Hi there,
from now onwards, my blog can be found at
http://probablynotinteresting.wordpress.com/
why have i moved??
it's prettier, and more user-friendly. that's good enough for me!
i hope you will keep reading :)
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Electric shock therapy, anyone...?
DIAC CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authorising Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for mentally ill detainees.
Long term detainees in psychiatric hospitals whose mental state continues to deteriorate in detention are now being threatened with Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The treatment involves passing an electric current across part of the head, causing the brain to have a seizure (convulsion).
http://www.virtualpsychcentre.com/news.asp?artid=9017
ABSTRACT
“In a stunning reversal, an article in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology in January 2007 by prominent researcher Harold Sackeim of Columbia University reveals that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) causes permanent amnesia and permanent deficits in cognitive abilities, which affect individuals' ability to function.
This study provides the first evidence in a large, prospective sample that adverse cognitive effects can persist for an extended period, and that they characterize routine treatment with ECT in community settings," the study notes.”
The most important side-effect of ECT is its effect on memory. During the course of ECT most patients will experience forgetfulness and loss of short-term memory especially around the time of treatment. Many people will also notice that they can't remember certain things that have occurred in their lives for up to 6 or 12 months before treatment. This type of memory loss does not always return fully. People contemplating ECT should discuss potential memory effects with their doctor before proceeding.
“Asylum Seekers in their interrogation by Immigration Department (DIAC) officers are expected to remember every detail of their lives and the reasons why they fled their country. In order to validate their stories, they are expected to be able details such as how many people were in the room in which they were tortured, all physical details of the room, times, dates of events etc.” says Pamela Curr of the ASRC “If their memories have been obliterated by ECT, how can they validate their stories, how can they make DIAC and the Refugee Tribunal believe them if they can’t remember what happened.”
“DIAC’s role in authorising treatment which diminishes the capacity of an asylum seeker to make a claim for asylum is a direct conflict of interest.”
Patient 1 in Toowong Hospital was recommended for ECT until DIAC stopped it after advocates expressed their concern and dismay in November 2006. He is still in hospital awaiting a decision. His treating psychiatrist has stated that he is too sick to travel.
Patient 2. The Minister has refused his visa however DIAC have decided not to tell him because he is suicidal. He remains in hospital under close observation.
Patient 3. This man has had 6 ECT treatments and now cannot remember if he has a 417 before the Minister or at what stage his process is. He now has confusion and memory loss. Before detention he was a highly qualified IT technician.
Patient 4. This woman collapsed into unconsciousness in Port Augusta Housing because no one had noticed that she was so depressed that she had neither eaten nor drunk anything for ten days. She is currently threatened with ECT.
"These patients who were well, stable individuals until they were placed in long term detention centres are now terribly depressed. Psychiatrists have written reports indicating that recovery is not possible while their futures are insecure. They have also advised that these patients are not fit to travel. Rather than release them from detention, DIAC are choosing ECT. DIAC are approving a course of treatment which places at risk the mental faculties of people whose very survival depends on their capacity to remember and convince bureaucrats by the acuity of this faculty. They are killing their chances of being believed,” Curr continues.
_______________________________________________
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Rot is Spreading...
Hi there,
Well, one of my colleagues from Dublin has moved to Germany in the second semester of the Masters, and he has been asked to write an essay on refugee policy in Australia. Naturally, he called in support from his good friend Jessie! Anyway, I gave him a lot of documents and things to read, and he wrote me an email in an attempt to clarify some questions. He said "i'm sorry if these sound like stupid questions but I'm confused", and then hit me with the following very good questions...
----
Outsourced Detention Centres:
According to the Migration Amendment Bill (2006), the Australian government will use outsourced detention centres on Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru.
1) Manus Island and Nauru are not signatories to either the Refugees convention nor the protocol on the status of refugees, therefore they are not obliged by conventional law to follow international standards for the treatment of refugees. However, according to the UNHCR, "States not signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol do not have treaty obligations but still have obligations under international law regarding the treatment of refugees" ( http://www.unhcr.org.uk/info/briefings/basic_facts/obligations.html). What governs this "other" international law? What is it? And are Nauru and the Manus Islands still obliged to follow it?
