more West Papua info

Apr 10, 2006

more West Papua info – UPDATED

This post contains links to a few more articles providing background on the West Papua issue. Some of them were provided in comments on previous posts, but I know not everyone follows the comments threads on these posts, so I thought I’d re-present them here. Also, for people in Melbourne on the night of Thursday 13th April (not Wednesday 12th as previously posted here), there is a West Papua benefit concert at the Grand Central Club,293 Swan St Richmond,Corner of Swan St and Coppin St, featuring West Papuan musicians (who apart from anything, can sing magnificently). Herman Wanggai is also going to speak, but its mainly music.Tickets can be bought through www.moshtix.com.au

For anyone interested in the history of West Papua, there is a series of detailed articles on the Webdairy site – the latest of which is here. The history is important, as it helps us to understand the present. However, history also includes the fact Indonesian sovereignty has been recognised globally for over 35 years.

For balance, here’s a piece from The Age by Indonesia’s Consul-General putting that government’s offical position.

This post on the blog of Courier-Mail foreign editor, David Costello, gives his view on the situation. He describes the current Indonesian government as reformist and ‘basically decent’, but none the less also states “the fact is that West Papua is a great historical tragedy. It will not go away and Canberra and Jakarta will have to deal with some unpleasant truths.”

There’s two pieces from the Weekend Australian – one by Patrick Walters and one by Greg Sheridan.

This piece from the Sydney Morning Herald contains the interesting information that Australian authorities were alerted that 43 Papuan asylum seekers had left Indonesia five days before they landed at Cape York, yet failed to inform Jakarta of the development. This raises echoes for me of the SIEV X incident, and will undoubtedly add to Indonesian beliefs that Australia is engaged in double standards.

UPDATE:

This piece in The Age by Hugh White – “Our Duty to West Papua” (with a great cartoon by John Spooner) outlines the wider political contexts very well.

For the past fortnight, Canberra has talked about Australia’s policy on West Papua in purely pragmatic terms. Its first priority has been to uphold its reputation for being tough on illegal immigration. Its second priority has been to keep relations with Indonesia in order. The welfare of the people of West Papua seems to enter the Government’s equation as a distant third, if at all.

But Howard must know that a policy that elevates pragmatism over principles cannot be sustained. After a while, pragmatism starts to look like appeasement.

…..

Those who argue that Australia can force the pace on Papuan independence are drawing a wrong lesson from East Timor, based on an inflated view of Australia’s role in 1999. East Timor’s independence was an Indonesian decision. Australia’s role was in the end more marginal than most Australians (and many Indonesians) like to admit. …..

Those who believe they have principles on their side still have an obligation to consider the likely consequences of their proposals. There is no high moral justification for ill-informed decisions and ineffectual gestures that end up doing more harm than good.

This piece on Online Opinion by Gary Brown also outlines some of the difficulties, before concluding that the “issue is not going to go away. It will require both sense and sensitivity, and a willingness to forego some short-term advantages, from all concerned to manage it successfully.”

and from the blogosphere:

- Mark Thomson from Seeking Asylum Downunder gets stuck into Labor’s stance;

- Tony Harris on Club Troppo reproduces a column from the Financial Review, which includes this reminder

The United States Department of State last month published its 2005 report on human rights in Indonesia. It bluntly stated that Indonesian security forces continue to engage in extrajudicial killings in separatist areas and that the Indonesian government has “largely failed to hold soldiers and police accountable for such killings and other human right abuses in Aceh and Papua.”

226 Comments, Comment or Ping

ken

Andrew – lets not be too naive – Asia runs on double standards.

Apr 10th, 2006
Margaret Clinch

10.5.2006

Andrew,

Please keep this up. Australians need to know.

We need more Australian democrats, not less.

M A CLINCH
Darwin

Apr 10th, 2006
Cath

This is a tricky situation there is no doubt. It’s great to read the Indonesian Govt point of view, thanks for that link.
This situation is interesting on so many levels. The Govt and media language and reaction to the Iranian, afghani etc asylum seekers contrasted with the language and portrayal of the West Papuans. Well, firstly we see faces of real people on the front pages of our papers. While those in our Detention Centres are the invisible asylum seekers…
Then there is Howard stating that no Country is free of human rights abuses – Excuse me? Abuse is everywhere, so we no longer take any notice? I guess it rather depends what Howard said next… was it, ’so we all need to take a long hard look at our records and make every effort that all the people in our countries are treated with dignity and respect?….hmmmm
But what can happen for West Papuans? Can Australia be involved as a mediator or are we seen as too biased? What are some possible approaches to finding a solution for the Papuans?
Meanwhile if West Papuans arrive we must give them asylum, they do suffer discrimination because of their cultural background. if people are jailed for raising a flag – they are being discriminated against.

Apr 10th, 2006
Geoff

I can’t understand the comment that ” Canberra and Jakarta will have to deal with some unpleasant truths”

Why Canberra?

Apr 10th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff
Why not Canberra?

Apr 10th, 2006
Geoff

I asked first Kaye. :-)
Also if I understood why I wouldn’t have asked.
Care to enlighten me?

Apr 10th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

nah……….you are systematic of your abuse of this site eg Trolling and I may be a newcomer to this site and blogging however ‘you show me yours and I’ll show you mine’ is a very old game.
I just asked a question and I am yet to see you answer one, at all on this site. Give it a go it may not hurt as much as you think.
PS I reckon Red crab may even be a dumbed down version of you

Apr 10th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Poor Bill Farmer – he is being called to the Indonesian embassy to please explain. At least before he only had to cop the abuse of angry Aussies like Kaye and myself – the man proved to be the most incompetent head of department in living memory and now he has to face the wrath without the back up of Ruddock and Vanstone.

Seems like karma to me.

Apr 11th, 2006
Jane

Kaye,
I have been trying to get a handle on the WP situation by reading all the links kindly provided by Andrew and I’ve got to admit that my question at the end was the same as Geoff’s; Why Canberra? I was interested in what the writer was getting at. There did seem to be some nuance there that I was not getting.

Does that make me a troll too? Or am I just dumb?

AS to your gratuitous PS : I rather enjoy reading red crab’s experiences as a person ‘on the spot’ even if I don’t necessarily agree with all the sentiments. Your condescension speaks volumes.

Apr 11th, 2006
from all of us

Kaye

We would be most interested to read your view on why Canberra. Also whats Bill Herornon got to go with this?
Or are we talking about another Bill Here?

I just do not see what we Australians can do that we have not already Done so please as its been brought up by you why Canberra Kaye?

Apr 11th, 2006
from all of us

What We are saying is Are we not in the poo with our neighbours for helping these 42 people. Canberra stood up for them. We thought many would be pleased about that. So again Please Kaye Why Canberra. You must know things we dont

Apr 11th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Why Canberra?
Because WP’s have and will seek asylum here because they are being persecuted under the current situation in that country.

At this point in time we/Canberra have an obligation to protect them hoever the goal posts look like they are going to be shifted once again.

Marilyn I have never abused Bill Farmer however I have been highly critical of the policies and practices employed by the Department he headed under the control of the Immigration Minister.

Apr 11th, 2006
Geoff

:-)
I rest my case kaye….
seems I’m not a troll after all.
Seems I actually ask relevant questions.
I note you still haven’t answered my question on the other topic.
pot kettle black Kaye.
Are YOU a troll or just dumb?

All that nonsense aside…
the problem IS and Indonesian one.
The West Papuans have to help themselves, being part of Indonesia and recognised as such.
Perhaps the UN should step in after all they are the primary reason for the situation. (A decision I disagree with)
Indonesia need to give them autonomy as in Aceh.
The Papuans need to accept this then work out where they want to go from there. Not start floating over here. That resolves nothing.

Apr 11th, 2006
ken

I think people need to consider two seperate but concurrent issues here. Obviously the issue of refugees is one to be dealt with on the basis of however we want to deal wiht refugees irrespectvei of where they conme from. There deos seem to be a little bit of a disticntion between, shall we say good refugees and bad refugees (Is supect more becasue of the mixing up of foreign poilcy and rerfugees in thsi case).

The second issue and the reason why Canberra?, in my view does becoeme importnat, is the location of this issue, its proximity to Austrlai and the stratgeic, militiary, and geopolitical relationship with the biggest nearest neighbour.

This is why the first is getting a bit muddied and those on the refugee bandwagon aren’t really thinking about the second.

Lest face reality, almost every Asian country has developed significantly over the last decade, there is little doubt that China and India will not only be the next gfreat world powere but laos provide the vast bulk ogf the worlsd consumers ion the mid term future. Indonesia for some reason, I don’t know the internal workingas well enought to know why, has not really jumpede on t4he Asian growth treadmill. But it will, so I guess, Canberra needs to be very much part of that process for the good of us all.

Apr 11th, 2006
Geoff

Let’s not confuse trade with internal Indonesian problems ken.

We’ll be looking like the US if we get involved in everyone elses problems. (Can be read as sticking our noses in where we aren’t wanted… etc)

I don’t want that.

Apr 11th, 2006
Tom

Looks like I might have been right in my suspiscion! Geoff and Wendy might well be the same person!

Both are regular unyielding trolls day after day, both insist on answers to a point from someone who didn’t even make that point, both offer no answers of their own to that point other the usual ‘it’s nothing to do with us, they should stay over there and sort it out/die’, and both ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that the issue obviously involves Australia (otherwise all these posts and comments on this site wouldn’t be here) – all so they can bully and abuse someone who’s just tried to offer a simple opinion.

I reckon the Senator should put a limit on the number of comments allowed per day – at least for people who have demonstrated they are serial offenders. He should be able to tell if Geoff and Wendy are posting from the same I.P address.

Apr 11th, 2006
Geoff

Sorry
Off topic response to off topic stuff

Sticks and stones Tom.
BTW I don’t believe your post passes the comments policy.
Seems to me you are a serial offender Tom.

Apr 11th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Ken’s point does touch on a wider issue – and also the reason why it is so dangerous to have a system where short-term political interests openly affect the outcome of a refugee claim, as Mr Howard is considering.

The country which currently has the largest number of people seeking aslyum in Australia is China. As the treatment of pro-democracy activists, Falun Gong practitioners and the case of Chen Yonglin’s defection show, our government already goes out of its way to try not to offend China by ignoring their serious human rights abuses (much worse than Indonesia’s – at least at the level of government).

Accepting on ‘principle’ that this is OK when considering asylum claims is a serious step backwards. We would have little hope of getting other countries in our region to improve their human rights performance if Australia acts in this way.

Apr 11th, 2006
Geoff

Do you think offending countries and in turn hasving them cut ties and communication with us or getting them offside is productive Andrew on any level?

Apr 11th, 2006
ken

No Tom – grammar, typing, set out are all too consistently different for that. Whats a troll anyway – is it relaetd to a troglydyte? a Trot perhaps?

No Geoff its not just trade – trade is only a small part of the bigger issue of the future balance of power in the region.

The otehr issue with the WP’s is the timing? no one has given any real ionformation, that I’m aware of, on why now. Seems a bit coincidnetal to me

Apr 11th, 2006
Jolanda

Thing is Andrew that if the Governments of other Countries are set up the same way this Government is and those in Power are protected from being investigated and having to answer or being held accountable then surely our Government is in a difficult situation!

What we need to do is to make Governments in all Countries accountable to the people.

You shouldn’t have to drop bombs in the name of peace.

Apr 11th, 2006
Geoff

I think elections go a long way to make them accountable to the people.

Apr 11th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Just pointing out that I’ve added a couple of extra articles to the original post above that people may want to check out. I think the one by Hugh White is particularly good.

Apr 11th, 2006
ken

We also need to make people accountable for their actions

Apr 11th, 2006
John Tracey

See Geoff, I knew you had some ideas in there somewhere, and a witty comeback to Tom – I am impressed.

In general I agree with you, post 13 being the point. The problem is for those in West Papua who choose to remain and struggle for their homeland, that choice leads either to participating in guerilla struggle or running away, there is no sitting on the fence or waiting for public opinion when the militia are on there way down the road to your village.

Many stay and fight, many run away if they can. The people who arrived here lately from West Papua have indeed continued the struggle for their homeland by drawing attention to it’s plight the same way east timorese refugees did, using their exiled status as a base to organise international solidarity and support.

I think we should support those who seek non-violent solutions such as seeking international pressure for diplomatic solutions.

While I understand the decision of many tribal people to take up arms against the militias, that has a potential to escalate into more bloodshed all round and the perpetuation of a “terrorist” war zone on our immediate doorstep. If the Guerillas get significant backing from some powerbloc in competition with Indonesia’s multinational dealings, or even smaller powers such as fiji or vanuatu give some support, or even the revitalised Bouganville resistance joins up in a regional struggle with west Papua, Aceh and others,then that local war in the hills will escalate.

The one simple reason Australia had to take military action in East Timor is because we missed every single opportunity, from the 70s onwards, to support a non-violent negotiated settlement. Thousands died in the genocide waiting for us to gather the will to do anything at all.

Supporting the refugees, and their demands for human rights and democracy in their homeland is the best thing we can do for peace in the region.

Apr 11th, 2006
Jolanda

Ken, I must say that I would have to agree with you there.

People have to be made accountable for thier actions, and in some instances, their inaction.

Apr 11th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

In 2004 DIMA set up a unit in the Afghan government to “identify” Afghan refugees. Some had been locked up for years at that time, others had been trying to go home to Afghanistan for years.

All in all this illegal unit cost taxpayers $400,000 to “check” 106 adult or so DIMA claim. All of them were found to be Afghans and 105 were released as refugees – some after 5 years.

Andrew knows about this unit as he has been tracking it with me. I have evidence that DIMA asked for the Afghan embassy to send personal identifiers for Roqia Bakhtiyari to this unit. She had ID that turned out to be utterly genuine and Amanda had ignored it. The estimates answers from last November have now been posted on the senate site and there are dozens of questions about the Bakhtiyari family and many about this unit – DIMA claim we are no longer using it.

In light of Ellison wanting to illegally ask Indonesia to identify Papuans – we have hundreds of other Indonesian refugees arrive here every year that we don’t do that to – it should be screamed again from the roof tops that this is what this government stoops to.

The worst thing about poor Roqia is that DIMA also sent unsigned personal application forms and identifiers to the Pakistan government without her permission.

This is also against Australian law.

With 4 million Afghan refugees in the world at the time we have to wonder why they wasted $400,000 on a unit that Andrew identified at the time as terribly dodgy.

Andrew the questions are 169-171 asked by Joe Ludwig. Scary reading. But I have letters in Roqia’s file that prove DIMA sent her stuff to the IDCU while they claim they didn’t.

Apr 11th, 2006
ken

and the point is?

Apr 11th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

John Barr’s latest report is also a worthwhile read.
http://assembly.uca.org.au/news/pdf/PapuaREPORT10406.pdf

Apr 11th, 2006
from all of us

Re post 10

Kaye Thankyou for answering our question.

