Amnesty International responds to Oceanic Viking developments
In relation to developments in the negotiations between the Australian Government and the Sri Lankan asylum seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking, including the disembarkation of 22 people from that vessel, Dr Graham Thom, Refugee Coordinator for Amnesty International Australia said:
“While Amnesty International supports positive outcomes for all 78 asylum seekers who have spent weeks on the Oceanic Viking, including permanent resettlement for those who are found to be refugees, the organisation has significant concerns with the ad hoc manner in which the matter is being treated.
“Amnesty International still believes that Australia, as a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees, should have brought all 78 asylum seekers to Australia for processing. Although the individuals were rescued in international waters, Australia, as a signatory country, has an international obligation to offer protection to people fleeing persecution. Once these people boarded the Oceanic Viking they came under Australian control, and as such are Australia’s responsibility.
“Australia currently has two programs for accepting refugees - the onshore program, under which asylum seekers are processed in Australian territory by the Department of Immigration, and the offshore program, under which refugees are referred by UNHCR to Australia for permanent resettlement.
“The question must be asked as to what message the current situation is sending about Australia’s onshore and offshore programs. The programs serve separate purposes and should not be confused.
“The UNHCR in Indonesia, as in other countries, recommends refugees for resettlement according to their own independent assessment as to who has the greatest need for this form of protection. This program is not interchangeable with the international obligations Australia has to offer asylum to refugees under our onshore program.
“The asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking, as well as those who have already disembarked, should always have been processed in Australia under the onshore program.
“Amnesty International maintains its opposition to the policy of excision. The organisation believes that, in order for Australia to meet its international obligations, all people who seek asylum in Australia should be brought to the mainland to have their claims assessed. As a matter of priority, the Government should immediately remove all children and families from the island and house them appropriately on the mainland.”
Comments
Jennianne | Posted on 27 November 2009, 10:13AM | Report comment
To the person who said why does it have to be either or, the answer is, that there are so many people on waiting lists for housing, that wait times have increased from 3 years maximum, to now almost 10 years, meanwhile refugees are being housed ahead of those who have already been waiting for years. With rising food, petrol, power and rent costs, people really are struggling and not managing, some even going without food to pay rent, only to find out that refugees are being paid more than twice what they are. Why does this have to be the case? Why not pay the refugees less, and give more to those already disadvantaged within out community?
There are also Aboriginal people who are seriously in need of housing,and medical care within their communities, meanwhile refugees are being treated so much better and given so much more than the indiginous communities.
Jennianne | Posted on 27 November 2009, 10:12AM | Report comment
Operating under the assumption that Australia is a rich country, then why are there so many Australians living in poverty; disadvantaged; unemployed; or homeless?
The thing is that people on parenting payment for instance, who have two children to feed, house, clothe and educate, are living on less than $25K a year. The numbers of unemployed are growing day by day, as more and more Australian jobs are being outsourced.
You can’t blame those disadvantaged in the community for feeling just a tad resentful, when they hear how much refugees receive in centrelink benefits, while they are struggling and they or their parents etc. have worked and paid their taxes. Now they have to compete with these people for housing, jobs, medical care. Why do we pay them so much? I think we have an obligation to help people, but not at the expense of those within our own country.
Sandy Beach | Posted on 25 November 2009, 03:17PM | Report comment
Yet another human rights abuse against Australian people, with the introduction of the quarantining of 50% of their benefits. This, on top of the ETS costs to everyone with increase of power, food, etc. and no increase in benefits on the horizon. Those at the bottom end of society will be suffering even more.
Rebekah Omond | Posted on 25 November 2009, 03:06PM | Report comment
Ahh, it seems that the actual subject has become lost again. This is understandably a sensitive topic and I also become angry and upset. But I don’t think name calling and accusations help at all.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 25 November 2009, 09:34AM | Report comment
Marilyn, and others of a similar bent, If you have read the article, and absorbed it and the message it sends, then maybe you might want to take a less hard line attitude with those who are more in line with reality than you obviously are and it is the obvious lies and deceit that can easily be seen by those with clearer vision than you that is starting to wake many up top tje fact that, thanks to Rudd, Australia is now no more than a lure for selfish, greedy freeloaders. Accept it and get used to how the people who are paying for it all feel Marilyn, because they are right and you are wrong.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 25 November 2009, 09:23AM | Report comment
Marilyn—- Just to try to get some perspective into your argument, try reading the following—- www.thewest.com.au and check the “Opinion” and Paul Murray’s blog headed, “Rort attempts do not help Sri Lankan cause.”
Tell me any part of that article that is factually incorrect?
Sandy Beach | Posted on 24 November 2009, 10:45PM | Report comment
Marilyn:I understand what you’re saying, and I’m not unsympathetic, but this problem is far more complex than moving people around the world. Some of the problems that are forcing these people to flee have been in existence for decades. Yet nothing has been done to fix it. There is no easy answer, but unfortunately we have a situation, where there’s been such an influx of refugees into Europe, that the rights of Europeans are being sacrificed for the sake of not offending a minority group. These rights might not be important from a human rights perspective, but they are just as important to the people who have had them taken from them. eg. in England they no longer have their St. Georges day parade, which is their national day. Might not mean much to us, but it means a lot to English people. would be like telling Australians they can’t have ANZAC day. And how is that EVER ok? especially when they have been given refuge then proceed to dictate terms, demanding sharia law etc.