2) During the Tampa Affair, the Tampa was barred from entering the waters of the Australian protectorate of Christmas Island; according to conventional law, doing so would oblige Australia to provide refugee status to the stranded boatpeople. And yet, now the Australian government wants to use Christmas Island as a detention centre. How is this possible? How will it not oblige the Australian government to provide protective visas and status?
General Malaise:
Help me out here. It seems that the Australian government has violated the following legally binding documents:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Article 14.1 "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
Convention on the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951), ratified by Australia on 22 Jan, 1954. Various violations including non refoulment, persecution, etc.
The Australian "Migration Act" of 1958. Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, Australian refugee policy was in violation of its own laws, including: Section 4 – "Minors shall be detained only as a last resort" – and section 36 – "a non citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol"
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (4 October 1967), ratified by Australia on 13 Dec, 1973. See above stanza.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR') (1966), ratified by Australia on 13 Nov, 1980. Article 9 expressly forbids "arbitrary detention," which Australia started doing in 1992
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2 Sep 1990), ratified by Australia on 17 Dec, 1990. Article 37 expressly forbids detention of children in all cases but as a last resort, which in the case of Australian detention centres it is not.
What am I missing?
----
An interesting email, full of good questions, I'm sure you'll agree! If you're interested, I'll post the answers in the comment section.
As you can see, Australia's behaviour is beginning to gain the negative attention of the international community.
I also wanted to point out this article in The Age today, which speaks volumes into the above questions....
----
Sri Lankans look set to be moved to Nauru
A GROUP of Sri Lankan asylum seekers looks set to be processed on the Pacific Island of Nauru after Indonesia said it would simply return them to their homeland if it were asked to deal with the 83 men.
The Howard Government was told from the start the Sri Lankans would be immediately repatriated and prevented from making asylum claims if they were transferred to Indonesia, senior Indonesian officials have stated.
Contradicting claims by Australian ministers that they were waiting to find out if Jakarta would allow the asylum seekers to make claims through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Indonesia Foreign Ministry spokesman Desra Percaya said Canberra knew this was never an option.
Asked why Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was yesterday still claiming he is awaiting Indonesia's decision, Mr Percaya said: "I would suggest you ask Mr Downer himself."
Mr Downer said yesterday the Government had not made a final decision on where to send the refugees if Indonesia formally refused, but Nauru was most likely.
"If they decide that they don't want the processing to take place in Indonesia then obviously one of the options for us is to have them processed in Nauru," Mr Downer said in Adelaide.
"These people will be processed according to law and according to Australia's obligations under the refugee convention," he said.
Mr Downer has repeatedly said Australia would not transfer the Sri Lankans to Indonesia if they could not claim asylum there. The men were intercepted off Christmas Island last week after sailing from Indonesia.
Last Friday, Australian officials proposed the plan to quickly send the 83 Sri Lankans home, via Indonesia, to avoid asylum claims — as Indonesia is not a signatory to the United Nations refugee convention.
Indonesia and Sri Lanka agreed to the proposal. Sri Lankan ambassador to Indonesia, Janaka Perera, confirmed Australian officials had provided details of the plans for quick repatriation.
Mr Percaya yesterday said Canberra knew then that Indonesia would not allow the Sri Lankans to have access to UNHCR procedures. "Between Canberra and Jakarta contact has been established right from the time the incident happened," he said. "We expressed our position, we made it very clear."
"We made it clear we are ready to receive them back in Indonesia with the understanding that they are going to be sent back to their country of origin and secondly we are not ready for international organisations to be involved."
As Indonesia was not a party to the refugee convention "we don't have any obligation under this convention to process them in Indonesia", Mr Percaya said.
At the meeting in Jakarta last Friday, Australian officials said Indonesia could justify returning the asylum seekers to Sri Lanka as they had arrived in Indonesia illegally. They also said the Sri Lankans should be returned as quickly as possible to prevent them lodging asylum claims.