I think we now understand that you are upset because Australia allowed the 42 people to enter the country despite the political back lash from our neighbour of 220 million angry people.

Clear as mud.

Apr 11th, 2006
Cath

Kaye you say that ‘the goal posts are about to shift’ – (12) can you elaborate?
Also I was under the impression that Canberra is under pressure from US to maintain good relations with Indonesia and that htis was a big reason for Oz pathetic inaction on Timor?
I guess for me the whole thing comes down to the importance of naming behaviour that is unacceptable. If you don’t, you live in a world where anything goes – and eventually you will feel the brunt of the bully. It is always easier if more than one stand up. is this likely?

Apr 11th, 2006
wendy people against live exports

Tom Re Post 16

Your wrong again However I understand a little better now your aggresive posts as I can now identify you as the lady who was so rude to Geoff.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh and by the way my work invloves co joining these countries with Australians as co partners into Australia.
Ever Heard of the GATS. Just for starters we hope to bring in over ten thousand of these people you seem to think we are so cruel in our attitude towards.
Tie that up with a 50 50 ownership of several large industries in Australia and I guesss next I will be accused by others as selling the country out to overseas and putting Ausies out of work.

I am sure you will think of something daisy.
http://www.halakindmeats.com

Apr 11th, 2006
wendy people against live exports

Ken Post 14 certainly makes us all think we need to stick on topic. Thankyou Ken Good Thoughts

Apr 11th, 2006
David Curry People AgainstLive Exports

Post
I6 Tom Stick to the subject at hand.
If you like lets look behind the posts starting with you.

As Wendys partner I can assure you shes not Geoff.So please do Andrew lets look at both ID shall we.?
We have our views on this subject. You have yours.

Our policy is to help people but protect our country. We all have ideas on this issue. We do nor serial ;post either and who do think you are anyway. Your come across as a serial trouble maker.
I think your personally insults are against basic posting agreements under comment policy two are they not.?

I for one get am sick of people getting away with this and invite the host to act.
I can not see you producing anything positive for these people. Best you stick that. There has got to be a way to help these people sort their problems out so if you have any ideas I am sure everyone would like to hear them.

Apr 11th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Cath I think the last 2 media releases by Andrew Bartlett that available on this website sum up the goal shift.

In short the Govenment are it seems, intent on changing laws to repel refugees.

A Just Australia give a succint account today when they said:
“Our Prime Minister has stated that our refugee laws should be rewritten to allow for persecuted people’s applications for protection to be rejected where it is in ‘our national interest’ to do so. These proposals are not in our interests, but are Indonesia’s national interests.”

The cabinet are reportedly meeting to devise this scheme in the next couple of days.

Apr 11th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Re post #34 – I’m happy to be more discerning about whether to edit out comments from ’serial posters’, especially if they are mainly engaging in personal insults, or if they are persistently off-topic (as this post is, and as was most of post #34).

While I’m on the topic (and off-topic) I’ve been having growing spam problems in comments lately, so more comments will probably get caught in the moderation queue as I slowly widen my spam filter.

(also, just for the record, people can guess all they like about whether or not various people are dopplegangers, but I won’t release the email or IP address of anyone who puts a comment on this site.)

Apr 12th, 2006
David Reply To Andrew

16

Was off topic and personally offensive.

I responded saying stick to the subject.

We are all entiled to post our thoughts without personal insults.

I also got straight back to the subject raised.

I note you dont seem to have any problem with Toms comment Andrew which i find of interest. Just My reply!

Apr 12th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Tsk. It seems from that I could put up a blank comment and you’d still take offence. However, I can’t control that, so as you wish. I’m now breaking the rules of my own comments policy by continuing with off-topic posts myself, so I’ll start enforcing it a bit more strictly, starting now by cutting off everything else I was about to say ……

Apr 12th, 2006
Antje Struthmann

Kaye I imigrated here twenyt years ago

Why do you think Howard is meeting in the next couple of days to try to block these people coming into Australia?

Just in your mind.

Apr 12th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

The AGE is reporting today that patrols will stop Papuans leaving Papua. Now having decided that 42 Papuans face persecution and have been tortured and illegally imprisoned we will turn around others with the same claims. I do believe that is called genocide as one of the claims put by the Papuans is that a genocide is being carried on by the cheery folks in Kopassus – the same cheery folks who murdered 183,000 East Timorese while we watched and over 300,000 Papuans to date.

Wow, now that is a good reason to keep them out so we can appease SBY isn’t it? Less folks for the cheery Kopassus criminals to murder.

It’s really funny that while Australia was stealing from Iraq, starving children, locking them up in the desert and so on that we then had to go and blow them up to give them “freedom” but our nearest neighbours who helped to keep out the Japanese (well according to Aussie folk lore anyway) are not allowed to leave.

There is no legal basis for Australia to stop Papuans from leaving Papua and coming here for protection. It is legal though for them to do it.

The problem that Howard has made for himself is that he claimed we had to lock up even babies in the desert for years on end for national security reasons, which were always false, we turned Afghans and Iraqis back to Indonesia and forced Indonesia to deal with them while we paid for it, same with Turks.

We kept Vietnamese locked up for sometimes 4 years or more, spent about $3 billion on the Pacific Solution and onshore detention and lectured Indonesia for all those years about stopping people from coming to Australia.

Which of course they had a legal right to do as Megawati was well aware, but they had no legal right to be in Indonesia claiming refugee status.

As UNHCR told the senate committee there is no effective protection for refugees in Indonesia so they send people home to be killed.

Now 43 Papuans turn up and the rules have changed. I don’t think for one moment Kaye is angry they have been let into Australia, that would be absurd considering her tireless work for refugees over the past 3 years.

But even I am enraged that the Papuans were dealt with the proper way while thousands of Iraqis and Afghans and particularly the Iranians have been tortured and tormented for as long as 5 years before being released.

Then we now know that criminals who have been at Shatila and Sabra refugee camp massacres roam in the community for 12 years without ever being investigated, locked up or charged with the war crimes they have confessed to committing.

Then we have the absurd situation where we lock up Indonesian fishermen supposedly for smuggling people into Australia while we smuggle people out of Australia and dump them in foreign countries.

For those who haven’t read it yet I would suggest that “Following them Home” by Dr David Corlett will chill your blood.

Wendy and David it makes the treatment of animals that is revolting look utterly humane in comparison to the way we discard human beings in the wrong countries without papers.

Some have been tortured, some killed, some imprisoned, others have to beg on the streets.

Antje, Howard is a snivelling coward is why he is trying to stop them. Any man who can stand before the world and pronounce pride in locking up children and then claim he would still kill Iraqis is a coward and a dangerous fool.

Apr 12th, 2006
ken

Your gloating is so transparent Marilyn.

Apr 12th, 2006
Jolanda

Marilyn you said “But even I am enraged that the Papuans were dealt with the proper way while thousands of Iraqis and Afghans and particularly the Iranians have been tortured and tormented for as long as 5 years before being released”.

See how you are never happy! The Government had done the right thing by the Papuans and you complain and are even enraged. There is a change of culture happening before your eyes and you wont acknowledge it and dont support it.

What should they have done, not treated the Papuans properly so as not to upset those that have previously been affected and kept everything the same?

You seem too angry and hostile to address these matters impartially.

Apr 12th, 2006
ken

Touche – Jolanda

Apr 12th, 2006
Geoff

Here we go again…
“The AGE is reporting today that patrols will stop Papuans leaving Papua. Now having decided that 42 Papuans face persecution and have been tortured and illegally imprisoned we will turn around others with the same claims. I do believe that is called genocide as one of the claims put by the Papuans is that a genocide is being carried on by the cheery folks in Kopassus – the same cheery folks who murdered 183,000 East Timorese while we watched and over 300,000 Papuans to date.”

Well Marilyn only you would call it and blame Australians for genocide in West Papua.

“It’s really funny that while Australia was stealing from Iraq,”

What did we steal Marilyn?

“starving children,”

Are you referring to the UN sanctions?

“locking them up in the desert and so on”

How many detention centres do we have? Is nauru a desert? Christmas Island? Villawood? etc…

“that we then had to go and blow them up to give them “freedom” but our nearest neighbours who helped to keep out the Japanese (well according to Aussie folk lore anyway) are not allowed to leave.”

You know it would do you good to read a bit of real history for a change. That would save me having to refute nearly everything you say.

“There is no legal basis for Australia to stop Papuans from leaving Papua and coming here for protection. It is legal though for them to do it.”

So you are saying we have no sovereign rights. Nor do we have the right to say who should come here. Like I’ve said before, it’s time the convention got updated into this century.

“The problem that Howard has made for himself is that he claimed we had to lock up even babies”

Howard as you call him was I’d guess never directly involved and the government merely was following procedures implemented by the Labor government which brought in mandatory detention. As for the babies…. would you like to see them separated from their mothers?????? “in the desert for years on end for national security reasons, which were always false, we turned Afghans and Iraqis back to Indonesia and forced Indonesia to deal with them while we paid for it, same with Turks.”

They were detained because of immigration issues. Not specifically national security issues. Most detainees were released within 3 months. fair enough if you ask me for people using people smugglers or unlawful means to get here, without proper identification.

“We kept Vietnamese locked up for sometimes 4 years or more, spent about $3 billion on the Pacific Solution and onshore detention and lectured Indonesia for all those years about stopping people from coming to Australia.

Which of course they had a legal right to do as Megawati was well aware, but they had no legal right to be in Indonesia claiming refugee status.”

Just what does that mean? How vague can 1 person get. So… are you saying that ASs have a legal right to enter Australia but not Indonesia? Rubbish.

“As UNHCR told the senate committee there is no effective protection for refugees in Indonesia so they send people home to be killed.”

Huh? You saying an Afghani is safer in Australia from enemies in Afghanistan than in Indonesia? Or are you saying Indonesia send ASs back home? Wow, we need to find out how to do that.

“Now 43 Papuans turn up and the rules have changed. I don’t think for one moment Kaye is angry they have been let into Australia, that would be absurd considering her tireless work for refugees over the past 3 years.”

Well then it’s time you both recognised the fact that West Papuans are going to be easier for us to identify etc than someone from a obscure village in Afghanistan.

“But even I am enraged that the Papuans were dealt with the proper way while thousands of Iraqis and Afghans and particularly the Iranians have been tortured and tormented for as long as 5 years before being released.”

Well I can think of a bunch of Iraqis that call themselves “The Assyrian Kings” that I’d like to send home just for starters.

“Then we now know that criminals who have been at Shatila and Sabra refugee camp massacres roam in the community for 12 years without ever being investigated, locked up or charged with the war crimes they have confessed to committing.”

Yet you don’t seem to be doing much about that Marilyn. Nor do your friends the refugees. Don’t you think you should? they should. It might make it easier then for those you feel deserve to be here..

“Then we have the absurd situation where we lock up Indonesian fishermen supposedly for smuggling people into Australia while we smuggle people out of Australia and dump them in foreign countries.”

Actually we lock ‘em up for that because they did Marilyn. Oh dear I don’t know where those people came from we were just out fishing… :roll:

The world isn’t how you portray it Marilyn nor are the people you malign.

Apr 12th, 2006
Geoff

Hey andrew your censor thingy censored something it shouldn’t have. :-)

Asylum Seekers A S s LOL

Apr 12th, 2006
Tess Tickle

The biggest problem is the politics being played by the separatist movement.
It would be willfully ignorant to ignore the publicity and strife this public landing has caused.
It is one of the main reasons for secrecy over identitys within the migration system. Most Chinese applicants are never heard from, there is little or no friction at the government level, and they are protected.
What the Papuans have done is (I forget the proper term) present a case where even if they werent under threat before they landed, the subsequent publicity has imperilled them.
It has also made the Indonesion military more likely to crack down, made it harder for people to secret themselves into Ausralia. And worst of all may see a legislation change to make asylum harder to get.
The “game” for refugee activists has changed. Most of the M. Eastern werent in direct peril, as false names ect could be used to protect family left behind. This HAS to be done quietly without the grandstanding of certain self appointed self promoting “experts”.

Apr 12th, 2006
Cath

44 -’Most detainees were released within 3 months,’ Most? and the use of the past tense is incorrect, many are still detained. And, ‘ fair enough if you ask me for people using people smugglers or unlawful means to get here, without proper identification.’ Hmmm, how do you leave a country where you are persecuted, legally? You can’t ask for a visa please. And carrying your ‘proper identification’ papers? how do you do that without fear they will be discovered? We aren’t talking about a relaxed overseas trip on a liner, where you pack the passport etc in your designer hand luggage. This is FLEEING. This is TERROR. This is leave everything you love behind because it is no longer safe to stay. We (me included) can not begin to imagine the desperate position these people are in.
(35)the immigration goal shift. Well, what can you say? That’s really ignoring the bully. One might say it is being compliant – how can we please you now? Sure we don’t want to make enemies, but if it means, at the very least, ignoring the plight of human beings…
Hmmm grandstanding… yes it looks like things are pretty scary for the Papuans post the recent refugees, but maybe this position is preferable to having their plight ignored. Maybe not. Again I ask who is working to find the solutions? and are other countries asking questions about treatment of West Papuans or doing anything?

Apr 12th, 2006
Geoff

It’s well known Cath that the people smugglers kept the ids etc of the ASs when they departed Indonesia. This has been clarified and was even disclosed on the beloved ABC and testimonies from those who had arrived here and were waiting to come here.

Just because some people choose to remain detained rather than rerturn home doesn’t mean that most aren’t released within 3 months. I note no proof in your rebuttal.

As for papers Cath how do you explain to the “enemy” you don’t have papers? be a bit suspicious wouldn’t it? You can cross a border illegally with papers as easily as you can without.

As for country shopping why come here when there are so many closer countries to which to flee?

Apr 12th, 2006
Tess Tickle

47.
Not to disrespect you but the only “winners” out of this is the seperatist movement in Papua. Its going to make life harder for anyone else still there, Indonesia will not give it up, and the hope of many who could have snuck across the border into Australia is lessened.
We could have quietly done this, it has happened before as the Senator can confirm with sensitive Indonesian refugees. The set up was for maximum publicity by the seperatist movement and their supporters within Australia.
What solutions do you think could work? What is better, a quiet diplomacy to strengthen Indonesias democracy, and hopefully human rights , or bloodshed and seperatism? I dont see a middle path.

Apr 12th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff how many times do you have to be told that asylum seekers are already refugees just because they are outside their country of origin, have a well founded fear of persecution and are unable to go home.

The definition of protection has to be effective protection – not just the presence of a UN office.

The documents taken back by the agents are false – that is why they are taken back because if the refugees came with them they would be charged or sent home against the convention.

When I say I am outraged that people got treated fairly, I mean I am outraged because 10,000 others didn’t get treated fairly.

Geoff do you ever ask one simple question of yourself in your self-righteous belief that you are right and I am a lunatic?

