Andrew
23 April 2009, 02:27AM

Somebody caused the tragedy and is to blame for the deaths. I hope they are held fully accountable after the full investigation. I seriously doubt that any blame can be levied on the Australian Navy

Andrew Sporle
23 April 2009, 02:14AM

Marilyn, your comments appear very much like you are apportioning blame on the Australian Navy. An investigation on this matter has commenced, It is possible that the findings will show that the asylum seekers deliberately lit their boat and caused injury to our Navy personnel and death to others. I will wait till the investigation is over and hopefully the murderer(s) will be held accountable. I note the story of one of the asylum seekers was an acknowledgment that he had his application for Asylum twice rejected by Australia - but chose to pay a people smuggler to come here anyway. Why would someone do this? what is their story? Does he require our compassion or condemnation?

Marilyn
23 April 2009, 01:50AM

I said they died in navy custody.  What do you want Andrew.  It is a fact.

I tips me hat to the people who saved their lives but they still died in navy custody.

Did I say I blamed anyone?  At all?

Andrew Sporle
23 April 2009, 01:46AM

Marilyn, so the simple answer was - yes, you do hold the Australian Navy accountable for the injuries and death of some of the recent asylum seekers. No mention of the Navy personnel who risk their lives trying to save the people, No mention of the fact Navy personnel were injured, No mention of the people smugglers who put them to sea in the first place. I have to wonder if you are genuine in your support for the refugee cause - how do you expect most Australians to react to such a comment? James, Marilyn did not point out that the Asylum seekers method of arrival was legal, she pointed out that the protection visa did not require lawful arrival or presence. The people aspect in all this is being lost - who are the asylum seekers, why do they seek asylum, what is their story? This will promote public sympathy. Blaming the government, Navy or citing a heavy legal argument is not great way to promote the cause.

James Fehon
22 April 2009, 07:54PM

Ratifying an instrument of international law means incorporating it into domestic law - to refer to either the Refugee Convention or the Migration Act is something of a null point.

Pointing out that the actions of people cooming here are not illegal is in my mind a very ratioonal point to be making.  I know the people working on these issues certainly are across Australian laws, they’re also compassionate people, why else would their work go into this.

It’s unfortunate that the case for those seeking Asylum needs to be made when there’s no law being broken. I wonder whether those agitating against their legitimate passage here have any compassion.

Marilyn
22 April 2009, 07:18PM

I am stating that the people were injured and died in Australian custody, that is a simple fact we cannot run away from.  And I am not citing International law I am citing Australian law which no-one in Amnesty seems to understand yet.

62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.

Andrew Sporle
22 April 2009, 06:52PM

Maralyn, I hope you are not implying that the people who were horribly injured was somehow the fault of the Australian Navy. Its also important to remember if you want to support the refugee cause you need to appeal to the wider populations sence of compassion and give reasons/stories to support your argument. By saying we have an obligation under international law and variations of this argument usually stated in authorative tones ignores the fact that laws can be changed and most likely would be if they are contrary to the will of the majority of the population. Far better to convince people through rational argument rather than using the stick approach. Please also note there are many interpretation of international law and endless debate over what is right ultimately distracts attention from the people issues.

Marilyn
22 April 2009, 05:07AM

The refugee convention is enshrined in our law.  We have legal obligations under that law to process the application of anyone who says they need our help.

The hysteria over a few hundred people while people are horribly injured in the custody of our navy is grotesque.

Amanda
21 April 2009, 11:33AM

Why are all the oil-rich Arabic nations being so racist and xenophobic? These countries have the wealth to help provide refugees and migrants.

James Fehon
20 April 2009, 02:37AM

I guess my point is, whatever situation we’re in economically, the Refugee Convention and our obligations as a result of being party to it serve to protect those most vulnerable because of violence and rights violations throughout the world.  As to whether we can even imagine doing it tough in comparison to the experiences of some of these people, I doubt we’ll ever experience close to the horrors many are fleeing.  I don’t know if the situation domestically as a result of the current economic situation comes anywhere close to this.