When Canberra's plan was revealed in The Age, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews guaranteed that Australia would protect their rights under the convention to seek asylum and they would not be forcibly returned to face persecution. Mr Downer arrives in Indonesia tomorrow and will hold talks on the Sri Lankan case and the broader issues surrounding people smuggling.
Australia is concerned about the prospect of a new flood of asylum seekers, with an estimated 5000 Sri Lankans in the region having fled.
Refugee groups fear for the men if they are returned to Sri Lanka because of the ongoing civil war between the government and rebel Tamil Tigers.
With AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sri-lankans-to-be-moved-to-nauru/2007/03/02/1172338882574.html
----
Well, one of my colleagues from Dublin has moved to Germany in the second semester of the Masters, and he has been asked to write an essay on refugee policy in Australia. Naturally, he called in support from his good friend Jessie! Anyway, I gave him a lot of documents and things to read, and he wrote me an email in an attempt to clarify some questions. He said "i'm sorry if these sound like stupid questions but I'm confused", and then hit me with the following very good questions...
----
Outsourced Detention Centres:
According to the Migration Amendment Bill (2006), the Australian government will use outsourced detention centres on Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru.
1) Manus Island and Nauru are not signatories to either the Refugees convention nor the protocol on the status of refugees, therefore they are not obliged by conventional law to follow international standards for the treatment of refugees. However, according to the UNHCR, "States not signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol do not have treaty obligations but still have obligations under international law regarding the treatment of refugees" ( http://www.unhcr.org.uk/info/briefings/basic_facts/obligations.html). What governs this "other" international law? What is it? And are Nauru and the Manus Islands still obliged to follow it?
2) During the Tampa Affair, the Tampa was barred from entering the waters of the Australian protectorate of Christmas Island; according to conventional law, doing so would oblige Australia to provide refugee status to the stranded boatpeople. And yet, now the Australian government wants to use Christmas Island as a detention centre. How is this possible? How will it not oblige the Australian government to provide protective visas and status?
General Malaise:
Help me out here. It seems that the Australian government has violated the following legally binding documents:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Article 14.1 "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
Convention on the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951), ratified by Australia on 22 Jan, 1954. Various violations including non refoulment, persecution, etc.
The Australian "Migration Act" of 1958. Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, Australian refugee policy was in violation of its own laws, including: Section 4 – "Minors shall be detained only as a last resort" – and section 36 – "a non citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol"
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (4 October 1967), ratified by Australia on 13 Dec, 1973. See above stanza.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR') (1966), ratified by Australia on 13 Nov, 1980. Article 9 expressly forbids "arbitrary detention," which Australia started doing in 1992
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2 Sep 1990), ratified by Australia on 17 Dec, 1990. Article 37 expressly forbids detention of children in all cases but as a last resort, which in the case of Australian detention centres it is not.
What am I missing?
----
An interesting email, full of good questions, I'm sure you'll agree! If you're interested, I'll post the answers in the comment section.
As you can see, Australia's behaviour is beginning to gain the negative attention of the international community.
I also wanted to point out this article in The Age today, which speaks volumes into the above questions....
----
Sri Lankans look set to be moved to Nauru
A GROUP of Sri Lankan asylum seekers looks set to be processed on the Pacific Island of Nauru after Indonesia said it would simply return them to their homeland if it were asked to deal with the 83 men.
The Howard Government was told from the start the Sri Lankans would be immediately repatriated and prevented from making asylum claims if they were transferred to Indonesia, senior Indonesian officials have stated.
Contradicting claims by Australian ministers that they were waiting to find out if Jakarta would allow the asylum seekers to make claims through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Indonesia Foreign Ministry spokesman Desra Percaya said Canberra knew this was never an option.
Asked why Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was yesterday still claiming he is awaiting Indonesia's decision, Mr Percaya said: "I would suggest you ask Mr Downer himself."
Mr Downer said yesterday the Government had not made a final decision on where to send the refugees if Indonesia formally refused, but Nauru was most likely.
