other reasons of a personal nature. If he is moved exclusively by economic considerations, he is an economic migrant and not a refugee. (or leaving the UNCHR Camp for a better life else ware.)

A person from the Local Village who just wants to earn money for his family back in Sri Lanka does not qualify as a refugee.

The UNCHR should be looking after these people & providing the Camps. Not the Australian Government.

what amazes me how the United Nations is so fixated on countries like Australia where every tom dick and harry wants to come and ignore terorrist like Hamas and the numerous Islamic countres where no one except jihadist want to immigrate. Like feminist whose real interest is in feathering their own nest the UN is a laughing stock.

Oh Foxy, great defender of the down trodden, thou do persist like a dog with bone.

Trying to have a two way discussion with you is like trying to awaken someone who is pretending to sleep.

Dear Jay,

I shan't go on repeating things for you.

Here is a link that gives the facts -
whether you choose to ignore them is
up to you:

http://www.factsfightback.org.au/boat-arrivals-are-not-illegal/

88 percent of asylum seekers arriving by boat to this
country have been found to be genuine refugees.

Dear ConservativeHippie.

You surely must realise that you are under no obligation
to read any of my posts.
I cannot be held responsible for the comprehension skills
(lack of) or biases of other people. That is something
over which I have absolutely no control.

Thank You for your "Dog and the Bone," analogy.
It's quite suitable because I do prefer to formulate
opinions based on facts and tend not to give them up
unless they are proven to be erroneous.

Besides I have always been a fan of Aesop's fables
and the "dog and the bone," is a good one.

Just to jog your memory -

"A dog held a juicy bone in his jaws as he crossed
over a brook. When he looked down into the water he
saw another dog below with what appeared to be a
bigger juicier bone. He jumped into the brook to
snatch the bigger bone, letting go his own bone.
He quickly learned of course that the bigger bone
was just a reflection and so he ended up with
nothing."

Yes, I too have fond memories of reading Aesop's Tales as a kid.

..

But *Foxy,* this place is a Troll Pit don't you know?

They don't really care about a sensible, rational discussion, but rather they would sooner take pleasure in running you down.

That's because they have become desperate and frothing at the mouth

(HaHaHa)

" .. Come on down to Torture down, where Rock Spiders and Pedophile Friends walk free! .. "

(It please me to scourge them from time to time. ;-) )

You see, the UN is no separate organization or world government at all. It is rather a composite of the member states who both willingly and voluntary join and participate.

And when the Special Rapporteur says "STOP!" .. it is the composite of the majority of the world that compels you.

Indeed, all of this #$%* would have been in the bin/monkey house/prison a long time ago if it was up to me *Foxy*

And the not insignificant abuse has been quite plain for many years now.

Had society been more virtuos from the beginning, filth like what we currently have in the guvment would never have been given the opportunity to abuse these people in the first place.

But then, so often we see their behaviour towards some decline considerabley in advance of doing something even worse.

And the proposal to turn the Original people off their land again is the next step in their policy of forced assimilation. It should perhaps come as no surprise that when the Tibetan Dalai Lama speaks of "Cultural Genocide" that his words fall upon deaf ears.

Oh, of course, if I do not misunderstand, the legal position of the Western Australian guvment in relation to the child abuse being inflicted upon them by the Federal guvment, is that they are not legally responsible for the activities of the commonwealth on their territory.

You see, history is written by the victors, and rules are made for convenience.

Don't you ever wonder about how so many atrocities could have occurred without anyone ever being truly held to account?

Fox,

You are wrong and the site (The Diplomat) you enthusiastically recommended -but now are ignoring because it disagrees with you- is right.

So what about going to the original source, the Migration Act - which is very little different from others countries? Wikipedia says, <Illegal immigration in Australia is defined by the Migration Act 1958, which distinguishes between "lawful non-citizens" (those in Australia holding a valid visa) and "unlawful non-citizens" (those without a valid visa)>.

The scam is up for all of those economic migrants and criminal scoundrels who come in under the radar (quite literally), even putting their children in boats to secure their own selfish future, a lifetime supported by Centrelink in most cases.

It is noticeable that your cherry-picking didn't select the ABC's Fact-Checker, which you would be chortling about if it did support your opinion. Mais non! The ABC Fact Checker confirms that illegal is the correct descriptor.

<Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa
Updated 13 Sep 2013, 10:22am

Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa.
PHOTO: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa. (AAP: David Crosling)
MAP: Australia
During the election campaign, asylum seekers have been referred to as "illegal arrivals" who "turn up illegally" on "illegal boats".

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison was asked about his use of the term at a National Press Club debate on September 3.

"I've always referred to illegal entry," Mr Morrison said.

"It's the same term that's used in Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, on the convention on people smuggling which defines illegal entry.

"People have illegally entered Australia when they've come without a valid visa.">
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

The Human Rights Commission is not the arbiter of legal matters in Australia even though it sometimes presumes to be. The HRC was a political creation and it is known to take political sides, an example being the findings and rather obvious political timing of its recent highly contentious report.

The Human Rights Commission and so many other Quangos need to be scrapped and their functions devolved to the public service departments that are open to scrutiny and directly answerable to the Parliament through a Minister. Quangos are a useful way to avoid ongoing public transparency, scrutiny and accountability. First, the departments those unaccountable, cumbersome dinosaurs hang off should report on what crucial, measurable goals they serve that could justify further funding withing the department.

In the UK, the Taxpayers Alliance identified a whopping 1,162 quangos created by various political parties when in government. From the BBC, "The government reviewed 901 bodies - 679 quangos and 222 other statutory bodies. Of those 192 will be axed or their functions taken over by other bodies. The future of other bodies is still under consideration but 380 will definitely be kept". - No-one can figure how much they all cost with estimates "varying between £34bn and about £60bn".
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-11405840

Any wonder the federal bucket of taxpayers' money leaks like a colander and no-one can figure where it is all going.

