"I heard to the news today, oh boy..."

[kerravonsen]

I have to rant. I am sick and tired of this, this abomination of a government policy, that torments children, violates human rights, and ignores every plea and recommendation to be humane. I'm talking about these bloody detention centres, and how health professionals are saying the children have to be let out, and what does the stone-hearted immigration minister say? We can't do that, because it might "send a message".

You're already sending a message, Mz Immigration Minister. You're sending the message that Australia is a barbarous country, a country to be ashamed of. Not quite as shameful as the USA, but, hey, just add a little torture and we'll catch up very easily. Hey, why not go the whole hog and just shoot illegal immigrants on sight -- that would get rid of the problem, eh? Send the "right" message to those dastardly people smugglers, huh? You make me sick, Amanda Vanstone.

Of what crime are asylum seekers guilty of? What was it -- "queue jumping", wasn't that it? Of course "queue jumping" presumes that one is entitled to be in the queue, but these people aren't, are they? Or, at least, they have to sit around and be "detained" while the grinding wheels of beaurocracy determine whether they were entitled to be in the queue at all, or whether they have to be shoved off. The real crime is, they're guilty of being riff-raff, guilty of being trash, guilty of being poor. Because if you're rich enough, or skilled enough, you can meet the selection criteria and buy your way into Australia, but woe betide you if you aren't, and can't prove that you'd be shot on sight if you were sent back where you came from.

Yes, Australia has the right to say who's allowed in -- legally, anyway. Right now, I'm not sure about the morality of it. Because I don't understand the reasons why they want to keep people out -- except fear and greed. "If we let those lazy buggers in, they'll be on the dole, mark my word!" Hmmm, and what would you prefer -- beggars in the streets, thieves in the night, or government slave labour? Actually, the last one might work, to a degree: you come here illegally, you do community service to make up for it.(*) Surely that would be better than locking people up? After all, "queue jumping" is the kind of offence which deserves nothing more than a slap on the wrist: a fine, or equivalent work, not imprisonment.

Or are you scared that these people are terrorists? Don't be so dim-witted! As if terrorists would use the stupidest method of infiltration. They aren't dumb. Your hypothetical terrorist cells are going to want to look innocent, not suspicious.

How much money is being spent on these detention centres? Wouldn't
it be better spent elsewhere? Gee, maybe it might be enough to cover the cost of the dole for a Certain Number of people? Make friends, instead of enemies? Oh, but I forgot -- that would send the wrong "message".

(*) Except apparently they've added insult to injury by making them do just that -- detention and government slave labour, because they're supposed to "pay back" the cost of them being detained.

Oh, and when I googled "Amanda Vanstone", guess what I found? A penetrating speech accusing her of crimes against humanity. Oh, if only the Attorney General was paying attention!

Comments

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I admire the clarity of your outrage.

Make friends, instead of enemies?

'It's a crazy pan, captain, but it just might work'

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

'It's a crazy pan, captain, but it just might work'

Shouldn't that be: 'It's a crazy pan, captain, but it just might wok'?

::sigh:: Okay, yes, inappropriate humor. It's a coping mechanism. There's just too much pain in the world to take it all in. Perhaps that's one of the reasons this sort of problem remains a problem - because it's so difficult for people to get that close to the pain long enough to find a solution. Hm. Don't know if that makes sense.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't that be: 'It's a crazy pan, captain, but it just might wok'?

I don't often laugh out loud at the Internet, but I just did. How I wish I had said that.

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

Cool. When I can make somebody smile, that really makes my day.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

Wordy McWord.

My flatmate doesn't even see anything wrong with unaccompanied minors being held in detention. She challenged me to list one bad thing the Howard government had done for the country.

*headdesk*

[kerravonsen]

My flatmate doesn't even see anything wrong with unaccompanied minors being held in detention.

*Arrgh!*
Doesn't s/he have a shred of empathy?

Feel free to quote me if you think it will help your flatmate see reason.
Or start quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

We are not better or more generous than other people. Nobody else believes that we are. To the extent that we are thought of at all, we should consider ourselves lucky if we are thought of as Americans without money - but we probably don't rate that high. In this case, we are doing no more and no less than other countries. Everybody does it is a lame excuse I know. But you'll have to convince me that there is some need for us to be better than anyone else. At the moment, we're just wallowing in self-deception.

Fear and greed is a reasonable call. But when I look at the detainees, I see people who at least as greedy and selfish. They have no right to the wealth of my country. I put them on a moral level with a barbarian invasion. But though their actions, they have knowingly poisoned the well for genuine refugees from the next conflict. They have corroded the rules of humanity at sea so many ships will no longer collect survivors. And they are promoting a global trade in people smuggling, in slavery and human misery.

Yes, some of them have indeed proven to be terrorists and have committed terrible crimes. I don't think that this is any more than an excuse. Yes, the detention - particularly the "Pacific Solution' (an American idea - they keep Haitians at Guantanamo Bay) - is incredibly costly and inefficient. I don't think economic rationalism is more than an excuse either.

This is the only country I have. I'm not giving it away.