"If they decide that they don't want the processing to take place in Indonesia then obviously one of the options for us is to have them processed in Nauru," Mr Downer said in Adelaide.
"These people will be processed according to law and according to Australia's obligations under the refugee convention," he said.
Mr Downer has repeatedly said Australia would not transfer the Sri Lankans to Indonesia if they could not claim asylum there. The men were intercepted off Christmas Island last week after sailing from Indonesia.
Last Friday, Australian officials proposed the plan to quickly send the 83 Sri Lankans home, via Indonesia, to avoid asylum claims — as Indonesia is not a signatory to the United Nations refugee convention.
Indonesia and Sri Lanka agreed to the proposal. Sri Lankan ambassador to Indonesia, Janaka Perera, confirmed Australian officials had provided details of the plans for quick repatriation.
Mr Percaya yesterday said Canberra knew then that Indonesia would not allow the Sri Lankans to have access to UNHCR procedures. "Between Canberra and Jakarta contact has been established right from the time the incident happened," he said. "We expressed our position, we made it very clear."
"We made it clear we are ready to receive them back in Indonesia with the understanding that they are going to be sent back to their country of origin and secondly we are not ready for international organisations to be involved."
As Indonesia was not a party to the refugee convention "we don't have any obligation under this convention to process them in Indonesia", Mr Percaya said.
At the meeting in Jakarta last Friday, Australian officials said Indonesia could justify returning the asylum seekers to Sri Lanka as they had arrived in Indonesia illegally. They also said the Sri Lankans should be returned as quickly as possible to prevent them lodging asylum claims.
When Canberra's plan was revealed in The Age, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews guaranteed that Australia would protect their rights under the convention to seek asylum and they would not be forcibly returned to face persecution. Mr Downer arrives in Indonesia tomorrow and will hold talks on the Sri Lankan case and the broader issues surrounding people smuggling.
Australia is concerned about the prospect of a new flood of asylum seekers, with an estimated 5000 Sri Lankans in the region having fled.
Refugee groups fear for the men if they are returned to Sri Lanka because of the ongoing civil war between the government and rebel Tamil Tigers.
With AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sri-lankans-to-be-moved-to-nauru/2007/03/02/1172338882574.html
----
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Some light relief!
Hey,
So I think this is a bit unfair, to bash Americans so shamelessly... but serioulsy - this is SO funny! I love those Chaser lads :) I wonder if this would have turned out differently if it were on the streets of Sydney... I hope so... Anyway, enjoy!
So I think this is a bit unfair, to bash Americans so shamelessly... but serioulsy - this is SO funny! I love those Chaser lads :) I wonder if this would have turned out differently if it were on the streets of Sydney... I hope so... Anyway, enjoy!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
France. I love/hate this place.
Along the bumpy road of language learning, there are a few essential pitstops. These are designed to test you, to see how proficient you are, and whether you can hold your own in said language. They include (in vague chronological order):
- Being able to order food;
- Being able to hold a phone conversation;
- Being able to count to 100 (in french, instead of saying '97' you say '4 20 17', meaning (4x20)+17. ridiculous);
- Being able to begin a sentence without already having planned the end of it;
- Being able to watch (and understand) television;
- Being able to navigate oneself through the impenetrable maze of European higher education bureaucracy;
- Being able to follow courses in advanced international humanitarian law and geopolitics; and... my favourite...
- Being able to engage in a shouting match with a real estate agent.
These last three items have pretty much been the flavour of my time here thus far. Uni bureaucracy? Oh my gosh.. They make me laugh and make me cry (like the Hunters & Collectors song). Following the classes? Wow. I knew it would be tough but I had no idea. My brain hurts. Pretty much all the time. And the real estate agent... let's just say the other day I was sitting in my room and suddenly 3 total strangers walked in! The landlady has sold the house, and the future owners decide fairly often to come over to take photos / get the electricals fixed / install an alarm / show their friends. They have been here for at least an hour every day this week! They just randomly pop over and let themselves in with a key! So tonight my housemate Leila and I decided to request that they desist... Let's just say that hell hath no fury like a real estate agent scorned.