Foxy: 88 percent of asylum seekers arriving by boat to this country have been found to be genuine refugees.

So were Monis, Lodhi, Khaled Cheinko, Moustafa Cheinko, Mahamod Ali Elomar, Abdul Rabib Hasan, (Hello Steelie,) Mahammed Omar Jamel, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, Omaerjan Azari & quite a few others.

How many others do you think we should let in?

The ones that are still in Detention & can't come to Australia have terrorist links.

Maybe the children can come without their parents, & grow up to be Law Abiding good Christian Citizens. ;-)

I see Paul and the other left whingers accusing TA of shooting the messenger and ignoring the report. Let's look at the messenger, the UNHCR executive committee and guardians of human rights includes representatives from:----Iran, Somalia, Rwanda, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zambia.---And is renowned for putting out reports that try to equivocate the actions of the established democracies with the horrors of the totalitarian countries.

Next let's review how the "report" was put together. Was there a scrupulous review of the evidence backed with inspections and reports from the government and other agencies. Not at all. In a shameless episode of predetermination that would get a first year student failed, the report was cobbled together from a handful of activist organisations with a reputation for fabrication, and not a scrap of information from the government or institutions actually involved.

So should we take this piece of fiction seriously, or should we leave it to the Greens and other activists to use it to bay at the moon?

I'm not certain which HRC you are referring too, but the HREOC that I am thinking of is a statutory authority which is tasked on administering matters pertaining to the relevant conventions that Australia has voluntarily signed up too, in addition to the Australian made law which has been made by Australia in response to the requirement to implement relevant convention laws at a local level.

Thereafter, regarding so called "illegal entrants," it is an error to consider this determinative as regards whether or not offenders should be dealt with punitively, especially when dealing with legitimate Asylum Seekers.

If for example "illegal entry" measures are the only way for some to successfully flee persecution, and or if they are otherwise unwelcome in the place wherein they find themselves, then it is still (obviously) permissible to seek Asylum by "illegal" means and why? .. Because what matters is escaping persecution and reaching safety, and not your tin pot little laws and your silly little pieces of paper.

As for terrorists in the mix, well, if I was a terrorist I would certainly use each and every opportunity to get up you like a rat up a drain pipe, and thereafter, if I was put in the bin for acts of terror and regardless of whether my wife and child wished to join me, the privilege would not be afforded to them.

But, if I do not misrecall, ASIO has said it needs but 30 days to do its thing, and children do not generally go from being "relatively healthy" (despite their prior ordeals) to banging their heads on the walls and committing acts of self harm overnight.

And therein the length of time for processing in and of itself can be a most critical thing. The coalitions lapse in this regard is obviously not acceptable visa vi the significant medical risks.

On balance, all factors considered, under the rules and conventions agreed to by all participating State parties:

Thumbs down from the UNHCR,
Thumbs down from the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and
Thumbs down from the UN SPECIAL RAPPOTEUR AGAINST TORTURE.

Shadow, your man Abbott seen fit to attack the President of our Human Rights Commission Gillian Trigg over her report, and I am not going to try and justify the political intrigue between the woman and the former Labor Government. When it comes to the treatment of asylum seeker both Labor and Liberal have blood on their hands.
The UN report was complied by Juan Mendez, a preeminent person with world standing on these matters. Yet you make no reference to Mendez at all. When a person of such standing puts his name to something I think it would be wise to take notice. If its content is unpalatable do we just simply try and shoot the messenger again.

Shadow, here is a link on Juan Mendez, so you can read up on his credentials on matters relating to human rights, and compare them to your man Abbott's CV on such. Me thinks no contest.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/Pages/JuanMendez.aspx

Paul1405, while I agree that the Report was a beat up & Politically motivated, I do feel that compared to the UNCHR camps they are "Hilton Hotels." The Refugees feel that it is beneath them to do the Basic Hygiene & keep the place clean themselves. Why should the Security Services have to bring in cleaners? Is it because these people have no sense of Basic Cleanliness.

Personally I feel that the Camps are none of Australia's business. It's the job of the UNCHR to look after Refugees. Why is it that the UNCHR doesn't? Is it because it no longer recognizes them as being genuine Refugees?

I feel that Australia should dump them into the UNCHR's lap. Let them deal with the Refugees. Australia could just have an Office there for clearing those that may qualify.

And again, personally I feel that no moslems should be considered for entry into Australia because of the terror risk. Things like the latest failed case. Screwing your cousin then having the brothers trying to kill you, isn't a terror threat.Just because there is fighting in your Country isn't either. Having your Government pursue you for terrorist attacks you have committed isn't either.

Just because they are Refugees doesn't make them Asylum Seekers.

Paul1405,

You put far too much emphasis on the status of his position, which is more honorary than active in that he definitely could not exercise any of the decision-making role of a CEO of western private or public agencies. Juan Mendez is constrained to represent the majority view of the member states, some of which have considerable form, which has already been explained by another poster.

Paul,

Triggs was not attacked primarily for the report she produced, but for the partisan way she approached the timing of the investigation, which if implemented in 2013 would have deeply embarrassed labor months before an election. Triggs is not the only activist that remained silent for nearly 2 years while 1200 died and sprung into action when the problem was being solved.

As for Juan Mendez, I have no doubt that his credentials in the fight against human rights abuses is exemplary. However, anyone that puts out a report with UNCHR's stamp on it that consists entirely of activists input (with clear vested interests and spotty records) deserves to have his credibility questioned.

As for the comparison between labor and liberals the score is 1200+ to 2 dead and 2000 to 200 kids in detention.