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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)