Here's a picture of the Law Faculty of the Université Paul Cézanne - Aix-Marseille III:
I know it's quite a lot prettier than my uni in Australia (Monash), but the utterly shambolic disorganisation leaves me yearning for the comfort and familiar surrounds of the concrete-covered Clayton wind tunnel. Anyway, I won't elaborate because I'll cry, and you'll hate me for coming to France and then whining about not having any handouts. And having 48 hours of class per week. And not getting the timetable for each week until the Saturday evening before. And finding out that I had a room reserved for me in the student housing for 140 euros a month instead of the 400 I'm paying now because the uni forgot to tell me. And having classes on Saturdays. And having days where there are 10 hours of class scheduled with no breaks. Whoops. I'm complaining...! I'll stop.
Obviously, living in France has its perks! *Everything* tastes better here. I love walking down the little narrow streets and looking upwards, to see what wonders await my investigation. There are crepe sellers on every corner. People speak French. There are new and exciting things in the supermarkets, including brands of sugar I recognise from when I was a kid. OH! And Ebly - which is wheat, but you cook it like rice and it is sooo good. Shown here:
OK I think that's enough random photographic entertainment for now. I'll try to be better at writing blogs!
And please - if you haven't taken any action on those Sri Lankan asylum seekers... get onto it!
A la prochaine,
:) Jessie
The Sri Lankan asylum seekers - please act now!
Points to make:
* These are young men, most of whom are aged 22 & 23 years, the oldest
is 28 years;
* Some have been held, tortured and beaten in Camps in Jaffna because
they are Tamil;
See http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/2/12541.html
* In reality many are computer and accounting students and at least
one is a high School student aged 17years;
* Their families raised the money to send them to safety in an attempt
to save their lives;
Sri Lanka is in civil conflict
See
http://www.amnesty.org.au/news_features/news/refugee/sri_lanka_560,000_displaced_people_suffer_effects_of_intensifying_violence
* It is too dangerous to send them to India because the Sri Lankan Navy
sinks Tamil boats on the basis that they are all Tamil Tigers - not all are;
See http://english.people.com.cn/200609/25/eng20060925_306127.html
and http://www.colombopage.com/archive_07/February16140946CH.html
* If they are captured they are forced to serve in the Sri Lankan
military fighting Tamils; Understandably they do not want to do this;
See http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/genocide95/gen9560.htm
* They came to Australia legitimately seeking asylum. Under the Refugee
Convention to which we are signatory, Australia is obliged to receive them
and assess their claim.
* They should be provided with legal advice and counselling immediately.
* Many are traumatised from beatings and torture received in detention
camps in Sri Lanka they need counselling and legal advice.
Please ring Kevin Rudds office urgently:
Tel: (02) 6277 4022
Fax: (02) 6277 8495
Email: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
Tel: (07) 3899 4031
Fax: (07) 3899 5755
Labor must stand up for the Refugee Convention and demand that Howard
allow these young men to make their claims and to properly assess those
claims.
End this secret incommunicado detention!
Pamela Curr
ASRC Melbourne.
* These are young men, most of whom are aged 22 & 23 years, the oldest
is 28 years;
* Some have been held, tortured and beaten in Camps in Jaffna because
they are Tamil;
See http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/2/12541.html
* In reality many are computer and accounting students and at least
one is a high School student aged 17years;
* Their families raised the money to send them to safety in an attempt
to save their lives;
Sri Lanka is in civil conflict
See
http://www.amnesty.org.au/news_features/news/refugee/sri_lanka_560,000_displaced_people_suffer_effects_of_intensifying_violence
* It is too dangerous to send them to India because the Sri Lankan Navy
sinks Tamil boats on the basis that they are all Tamil Tigers - not all are;
See http://english.people.com.cn/200609/25/eng20060925_306127.html
and http://www.colombopage.com/archive_07/February16140946CH.html
* If they are captured they are forced to serve in the Sri Lankan
military fighting Tamils; Understandably they do not want to do this;
See http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/genocide95/gen9560.htm
* They came to Australia legitimately seeking asylum. Under the Refugee
Convention to which we are signatory, Australia is obliged to receive them
and assess their claim.