If you seriously believe that asylum seekers are criminals why are none of them ever, ever charged with a crime? How about this one. Why does the application form for refugees say that Malaysia and Indonesia are exempt as safe places?

How about this? Why is it a crime to translate for people in Indonesia and get put into jail in Australia?

Why did the so-called smugglers have a trial and sentence and not the refugees? How come nearly all the people you call smugglers went home years before the refugees got out of detention?

Refugees don’t become refugees when they land here – they are refugees because they are forced to leave.

Now the stupid security section of the executive government want to send out submarines, helicopters, Orion spy planes, navy ships and warships to turn back the Papuans.

AFTER they have decided there is a genocide happening in Papua.

I think that is calculated murder – a bit like dropping bombs on Iraqis.

Apr 13th, 2006
Geoff

You are wrong Marilyn. Asylum Seekers are not refugees until it is established that they genuinely are. Your ilk keep telling me they are Asylum Seekers NOT Refugees except of course when it suits their argument to state otherwise.

If you can’t figure out the answers to your own questions Marilyn, there’s little wonder you have so many problems.

BTW the best solution for the West Papuans is to go the PNG.

Apr 13th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff in the law refugees are people because they have to leave not because they arrive somewhere.

You really are ridiculous about this because the fact is that in the law.

Now we are cutting off the entire country just for boat people while 8,000 others apply for asylum when they fly here including hundreds of Indonesians from all areas.

Ridiculous. Now we want to send Papuans to the Pacific – they live in the bloody Pacific for god’s sake.

Apr 13th, 2006
Jolanda

Do I remember hearing somewhere about the Law being an ass?

Apr 13th, 2006
Ken

Jolanda – how did you get a.s.s.through Andrew’s censor program!!! Perhasp he has an intelligent program that can determine whther it agrees with the sentiment before chopping it….

Apr 13th, 2006
Geoff

All refugees seek asylum Marilyn… but not all asylum seekers are genuine refugees.

Apr 13th, 2006
Ken

When / where is that point where the process of leaving and the process of arriving intersect.

Apr 13th, 2006
Geoff

UNHCR
Asylum Seekers
An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country of origin, has applied for recognition as a refugee in another country, and is awaiting a decision on their application.

Who is a refugee?
A refugee is a person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race; religion; nationality; membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…” Article 1, The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

Now if you try really hard Marilyn I’m sure you can put my last 2 posts together and work it out for yourself.

If you’re still confused…
read here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A2179884
and here;
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/refugees-background-eng

Apr 13th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Which means they are usually refugees in the first place Geoff or they wouldn’t be outside their own country and too scared to go home.

Grow up. 98% of those who came on boats are still here bubble brain. So guess what? If they are refugees after a day, a month or a year in detention they were refugees after one minute and we wasted all that money claiming otherwise.

It’s a no-brainer to conclude that Iraqis who escape the torture of Saddam Hussein would be refugees I would have thought, unless you now think he is a nice man.

We wasted $3 billion trying to prove what wasn’t true is true – that is we spent all that money trying to prove Iraqis and Afghans were not refugees only to have to realised years later and billions of dollars later that they are.

Apr 13th, 2006
Geoff

You do have trouble don’t you marilyn. :roll:

Why don’t you address the argument instead of building strawmen or ignoring the facts, by trying to argue something different.

Apr 13th, 2006
Cath

Back to West Papua for a blog second – what is the Special Autonomy Package mentioned in Hugh White’s article in The Age ? the package that’s been around since 2001?

Apr 13th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff, if people aren’t refugees they can get travel documents and leave peacefully and easily as tourists not have to resort to other methods.

I am not constructing any strawman – people are refugees when they leave not just when they arrive.

Cath, imagine if we stood by and watched another neighbour being butchered – we would all be culpable I would have thought yet we are prepared to sacrifice the Papuans to John Howard’s knee jerk reactionary bullshit.

Apr 14th, 2006
Wendy People Against Live exports

M its not meant to be used for political causes but for survival. They do not tell us where they will be housed and processed. When you ask for help you show appreciation if you receive it.
I think having a roof food and away from seeing your mates get their heads chopped off must be heaven.
Thats if you are sincere. People who come here demanding are not welcome. I note each time I post something to you pointing out things and asking for your comments you ignore me.
Sure you are welcome to do that but then you just go on saying the same old things a few posts down. When you get really stuck you always resort to the I am working on this with Andrew. Good. now we got that sorted what is it you are working on?
You never reply to offeres of getting involved with projects to help these people. I work also with Migrants advise center in Sydney on helping people here but also in Iraq to get theur people some assistance getting their own counrty together as hard as that might be.
It is clear they can not all come here. If they did they would bring their fights with them

I think Jolandas post to you said it all.

When you want to really get involved in either helpng the aboriginal people or the migrants let me know and I will put you in contact with a friend who runs the migrant center who i am sure wouldlove some help
Until then either respect the we the Australians are kind and giving.
However we are not giving up our country to these people

Apr 14th, 2006
Geoff

marilyn, some people aren’t heniune refugees, what don’t you understand about that?

Apr 14th, 2006
Jolanda

Marilyn. What about the Papuans who are left behind who wear the brunt of the actions of those that fled?

I think our Prime Minister Mr John Howard is doing the right thing. WE dont want to end up at war with our neighbours, already the attention has been placed on the matter and the communication lines are open, it’s now up to their Government to work things out with their people on their end. We are not GOD, we are just a little country that if pushed into a war with our neighbours could find ourselves in great difficulty and would cause and spread even more suffering.

Maybe some of these people are like you Marilyn. If anybody spoke to you it would seem like Australians are all monsters when in reality you just dont like the way things are done because it doesn’t suit you and your views!.

So you want us to take all the people from all these different countries into Australia and look after them. That is very kind of you Marilyn, shame you didn’t think my children were as worthy and deserved to be looked after and afforded their rights, I guess I would have to ask whether you are working and paying tax so as to support these people that want to come here? Or is that also the responsbility of others?

Apr 14th, 2006
Wendy People Against Live exports

M Again Jolanda has put it right. Just how do you expect a small country with an even smaller amount of people who actually pay taxes to foot the bill. Tell you what I do agree with you aboutis the ones flying in! the Students and the business visa.

Personally if I had my way I would stop those people entering the country full stop.

They are not checked out like your boat people and thats for sure. They have money and just keep appeals going.
The counter argument for that would have to be that at least most times they pay for it themselves[hopefully]which takes me back to your boat people.
These lawyers who play them as toys for their finiacial gain while we the tax payer foot the bill.
These lawyers that run appeal afte appeal at our expense M the tax payers.
then they leave the client sitting there not knowing whats going on.
Afte a few years when the clients screaming they sue Us and our Government for keeping them here so long
they EXPECT and DEMAND. free health a house for when they get out while atthe same time sueing us.
They can go ike our early settlers did out in the regional areas with a pick and shovel and improve the country.
the vet far more than the farmers.
Whast a joke. Our farmers that feed them and as the farmers leave the bush because the counrty has been flooded with cheap inports Just hO W do you think we will still fee all these people?
We will ha e to import more and more.
If you want to help go find some people ask their skills ie Carpender etc
take A spanner A hammer etc andc teach them how to say it in English. Thats something they will be able to relate to.
Most want to arrive in our all ready over crowed cities.[dont they]?

We brought many people here and paidf all of their bills.
Nobody likes this new age migrants M with their give me give me give me attitude and thats the truth. My family havdstill to this day friends who we met many years agoimAas imigrants and I tell you what they all say the same as we are saying.
but your not listening.
Votes for minor parties and lawyers is pretty much behind this drive

Apr 14th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

The problem isn’t the people who aren’t genuine refugees. Such people always get sent back except in the very rare case that they are stateless and have nowhere that will take them.

The problem is the people who are refugees who are now once again at risk of being pushed back to sea, or being effectively kidnapped and locked up somewhere where they are effectively outside the reach of any due process or legal system. Those people are at much greater risk of being returned to face persecution, and of being locked up for very long periods of time.

To try to treat this as a migration problem is to ignore history as well as current reality. We have over half a million permanent and temporary resident visas issued each year. To link any alleged problems caused by that with the attempts by a comparatively tiny number of people to seek protection from persecution is wrongheaded.

This is a straight forward human rights matter. We are refusing to accept people who allege they are fleeing persecution, at the behest of the alleged persecutors (or at least a government that is willing to tolerate the persecutors).

As for the Papuans who are left behind, our government has now sent a very strong signal that they are being totally abandoned to the actions of the military, police and extremists who have been killing, dispossessing and harming them for decades. It is all the more bizarre when we are talking in some cases about military with links to Muslim extremists being given the green light to attack Christian West Papuans. We are even acquiescing to the Indonesian’s insistence on a media and travel ban to the region.

Appeasing human rights abusers is a bad priciple and an even worse practice. It will backlash on us (and many more Indonesians) in the longer-term.

Apr 14th, 2006
Geoff

So the solution is what Andrew?
I know YOU have NO answer.

What do the WPs want?
How many of them want it?
Is it feasible?

I ask YOU these questions because I’ve heard many differing answers.

To address the actions that seem to have been taken and are rumoured to being taken.

As ASs they have a right to come here.
As refugees they have a right to be here.
Having been granted visas and refugee status, surely they have a right to protest or seek publicity if that is their want.

Should we give refuge to any small group of dissidents (political or otherwise) coming from some other country? Should they be considered refugees?

Having already conceded they have more in common culturally and racially with the PNGs and considering the large border and closeness of PNG… wouldn’t it be better/easier to seek asylum/refuge there?

Considering the political situation between Indonesia and Australia isn’t it better that they seek refuge elsewhere?

Apr 14th, 2006
John Tracey

A secret list of enemies of the Queensland state?
back to old Joh’s special branch.

Yesterday (thur) the Qld. police computors went into kalkadoon.org at least 4 times, all referred from this particular forum, which is interesting because there are no links to kalkadoon.org in my 1 post on this one, except if someone clicks on the name at the top of the post.

it is good to know I am being listened to by the authorities.

Everyone should know this conversation is being monitored by the Qld. police.

Apr 14th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Geoff asks:
“So the solution is what Andrew?
I know YOU have NO answer.”

Much as I should ignore this sort of thing, I’ll respond on this occasion.

There is no single solution of course – particularly not a simple or short-term one. For my ideas on the long-term solutions, read this post. With the Howard government’s actions in giving tacit approcal to human abuses in West Papua, and specifically signalling a desire not to hear from the people being subjected to it, the road to a solution has just got a lot longer and bumpier.

As to the other questions, rather than answer them in this comment, I’ll address them in a new entry in the next couple of days.

In the meantime people may wish to read this article from Australian Policy Online, which outlines the situation currently faced by around 8000 asylum seekers from West Papua who are currently in PNG – some of them for over 20 years.

and this article which notes the increasing clampdown on reporting out of West Papua.

Apr 14th, 2006
Geoff

Hey Andrew…
guess what?
I have NO answer either.
:roll:

You really could have tried to answer the questions on this topic instead of continual;ly breaking things up.
makes reading so much easier

BTW… why would you ignore a statement of fact?

Apr 14th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

30 It is important to emphasise that the client did not escape from custody. It would have been an offence for him to have done so: see 197A of the Act. He was released from detention pursuant to a court order. Neither was he committing or proposing to commit an offence simply because he was taking steps to avoid being detained. As Gummow J indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff, the current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.

31 Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person’s immigration status as “unlawful” serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a “valid permission to enter and remain in Australia”. The use of the term “unlawful” does not as such refer to a breach of a law.

I wonder why people on this forum think that Australia has the right to go wherever we want when we wouldn’t know genuine hardship if we fell over it yet abuse those who are suffering shocking abuse themselves.

Wendy, you care about animals being slaughtered in a cruel manner but have no qualms about our neighbours being slaughtered in front of our eyes, no qualms about blowing up Iraqis for the hell of it and so on? Is that right? Animals matter, human are things?

Jolanda you want people to have respect and compassion for your suffering kids, what about other people’s suffering kids? No respect at all for them? Let them be slaughtered so long as we are safe?

What a spineless pack you are. Geoff, you take the biscuit.

Look at the Iraqis and Afghans who came here – remember the rants about them not being genuine refugees? Remember you were told only 10% of them were real and the rest could go home and would be forced to?

How many are now here as permanent residents even though we claim to have “liberated” their countries? Almost all of them. The records show that one Iraqi family and one Afghan family were forced to leave and one has to wonder why 6 Iraqi children out of 1084 were not in need of protection from Iraq and 6 out of 840 Afghans the same.

The rest will grow old here, raise their children here, 1,000 Afghans alone came for family reunion last year for example. They will be part of Australia for centuries to come.

And those decisions were made even while we were occupying both countries and claiming they are now democracies.

No way can we claim that Indonesia is being good to West Papuans when 300,000 have already been slaughtered.

Now to the much maligned lawyers – they work pro bono almost across the board. I have never known a refugee lawyer who got paid for the work they did for the people in detention and I am talking about several former Solicitor Generals, some MPs from both sides, high flying barristers from all over Australia.

The system is so unfair these high flying people do it for free.

The only lawyers who get paid are the government lawyers who we taxpayers pay $4,000 a day to to try and prove the department is right. 98% of the time they have been wrong.

Any more cruel spite as we consign 2.5 million christian Melanesian Papuans to the mercy of the same people who are going to shoot Australians, who murdered 5 Australian journalists and slaughtered 183,000 christian East Timorese.

Please. Have a heart.

Apr 14th, 2006
Jolanda

Marilyn that is not what I said. I have always maintained that children should be protected and if adults had the children’s best interest at heart we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in today.

I just dont believe that it is fair or right that you speak so poorly of Australians and you put the responsibility on Australia for the welfare of these children and not on their own people and country and not on their parents who take the risk to go through many countries where they could have sought refuge to get here.

I asked you Marilyn and you didn’t respond, what about the children that have to suffer the consequences caused by those that fled? What, let them be slaughtered so long as those that have the means to escape are safe.

This is not a problem that can be solved by bringing everybody to Australia. When are you going to get that through your head!

Apr 14th, 2006
Geoff

Why single me out marilyn?
I just ask sensible questions.
And put forward facts.
(Unlike youself)

As yet unanswered.

BTW that biscuit? Where should I take it and what sort is it?

Apr 14th, 2006
Cath

AB “While it is very much in Australian – and Indonesian – interests for our two countries to have a good relationship, that must include the ability to be honest about problems that exist. No relationship can be a good one unless it is based on a reasonable degree of honesty. We must be able to express concern about human rights abuses in parts of Indonesia when they occur.”
And this should be the Government’s line. Now is the time to put this approach into action. No more shame and regret please.

Apr 14th, 2006
Geoff

How about pandering to cultural sensitivities than Cath?

I mentioned ages ago how Indonesians would react to they type of thing you are advocating.

Apr 14th, 2006
Tom

now I get it – Geoff isn’t Wendy at all.