Pauls comments are a little incendiary (and the Rudd government doesn’t have a policy of locking up children) but I agree that there’s a basic level of support we should be offering to those people we’ve found have a legitimate claim to seek refuge in Australia.

Andrew Sporle
20 April 2009, 02:06AM

James, I agree that Asylum seekers claims need to be processed quickly -whilst the current system may not be perfect it has to be better than the previous ‘pacific solution’. I did not imply that migrants were not hard working and am in fact a migrant myself. Nobody likes to see people suffering however resources are finite. A balance has to be struck so that the needs of the existing population as well as the needs of potential asylum seekers can be met. Having a policy of giving housing, income etc. to asylum seekers (as Paul suggests)whilst denying the existing population the same benefits is an almost certain way to create a backlash against the asylum seekers - and this is something we should all try to prevent.

James Fehon
17 April 2009, 10:20PM

Andrew, our migrant population are some of the hardest working people in our society.

I think YOUR comments do more of a disservice to those seeking Asylum in Australia.  How can you be so heartless as to suggest people facing horrific situations be made to wait so as to fulfil ‘procedurial’ requirements.  Our international obligation is to provide asylum to those arriving at our borders with a legitimate claim – ‘economic crisis’ or not.

Andrew Sporle
17 April 2009, 03:38PM

Paul, comments such as yours are potentially very devisive and actually provoke the harsh over-reaction to Asylum seekers seen in some sections of the press. Providing people with food,shelter and income costs money, and during a severe economic downturn where many Austalians have lost their jobs there simply is not enough money to go around. Shouldn’t everyone be afforded with accomodation, food and shelter rather than just providing it to asylum seekers? Obviously such an approach is not sustainable which is why prioritising the limited resources we have is essential. Its very difficult to prioritise those resources if you have a policy of allowing anybody in the world to make a claim on those resources which is why we have borders and processes to follow to protect them.

Alpha Turay
17 April 2009, 01:39PM

The Australia government is protecting its citizen at all circumstance, asylum seekers should be treated according to the law, they won’t be detain forever its a process and time before they join the larger community and be free. Amnesty Internation and other welfare organisations should be watchful as the process is conducted in a fair line

Jacob Parsons
17 April 2009, 11:56AM

i think that detention centers should be used!
perhaps for not as long as they are but the first priority of the government is to ensure its own people are safe. how can they do this if they let anybody into this country? i believe that detention centers should be their to do a history check on these people and also to make sure they are not carrying any diseases. however the fact that some people are held for in excess of 2 years is ridiculous, there should be a maximum time if 6 months to make sure these people are ok and then we should let them join our society. keep detention centers, just make the duration of the stay shorter!

Jason Tudor
17 April 2009, 11:50AM

Get a job u bum. don’t u have anything better to do than sit here on this a complain about the government that we voted in.
hasn’t Kevin Rudd enough for Australia with the stimulus package that and most of Australia receive. come give the guy a break and find something better to do then ##### and complain. did u forget who is deputy prime minister is…... Julia Gillard and that i think she is a women u ######.

Janet Thompson
17 April 2009, 11:43AM

There is no need to lock refegees up at all.  The detention centres could become hostels where people stay until their applications are processed, or the refugees could be looked after by charities or residents from their countries of origin.

Paul Mitchell
17 April 2009, 12:46AM

Also I am sick and tired of the Australian Government looking-up children in so-called “detention centres”. They should be allowed to walk and associate freely and openly and provide them with food and shelter with their families and friends - people should not be racist, rude or disrespectful to them!!! The Australian Government and Kevin Rudd is a sexist, racist, xenophobic and homophobic moster!!

Paul Mitchell
17 April 2009, 12:34AM

Why is the Australian Government being so racist and xenophobic? Let them in, provide accomodation to refugees and migrants.