* They should be provided with legal advice and counselling immediately.
* Many are traumatised from beatings and torture received in detention
camps in Sri Lanka they need counselling and legal advice.
Please ring Kevin Rudds office urgently:
Tel: (02) 6277 4022
Fax: (02) 6277 8495
Email: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au
Tel: (07) 3899 4031
Fax: (07) 3899 5755
Labor must stand up for the Refugee Convention and demand that Howard
allow these young men to make their claims and to properly assess those
claims.
End this secret incommunicado detention!
Pamela Curr
ASRC Melbourne.
Friday, February 23, 2007
***TAKE URGENT ACTION TO PREVENT APPALLING TREATMENT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS***
Hi there everyone,
We have a little bit of a situation which would benefit from 2 minutes of your time.
You may be aware that a few days ago, the Australian Navy intercepted a boatload of 83 Sri Lankan asylum seekers off the coast of Australia, just near Christmas Island.
In a massive contravention of customary international law, human rights law, humanitarian law and Australia's self-assumed treaty obligations, the Howard government has made secret arrangements with Indonesia to send the asylum seekers immediately back to Indonesia, from whence they will be sent back to Sri Lanka. (Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/deal-to-send-boat-people-packing/2007/02/23/1171734021096.html)
Howard has categorically refused to let the men so much as lodge their applications for asylum in Australia, which is their rights under the law of Australia AND international law. Remember, ***arriving in Australia unauthorised, by boat, even with no papers, is NOT illegal!
Sending people back to a place where they may suffer persecution is called 'refoulement', and it is strictly and unambiguously prohibited under international law as a fundamental principle aimed at protecting the rights and the lives of the world's most vulnerable people.
Let's also remember that the Government has just completed work on an 800-bed $360 million detention facility on Christmas Island. It is ready and waiting to receive these asylum seekers, and although i abhor the existence of such a facility, it is vastly preferable that it should be put to use while these men's claims are processed, rather than sending them back to a situation of grave danger.
It is a serious concern that our Government has decided that this kind of behaviour is OK, especially in light of the fact that it has been proven that at least 9 men and 3 children have been killed upon return from Australia to their homelands in recent years.
PLEASE TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO SEND A BRIEF EMAIL TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS.
Here are a few points you may like to make:
* "Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" Article 14, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* Article 33 of the 1951 Refugees Convention *ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITS* sending people back to a country or territory where they may face danger. This is exactly what we're about to do!
* These 83 people are the first asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australia in over a year. Some areas in Europe get 1500 asylum seekers A DAY!
* Some of the poorest countries in the world are the most generous hosts of asylum seekers. Ethiopia, Eritrea etc... Iran and Pakistan both hold over 2 million refugees each. Australia takes 0.05% of the world's refugee burden.
* Historically, asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia are found to be genuine refugees in 92% of cases. Think about it like this: people don't uproot their lives, leave their families and get in a leaky boat for 10 days to travel to a strange country unless they are SERIOUS about the dangers that face them at home.
The Government:
PM John Howard - you'll have to contact him using this form: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm
Kevin.Andrews.MP@aph.gov.au - Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.
AND your local member of the Liberal Party:
using this form... http://www.aec.gov.au/esearch/main.htm
And Labor:
Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) Leader. Let him know that you do not support Howard's approach, and you'd be interested to see what his approach would be. Encourage him to OPPOSE this stunt and provide a strong, principled alternative.
Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) co-leader of Labor party.
Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) Shadow Immigration Spokesman. Would be immigration minister if Labor wins the election. He is generally very open to dialogue and reasonableness but we have yet to see what happens when the rubber hits the road! Encourage him, as well, to take a strong, vocal stand against this awful behaviour.
Thanks very much for reading. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me!
Jessie
We have a little bit of a situation which would benefit from 2 minutes of your time.