He’s the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain and his brilliant appeasement strategy, taking into account the cultural sensitivities of Nazi Germany.

Still, it’s nice to hear a One Nation fan talking about the need to take cultural sensitivities into account- although I would have thought that was a bit politically correct for that lot.

Apr 14th, 2006
Geoff

But Tom… One Nation isn’t/wasn’t against different cultures… it just wants to preserve the Australian one.
Hell the Indonesians are welcome to theirs.
I did find it amusing though and ironic that the PC brigade would not be sensitive to the Indonesian culture. ;roll:

Apr 14th, 2006
Tom

Yes you’re right Geoff, although you left out the quotation marks:

“I did find it amusing though and ironic that the PC brigade would not be sensitive to the Indonesian culture.”

Who would have thought that the One Nation fans are the PC lot – although to be fair regular readers of your comments on this blog would have already seen that a while ago.

Apr 15th, 2006
Geoff

Well since you continuously fail to address topics and just take potshots at people I guess I don’t have to tell everyone that a reply to you will be off topic eh.

What can I say Tom? I’m wounded to the quick.
ROTFLMAO

Unfortunately for you I’m not a Hanson or Howard fan. Care to try again?

Apr 15th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Much as I would like to repsond to comments of both Tom and Geoff, for the moment I will just say this comment thread will need to stay strictly on topic from here on in.

Apr 15th, 2006
Donna

Marilyn and Andrew

I was once told that anyone who arrives within our waters or shore, is considered a refugee if they state ‘I am a refugee’. Making this statement legally entitles them to the process that will establish whether they are genuine refugees or not.

Is this correct?

Apr 15th, 2006
Donna

Oops … sorry I’m off topic … you can delete my above post if you like.

Apr 15th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Donna

You’re closer to topic than some of what’s gone before.

It is not correct that people are considered a refugee purely if they state it. What you may be getting confused with is that people’s possible status as a refugee won’t even be considered unless they state words to that effect.

The assessment process of refugee claims is quite thorough, and the definition of a refugee under our law is relatively narrow.

(and while I’m at it, the answer to your off-topic question on other post is yes, I have been to the Three Monkeys – many times.)

Apr 15th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Andrew is right Donna – just because someone says they are a refugee doesn’t mean they are and I have never said so. The thing is this though. If a woman turned up on your doorstep claiming she had been beaten and raped would you give her the benefit of the doubt and get help or turn her away because someone over the way might also have been raped but worse?

No you wouldn’t but we are being asked to turn away people claiming terrible torture and trauma on no basis at all except SBY said to. Surely noway to run our country. But then Howard and hid government ceded our sovereignty to Saddam Hussein to sell wheat at whatever cost didn’t we and then blew up the civilians.

And locked them up if they got here.

The fact is that if a person is found by our authorities to be a refugee from persecution who is seeking protection then they were refugees when they left and not just as they arrived. Unless of course we are saying we are the persecutors?

Which in many cases we are of course. The refugee convention and the UNHCR guide book that DIMA use both say that most should be given the benefit of the doubt unless for compelling evidence of serious crimes against humanity, war crimes or other crimes under Article 1F.

It also says that detention is inherently undesirable – but the people who wrote the convention in no way ever envisaged that places like Australia would convert that into locking people up for life just because we decide, often erroneously, that they are not refugees and never charge them with a crime or give them a trial or a sentence.

Bob Menzies who was on the authors list would be spinning in his wretched grave.

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

“Andrew is right Donna – just because someone says they are a refugee doesn’t mean they are and I have never said so.”

What a crock marilyn… you were arguing just that with me only recently.

It’s time the convention was re-written… “anyone in genuine fear” could just be mentally disturbed.

Apr 16th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

The actual text of the relevant section of the Refugee Convention is as follows:

a person with a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

a fear derived from being mentally disturbed would not be a ‘well-founded fear’ (although of course the fear/experience of persecution could well have made them mentally disturbed, but that’s a different matter).

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

Yes Andrew unfortunately some people don’t read it like that.

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

Just for the sake of argument…

“A refugee is a person with a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion (Article 1A (2)) ”
***
per·se·cute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrs-kyt)
tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes

To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

To annoy persistently; bother.
***
Don’t you think that “well founded” is a tad subjective?
Do you think the 2nd meaning leaves this open to interpretation?

“The Convention shall not apply to any person who has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity (Article 1F (a))”

In regards to the WP situation for example… would Indonesians consider what they are doing a “crime against peace”?

“Every refugee has duties to the country in which he/she finds himself/herself (Article 2) ”

Yet how does a country enforce this?
In regards to the WP situation, considering the reaction to Australia by the Indonesians to their behaviour etc…have they fulfilled this duty?

Further to that last point…

“CONVENTION GOVERNING THE SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF REFUGEE PROBLEMS IN AFRICAPREAMBLEWe, the Heads of State and Government assembled in the city of Addis Ababa, from 6-10 September 1969,
1. Noting with concern the constantly increasing numbers of refugees in Africa and desirous of finding ways and means of alleviating their misery and suffering as well as providing them with a better life and future,
2. Recognizing the need for and essentially humanitarian approach towards solving the problems of refugees,
3. Aware, however, that refugee problems are a source of friction among many Member States, and desirous of eliminating the source of such discord,
4. Anxious to make a distinction between a refugee who seeks a peaceful and normal life and a person fleeing his country for the sole purpose of fomenting subversion from outside,
5. Determined that the activities of such subversive elements should be discouraged, in accordance with the Declaration on the Problem of Subversion and Resolution on the Problem of Refugees adopted at Accra in 1965″

I bring your attention to points 4 and 5.

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

from the same convention…

“Article 3
Prohibition of Subversive Activities

1. Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conforms with its laws and regulations as well as with measures taken for the maintenance of public order. He shall also abstain from any subversive activities against any Member State of the OAU.

2. Signatory States undertake to prohibit refugees residing in their respective territories from attacking any State Member of the OAU, by any activity likely to cause tension between Member States, and in particular by use of arms, through the press, or by radio”

Apr 16th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff can you please correct your mistake in referencing Conventions for the record here?

Apr 16th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff, it might have escaped your notice but if that convention exists at all it has nothing at all to do with the refugee convention of 1951 and is superseded by the Protocol of 1967, which are enshrined in our law.

As for the persecution part Australia has defined it at articles 91 zillion of what it means.

Serious harm is mentioned often, it doesn’t have to have happened but might happen to a fair degree of belief and so on.

Why don’t you read the Australian cases instead of some convention that relates only to Africa and is 40 years old, it if exists at all. I agree with Kaye, please source this for us. And tell us when we became part of Africa.

Apr 16th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Here you go Geoff, Australia law with not much scope for being confused is there.

Sections 91R and 91S of the Act now qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the regulations to a particular person.

There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve “serious harm” to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). The expression “serious harm” includes, for example, a threat to life or liberty, significant physical harassment or ill-treatment, or significant economic hardship or denial of access to basic services or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood, where such hardship or denial threatens the applicant’s capacity to subsist: s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors. However the motivation need not be one of enmity, malignity or other antipathy towards the victim on the part of the persecutor.

Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition – race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase “for reasons of” serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a “well-founded” fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a “well-founded fear” of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a “real chance” of persecution for a Convention stipulated reason. A fear is well-founded where there is a real substantial basis for it but not if it is merely assumed or based on mere speculation. A “real chance” is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

Apr 16th, 2006
Donna

Marilyn

Your blogs are informative and well-considered. I am much more knowlegable of the topic because of the information I read in your blogs.

Keep up the good work.

Apr 16th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Thank you Donna – all the information is available if only people would look for it. If you go to the Federal court site and read the cases they will make your hair curl. Our law has become so narrow and outside the convention it is almost impossible to be found to be a refugee – which proves that of the 10,000 or so who came on boats almost all of them are here as refugees in spite of that.

Apr 16th, 2006
Donna

Marilyn

Please take comfort in knowing that I have volunteered as an ESL tutor for refugees in Brisbane.

I work full time. I have a child. I should be working now actually instead of constructively avoiding what I am meant to be doing. I need people like yourself (intelligent people) to keep me informed on what is happening in this world.

I have every intention of joining the Democrats and becoming more politically active within my community. I want my daughter to be raised with a political conscience.

Apr 16th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Marilyn the irrelevant instrument Geoff seems to be referring to is;
‘Convention Governing The Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa’.

Apr 16th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Yeah, thanks Kaye – Geoff seems to think we are part of Africa but I can’t quite work out how he got to that conclusion.

Good for you Donna. I suspect Howard would still be shocked at the number of people who are doing work like you are.

Here is one for you.

On 19 December 2004 the Afghan government said Roqia Bakhtiyari and her children had been confirmed to be of the Jaghouri district of Afghanistan but Austraila kept saying they were from Pakistan.

On 22 December they put out a press release restating the above.

On 26 December Russell Skelton at the AGE claimed he had spoken to the authorities in Afghanistan who said it was a lie.

On 27 December the ambassador sent Vanstone a letter saying Roqia and her children are from Afghanistan and that the journalist had not spoken to anyone in Afghanistan.

On 30 December she hired a $250,000 jet to dump them in Pakistan without papers. The questions on notice supporting my claim are to be found at http://www.gov.au – follow the prompts through senate committees to Supplementary Estimates, 1 November 2005 and then to questions on notice – read qon 106 and the following 20 or so.

And spread them around to everyone you can think of.

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

kaye… I didn’t make a mistake.
I put iup stuff for discussion.
As usual you don’t like your small world rocked.
marilyn :roll:

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

Oh and Marilyn….

The source was included in the original post… duh!

As for me rferencing something that was 40 years old.
Ahh excused me but the convention you keep on citing was created in 1951… (how old is that?)

BTW I brought up the issue of it needing to be updated to reflect the current times. hence my examples of variations on the theme and pointing out the relevance with current events.

I’d have thought it was pretty simple to understand.

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

Oh and BTW…

It seems I missed where both you and kaye addressed this part of the 1951 convention I quoted.

“The Convention shall not apply to any person who has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity (Article 1F (a))”

In regards to the WP situation for example… would Indonesians consider what they are doing a “crime against peace”?

“Every refugee has duties to the country in which he/she finds himself/herself (Article 2) “

Yet how does a country enforce this?
In regards to the WP situation, considering the reaction to Australia by the Indonesians to their behaviour etc…have they fulfilled this duty?

Anytime your ready. :roll:

Apr 16th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff you are confusing the behaviour of the persecutors with the behaviour of the refugees. What crimes have the West Papuans committed? Name one.

The Indonesian military are the criminals and would not be granted protection here. We are very well aware of 1F you just don’t seem to understand who it applies to.

Apr 16th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

There is already plenty of past legal rulings that give definition to the meaning of these clauses.

Also, regardless of what is in the Refugee Convention, the key document is Australia’s Migration Act, and the various Court rulings interpreting that (and aspects of the Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol along with it).

Article 1F basically means major war crimes or the like. A crime againt the peace would be something of this scale, not ‘breaching the peace’, having the stereo on too loud at parties or the like.

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

Wouldn’t the Indonesians see dissident Papuans seeking a separte identity as a “crime against peace”?

That’s what I asked Andrew.

You skirted it I think.

Apr 16th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff the size of my world is also irrelevent to the discussion you say you wish to have on the irrelevent instrument that has nothing to do with Australian law and the 1951 convention.

As to the cut and paste of the bits of the African Instrument, that appeal to you;
, so far, the WP’s have conformed with our laws and as a direct result of that conformity our Government are proposing to rewrite our laws to appease Indonesia who hasn’t to date entertained becoming a member state of the 1951 convention.

You said In regards to the WP situation for example… would Indonesians consider what they are doing a “crime against peace”?” I say shouldn’t our deliberations be on what any reasonable person in Australia considers to be a crime against peace? The judgement should be on our community standards and not that of a foreign fledgling democracy.

Although ‘freedom of speech’ is not enshrined in our Consitution or a Bill of Rights Australians, have a developed ligitimate expectation that we can enjoy this liberty. Probably something you and I Geoff are united on ?

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

Kaye, being a gentleman I’m restrained from telling you what I really think of you.
However, the inof I dumped here was relevant to the topic and the argument I put forward.

The Un isn’t the be all and end all of propriety in the world… far from it given the scandals it has gone through etc.

I’ve been talking about the validity of a 1951 convention which… shock horror… many countries are not signatories to.

The OAU for instance has it’s own version. Are you saying that Africans are inferior in their deliberations and morals? No?

It’s obvious from your comments that Indonesians are certainly inferior and not to be listened to.

Apr 16th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff your comment on what you think I think about Indonesians is also irrelevent. Wasn’t this a topic discussion you were after Geoff? I suggest we stick to that and not to, the size of my world, your self appraisal of your gentlemanliness (if there is such a word).

The info you “dumped” needs to be expanded on by you to give fellow bloggers a chance to know what your arguement actually is and respond.

Tell us clearly what you are argueing please?

If you are argueing that Australia should create a barrier to Refugees who wave flags and denounce human rights abuses, give public personal testimonys on 3rd party well documented human rights abuses against them(accepted by Australian decision makers giving rise to acceptance of asylum claims) then we need to know, so we can have a discussion.

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

kaye I’ve been very clear… both you and marilyn are the ones muddying the waters and not addressing all the questions in context.

Obviously your assumed knowledge of my thinking and position biases your responses.

Perhaps you should start rereading everything I’ve said again. You lot are unbelievable.

Apr 16th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff I am not clear on what you are thinking and I do not wish to muddy the waters.
Can you expand “for arguements sake” on why you cut and pasted the section of the African specific instument(AIS)?

Is there something in the AIS that you believe would be useful to Australia in;
a) assessing west papuan asylum claims;
b) assessing all asylum claims including boat and/or plane arrivals;
c)that Australia should be lobbying for at an International level including the UN
tell us?

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

My point, or one of them is kaye, that the the UN convention isn’t the only source of wisdom.

Another would be and I’ve repeated it several times that the 1951 UN convention (as good as it is) needs a rewrite.

Hence my putting forward a currently working alternative that is not that much different fron the UNs if you actually read it.

As for my thoughts of the WP situation I’ve already cleary posted what that is.

Apr 16th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff, the UN 1951 convention may not be the only “source of wisdom”, however it is the enabling Instrument under which our domestic law, that is the Migration Act, (supposed to be) confined.

Do you agee that if Australia, in an effort to appease a neighbour, were to step outside of the enabling instrument on Refugees, that is the current cornerstone of the Migration Act, then we may leave ourselves open to demands that could be considered unreasonable?

As far as a working alternative is concerned for the AIS, I suggest the sections of the alternative would not be applicable in this instance because all parties must be a signatory. I note that the AIS is specific in the statment that “by any activity likely to cause tension between Member States”.

Given that you put forward the AIS has many other sections closely resembling the 1951 convention, then are you saying that Indonesia must agree to comply with them before Australia entertained any domestic law changes?