[drednort.livejournal.com]

A couple of comments.

First of all, remember that mandatory detention was introduced by a Labor government. The coalition under John Howard inherited this system, they did not create it.

Secondly, most cases are resolved relatively quickly (though not as quickly as is ideal). The system was designed to deal with the number of arrivals occurring in the early 1990s - by the year 2000 the number was 5 times as high and that created a delay.

If a person is able to identify themselves and their status as a person genuinely entitled to seek asylum can be established, they tend to spend only a relatively short period in detention.

The cases where people have spent much longer periods in detention are generally cases where a persons status cannot be determined for some reason - often because their identity cannot be established with certainty - or cases where their initial claim for asylum has been denied and they are going through the appeal process.

Releasing those who cannot be identified is a security risk - not so much for the people who arrive now, but because if people knew that they would not be detained until their status was determined, we would face a much higher probability that those we want to keep out - criminals and terrorists - would try to enter this country via this route. As it is, very few criminals or terrorists even make an attempt because they are aware they will be held until they are identified and so they will not gain entry to this country. Without mandatory detention, they are far more likely to try. And both criminals and known terrorists have tried to gain entry in this way on occasions - they have attempted to use this 'method of infiltration'. Whether that makes them stupid or not is an open question - but it has happened.

Thirdly, dissuading the people smugglers is a worthwhile goal. The vast majority of these people are parasites who prey on incredibly vulnerable people and put their lives in jeapordy to make a quick buck.

I'm not a big fan of mandatory detention - but there are real problems with abandoning it, and so far, nobody seems to want to address that issue. It's not as simple as just stopping mandatory detention - people need to propose workable alternatives that will not make this country more vulnerable to inflitration by criminals (terrorists are a concern as well - but, in fact, the more immediate concern is the fact that known rapists and murderers have attempted to gain entry).

I'd certainly like to see children released from mandatory detention - but the reason that hasn't happened is mostly because of the prominence of the 'stolen generations' issue, IMHO. Can you imagine the outcry if the Howard government enacted any policy that advocated the wholesale removal of any group of children from the custody of their parents?

The issue is not a simple one. But it's not about money - that's a minor concern from a few rednecks. The primary issue is security.

[kerravonsen]

(sigh) This just makes it terribly disheartening and depressing. (sigh)

[kerravonsen]

The reason is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To which we are a signatory. Which we are violating.

People smugglers are scum. Why don't we punish them then, instead of their victims?

This is the only country I have. I'm not giving it away.

Huh? "giving it away"? As a member of a democracy, it's my duty to protest about wrong policies. How on earth can you equate that with "giving away" my country? It's because I care about my country that I want the policies to change.

[drednort.livejournal.com]

It is depressing.

But if there was a simple solution to this, it probably would have been found by now. Nations all over the world are looking, and are trying a wide range of different potential solutions. All of them have problems of various sorts.

One of the issue is though that the government has a moral duty to protect the 20 million people already in this country, as well as any moral duty to those arriving here in need.

If it was just genuine refugees arriving - and most of them are - it'd be very simple. Because genuine refugees don't pose any particular threat to anyone else. Indeed, experience shows that most actually contribute a great deal to this country in the long term.

But there are a small minority of people who seek to come here in an attempt to escape justice in their own countries for genuine crimes. And a small minority of people who seek to come here to do us harm.

The biggest problem is that criminals and terrorists don't come with warning labels.

As I've said, I don't like mandatory detention - but if people want it to go away, then we need to come up with other solutions to the potential problems it was developed to deal with. It's not enough to just dislike it, in my opinion.

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

The clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at issue here refers to arbitrary detention without due process of law. Courts in Australia and overseas have held that detention is not without due process. Ironically, detention was made mandatory by the former government to avoid being arbitrary.

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem is that criminals and terrorists don't come with warning labels.
But even if they do... a self-confessed murderer managed to get a High Court order that being a murderer does not necessarily make him a Bad Character within the meaning of the Immigration Act. The court referred his case back to a flabbergasted Senator Vanstone.

[m0n90053.livejournal.com]

I'm an American. I can't tell you for sure how all Americans feel about the actions of Lynddie English & Co., but I can tell you that I and a goodly number of people whom I know are rightly outraged.
Just as we are and have been outraged at US involvement in Iraq, and before that, Afghanistan, and before that anywhere else that should be on the list where our noses had no business but big business being stuck into.
George W. Bush has interposed US military forces into an already tense, violent, and abhorrent situation in the name of making it possible for his CEO buddies at the heads of various corporations to make a few more bucks.
'Dubya' is bad, his buddies are bad, but please don't go thinking that all Americans are like him nor that we unequivocally support his actions.

[kerravonsen]

please don't go thinking that all Americans are like him nor that we unequivocally support his actions

Of course not. Any more than all Australians support the inhumane actions of our government. The examples are analogous.

[m0n90053.livejournal.com]

I figured that, it just seemed like maybe it needed to be said. Or maybe I'm just too used to living in the midst of Americans; many of us know better than to make such sweeping generalizations, but there are also many who do not.