You may be aware that a few days ago, the Australian Navy intercepted a boatload of 83 Sri Lankan asylum seekers off the coast of Australia, just near Christmas Island.
In a massive contravention of customary international law, human rights law, humanitarian law and Australia's self-assumed treaty obligations, the Howard government has made secret arrangements with Indonesia to send the asylum seekers immediately back to Indonesia, from whence they will be sent back to Sri Lanka. (Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/deal-to-send-boat-people-packing/2007/02/23/1171734021096.html)
Howard has categorically refused to let the men so much as lodge their applications for asylum in Australia, which is their rights under the law of Australia AND international law. Remember, ***arriving in Australia unauthorised, by boat, even with no papers, is NOT illegal!
Sending people back to a place where they may suffer persecution is called 'refoulement', and it is strictly and unambiguously prohibited under international law as a fundamental principle aimed at protecting the rights and the lives of the world's most vulnerable people.
Let's also remember that the Government has just completed work on an 800-bed $360 million detention facility on Christmas Island. It is ready and waiting to receive these asylum seekers, and although i abhor the existence of such a facility, it is vastly preferable that it should be put to use while these men's claims are processed, rather than sending them back to a situation of grave danger.
It is a serious concern that our Government has decided that this kind of behaviour is OK, especially in light of the fact that it has been proven that at least 9 men and 3 children have been killed upon return from Australia to their homelands in recent years.
PLEASE TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO SEND A BRIEF EMAIL TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS.
Here are a few points you may like to make:
* "Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" Article 14, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* Article 33 of the 1951 Refugees Convention *ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITS* sending people back to a country or territory where they may face danger. This is exactly what we're about to do!
* These 83 people are the first asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australia in over a year. Some areas in Europe get 1500 asylum seekers A DAY!
* Some of the poorest countries in the world are the most generous hosts of asylum seekers. Ethiopia, Eritrea etc... Iran and Pakistan both hold over 2 million refugees each. Australia takes 0.05% of the world's refugee burden.
* Historically, asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia are found to be genuine refugees in 92% of cases. Think about it like this: people don't uproot their lives, leave their families and get in a leaky boat for 10 days to travel to a strange country unless they are SERIOUS about the dangers that face them at home.
The Government:
PM John Howard - you'll have to contact him using this form: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm
Kevin.Andrews.MP@aph.gov.au - Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.
AND your local member of the Liberal Party:
using this form... http://www.aec.gov.au/esearch/main.htm
And Labor:
Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) Leader. Let him know that you do not support Howard's approach, and you'd be interested to see what his approach would be. Encourage him to OPPOSE this stunt and provide a strong, principled alternative.
Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) co-leader of Labor party.
Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) Shadow Immigration Spokesman. Would be immigration minister if Labor wins the election. He is generally very open to dialogue and reasonableness but we have yet to see what happens when the rubber hits the road! Encourage him, as well, to take a strong, vocal stand against this awful behaviour.
Thanks very much for reading. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me!
Jessie
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Slightly off the topic...
I know I'm supposed to be waxing lyrical about the beauty of southern France (and I will, I promise!), but I'm afraid this is taking precedence at the moment! This evening something landed in my inbox which I feel compelled to share with you all.
You may know that the Australian Government has just spent $360million on a shiny new detention facility on Christmas Island. Its capacity is 800 people, and it has purpose built rooms designed to hold children. Does the idea of imprisoning innocent, already traumatised children not quite sit right, or is it just me...?
Also, the figure of $360million is particularly interesting when you consider that EIGHT people have arrived unauthorised in Australian territory by boat in the last 12 months. (Those people - Burmese - are being held on Nauru, anyway, at an ADDITIONAL cost to Australian taxpayers). Anyway, if we divide these 8 people into the $360m, we come up with the princely sum of $45million per head. Woweee. That is some hella expensive accommodation, even if it IS in the name of border protection! Do you think it's worth it?