Apr 16th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

The point is that it is what is in our Migration Act which counts, and it is the Refugee Convention which is reflected in our law (up to a point), not any African Convention.

Almost all of the countries that have not ratified the Refugee Convention are non-democracies, so I’m not sure we should be looking for them to guidance on human rights issues.

Our Migration Act already breaches the Refugee Convention in part (not to mention the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on Civil & Political Rights). However, Article 1F of the Convention regarding the non-requirement to offer protection to a war criminal is still reflected in our Act.

You would hardly ask the Indonesians’ interpretation of what constitutes a breach of Article 1F, when they are the ones allegedly perpetrating or allowing the persecution. It would be like asking China or Vietnam whether they thought pro-democracy activists were guilty of a ‘crime against peace’.

Apr 16th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Andrew, since you raise Vietnam in the context of Geoff’s ideas on ‘crimes against peace’ my experience in Australia is, that at all times Refugees living many years in Australia originating from Vietnam raise the flag most abhorred by the Vietnamese regime currently in control(that is the red and yellow striped flag of south vietnam – 30 years hence).

I clearly remember the night the last of the Vietnamese Refugees (aka pro democracy dissidents)were released from Christmas Island after 2 years arbitrary detention.

Yes the red and yellow flag is waved at every opportunity including last years visit by the current leader, Phan Van Khai. The releasees were extremely grateful for the protection affodred them by Australia and at eh same time they were highly critical of their country of origin.

i wonder Geoff if you think, the flag waving Vietnamese (many Australian citizens & their families born here) be shunted offshore and we expect 3rd countries to take them because they exercize a degree of freedom of speech we take for granted?

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

more strawmen kaye.

The points I made are quite clear. Your interpretation and understanding seems to be lacking somewhat.

Yes Andrew what we have IS what counts. i’ve never said differently now have I.

Just tried to open the debate to other ideas.

I do note however that you and your mates seem to have a very closed mind about Indonesia’s concerns. Obviously no elitism or racism involved there though.

Apr 16th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff you say you have tried to open debate to other ideas however (your systematic personal attacks aside) I cannot see how you have put a discussion up for debate.

What “strawman” are you talking about I am trying to understand what you are on about and your ambiguous responses are really getting tiresome”.
You have now taken liberty in labelling bloggers here as the Senators mates…..I have met the Senator, however I cannot let you say unchallenged that I am his ‘mate’ …As a mother of a ‘gaggle of hormonal teenagers’, I dislike the Senators body peircings for example………Geoff why do you resist a resonable topic discussion on what you put forward?

You should know that in the confines of my world (that you elect to tell me is small without knOwing me) I DO take time out to canvass alternative views TO MY OWN. I believe it is good for me to get a feel for those who do not share my experiences.

Apr 16th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

I thank you Geoff for acknowledging that there is no elitism or racism involved in trying to ensure that the most basic of human rights is upehld in Australia. Similarly, any suggestion that providing asylum for West Papuans equates to ignoring all of Indonesia’s concerns is just the language of appeasement.

As usual, your ‘clear points’ have been anything but, and you have dodged every direct question asked of you – responding instead with abuse. It appears this is your idea of ‘opening debate’, but it is not mine.

Please refrain from such troll-like behaviour in the future. It is a clear breach of the comments policy of this website. Various people breach this policy from time to time, but persistent offending will eventually have to be addressed for the benefit of all the other users of this site.

Apr 16th, 2006
Geoff

You guys get so easily distracted don’t you… :roll:

More assumptions and waffle kaye.

Why don’t you do what I suggested… reread.
Maybe a little light will turn on.

I’ve talked about the situation.
I’ve talked about the convention.
I’ve talked about other conventions.

You’ve been waffling about inanities and minor points. When someone puts forward info your the one who comes out stating they are mistaken, when they are not. Asking for references when they already are referenced enough for a blog. The list goes on…

You are dismissive of Africans (who would know a hell of a lot about refugees, oproblem states and fledgling democracies BTW) and Indonesians. Your concerns seems to be narrow to say the least.

Oh and BTW kaye have you ever heard the term “devil’s advocate”? :roll:

Apr 17th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

The proposed new appeasment changes see an emerginging intersection between this topic and the last men 2 on Nauru’.

I am concerned that Nauru ( as a much weaker party to the MOU) are certainly subject to a breach of the MOU by Austalia in that it appears processing has been exhausted and these 2 men have been left there indefinaltey by Australia.

With the liklihood that the proposed appeasement policy could see many sent to Nauru indefinately what can be done to pressure Australia to adhere to the MOU?

“The MOU also guarantees that Australia will ensure no persons will remain in Nauru after appropriate processing procedures are completed. ”
http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/releases/foreign/2001/fa177_01.html

Apr 17th, 2006
Geoff

“I thank you Geoff for acknowledging that there is no elitism or racism involved in trying to ensure that the most basic of human rights is upehld in Australia.”
My pleasure Andrew. (Even though I think you expanded my original demographic) :-)
I didn’t mention what I thought the problem was though. Not the place and so little time.

LOL BTW Andrew I find it amusing you don’t think comments directed at me are not offensive. You after all have been one of the chief protagonists there.

I don’t answer questions based on strawmen arguments that wander off on tangents and have nothing to do with the point brought up.

Oh BTW you’ll be pleased to know I’m giving you a couple of days break. Hope your easter was good.

Apr 17th, 2006
Geoff

Oh and BTW, in regards to the good ol’
1951 convention.

It’s pretty heavy on obligations duties and responsibilities of the signatories but oh so light on the obligations duties and responsibilities or the refugees.

Apr 17th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

dear me – to quote someone else, I suggest you “reread”.

Apr 17th, 2006
Tom

aaah – the old ‘devil’s advocate’ approach.

That’s usually what someone suddenly claims to be when they can’t back up their arguments with anything of substance, or respond to any questions asked of their statements.

Also known as the ‘just opposing you pig-headedly because I like trying to generate arguments’ approach.

Talking about the law as it applies in Australia equals “inanities”, “Minor points”, “narrow concerns”?!

Gotta try harder than that Geoff. There’s a big difference between troll and devil’s advocate, and it’s pretty clear what you are.

Apr 17th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff please do me a favour before you have a couple of days break and let me know what ‘:roll:’ means?
I’m busting to know.

Apr 17th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Geoff Frank Brennan has a first class article
http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/canberra-joins-the-people-traffickers/2006/04/16/1145126005636.html
that I would be intererested in hearing your response to now or when you get back from your break.
The most imortant thing for me is not to see you leave this site as I believe I have a lot to learn from you and it would definaltey be boring for me if you left indefinaltey.

Apr 17th, 2006
Geoff

Ah no Andrew I’ve read it about 10 times in the last 2 nights.

Something factual might be nice to back yourself up. After all I may have missed something.

Apr 17th, 2006
Geoff

thanks kaye
Andrew unforunately stopped :roll: from working, but if he turns it back on you’ll see what it means.
The blog ‘ll light up like a xmas tree. :-)
Sometimes I even :roll: myself.
(it’s an emoticon)
I’ll read that article as soon as I get a chance you can be sure.

Apr 17th, 2006
Geoff

had a quick read kaye….
I don’t agree with some of the conclusions.
But the main thrust I basically agree with.
Personally I don’t think we should be putting it on places like Nauru to house our asylum seekers. But then I don’t dislike the idea of housing them off-shore until their validity etc is checked and proven.

In fact I’d set up a situation where they can have complete freedom of movement etc whilst there.
No fences no razor wire.

I thought the idea was for the UN to do the vetting at off-shore facilities. The premise being that being out of the way they cannot cause an immediate embarrassment via the media for Indonesia and may not be allocated to australia anyway and that since the UN does the vetting they cannot blame Australia for validating their refugee status.

I hope all that was clear. :roll: I get pretty tired after 12 hours at work and being awake for 20.

Apr 17th, 2006
Martin

I suggest we send a team to Malaysia, Singapore Hong Kong & the like, to study their methods & modes of dealing with refugees & illegal immigrants.
Lets ditch our cuurent policies, which no doubt are a hang-over from White Australia & colonial era days, and align our policies more closely with our near & important neighbours.

Apr 17th, 2006
Geoff

I thought they were a hang over from the last Labor governments martin. long time after the WAP.

Apr 17th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Good for you Martin, Singapore and Malaysia have not signed or ratified the refugee convention. Singapore has the death penalty and Malaysia takes to “illegals” with canes.

Beauty, we can become even more brainlessly savage.

Apr 17th, 2006
Jolanda

Gosh Marilyn, are still blaming Australians for everything?

Apr 17th, 2006
Jolanda

Oops somehow the word “YOU” disappeared. Anyway, I am sure that you know who you are.

Apr 17th, 2006
Cath

Back to 75ish re. the importance of naming bullying tactics when they occur. I still believe that if you do not name bullying behaviour it will never stop, it will spead, and it will be (more?!?) accepted as the dominant approach in world politics.
I firmly believe that this can be done respectfully. In fact I believe that it would be disrespectful to both ourselves and the Indonesians not to question the treatment of Papuans in West Papua. And certainly disrespecful to the Papuans themselves.

Apr 17th, 2006
Martin

To Marilyn Shepherd:
To Those with a fundamentalist-mindset ( whether they be religious zealots or human rights campaigners) anyone who does not share their value-system is brutish.
The first responsibility of any govt is the welfare of its citizens.
The policies of Malaysia & Singapore are at least true to that principle.
Regrettably the same cannot be said about many western careerist politicans, journalist,lawyers etc who put their own personal agendas & morality ahead of the wellbeing of the country.

Apr 17th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Martin i would have thought that this Govenments primary respsonsibilty is to its citizens. This duty is coupled with a degree of respect for the laws of our nation and in the context of the discussion topic the laws of this nation should not be subject to knee jerk reaction. The arrival of 43 people arriving by boat or the grumblings in a phone call by a foreign leader to ours.

Apr 17th, 2006
Martin

Kaye the policy in question is hardly something out of the blue. It’s rather a tightening of a pre-existing policy.
Depending on your stand-point, this can be called kneejerk or flexibility.
Debating whether it is kneejerk or influenced by foreign govts masks the real issue, which is, what should are approach be to “refugees”?

Apr 18th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

I think the use of the word ‘tightening’ in respect of a pre existing policy understates the new proposal. (the ‘pacific solution’ was put forward as a way to keep refugees out of Australia that culminated with most of them now living in Australia)

What i understand is Australia is completely erasing our Migration Zone to bar boat people who would seek our protoction. The proposal is that Australia will not process asylum seekers or accept Refugees that emerge from that processing into this country full stop.

The reliance on other countries to settle those Refugees who Australia will be wharehousing offshore is an unreasonable expectation of others to fulfill our obligations. It is highly likly that 3rd countries will not support the ‘convention chicanery’ of our Government.
The policy will leave living breathing men women and children in limbo.

A little bit of coincidental trivia is that this week, as we discard our longstanding acceptance of those who come to our shores, 30 years ago marks the arrival of the first Vietnamese asylum boat, the Kien Giang’. 5 young men had sailed 3500 kms with the aid of a torn out page of a school atlas.

Apr 18th, 2006
ken

All the conventiosn or argumetns in the world won’t change what has alwasy been the way human kind has evolved.

Apr 18th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Jolanda, it is Australia who wants to send Papuans off into the ozone for no reason so why shouldn’t I blame them. Who else is doing it?

Ken, are you saying we have devolved back into the swamps maybe? I suspect that the Indonesian government tried to black mail a mum at gun point because they wanted to be nice and kind to the Papuans don’t you?

Apr 18th, 2006
ken

Marilyn – metaphohorically “have we ever left”.

Can’t fathom what the second point is about? is that why the 43 left?

Apr 18th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Ken the 43rd has not left and is held in detention on Christmas Island and no decision has been forthcoming on the asylum claim.

Apr 18th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

apologies Ken I didn’t read your post correctly

Apr 18th, 2006
Jolanda

Marilyn you said:

“Good for you Martin, Singapore and Malaysia have not signed or ratified the refugee convention. Singapore has the death penalty and Malaysia takes to “illegals” with canes.

Beauty, we can become even more brainlessly savage.”

See Marilyn, the Government does not want to send Papuans off the Ozone for no reason. Thats where you dont seem to get it, they have their reasons. You may not agree, but they have their reasons and many Australians agree.

Apr 18th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Jolanda and the Governments reasons are?
Can you source the survey whereby you came across the “many Australians agree” to send ?

I watched a survey in the Age last week where the question was asked do you agree that Australia should accept west Papuan asylum seekers and it ran 80% in favour of acceptance.

Apr 18th, 2006
Martin

“The policy will leave living breathing men women and children in limbo”

If our concerns are genuine,why are we limiting our compassion only to those few who have the wherewithal to bribe passage to our shores & guile to burn their papers once they get here.

There are tens of millions all over the world who would equally qualify.Lets not be “mean spirited” & “tokenistic”

We have a morally obligation to accept them too! Its inhumane to pick some and ignore the rest.
( & I’m sure it must contravene some or other UN convention).

Apr 18th, 2006
Jolanda

Whether we should accept Papuan asylum seekers and whether they should be detained off shore are two totally different questions Kaye. Of course the majority of Australians would say to help the Papuans.

I don’t know exactly what the Governments reasons are, but I can sure imagine that they are in a difficult situation as they expect other countries to respect their laws so in turn they must respect theirs.

I dont blame our Government for being tough on asylum seekers. These people have enough freedom and money to run away from their country and some even go well out of their way to come here. Then they demand that we treat them a certain way and insist they have a right to do whatever they want.

I dont agree with asylym seekers being treated inhumanely but I do agree they must be detained so as to check their background and stories.

Apr 18th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Jolanda the appeasment proposal is not just to process boat arrival asylum seekers offshore who reach mainland Australia, ( we have been doing that since July 2003) The latest policy goes well beyond that. The proposal is to warehouse them in Nauru and Manus past the initial processing and if an asylum seeker meets the recognised definition of a refugee Australia will continue to warehouse them until a 3rd country agrees to settle them.

Apr 18th, 2006
Jolanda

Kaye has the Government indicated the reasons why they wish to settle these asylum seekers in a 3rd Country and not Australia. There must be a reason, I am sure its not just to give them something to do?

Apr 18th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Jolanda to cut out the ‘middle man’ I suggest you ask you local federal member or senator reasons Australia is preparing to warehouse people in Nauru and Manus.

I am also sure that it not just to give them (3rd countries) something to do.

If you don’t agree with treating refugees inhumanely then you could support the most recent media release call by Andrew Bartlett for all parliamentarins who are to vote on the new proposals to visit Naurau before casting.

Apr 18th, 2006
Jolanda

Kaye, There are complicated issues to take into consideration when dealing with matters like this. Not everybody is going to agree on everything.

I guess I would just like to know, for those that are so against what is being done and how, whether they have seriously considered the reasons behind the Governments decisions and if so, why they think the Government is wrong.

