Australia’s Offshore Cruelty • Hacker News Board

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#21

Post by benologist » Tue, May 24, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

ps4fanboy wrote: post #18

benologist wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty pointless distinction, the issue is their treatment by the Australian government not the environment they're leaving.

It is an incredibly important distinction, those found not to be valid are asked to return to their country of origin, how many of the people in these centers have been processed and refuse to leave?

Their status is x or it's not. Regardless they must be afforded basic human rights including legal representation that could see their status changed.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#22

Post by tropo » Tue, May 24, 2016, 11:26 PM UTC

darkseas wrote: post #5

I deplore the current policies that treat refugees as criminals. Dutton is engaging in the dog-whistle politics that got the former Prime Minister Abbott elected. And during the current federal election campaign, the Labor opposition can't be seen as soft compared to the government (and is even claiming some credit for setting up elements of the "offshore processing"). But, I cannot condone restarting the people smug…

Instead of treating them as criminals, they could be treated as enemy combatants or terrorists. Better?

The basic problem is that they must be stopped. This is not negotiable; Australia has a valuable culture that would be devastated by mass immigration.

So, how do you propose to stop them?

Well?

I will be very surprised if you can come up with anything which does not ultimately require resorting to violence.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#23

Post by darkseas » Tue, May 24, 2016, 11:30 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #14

darkseas wrote: post #5

I deplore the current policies that treat refugees as criminals. Dutton is engaging in the dog-whistle politics that got the former Prime Minister Abbott elected. And during the current federal election campaign, the Labor opposition can't be seen as soft compared to the government (and is even claiming some credit for setting up elements of the "offshore processing"). But, I cannot condone restarting the people smug…

It's worth noting that many, possibly even most, of these people are not actually refugees. "refugee" is a rather well defined legal term.

Sure, we can't know whether they fit the formal refugee criteria until we assess their claims, but all are subject to offshore processing regardless of their true status.

I believe that even those granted refugee status are trapped on Nauru or Manis Island until they agree to resettlement in a third country like Cambodia.

The Government has refused to resettle refugees to New Zealand under an agreement brokered by an earlier Government, presumably on the grounds that humane treatment in a third country would further encourage maritime immigration.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#24

Post by darkseas » Tue, May 24, 2016, 11:35 PM UTC

tropo wrote: post #22

darkseas wrote: post #5

I deplore the current policies that treat refugees as criminals. Dutton is engaging in the dog-whistle politics that got the former Prime Minister Abbott elected. And during the current federal election campaign, the Labor opposition can't be seen as soft compared to the government (and is even claiming some credit for setting up elements of the "offshore processing"). But, I cannot condone restarting the people smug…

Instead of treating them as criminals, they could be treated as enemy combatants or terrorists. Better? The basic problem is that they must be stopped. This is not negotiable; Australia has a valuable culture that would be devastated by mass immigration. So, how do you propose to stop them? Well? I will be very surprised if you can come up with anything which does not ultimately require resorting to violence.

I disagree Australian culture would be devastated by mass immigration. Post WW2 immigrants and the Vietnamese boat people of the 70's form an important part of today's culture, even neglecting the almost entirely immigrant population (excepting the Aborigine first inhabitants of course).

I am torn trying to find a humane solution that does not cause further traffic, however.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#25

Post by ps4fanboy » Tue, May 24, 2016, 11:36 PM UTC

benologist wrote: post #21

ps4fanboy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an incredibly important distinction, those found not to be valid are asked to return to their country of origin, how many of the people in these centers have been processed and refuse to leave?

Their status is x or it's not. Regardless they must be afforded basic human rights including legal representation that could see their status changed.

Legal representation isnt a human right.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Additionally I haven't seen anything to suggest that the government is denying them from taking on their own legal council?

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#26

Post by ryanlol » Tue, May 24, 2016, 11:38 PM UTC

darkseas wrote: post #23

ryanlol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that many, possibly even most, of these people are not actually refugees. "refugee" is a rather well defined legal term.