In fact, if we generously divide the $360m by 12,000 (the number of unauthorised boat arrivals over the past TEN YEARS - the entire duration of Howard's term in office), we come up with the not-insignificant figure of $30,000 per head. That might be worthwhile (at a stretch) if the 12,000 were dodgey brothers or terrorists, but remember that upwards of 90% of them have been found to be genuine refugees, fleeing persecution and in desperate need of protection. For a government which prides itself on good economic management, I have to say I think a preschooler of less-than-average intelligence would do a better job.
Anyway, here is a photograph of said detention facility. Can you imagine its isolation, and its separation from mainland Australia, legal assistance, community support, media, and the lifeline of visitors... This is a system purpose-built to traumatise and discourage people to the extent that they would rather risk torture and death at home, than wait out access to the rights they hold under Australian law, treaty law and customary international law. Deterrence has always factored highly in the government’s motivation. Julian Burnside QC often comments on this idea of deterrence, and his argument follows thus: "Mr. Ruddock and Mr. Howard have made it clear that the mandatory detention system, and the iniquitous Pacific Solution, are designed to "send a message". This decodes as: we treat innocent people harshly to deter others. The punishment of innocent people to shape the behaviour of others is impossible to justify. It is the philosophy of hostage-takers."
Although Burnside is accused from time to time of engaging in hyperbole, his rationale in this instance is difficult to fault. The Executive Committee of the UNHCR has also made a comment on the use of detention for anything other than a legitimate administrative purpose, concluding that "detention of asylum seekers which is applied… as part of a policy to deter future asylum seekers, or to dissuade those who have commenced their claims from pursuing them, is contrary to the norms of refugee law. It should not be used as a punitive or disciplinary measure for illegal entry or presence in the country".
What do we have to say about that, Messrs Howard & Ruddock...?
I'm in Europe at the moment, studying international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. More often that I care to mention, Australia is cited as an example of a country which drastically misinterprets an twists the meanings of the rights and obligations enshrined under international law in this field, and we are rapidly becoming a laughing stock and a worst-case-scenario when it comes to respecting human rights.
This is a Federal election year. Enough said. Let your ballot do the talking. This kind of (extremely expensive!) cruelty is not OK!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Afternoon in Dublin...
Well, today has been my last day in Dublin before moving to France early tomorrow morning. I wandered into college to meet up with some friends for a farewell hoorah. As sometimes happens around these parts, the light in the late afternoon was just beautiful and I wanted to take some photos. So here they are...
I won't write anything more now. Once I've finished writing this crazy essay I will get back into writing more often. See you in France!
Jess
I won't write anything more now. Once I've finished writing this crazy essay I will get back into writing more often. See you in France!
Jess
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Back in Europe, Back in Gear!
Hey there,
I've taken a bit of an extended hiatus over my 2 month holiday in Australia. It was only supposed to be 3.5 weeks, but then my trip was extended due to unforeseen circumstances. I arrived back in Ireland yesterday, the plane descending over snow covered hills and through grey skies, so a not-so-welcoming temperature of 0 degrees celsius!
As an homage to Australian weather, I think I'll post some photos of my holiday, the things I got up to, the fun I had. Just to delay the whole having-to-write a substantial blog thing.
I'm off to France on Wednesday to start uni again. Not feeling terribly in the mood for school, but hopefully that'll change sooner rather than later. Only one semester of coursework to go in my whole life... come on!
I'll write more again soon! Enjoy the photos.
Love Jess
I've taken a bit of an extended hiatus over my 2 month holiday in Australia. It was only supposed to be 3.5 weeks, but then my trip was extended due to unforeseen circumstances. I arrived back in Ireland yesterday, the plane descending over snow covered hills and through grey skies, so a not-so-welcoming temperature of 0 degrees celsius!
As an homage to Australian weather, I think I'll post some photos of my holiday, the things I got up to, the fun I had. Just to delay the whole having-to-write a substantial blog thing.
I'm off to France on Wednesday to start uni again. Not feeling terribly in the mood for school, but hopefully that'll change sooner rather than later. Only one semester of coursework to go in my whole life... come on!
I'll write more again soon! Enjoy the photos.
Love Jess
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)