Apr 18th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

I do believe we got the answer on Lateline tonight. It seems they are aware of the corrupt behaviour of our own AFP, Customs and Immigration officers who would appear to be involved in drug and gun smuggling between New Guinea and Australia.

Hmmmmm. This is redolent of Mick Keelty running people smuggling operations out of Jakarta from 2000 onwards or even earlier. Interesting stuff indeed.

Andrew I know you will be no more surprised than I am as we have long said their was this sort of corruption happening. Could be interesting to discover why the AFP and others have been so concentrated on a few refugees that they ignore drug and gun running.

Jolanda, Ruddock is a mad zealot. He believes for some deranged reason that Australia should be refugee free. I don’t know why that is.

When genuine refugees from places like Papua apply to come to Australia we leave them to their fates in squalor and terror.

That is why people take the chance to come. Here is the other thing – people fly here every day from all over the world to seek asylum and we never hear that they should have gone somewhere else, they are not labelled as queue jumpers or illegals or locked up in the desert. Yet they are the same sort of people who come on boats.

Apr 19th, 2006
Geoff

Redolent?
come on M… come right out and say what you think, LOL

Ruddock a mad zealot?

Sometimes I wonder why they haven’t come and taken you away.
Then I remember the Ricmond report and answer my own question.

Speaking of which no one has answered several of my questions and the great Andrew hasn’t taken them to task for it.
I see Tom the Troll hasn’t be chastised either.
How unusual.

I note Indonesia’s response was in line exactly with what I said it would be very early on in the piece and no one thought it worth addressing. So much for the PC brigade being sensitive or rational when it comes to dealing with political realities.

Apr 19th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

The tired old “they burn their papers” is coming up again years after it had been proven not to have ever happened.

I wonder why it is that some people stick on a point of bigotry and stay with it regardless. The “papers” you speak of were taken by the agents to be used again and again.

Heavens don’t you folk know that yet? What do you think happens to people who asked the Taliban or Saddam Hussein for papers? And how come we didn’t need papers to go and blow up Iraq and Afghanistan?

They haven’t come to take me away Geoff because I am completely sane – just driven a wee bit nutty by trolls.

Apr 19th, 2006
Martin

Their papers were taken by agents -crap!!! (akin to the old, students excuse the cat ate my homework)
I can recall some of the people arriving by boat telling how they had conspired to burn their papers when the rescue boats appeared so they couldn’t be identified & sent back.
I recall another well publicised case of a Malaysian woman who was using a false passport and when caught out simply refused to return home.
The usual senario is -come here illegally,have your case heard, & if unsuccessful, lodge appeal after after appeal at tax payers expense-and when found against, simply refuse to budge, until the administration intimidated by cries of “inhamane treatment” & the like relents and decides to let you stay- oh yes-and you may even get compensation for your “trauma”
And on a related issue, are you aware that many of the Vietnamese refugees -And the later Chinese students who stayed here after the Tianamen square incident, & who were so fearful for their lives, after gaining citizenship, later returned to live and work in Vietnam & China.

Apr 19th, 2006
Jolanda

Marilyn, you keep bringing up these people that come by plane etc seeking asylum as though that justifies your stance. You do realise that you could very well be making it very difficult for these people in the future, since you keep bringing it to everybody’s attention.

Personally, given the way the World is today and what has happened in the past, I think that the Government should have much stricter control of people coming into this country no matter how they make thier way in.

You say Ruddock is a mad zealot. You also say that Austrailans are a whole lot of horrible things too. Yet you think that you are just dandy. Well I guess that we might have to disagree on some of that.

You dont seem to understand that there are much bigger issues at play here with respect to the relationships between Countries and with respect to respecting each others Laws and cultures and other issues. I am sure that nobody wants Australia to end up at war with Indonesia. WE are only a little Country and our Govenrment has to be very careful how they deal with these types of issues.

You still havent’ answered my question, what about the children that pay the price and are tortured and their life made miserable because of the actions of those that fled to protect themselves?

Or dont they count!

Apr 19th, 2006
ken

Yeah Marilyn I saw the ABC job on Lateline too. It was going real well for you folk unitl the stooge let the cat out of the bag and jumpoed on the IRAQ angle. Thats a real big issue I’m sure for the “real” papuan rascal up in the highlands….

Apr 19th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Martin in reference to post 144;
The proposed policy changes will affect those who come to our shores, and it is on that basis there can be no denial that we will be responsible for the outcomes.

The cost attached to the proposed policy changes that will be tantamount to buying warehouse space for refugees on Naru and Manus is worthy of discussion.

I believe Andrew Bartlett’s call on the Prime Minister and the Immigration Minister to visit those places is valid.

Investing 100’s of millions of dollars offshore, in the implementation of hte policy, requires any responsible leadership to have a first hand understanding of what they are entering into. I fear the failure to date of the PM and the Immigration Minister to do so is based on a similar practice evident in the AWB scandal. If you don’t see the cable how can you be responsible for failed policy in practice?

Also attached to the policy changes is an assumption by our Government that 3rd party states will settle refugees we send offshore. Some commentators on this issue suggest that it may only be 3rd party nations acting solely on Australia’s financial inducements (diguised as aid) that would entertain taking up settlement of Australia’s warehoused refugees.

Any suggestion by you that the topic of discussion should be expanded to cover the possible arrival on Australian shores of ‘tens of millions’ is nonsense.

In saying that of course I agree that Australia has a cooperative role to play in exploring measures to remedy as far as practical the suffering of our fellow citizens of the world.

Apr 19th, 2006
ken

Kaye – when did these people become “austrlai’s refugees”. If we are persucting them , as you and others seem to suggest, then I assume they need to find refuge somewheer else other than here.

Apr 19th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Ken once Australia formally detains an asylum seeker as provided for in the Migration Act in Australian law we have absolute control over that person.

From the moment Australia assumes control of that person we are responsible. The proposed policy has the potential to extend that amount of time indefinatley since there is no guarantee 3rd party states will settle them and our Govenment are saying we will not.

Wishful thinking that boats will head in alternate directions does not address what happens in real life.

The Govenment have taken steps beyond wishful thinking in the past by directing questionable border control measures openly criticised by the Australian Defence Forces.

Jolanda re your post 154 about air arrivals and Marilyn as a potential whistleblower on unathorised Air arrivals is a harsh since the Imigration Department Website states;
“Historically, the Australian examples of people smuggling which attract most media attention have been by boat. However, the majority of smuggling into Australia and other countries occurs by air.

In 1999-2000, this trend was reversed, as more unauthorised arrivals entered Australia by boat than by air. Figure 1.1 illustrates the trend in air and boat arrivals in the period since 1994.”

This ‘issues paper’ gives some insight also.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2000-01/01cib08.htm

Apr 19th, 2006
ken

You misunderstood me – you abnd marilyn coniteue to say we persecute these people. remember the razor wier – so they should seek asylum elsewhere – it is logically inconsistent to seek asylum from persuction in a place that persecutres you

Apr 19th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

I have said that the mandatory detention policy is inhumane from the perspective of first hand experience in visiting detention centres including Christmas Island.

Ken I heard an interview the other day with a West papuan who said words to the effect that ‘West papuans are no longer scared of the barrel of a gun’. This type of statement is similar many of discussions I have had with refugees.

I have often spoken with Refugees about the boat journies and what it was like, from my priveledged and protected position as an Australian citizen trying to understand the desperation that could lead to flight, in the first instance. One comment by a particularly honourable man was “It is better we die in the sea in freedom.”

The logic applied by boatpeople is I think coupled with the international reputation and notion of Australia as a land of the fair go.

That notion of Australia visits us most poingently on an annual basis with ANZAC day. The image of the Aussie as a fearless breed ready to be the first one up the hill is different for me this year when I think about the new policy.

I believe the proposed policy is one where Austrlaia will now stand at the bottom of the hill and expect others to do our bidding.

Apr 19th, 2006
ken

Well if nothing else I can certainly agree wth the sentiment that we, in the main, are privleged in this country, well at least materially relatvie to almost all otehrs in the world.

Apr 19th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

There is a strange mindset here. Martin talks about Virginia Leong refusing to leave Australia but forgets that she had been trying to leave Australia. Should she and her little girl have spent more than 3 years in detention because she wanted to leave? 18 Tongans got caught in that as well – they just wanted to go home but DIMA couldn’t be bothered getting their documents or contacting their embassy to get them documents so we fools spent over $1 million keeping them locked up and now they are still in Sydney. Why? They asked to go home 2 years ago.

Jolanda, you don’t seem to understand even the simplest point. Anyone on the planet is allowed by law to arrive in Australia anyway they want and claim our protection without being punished for the way they arrive. What on earth is the difference between coming to an island on a boat or a plane? People have to get here.

And you are a migrant stock – same as every person on the island – just who the hell do you think you are to say no-one else should be allowed to come? Come on – what a pack of pathetic, mealy mouthed people you are.

One day we will need the type of help that the Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, Papuans and people from Lebanon, Sri Lanka, India, Israel, Palestine and many others need.

You all need to ask yourselves this question – considering our record on upholding the rights of refugees here who the hell will help us if we are forced to become refugees? How will you leave the country if you don’t have valid passports, or an invading force has closed all the airports?

What would you do?

There is a total failure of imagination of the middle classes in Australia. We could become refugees tomorrow and you have to ask who in the world would help us and how would we get there.

With all the whining about visas and such only migrants have them. Australian born citizens don’t unless they have travelled.

Now have a choke on that prospect.

Then ask where you could go if we were invaded or bombed like Iraq or Afghanistan for no particular reason. You can’t find a border to cross except from New South Wales into Victoria or Queensland and the militias have set up check points where visas must be shown. But you don’t have one.

Can’t go to Indonesia because they are the invaders. Can’t go to New Guinea or Papua because we have abandoned them to the same persecutors as we are now subjected to. What about New Zealand – well Helen Clark closes the gates because there are too many of us and anyway we brutalise Kiwis here in detention and forced the Kiwis to accept our refugees.

What would you do then? Is this all fanciful because we are a democracy so it couldn’t happen?

Dream on folks – we are a puissant country at the back end of nowhere and no-one at all would care if we were invaded and taken over unless they stood to lose money out of it.

Somewhere, somehow many Australians seem to have lost the plot and got carried away on the notion that in the world Australia is a world power.

Guess again. We have only one third of one percent of the world’s population and money.

The rest is just outside the gate.

We don’t have to cower like snivelling cowards in our little McMansions but we don’t have to get carried away on our own self-deluding grandeur either.

Now – what would you do if you had to flee tomorrow, you had no passport or visa, you couldn’t catch a plane because the airports were all closed and you couldn’t cross from state to state without being shot.

Martin I don’t know who told you that the false passports provided to the refugees to travel were burnt by them – they never even saw them or touched them so how could they.

I have read about 700 files for those in Woomera and I can assure you no refugees ever had passports in their own hands to burn. DIMA are well aware of that and anyway it makes not a skerrick of difference.

1. They were all Id’d without papers and are still here.
2. If they had papers we couldn’t send them anywhere anyway if they were refugees because that would break the law.

So, anything else now. Jolanda before you go into another tirade about me hating Australia and everything in it – I like this place but I sure don’t have to like the pollies and appalling policies that treat human beings as sub human creatures and I sure don’t have to like the people who support those same obscene policies.

Are we clear now.

Apr 19th, 2006
ken

No

Apr 19th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Well then Ken if you cannot understand the simple proposition I have put to you you are surely functioning on nothing more that bigotry.

Apr 19th, 2006
Jolanda

Marilin I never said that nobody else should be allowed to come here ever. I have always maintained that we have to settle and accept those that we already have here first, as we are all struggling to get along and violence, racism, terrorism and aggression is on the rise. Australians do not feel safe. We need to ensure that Australia gets on top of things and is progressing in a forward fashion before we can bring in more as otherwise we will also go backwards.

See once again I say that the difference between you and me is that even if the Law says that I can go to any Country that I like and seek refuge I dont believe that I can go and dictate where I should be processed, how I should be processed and demand that I be allowed to do whatever I want and call it my rights. If there was no other way and I was running away with my family fearing our life and seeking refuge I would go to the closest Country so as to not put my children at risk, and I would be so grateful that they took us in and agreed to have a look at our claim. I would not take my children half way across the world and put thier lives at risk and I would not make demands.

The problem is Marilyn that this situation is more than likely going to turn us all into refugees. You tell me how many of those from other Countries, who dont seem to have a problem escaping from the Countries that they fear so much and continue to keep in close contact with thier own Countries including visiting and that Australia has given refuge to, will fight for Australia if it is against their own.

Thats right Marilyn you would like Australia filled with all the people that think like you and that you like, that would then make it a perfect
Australia for you.

Apr 19th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Jolanda you whine like a pathetic child. What on earth are you so damn afraid of when no-one at all is threatening you or us or me?

The more that you give in to this mindless stupid fear, fear of absolutely nothing, the worse you make things for you.

Why don’t you exmamine what I wrote instead of whining about me. This is not about me.

This is about treating other people how you would expect them to treat you. It is a quaint christian concept that the christians of this nation seem to have forgotten.

The fact is that it is not refugees who are causing problems in Australia it is us.

And yes Jolanda if Australia was once again full of people who cared about something beside their own selfish hides I would like it.

And that is a bad thing? Do we want to keep ranting on and on about “them” hurting “us” when they are doing no such thing.

Fair dinkum. If you are kind to people they will eventually be kind to you. Just try and imagine being a refugee in Australia today with everyone vilifying and demonising you.

Blaming you for your problems, saying that you should have stayed and been killed.

I am 53 years old, I have grand children and I flatly refuse to allow them to succumb to the whining fraidy cat bullshit that is spouted today in Australia. I want them to grow up strong and proud in a country that cares for the poor, the sick and the old.

That is not Australia today.

Apr 19th, 2006
ken

Welcome to tolerance in action

Apr 19th, 2006
red crab

re 143
I watched a survey in the Age last week where the question was asked do you agree that Australia should accept west Papuan asylum seekers and it ran 80% in favour of acceptance.

mabe that mite be a bit different if there were 100,000 asylum seekers.

Apr 19th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

“Are affluent states about to outsource refugee protection to low-cost, no-frills countries? states the latest report to be released by High Commisioner, Antonio Guterres with Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary

Australia’s proposed Refugee policy refuses to allow Refugee boat arrivals to settle in Australia and is hinged on outsoucing the offshore warehousing of Refugees in the hope we can outsource to 3rd countries who we induced to take them.

What happens if 3rd countries don’t agree?

With the proposed policy, Christmas Island, Nauru and Manus will not have a detention centre, rather they could end up with Refugee camps similar to the camps in Palestine where children are born and die, without ever leaving.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article358573.ece

Apr 19th, 2006
Jolanda

Marilyn you said “Jolanda you whine like a pathetic child”

Then you said “This is about treating other people how you would expect them to treat you”

Maybe you should practice what you preach.