David Ready | Posted on 24 November 2009, 09:45PM | Report comment
Marilyn; You have no interest in human rights. You have an intolerance towards other people’s views if you don’t happen to agree with them. It’s that type of intolerance which leads to violence and war. Try and conduct yourself like a mature adult and have a reasoned discussion without the abuse, intolerance and bad attitude.
We should all be able to tolerate each others views and have the freedom to discuss openly any differences without abuse, intolerance and a bad attitude.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 09:25PM | Report comment
Marilyn
You have no interest in human rights, you have an extreme biased view that some humans rights come at the expense of others and somehow this is ok for you. You fail to understand that your extreme non compassionate inspiring viewpoint (dictatorial viewpoint) is the catalyst for the very opinions you claim to be against. I am for equality, where as you prefer to offer a few preferential treatment - this is your problem.
Sandy Beach | Posted on 24 November 2009, 09:25PM | Report comment
We start the wars hey? That’s a new one.
Could it be that we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan to STOP those people from being persecuted.
In addition, what makes you think that certain oppressive practices, such as young girls being sold off to older men, cease simply because they are given assylum. Most of those practices occur due to cultural or religious doctrines, which they bring with them, when they flee, then refuse to give up once they’ve been resettled.
There have been several cases in the UK and USA of honour killings.
So obviously moving them around the world is not preventing some of these oppressive practices from occurring.
Marilyn | Posted on 24 November 2009, 08:31PM | Report comment
The numbers are in the DIAC report from last year.
I didn’t make them up. They boast about them.
What I want to know is why people with no interest in human rights are trolling on this blog?
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 07:59PM | Report comment
Peter,
Marilyn doesn’t have factual numbers to quote so she makes up whatever her dream statistics are and tries to pass them off as fact. Her ancestors or perhaps herself was responsible for turning a boat load of jews around and sent them to their death, she now wants me to pay for this injustice even though i or my ancestors had nothing to do with it. She obviously believes in collective punishment so perhaps would find the most sympathy for her cause in Israel.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 24 November 2009, 07:33PM | Report comment
Marilyn, you get harder to follow with each successive spray. Your figures in spray 124 are very strange and the point????????
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 07:25PM | Report comment
Hey Marilyn, wake up, the hollocast is over, time to end the stupid convention - you are the one that convinced me of this
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 07:22PM | Report comment
Marilyn,
What bollocks - if they shot them while they tried to leave they wouldn’t be here now would they?
Maybe we should give them more aid so they can prevent others from leaving - yes, thats what we should do.
Marilyn | Posted on 24 November 2009, 07:19PM | Report comment
Andrew, there are 400,000 foreign students here, how do you feel about that flood?
What about the 300,000 permanent migrants?
The 7 million tourists each year while you whine about 2,000 refugees.
WE helped to write the convention because we helped to send jews back to slaughter so you grow up.
Marilyn | Posted on 24 November 2009, 07:16PM | Report comment
Sandy, why do you continue with bollocks? Pakistan has 2 million refugees, the west only hosts about10% of the world’s refugees yet we are the ones who start the wars.
And as Sri Lanka arrests anyone who tries to leave and even shoots them out of the water I don’t think we want to be doing dirty deals with them.
Sandy Beach | Posted on 24 November 2009, 06:52PM | Report comment
It’s a terrible situation that people have to live with the horrors mentioned. The UNHRC should step in and say to those countries who are not signatories to the agreement, that they now need to take their share of refugees. The whole world can’t live in our country, as much as they’d like to. Nor can Europe sustain any more, because it’s gotten to the point now where they are disrupting the status quo of the countries they are fleeing to, and that should never be allowed to happen.
Instead of the UNHRC fighting for the rights of some criminal murdering taxi driver to get a licence to drive cabs in Melbourne, they’d be better served fighting for the rights of these people to take refuge at the closest port to them. Why, if the Tamils were given the opportunity to re-settle in Tamil Nadu, did they knock it back? instead they made the decision to hijack a ship and DEMAND to be taken to Australia, and that to me doesn’t sound like they are desperate people looking for a safe haven.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 06:47PM | Report comment
Thank you Marilyn
You have helped me harden my view that we should remove ourselves from the refugee convention, if people like you exist i feel the need to defend the country from your objective which is to flood and overwhelm us with the worlds problems not of our making. We did not cause the oppression from which the asylum seekers are fleeing - and since they are so ungrateful and have attidtudes similar to yours they will get nothing and should get nothing from any of us. Happy now Marilyn? you have created - you personally - someone who is now utterly against the asylum seekers plight. I wonder - is it you or I who holds the majority view and what corresponding action will prevail.
David Ready | Posted on 24 November 2009, 05:43PM | Report comment
Marilyn; It’s you who should “get a grip” and show a bit more respect for opposing opinions. It is your type of abusive and “[I think I am] superior” attitude, and non-respect for the opinions of others which actually start wars, and/or lead to violence, and/or the putting down and repression of others. You demonstrate exactly the very behaviour of why the world has so many refugees and asylum seekers.