I believe it was Whitlam who said something like How can they run a country if they can't even govern themselves?
Unsure atm, but it's not Labor currently
Labor (Gillard)
Liberal (Abbott)
Other
I believe it was Whitlam who said something like How can they run a country if they can't even govern themselves?
Unsure atm, but it's not Labor currently
Doesn’t Julia Gillard know the law on asylum seekers? | Article | The Punch
If reports in this morning’s Australian are true - that Julia Gillard is intending to send asylum seekers back to their country of origin - then Australians should be very concerned that their Prime Minister and her government are so ignorant of international legal convention.
Put bluntly, to return asylum seekers to a location where they will more than likely face death or severe injury is a gross breach of the 1951 Refugees Convention to which Australia is a signatory.
The report says: “hundreds of Afghan and Sri Lankan asylum-seekers are likely to be sent home under Julia Gillard’s tough policy agenda to deter boatpeople.” Ms Gillard will apparently seek assurances from the governments of those countries that persons who are not judged to be asylum seekers by Australia will not be persecuted when they are sent back home. From a diplomatic perspective, such assurances are a sick joke given the fact that Afghanistan’s Karzai government in Kabul is hopelessly corrupt and dishonest and has no control over the security of the country.
In the case of Sri Lanka who would trust the Singhalese dominated political elite in Colombo who are busy jailing Tamil political opponents and members of their families?
But what is most disturbing about Ms Gillard’s supposed plans are that it flies in the face of Australia’s obligation to act in accordance with the Refugee Convention.
Article 31 of the Convention says that no “Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
There it is, in black and white. Don’t send people home if they are going to be killed, injured, harassed or captured. But this is exactly what the Gillard government is planning to do, according to today’s report.
Can it seriously put its collective hand on its heart and say that every person it sends back to Sri Lanka or Afghanistan will not face a threat to his or her life or freedom on account of their religion, race, or political opinion?
It cannot.
Then there is Article 31 of the Convention which prohibits Australia from imposing “penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…, 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.”
So lets take the case of one of the handful – and yes it is a handful – of asylum seekers who come by boat into Australian waters. They are picked up by Customs or the Navy and taken to the Christmas Island detention facility (or jail depending on your point of view). They are told their claim for asylum is not successful because they lack the necessary paperwork or information that the Immigration Department, fixated by process, require from them and that they will be sent back to Afghanistan or Sri Lanka.
Is it imposing a penalty on such a person to send them back to the place they fled? It is because the chances of them facing persecution or at the very least severe economic and social dislocation on their return, is extremely high. They will be sent back to a place from where they fled, and to which they will return with nothing by way of income or support.
If we allow Ms Gillard and other politicians to get away with ripping up or willfully ignoring their obligations under international law and let them trade off human life for votes in marginal seats, then Australia’s reputation as a law abiding member of the community of nations will take a beating.
Is that what we really want?
Greg Barns is a barrister and a Director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance. He was disendorsed by the Liberal Party in Tasmania in 2002 over his criticism of the Howard government’s asylum seeker policies.
Abbot has said the same thing about sending them back. Wrong move by both parties.
GU - giving everyone the freedom to post whatever they want...
so long as we can all pay them out if they missed an earlier thread on the same topic!
Just sink'em before they hit our waters - no harm no foul![]()
TBH I would rather send more back to their country of origin, they cost more to look after then the Abbo's.
I heard on the grapevine that an (illegal) immigrants allowance is higher than the average aussie pension.
IF it's true, it's pretty fucked up.
?, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened?,? Pretty sure most of them past through Indonesia on the way here. Anyone who feels sorry for the tamils should read their history first.
If man was meant to work he wouldn't have invented robots.
www.topendsounds.com.au
Physics is like sex — it may give practical results, but that’s not why we do it.
FFS have a debate but don't give me that "earn more than a pensioner" bullshit.
Refugee Monthly Allowance From Australian Government Hoax
Gillard backs internet filter - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Gillard backs internet filter
Posted 15 minutes ago
Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is happy with the policy aim of the Government's proposed internet filter, but understands there are concerns about it.
The Government plans to introduce a mandatory filter to block sites that contain illegal material.
Ms Gillard says images of child abuse or child pornography should not be accessible on the internet.
But she has acknowledged the concerns raised by critics of the plan.
"I understand that there's a set of concerns, technical concerns about internet speed, and also concerns that this somehow [moves] into taking away legitimate use of the internet," she said.
"It's not my intention that we in any way jeopardise legitimate use of the internet."
God dammit.........
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)