Oh and Marilyn you still havent answered my question:

What about the children that pay the price and are tortured and their life made miserable because of the actions of those that fled to protect themselves?

Or dont they count!

Apr 19th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

I haven’t followed all of these comments – there’s a bit of deja vu about some of it – but I really think a few basic points need to be made.

For starters, as was stated by the UNHCR when they laucnhed their latest report, “the majority of refugees are not in the developed world, they are in the developing world. And that large majority does not want to migrate to the developed world, they want to go home.” (from article linked to in #169)

Secondly, we should not kid ourselves that we are the only country that has to deal with asylum seekers. In fact, we have one of the lowest proportion of people seek asylum here of any developed country. If we say “not our problem” to even this small number – especially when they are from our own region – and try to palm these refugees off to other places, then other developed countries will feel justified in doing the same and the whole global system for trying to find solutions to refugee situations will breakdown. Then it will be ‘our problem’ whether we like it or not and the problem as a whole will be a much bigger one than it is now.

Thirdly, I think it is a bit rich for us in a safe, stable and wealthy country to be judging the motives of people who are fleeing places which are indisuptably unsafe and unstable. It is not always possible for whole families to flee together – sometimes the father/husband goes ahead and tries to get the family later; sometimes they find a way for the child to get out without the parents; sometimes it is the eldest son. Often the older males are the most likely to be targetted so the decision is made that they should be the first to go if a window of opportunity arises. Trying to make a blanket judgement of people is unfair when they all have different aspects to their circumstances and the only common factor is chaos and uncertainty.

Finally, it is not the role of a government (or ideally a society) to judge the motivation of people who flee. The duty is to judge whether they would be at genuine, serious risk if they were sent back. If they are, then international law, our own law and any basic notion of human decency says they must be given reliable protection. To end where I started, it is worth remembering that in almost all cases the refugees themselves would also much rather still be in their own homeland if it was safe.

Apr 19th, 2006
Jolanda

Andrew, nobody is judging their motives. What people are judging is their choice of action as their actions impact on those that are left behind and create tensions between Countries.

Apr 19th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Jolanda please think about what you are saying. How can people who flee be the facilitators of the further persecution of those who are left behind. The tensions behind countries is not of either of these 2 groups makings.

I have not followed your issues in regard to you kids closley, however I venture to say that with the same reasoning, any complaints or issues raised by, could be argued with the same unsound reasoning, to be the cause of your child’s oringinal and ongoing problem.

Apr 19th, 2006
Jolanda

Kaye please think about what you are saying? How can you possibly believe that the actions of those that flee do not aid in the persecution of those who are left! Or dont they count!

And, with tensions and issues at the level that they are today between different cultures and countries how can you say that the tension of these Countries is not of either of these 2 groups in the makings.

I think the 42 Papuans fleeing to Australia the way that they have has caused unrest in Australia and created tensions between our Countries. It has also made it very difficult now for others that might want to flee as now they are going to have a much harder time getting out and are going to be sent away to be processed.

So yes Kaye, I believe that the actions of those that flee do aid in the persecution of those who are left. That is why people should stay in their own country and fight for freedom. If they are prepared to loose their life on a boat for freedom – then why not in their own home?

The Government cannot afford to challenge Indonesia on this issue, as it will mean a clash of cultures and it will just lead to War and killing each other has never worked.

Apr 19th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Under that logic those Jews who fled extermination by the Nazi were partly to blame for the ones who did end up being killed! Talk about blame the victim!!

Why is it the fault of those who are indisputably being persecuted if their plight is somehow causing tensions between Austraian and Indonesia? Was it the Jews fault that their treatment – and the attempts of some of them to flee – caused tension between Germany and other countries?!

It’s so easy for us in our war-free nation to say “stay in your own country and fight and risk death”. Especially as they shouldn’t have to turn the place into a civil war just to have the right to have some control over their own lives. Whatedver diplomatic difficulties have been caused with the current situation, I hardly see how it would be better for us to have a civil war erupt there – especially if follows on from us having sent a message to West Papuans saying “stay there and fight if you want freedom”.

One could also note that West Papuans have been trying resistance for around 40 years with over 100 000 dead according to some estimates – how much longer are they supposed to keep going with that approach, especially with virtually no support from the international community?

Thousands have also taken the path of fleeing in the past – why should they be stopped now, and why is this latest 43 somehow bad for fleeing, but not the thousands who have escaped previously?

I know most Australians have fat comfortable lives by comparison, but why is it so hard to put ourselves in other peoples’ shoes occasionally before we rush to judgement?

Apr 19th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Freedom fighters remaining in their home country, where genocide is claimed (and documented independently) is an appealing concept to you it seems Jolanda.

I personally cannot accept this concept as a good enough reason to change our laws that would otherwise protect those fortunate enough to escape.

Apr 19th, 2006
Jolanda

Yes Andrew with that logic those Jews that fled are partly to blame as they should have stayed behind and helped protect thier own as in smaller numbers the ones that were left were far more vulnerable and it left those that wanted to help with nobody to support.

The other part of the blame goes to those who stood around and watched and said nothing knowing full well that it was wrong.

Kinda like our Politicians and the same problem Jesus faced.

Apr 20th, 2006
Jolanda

Kate, what about those that are not fortunate enough to escape. Or dont they count!

Apr 20th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Exactly Jolanda!

Apr 20th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Jolanda, I guess they end up like Anne Frank!

Are Anne Frank’s cousins to blame for her unfinished diaries?

Apr 20th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Apologies Jolanda missed a bit of my post, meant to say, are Anne Franks cousins who escaped to blame for her unfinished diaries?

Apr 20th, 2006
Martin

“it is worth remembering that in almost all cases the refugees themselves would also much rather still be in their own homeland if it was safe”

The fact of the matter Andrew is that many if not most of the people arriving here and claiming ( & ultimately gaining) refugee status are economic refugees.

To borrow an analogy from your own RSS feed:
If a woman comes to your door and claims to have been raped, you would give her the benefit of the doubt.
(extending that same analogy)
However, if a woman came to your door claiming she had been raped and you later found she had come from far across the other side of town & that in passaging to your house she had visited many other houses and not once mentioned her plight or sought help, you would (justifably) have suspisions about her motives/intentions.

There is also the associated point raised earlier about refugees who soon after securing their status return to their homelands to work.
And I make specific reference to Vietnamese refugees and the Chinese students who stayed after the Tianamen Square incident.
I would have thought that if you were a genuine refugee who sought asylum
i) Because you feared persecution or death at the hands of the regime,or
ii) Was morally repulsed by it policies or antics

That you would not have the stomach to return to live/work under that same regime, and in some cases work for that very regimes institutions
(And bear in mind bear this did not occur decades after the event)

On the other-hand if you were merely an opportunist taking advantage of a gullible system to better your economic position, you would have no such qualms -as seems to have been the case.

To illustrate a recent specific example- one family recently asked the Vietnamese authorities if they could reclaim there former family home –now being used by some local got authority. They were told they could as long as their parents returned to live in the house. They choose not to take-up the offer –not because they feared for their safety but because the standard of aged & health care in Australia was superior.

Apr 20th, 2006
Jolanda

Kaye, the blame for Anne Frank’s unfinished diaries was the adults.

They should have known better and they should have stood up to the bullies and supported and helped each other.

Apr 20th, 2006
Yulia

Jolanda as the daughter of a brave and wonderful woman who risked her own life many many times to help others escape persecution during WW2, I find your comments appalingly ignorant and insensitive.

For someone who whinges and whines constantly and at great length, about others not understanding her motivations, your willingnes to make these type of sweepingly assumptive comments about people whose history and circumstances you know absolutly nothing about, is very telling.

Apr 20th, 2006
Jane

Jolanda,
Do you have any concept how offensive your last post is? Or am I misinterpreting it? What ‘adults’ are you referring to?

And as to the WP situation, can you not see what enormous moral responsibility your ‘logic’ places on those people at the absolute bottom of the power hierarchy?

Apr 20th, 2006
Ken

Jane – Short answer would be no.

However – Fleeing is understanadable, and cant; be seen as resposnbile for others plights, however I can’t cop leaving families behind – Wwomen / children / the elderly first and the Captain goes down with the ship.

Apr 20th, 2006
Jolanda

Yulia I don’t whine about others not understanding my motivations. We can all understand the motivations.

I complain about adults doing nothing, when I am telling them that children are being systemically targeted, bullied and vicitmised, except blame me for my children’s plight as, in doing so, they are protecting and supporting the bullies.

I am not going to another Country to seek help for what is happening in my own Country, I am seeking help from fellow “Adults” in Australia to protect children that are being targeted and the majority is not interested in standing up to support children against the adult bullies in the system.

If “adults” didn’t turn a blind eye to what was “obviously wrong” we wouldn’t find ourselves in the situation that we are in today.

We are all responsible Jane.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
From internet – Pastor Martin Niemöller

Apr 20th, 2006
Ken

Dont go there Yulia

Apr 20th, 2006
Yulia

You’re right Ken …..

breathing in ……

breathing out ……

Apr 20th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Jolanda I think the recent posts made by you are accurately summed up in the latest Report on Refugees, ‘The State of the World’s Refugees: Human Displacement in the New Millennium’.

The High Commissioner says;
“We are witnessing the rebirth of irrationality.

The Australian Government’s conflicting and ambiguous announcements on the detail of the proposed policy may leave you underinformed at this point in time. I suggest if you wish to know more you may wish to put a telephone call in to Indonesia who are being briefed/consulted today by a leading Australian diplomat.

I personally find this quite odd given that our Govenrnnment have not taken the new legislation to the Australian Parliament for debate and vote. Perhaps the Indonesians are assisting our diplomat in tweeking the legislation?

Apr 20th, 2006
Geoff

Be Brave Ken…

God,

Grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change

Courage to change the things I can

and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Apr 20th, 2006
ken

Whats so odd about consultation before legislation is taken to Parliament. We do it with nearly every piece of legisltion ever introduced into any legilslature anywhere in the country. God even the local counicl puts out draft plannign documents before adopting them. Its Andrew’s primary job – ever heard of senate legislatvie review copmmittees – I think the irratioanlity is not all one way here.

I will grant however we don’t oftne consult wiht foreign countries, (at least that the hoi poloi aer aware of).

Apr 20th, 2006
Jolanda

Things must be getting interesting as both Ken and Geoff have included God in their last posts.

I think that God would agree with me, that if all those persons/adults that were standing around watching as his son Jesus was being murdered had of spoken out and stood up for Jesus and protected him, things would have been different. The Power was with the majority of the people and they failed him.

I think that God also couldn’t possibly be happy with humans because the majority turned a blind eye when his son was being crucified and then they accepted the sacrifice as an excuse to forgive themselves for their sins in the past and in the future.

Yep, that’s how I see it.

Oh and Yulia, don’t forget to breathe back in!.

Apr 20th, 2006
Jolanda

Kaye, I sense a change of culture happening, but I feel that there are some people who are not prepared to acknowledge change and/or to actually change. They get stuck. The internet has made it so that it is unlikely that really bad things can happen in any Country without people finding out about it. It was far more difficult in the past.

These Papuans coming to Australia say that they are being persecuted. The Indonesian Government says that it is not true. Maybe these Papuans are concerned about things that have happened previously and maybe the Indonesian Government is trying to say things have changed.

The Australian Government doesn’t even have to check to see whether the claims are true for these people. They may very well only know of other people that have been persecuted in the past for their beliefs and as a result feel that they at risk ‘today’. Thing is that Countries cannot change unless the people are prepared to let go of the past and change with it.

Open, fair, honest, transparent and accountable process, procedure and administration is the only way forward as then everybody knows where they stand.

Apr 20th, 2006
Yulia

God agrees with Jolanda – of course.

Apr 20th, 2006
ken

Off Topic – Apologies

God help for saying this, I’m sure the god bothereers would know better, but from my memeory the whole supposed pioint of the crucifixtion and subsequent resurrrection was for God to sacrifice his son for humantiy etc etc – not for a bunch of people to drag him of the cross to – god would not have been pleaseed.

I thinkl for once J has her tongue in cheek – maybe….

Apr 20th, 2006
Jane

off topic – Apologies

I think you are giving her too much credit.

I think that is really her interpretation of the crucifixion – see how it neatly segues into an analogy of her dispute with the education department.

Apr 20th, 2006
Jolanda

You all still don’t get it – “It’s the culture of turning a blind eye and covering up and denying” that is causing the problems and this Culture started back then.

You can ridicule me all you like but there is a reason why the World is killing each other and falling apart.

Glad you agree that God agrees with me Yulia.

Apr 20th, 2006
Jane

See.

Apr 20th, 2006
ken

Its the second coming

Apr 20th, 2006
Geoff

I’m just worried about someone mentioning virgin births.

Apr 20th, 2006
Martin

” Virginia Leong … had been trying to leave Australia. Should she and her little girl have spent more than 3 years in detention because she wanted to leave”

Marilyn you have novel way of looking at things- you seem to believe that by simply declaring something true, makes it true!
It’s very 1984ish … or does it derive from Harry Potter????

The facts of the Virginia Leong case are:
Virginia Leong was caught using a false passport .
The administration detained her & determined to deported her back to Malaysia ( her country of origin) but for four years she fought the deportation – no doubt at Australian tax payers expense!
( so much for refugees really wanting to go home -but not being able to or allowed!!!!)

During that period she had a child.
The Refugee advocates and their fellow-travelers in the media & legal fraternity then set-up a hue & cry about how cruel & inhumane it was to keep her and her child in jail.

Eventually ( & predictably) the administration relented, released her and her child, granting a “ bridging visa” . The media then went on to laud her and her child as Australia’s answer to Nelson Mandella.

Quietly and out of sight she will eventually gain full citizenship.-& further, there will be no prosecution for use of a false passport.

Reading the facts of such a case makes one feel that the people of Australia have ‘been had’.

Apr 20th, 2006
red crab

well done martin finally some truth.

Apr 20th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Sorry to be going back 20 comments or so, but is the statement at #183 really meant to mean that if the Jews had just all supported each other and stood up to those Nazi bullies, then Anne Frank would have survived?

and even though I would hate to get sidetracked into Biblical debates, I thought it was the case that far from the majority failing to use their power by speaking out to protect Jesus, it was actually because of the mob majority demanding his death that he ended up copping it, even though Pontious Pilate initially wanted to spare him? (although as Geoff also pointed out, if he had spared him, we wouldn’t have our sins forgiven which was purportedly God’s intent anyway so I imagine God would have been rather peeved if his intent had been thwarted by people standing up to bullies and sparing Jesus)

(unless it means God was really the bully and people should have stood up to Him and said He couldn’t sacrifice his Son, even if He wanted to???)

