Amnesty International Australia

Andrew J S | Posted on 12 November 2009, 06:20PM | Report comment

Wyatt and Rich - both of you make some interesting points, I think you will find that most people actually do support the plight of refugees, however it is the manner of which some arrive that is causing the tension. How dare anyone demand or effectively commit piracy to get what they want - if you are already safe in indonesia there is no excuse for this violent action - expect them to intergrate nicely when they get here? how will they treat other non Tamil sri lankans in Australia?. Remember many of these Asylum seekers are guilty of horrific war crimes themselves, all countries deserve the right to screen people before they come - asylum seeker or not, no matter how they choose to come.

Rich Rivera | Posted on 12 November 2009, 04:44PM | Report comment

Wyatt - Seeing Australia is a democracy, would you be happy to see a referendum put to the Australian people on immigration policy and would accept the outcome? Also, don’t be misled by thinking a having a higher population will have a positive economic effect. It is the type of people within the country and their skills and motivation that largely decide that. You also ignore the severe environmental impact that a larger population has. Humans will eventually destroy this planet by overpopulation.

Wyatt Moss-Wellington | Posted on 12 November 2009, 03:05PM | Report comment

Also quoting from your ninemsn article, “studies had shown that refugees tend to have repaid all their costs within 17 years and cited several of the wealthiest businessmen in Australia, including Frank Lowy and Harry Triguboff, who were once refugees.” Of course there are upfront costs, but this does not negate the long-term economic benefits of population boost. You are favouring short-term reaction over long-term planning.
  Instead we have chosen the bill for demonising them. Six days ago, reported at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26312196-401,00.html: “the cost to taxpayers of keeping the vessel away from its normal duties patrolling the Southern Ocean is now estimated at close to $1.5 million.”
  Always beware of the word “proof.”

Wyatt Moss-Wellington | Posted on 12 November 2009, 03:04PM | Report comment

Hi again Rich,
  I presume you were quoting Kohona from this article: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1130147/Asylum-seekers-ofered-deal-to-leave-boat, which also states that “30 of the 78 asylum seekers have already been deemed to be refugees by the United Nations.”
  Kohona’s motivations must be interrogated. He currently stands accused of human rights violations himself, covering up atrocities performed by the Sri Lankan government (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/20095141557222873.html). He called these allegations “Tamil Tiger propaganda”, which suggests that he is hardly an unbiased observer.
  Consider also that Kohona is a dual citizen of Sri Lanka and Australia, and a decently remunerated one at that. Complaining of others from Sri Lanka aspiring to similar opportunities smells like hypocrisy to me.

Rich Rivera | Posted on 12 November 2009, 02:24PM | Report comment

Mohamed - “Australia’s method of discriminating based on method of arrival is also in contravention of the Refugee Convention to which Australia is a signatory. ” -> Signed in 1951 to assist skilled European people and it was done in an orderly manner not by blackmail. People coming here in boats are using fraud to be accepted as refugees. When you do not have any legitimate forms of ID the lawyer can make up any persecution story in an effort to get the person accepted as a refugee. There is no proof but the Immigration Officer accepts the story as Gospel. Australia should have a referendum on whether to rescind from the UN Convention for Refugees. I can confidently say the majority of Australian do not want the UN having anything to do with the people who come to Australia. The UN does not cover the costs, the Australian taxpayer does as I have said before.

Rich Rivera | Posted on 12 November 2009, 02:13PM | Report comment

James - I was not disputing where the funds came from. I just thought it was disgraceful you were spending money on promoting economic refugees. The money would have been better spent on helping out Australian people/charities and once again for that i say “shame on you”

Rich Rivera | Posted on 12 November 2009, 02:10PM | Report comment

Wyatt Moss - They assist the Australian taxpayer do they? Well I have proof that largely they don’t - http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/877598/refugees-spark-huge-jump-in-welfare-bill

Rich Rivera | Posted on 12 November 2009, 02:07PM | Report comment

“I think they should be returned to Sri Lanka, that is where they belong, and if that happens it is quite likely that others will not make this journey again.’’

Rich Rivera | Posted on 12 November 2009, 02:07PM | Report comment

SRI Lanka’s ambassador to the United Nations has condemned 78 asylum seekers aboard an Australian Customs ship as emotional blackmailers.

The ethnic Tamils are still refusing to leave the Oceanic Viking, which has been anchored off the Indonesian island of Bintan for two-and-a-half weeks.

They were rescued in international waters inside Indonesia’s search and rescue zone en route to the Australian outpost Christmas Island last month.

Sri Lanka’s United Nations representative Dr Palitha Kohona on Wednesday condemned the group’s stubbornness.

“It is wrong for anybody to go to a strange land and then exert emotional pressure of this kind on the intended destination and expect people to react positively,’’ he told ABC TV.

“I think this is emotional blackmail.’‘

Dr Kohona said he didn’t believe those aboard the ship were true refugees and called for them to be returned to Sri Lanka.

“They are economic refugees looking for greener pastures elsewhere,’’ he said.

Wyatt Moss-Wellington | Posted on 12 November 2009, 01:43PM | Report comment

Hi Rich,

I was one of the people who donated to this campaign. It is true that the few people fleeing Sri Lanka on the Oceanic Viking cannot be considered “economic refugees” as the sadly violent circumstances they have fled are real, not imagined.

In addition, the taxpayer does not pay for the safety of the relatively few refugees we take in annually; instead they end up assisting the Australian taxpayer. Australia is generally considered to be underpopulated due to a low birth rate, to apparent economic disadvantage. The answer to this could be taking more immigrants - and who better than those who really need it?

None of this matters, however, when your motivation is kindness and treating one another as equal. This is Amnesty’s creed, and thank goodness we have them. Read my latest article about this matter for more information: http://wyattmosswellington.com/news.html#20

James | Posted on 12 November 2009, 11:09AM | Report comment

Rich, if you actually read the short story above you’ll note that the ad was completely funded by Amnesty supporters who donated specifically to run the ad. I’d say this brings into question your credibility, not that of Amnesty. Your labeling of people who have fled a country that experienced one of the bloodiest, longest lasting and most vicious civil wars as “economic refugees” clearly reveals your grand ignorance. “Shame on you”.

Mohamed | Posted on 12 November 2009, 10:26AM | Report comment

Amnesty is a human rights organisation, as such aims to defend to Refugees Human Rights.

The ads are designed to dispel the myths in the media, and by politicians.

There is no such thing as an “illegal arrival” or “illegal refugee,” everyone has the right to apply for asylum. Australia’s method of discriminating based on method of arrival is also in contravention of the Refugee Convention to which Australia is a signatory.

Rich Rivera | Posted on 12 November 2009, 01:45AM | Report comment

For Amnesty to spend money on a full page newspaper add begging for these people (who are nothing more than economic refugees - proven by them demanding to be taken to either Australia, NZ, Canada or Scandinavia - all countries renowned as having generous welfare) to be allowed into Australia is disgraceful. Shame on you Amnesty, you have lost your credibility.

Jesska | Posted on 11 November 2009, 10:37PM | Report comment

To my knowledge, the ads were simply to fight some myths, and to remind people that asylum seekers are, in fact, people.
Perhaps some of the people you refer to who do not want these people have been swayed by the dehumanising way asylum seekers are often portrayed?
I do not think there is anything wrong with giving people more information, nor is there anything wrong with placing an ad in a newspaper.

Rich Rivera | Posted on 11 November 2009, 06:42PM | Report comment

Amnesty should keep their noses out of this debate. The majority of Australians do not want these people coming here. Amnesty does not cover the costs of asylum seekers, the Australian taxpayer does and the majority has spoken.