Sure, we can't know whether they fit the formal refugee criteria until we assess their claims, but all are subject to offshore processing regardless of their true status. I believe that even those granted refugee status are trapped on Nauru or Manis Island until they agree to resettlement in a third country like Cambodia. The Government has refused to resettle refugees to New Zealand under an agreement brokered by an…

I honestly don't see any issues here. As far as I understand the offshore processing centers aren't very different from what we have here in Europe.

What's wrong with Nauru? or Manis? or Cambodia? These are people fleeing from warzones for gods sake, any of those ought to be an immeasurably large improvement.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#27

Post by benologist » Tue, May 24, 2016, 11:47 PM UTC

ps4fanboy wrote: post #25

benologist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their status is x or it's not. Regardless they must be afforded basic human rights including legal representation that could see their status changed.

Legal representation isnt a human right. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Additionally I haven't seen anything to suggest that the government is denying them from taking on their own legal council?

If you google "australia refugee camps" you will find allegations of rape, abuse, substandard living conditions, lack of medical treatment, indefinite detention and more, denounced by the UN who call it illegal, denounced by Amnesty International who have accused the government of violating ratified rights too. Three people have set themselves on fire to kill themselves, that's not a thing that happens where people are treated humanely.

It's also been made illegal to talk about the conditions of the camp if you work with the guests of the internment camps. That shouldn't even be possible, it's just basic oversight 101.

It's a bit sad that's not a human right yet but that document is a work in progress.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#28

Post by ryanl0l » Tue, May 24, 2016, 11:49 PM UTC

darkseas wrote: post #24

tropo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of treating them as criminals, they could be treated as enemy combatants or terrorists. Better? The basic problem is that they must be stopped. This is not negotiable; Australia has a valuable culture that would be devastated by mass immigration. So, how do you propose to stop them? Well? I will be very surprised if you can come up with anything which does not ultimately require resorting to violence.

I disagree Australian culture would be devastated by mass immigration. Post WW2 immigrants and the Vietnamese boat people of the 70's form an important part of today's culture, even neglecting the almost entirely immigrant population (excepting the Aborigine first inhabitants of course). I am torn trying to find a humane solution that does not cause further traffic, however.

Are you saying Australia would be immune to the same problems certain places in Europe, i.e. Rinkeby, are experiencing?

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#29

Post by ps4fanboy » Wed, May 25, 2016, 12:20 AM UTC

benologist wrote: post #27

ps4fanboy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal representation isnt a human right. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Additionally I haven't seen anything to suggest that the government is denying them from taking on their own legal council?

If you google "australia refugee camps" you will find allegations of rape, abuse, substandard living conditions, lack of medical treatment, indefinite detention and more, denounced by the UN who call it illegal, denounced by Amnesty International who have accused the government of violating ratified rights too. Three people have set themselves on fire to kill themselves, that's not a thing that happens where people a…

Citation needed, but I agree all those things are bad and have nothing to do with the concept of offshore processing, I agree that things should be more transparent but I do not think that would work in the favor of those who are detractors of the scheme. It should also be noted that Saudi Arabia is on the council for human rights with the UN, so I wouldn't hold their opinion very high.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#30

Post by benologist » Wed, May 25, 2016, 12:21 AM UTC

ps4fanboy wrote: post #29

benologist wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you google "australia refugee camps" you will find allegations of rape, abuse, substandard living conditions, lack of medical treatment, indefinite detention and more, denounced by the UN who call it illegal, denounced by Amnesty International who have accused the government of violating ratified rights too. Three people have set themselves on fire to kill themselves, that's not a thing that happens where people a…

Citation needed, but I agree all those things are bad and have nothing to do with the concept of offshore processing, I agree that things should be more transparent but I do not think that would work in the favor of those who are detractors of the scheme. It should also be noted that Saudi Arabia is on the council for human rights with the UN, so I wouldn't hold their opinion very high.

You can google this stuff very easily, it's been reported a lot over the last couple of years.

I also posted a few links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766158

Specific allegations of legal counsel being refused:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/australia-refug...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/31/legal-aid-denie...

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/18/lawyer...

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/02/widow-...