Apr 20th, 2006
Geoff

Ah that was Ken actually I think Andrew… not that I disagree with him

Apr 20th, 2006
Jane

Yes, Andrew. I think that is what #183 was implying. Although I couldn’t actually get a straight answer from the writer when I asked was I misinterpreting it.

Apr 20th, 2006
Jolanda

Andrew. Its not just that if the Jews had just all supported each other and stood up to those Nazi bullies, then Anne Frank would have survived?

All people “adults” who believed it was wrong should have stood up together and for each other regardless.

I am not religious and I was brought up by non practicing Catholics but my recollection of what I was taught was that the people were in the majority when Jesus was killed and they did nothing to stop it and some even succumbed to the mob mentality and encouraged it.

Who said it was God’s intent to sacrifice Jesus to give us the power to forgive ourselves for our sins. That one doesn’t wash with me. That sounds like a story that was concocted by a devil to forgive himself for a very nasty deed.

Apr 20th, 2006
Geoff

“Who said it was God’s intent to sacrifice Jesus to give us the power to forgive ourselves for our sins. That one doesn’t wash with me. That sounds like a story that was concocted by a devil to forgive himself for a very nasty deed.”

Ah Jolanda, where’d you get that idea from?
John 3:16 (King James Version)

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You do know what Easter is about don’t you?
What the core Christian beliefs are?

Apr 20th, 2006
Jolanda

Geoff, did God write that himself or was that written by man – ROLL:

Yes I know what Easter is about, its about Easter eggs, they come out in January in anticipation.

I dont recall God giving his son, from what I can tell his son was taken and obviously God couldn’t save him just like he cant save us.

I dont particular want to get into an argument about religion. Religion is the one thing that kills the most people in the world, how ‘good’ can it possibly be?

Apr 21st, 2006
Geoff

Ok I give in Christianity is a crock…

Apr 21st, 2006
ken

Ah Andrew – the perverse force even strikes you. Good to see your only human too…..and I bet you thought debates in the Senate were difficult!!!

Apr 21st, 2006
Geoff

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18886285-601,00.html

Apr 22nd, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/6.html As much of this is about the West Papuans and the notion they should have gone to New Guinea I think it is time to consider Australia law as held by our very own High Court last year.

Then consider all the many people who have been treated illegally under the notion they should have gone somewhere else.

Martin, the Australian government smuggles people out of Australia on false documents every day of the week – why don’t we charge them?

Virginia was trying to leave with a different passport – big deal. Is that worth over 3.5 years in detention without charge or trial until your little child starts banging her head on the walls in despair after three years in jail? The maximum time if charged for using a false passport is 18 months and I can’t think of anyone who has been charged lately except Jack Thomas and his sentence for fiddling with his own passport was just 12 months, 6 months non-parole.

Beside all that, what did the baby Naomi do beside be born in jail? Did she forge a passport that she had to spend 3 years in jail?

There is this terrible culture of blaming victims – I thought Jesus was supposed to die in the name of being good and decent to our fellow human beings? Not that I know much – but I do remember growing up with the notion “do unto others as you would have them do to you”.

Now locking up a newborn because her mum did something is as ludicrous as locking up women and kids because their husband/father is a criminal or a rapist or a killer.
WE just don’t do it.

Perhaps Martin you have forgotten that Virginia has an Australian citizen son – which is why she refused to leave Australia once they locked her up, because she would be denied entry before she paid a bill of nearly $1 million for her own illegal detention.

What a choice – leave your 7 year old son for as long as it takes to pay a bill for $1 million which would take the whole of her life I think, or stay here in jail where you can at least see him.

Hmmmmm….Sounds like the wisdom of Solomon would have been required. Either that or a bit of commonsense from Australia when realising that there is no real penalty or offence connected to what the mum did.

Now back to the Papuans, please read the above High Court case – it clearly states that the notion of should have gone to another country is rubbish and always was.

Apr 23rd, 2006
Jolanda

Marilyn it seems to me that there is this terrible culture of people not wanting to take responsbility for their actions.

Apr 23rd, 2006
Geoff

Give it a rest marilyn… honestly.
Even I have my limits.

Apr 23rd, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Who Jolanda? Australians who went and blew up Iraq for no reason? The AWB for stealing from the Iraqi people and giving it to Saddam?

Geoff for not understanding Australian law?

Who is not taking responsibility? SBY for not stopping the torture and death in West Papua?

Who the hell are you talking about not taking responsibility?

Apr 24th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Jolanda with your reasoning in your most recent posts, “it seems to me that there is this terrible culture of people not wanting to take responsbility for their actions” I can only conclude that it follows that YOU as the adult directly responsible for your children, is fully responsible for all of their woes?

Not the perpetrators, not the people in power…just you in your position.

With your resoning perhaps you haven’t ta

Apr 24th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Sorry Jolanda I didn’t finish my post….. I thought important to add that you could take the reasoning you have applied to the asylum seeker topic of discussion here and apply it to your own circumstances.

Apr 24th, 2006
Jolanda

See if I have to explain it to you Marilyn and Kaye, then there is the problem!

I havent done anything illegal or that is unlawful or for which there is Legislation that says that I should be doing it different. On the contrary I have a duty of care to protect my children and that is exactly what I am doing and I am following policy and procedure and I am doing it all in the Country that created the problem. GET IT!

Some people have no respect at all for the Law or for rules. It seems that if they dont agree with what the Law says or the methods it uses then they dont believe that they have to do as it says.

Apr 24th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

Jolanda at no time did I suggest you were doing anything illegal or unlawful.

Your allegations of illegal and unlawful conduct by asylum seekers in coming to Australia is baseless since there are no past, present or proposed laws in Australia, that (would) make it an offence to arrive by boat seeking protection.

Apr 24th, 2006
Jolanda

You see the thing is that it appears to me that because I say that people should take responsibility for their actions, then some believe that it means that I should be blamed for what is being done to my children because I complained and therefore it was as a result of my actions.

All I did was make formal written complaints about injustices that have been and are being committed against my children to the appropriate authorities and in the Country that has committed the injustices. I am not going to another Country demanding that they look after my children and family or blaming them for what is being done to my family or for the situation that we find ourselves in.

Funny that you don’t think asylum seekers should take responsibility or be blamed for the situation that their children find themselves in yet you say that they they haven’t done anything wrong. Why do people then automatically blame me, I also havent done anything wrong? We have a right to bring up issues and complain – this is supposed to be a free country. Why the difference?

Apr 24th, 2006
Geoff

http://www.smh.com.au/news/paul-sheehan/blamethrowers-miss-the-mark/2006/04/23/1145730804863.html

Apr 24th, 2006
Martin

One Last comment on the Virginia Leong issue then I will let the matter rest.

Any time Virginia spent in jail was entirely her of own choosing.SHE could have at any time returned home –SHE chose to stay.
Any pain, was self-inflicted

Many parents have children living in foreign countries –but other parents do not chose to use false passports to see them. And as I recall, she was not actually using the passport to enter Australia when they apprehended her- but to leave for a trip Hong Kong !

Further, you make it sound as if on day one of her incarceration she was lumbered with a 1 million dollar debt. It wasn’t a timeline that went 1) False passport. 2) You owe us 1 Million.
It was rather 1) False passport 2) Appeal after appeal 3) Refusal to return. 4) You owe 1 million
And as I previously said, it will be the tax payer who will ultimately carry this cost .

Some people have a propensity for making bad decisions.When you look at their lives you see the fruits of a chain of poor judgments.
If they are victims they have victimized themselves –
It is not honest, and it is ultimately not helpful to the “victim” to blame their self-inflicted woes on someone or something else.

And as for “Do under to others as you would have do under to you” – I wonder if you may be guilty of not practicing this yourself. For while you are seemingly unable to believe that the group you so closely align-with & sympathize-with ( the refugees” ), are incapable of doing anything underhanded –you do not extend the same latitude to the individuals & institutions elected or appointed to apply common standards , only ever seeing their actions as cruel & their motives as sinister.

Now for the “notion they should go somewhere else”:
I do not take issue with the granting of protection to the Papuans.
However most “refugees” that have been coming to Australia from the Middle East in recent times are far from fair dinkum. They have by-passed or traversed at least nine countries to get to Australia
-Many of those countries shared similar cultural values to themselves
-A number of those countries are democracies ( India,Malaysia,Indonesia)
But they have been very selective, choosing only to come to Australia.- often waiting a long time in third countries for the right opportunity to move. They have also been well drilled on how to manipulate the media.

In the case of the Papuans, while Indonesia may not on the surface be happy with Australia granting residence to the Papuans –since it exposes their dirty linen & dents their ego.
Underneath they are probably happy, since it is assisting their transmigration program which will ultimately see the Papuans overwhelmed.
And regrettably, the Papuans we do take-in , are likely to have any revolutionary tendencies leached-out of them by the Australian consumer society.

Apr 24th, 2006
red crab

and againe martin comes through with the goods thank god for the truth

i think indonesia was glad to see them go .
as i sead once before the ppl who came to christmas island knew their writes and demanded them as they stepped from the boat .funny how they knew how to demand what they wanted in english but didnot know how to say please or thank you.

Apr 25th, 2006
Jolanda

My view, for the benefit of Marilyn.

You know today I was thinking about you Marilyn and what you keep saying and I feel the urge to respond. You say that the Law says that asylum seekers have the right to come to Australia any way that they like and seek refuge and you are right, they have that right, they can walk on water if they have the ability!. But you see once they arrive on our shores to seek refuge, there are Legislations come into play and processes that need to be dealt with.

In Australia, for security and safety reasons, there is Legislation that says that if you come by boat then you are arriving in a manner that is regarded as unlawful. No doubt because you haven’t been processed and your papers haven’t been checked before you arrive at our shores and you could be anybody. This Legislation says that those that exercise their right and choose to come by water/boat will be detained in detention until such time as they are identified, their claims investigated and their applications processed and their status verified to ensure that they are genuine refugees.

You might not agree with this Marilyn, that is your right, but your ongoing insistence that the law says that they can come anyway that they like and claim refuge without question or challenge is ridiculous and it is obvious that it is just your wish so as to suit your agenda. There is no doubt that there are those that think like you, but trust me the majority of Australians agree with detention for those that come to Australia in this manner and they agree because they believe in having some sort of control over who comes in via our shores. Maybe we are sensitive in that area because we are surrounded by shores but the fact still remains that the majority agrees and the majority rules.

What the majority of Australians don’t agree with is that there are some people, who are employed to supervise, take care of and process these people, who are abusing their power and are using methods that are inhumane and unjust. That is a serious issue that has already been acknowledged and that the system is addressing at this present time.

You should be really happy Marilyn, but instead you still whine. See if the Department of Education/Government said that they were investigating my children’s and families complaints in order to identify those in the Education system that are abusing their power and in order to effect change I would be so happy and I would immediately change my tune and support the change.

Yet you still shoot out at everybody. You truly are doing your people more harm than good as you show them and yourself as lacking respect for other people and Countries as having very low standards in relation to crime and you show absolutely no gratitude for anything. It’s either your way or the highway. You sound like a dictator..

Apr 25th, 2006
Kaye Bernard

I am gobsmacked by Amanda Vanstone’s revelation today (Australian page 22) that Alexander Downer has not been doing his job (although the Cole inquiry kinda hinted at that anyway)…it seems our Immigration Minister has conceded that marilyn shepard has been running foreign affairs and for Marilyn’s part as an Refugee Advocate, “successfully convinced many Australians and the international community that the Australian Government rarely grants protection claims.”

My question is can I have the job and run the new “how now brown cow” citizenship testing?

Apr 29th, 2006

Mini Posts

Radio chat on the election

Every Monday morning during my radio show on community radio 4ZzZ FM, I chat with Peter Black, a constitutional lawyer, follower of social and political issues and obsessive user of social media. I don’t normally put links to those chats on this blog, but given that our talk this morning was all about the federal election, I thought it was worth putting a link to it on this occasion. You can have a listen to it by clicking on this link.

(0)

Pre-election 'Debate' Farce

Given I am now running as a Greens candidate, I suppose it is no surprise that I am indicating my agreement with a comment that Bob Brown made today. But I would also say that it isn’t any secret that I haven’t agreed with every public comment that Bob has made, and I would agree with the following comment about the schoolyard level nonsense regarding another possible leaders debate even if it had been made by Steve Fielding:

“What we’re seeing now between the two leaders is an absolute farce and people everywhere are rolling their eyes at Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard not having the maturity to get together to agree to the series of debates which would have enlightened the electorate,“

It is a joke and a sad reflection on the optic and image driven nature of political media coverage in Australia. A couple of weeks ago, there was a three way debate at the National Press Club on important ICT issues such as internet filtering, broadband and wider communications policy.

More... (6)

Mountains of Coal

A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about mountaintop mining in the USA. All mining has some impact, but the sheer destructiveness of this type of mining is astonishing – and that’s before you take into account the greenhouse impact of the coal. This article in the New York Times details the potential impact of a similar project in West Virginia. The significance of this proposal is that there is the possibility it may be stopped, or seriously curtailed, by the Obama administration, which would be a signal of a positive shift on this issue.

(2)

Recent Interviews

Following are links to a couple of recent radio interviews I’ve done, plus an online one

More... (1)

Piece on The Drum about challenges ahead for the Greens

As I noted in my previous post, this week’s Newspoll saw the Greens register 16% support – the highest that party has ever achieved, comparable to the Democrats best Newspoll result of 17% back in 1990. History suggests it is unlikely that this peak will be maintained right through to election day (or even the next Newspoll) but it is part of a continuing trend of solid Greens results. I’ve written a piece expanding on this, and how the party might approach the challenges ahead, at The Drum/Unleashed on the ABC’s site – which you can read by clicking on this link.

(0)

Wild Rivers

Contention over Queensland’s Wild Rivers legislation has been bubbling along for quite a while now. Unfortunately, as with many issues which become polarised, each “side” is focused on defending their position, which has meant that some important underlying issues are not getting the attention they deserve. I’ve just had a piece on this topic published at The Drum on the ABC’s website. It’s fairly long, so they published it in two parts – the first part is at this link and the second part is at this one. I should emphasise that the article reflects my personal views, and is not a formal view of the Greens, nor of ANTaR Queensland, who I am also involved with.

(18)

Listen in to Choose Mics

Hip hop fans in Brisbane might be interested in tuning in to my radio show on 4ZZZ FM this Monday morning around 7:30am. I’ll be talking with the Gold Coast based duo Choose Mics, who are launching their debut full length album Beggars Can’t Be Choosers at the Step Inn in the Valley this coming Friday night as part of what will be a big night for fans of hip-hop/rap/urban sounds, with Brisbane’s The Optimen also launching their second album “The Out of Money Experience” as part of the same event. Even though there is a steady stream of musical offerings in Brisbane, a double album launch of this magnitude doesn’t come along every day of the week, so I’ll dedicate a half hour or so to exploring not just the words and sounds of Choose Mics, but getting a broader overview from them of the hip hop related scenes locally and nationally.

More... (2)