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
Sandy Beach | Posted on 22 November 2009, 12:19PM | Report comment
Australia gives millions every year in foreign aid! Not to mention the millions donated privately to various charities. Where does all this money go? We are told there are starving people in Africa, yet the leaders walk around in Saville Row suits and the people all seem to have guns. The Somalie pirates seem to be well supported, don’t they?
India has their hand out for foreign aid, yet they have the fastest growing economy and can afford nuclear weapons and to send rockets into space, nevermind the fact that Australian jobs are now being outsourced there.
When does it all end?
Peter Edwards | Posted on 21 November 2009, 12:16AM | Report comment
Once again Marilyn, the UN convention for refugees didn’t even become a reality until 1951 so I can’t work out your timelines????
The very fact that the convention has been in place since 1951, 58 years, and as the result of a world war and it’s aftermath, no one could possibly try to convince anyone that it is still relevant to today’s mass movement of people just looking for a better standard of living? As the numbers are simply far too high for Australia to ever try to help, we all should accept that the economic refugees now targeting Australia should be returned to their country of origin to assist with the rebuilding of their own countries, not rock up to Australia and take, take, take, while Australians can’t access what is being given to these epeople.
David Ready | Posted on 21 November 2009, 12:13AM | Report comment
Marilyn; The fact on which boat Alex was or wasn’t on is not relevant, the fact that he isn’t a real refugee is. Most of these “asylum seekers” have been living in Indonesia for a number of years. There is no threat existing in either Sri Lanka or Afghanistan & Australia has no responsibility to resettle these people as refugees. The turning away of any Jews has got nothing to do with this current issue. Australia resettles 13200 refugees a year, more than any other country. For each illegal queue jumper admitted, one less is taken off the queue of 13200, some of who have been waiting for up to 9 years. What do you have to say about the number of Australians who can’t get public housing in Australia? Do they not have rights too? There was an old blind gentleman who was sleeping on Perth’s Railway Station. He wasn’t drunk or drugged the Police couldn’t find a bed for him. He died a couple of months later. My care and concern is with the likes of him; not the likes of Alex.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 21 November 2009, 12:01AM | Report comment
Marilyn-Oh dear, the more you contribute the more stupid you look. “Alex” only admitted his past after he was confronted with it by the media, not because he is an honest person, he is no more than an economic migrant trying “it on” at your, and my, expense. How do you arrive at the conclusion that we have an “Open Border” policy because we turned away the Jews in 1938????? and
25 years to be accepted as a refugee??? Really?????
Marilyn, I’m sorry but for a moment there I actually thought that you might have had some “life skills” as the basis for your comments but it is very obvious that I was sadly mistaken and that you are no more than the usual, everyday “bleeding heart with nothing to offer except PC dogma”, and I pity you for your lack of a sense of reality.
Marilyn | Posted on 20 November 2009, 11:49PM | Report comment
And from the UNHCR. Now can we stop the bollocks.
Mr Towle—It is a very important question. There is an assumption that asylum seekers should
really apply for asylum at the first reasonable opportunity. It is not a legal principle at all, but
there is an assumption that every country should offer protection but that you should not be able
to forum-shop and travel around the world looking for the best place where you want to end up.
The problem for Australia is that, between the places of conflict today and where Australia is
situated down here in the South Pacific, there are very few countries that have signed the refugee
convention
Marilyn | Posted on 20 November 2009, 11:46PM | Report comment
Australian law.
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.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”
Marilyn | Posted on 20 November 2009, 11:42PM | Report comment
Alex was not on the Oceanic Viking, he is on a different boat and just because he made mistakes as a teenager does not condemn him for ever and a day.
And we have an open border for refugees because we turned away the jews in 1938.
There is a completely stupid load of old cobblers that thinks people should wait for 25 years but if they fly here they only wait for 90 days and if they succeed they get permanent residence.
It makes no difference how people get here, that is what you don’t seem to understand.
David Ready | Posted on 20 November 2009, 11:36PM | Report comment
Marilyn; Is it not possible for you to communicate without abusive, name calling and putting down those who you don’t agree with? Did you realise how childish and immature this makes you look? Requiring an open border to be closed is NOT showing any level of “prejudice” and has got nothing to do with the “killing of jews” which is an incredibly offensive issue to bring into this. International law DOES NOT allow for country shopping and making your way to a country of your choice. If you are that desparate, you would be happy to be settled anywhere. And do you recall the spokesperson Alex? It’s been proven that he’s no refugee; he a common Canadian criminal. Your last paragraph and the mention of “sending Jews back” makes no sense.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 20 November 2009, 11:15PM | Report comment
Marilyn- Once again, please stop just insulting those who don’t agree with you, or your thoughts, on the “illegal immigrants”. UNHCR rules state clearly that anyone wishing to apply for asylum should do so in the first country, nearest to their country of origin, not move through several countries more in tune with their lifestyles, religous values and beliefs than Australia is, but without the welfare benefits provided to them and because the Rudd government is much more concerned with image than the Australian taxpayer’s burden, we will continue to be expected to accept such “out of step with majority opinion” as you put forward. Hopefully one day,you will see the folly of your thoughts Marilyn and see what is happening in Australia.
Marilyn | Posted on 20 November 2009, 10:41PM | Report comment
Do you people know how stupid you are? Did you read the article or just allow your ugly prejudice to take hold.
Every year a few thousand people arrive in this country and apply for asylum.
There is nothing illegal about it, nothing wrong, it is quite legal under our law and international law.
And has been for 55 years since we sent the jews back to die.
If a widow has had her husband murdered in front of her eyes and runs away who are you fools to say she should sit and wait somewhere?
Where would you suggest? Under the next bomb?
The nonsense about “waiting” in line for their names to be called is so funny because if people can wait for 17 to 25 years mateys they are migrants.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 20 November 2009, 09:57PM | Report comment
Further to my comments,if people employ criminals at great expense to deliver them to a country known as having very weak border security and extremely generous welfare support it becomes clear why we are now being targeted and it has little to do with escaping persecution. Mr Rudd’s envoy to Sri Lanka, Mr John McCarthy has stated that he sees no sign of ill treatment or persecution in the refugee camps and is very happy with the treatment of those in the camps, which must send a strong signal that we may be being taken for a ride by the illegal immigrants now arriving daily? It should also be remembered that every time a boat arrives, they push an honest refugee further back in the line. I believe that kindly people such as yourself Marilyn are not seeing the whole picture and people such as me are not “nasties”, just taxpayers concerned that genuine in need Australians are being denied all sorts of assistance that they deserve in order that illegal immigrants can claim benefits.
David Ready | Posted on 20 November 2009, 09:45PM | Report comment
Marilyn; One further thing…... I note that you haven’t got the intestinal fortitude to stand behind your comment with a full and real name like the rest of us.
David Ready | Posted on 20 November 2009, 09:44PM | Report comment
Marilyn; Unbelievable? Instead of countering the “argument” with mature, reasoned discussion you resort to attacking the messenger/s, and not the message. You mention Andrew Bolt. Tell me where he is wrong in just one article. Just one! Tell us, who have written here, where we are wrong. I know “free speech” is limited these days with all the lefty human rights commissions and various hankie sucking tribunals, but how dare you suggest that people, who you obviously disagree with, can’t post here, or anywhere else. Only allow “free speech” when you agree with it eh? Very mature.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 20 November 2009, 09:27PM | Report comment
Marilyn—- Why do you say that people who have commented on this site are “nasties”? It may just be that the contributors are using their common sense and are capable of seeing beyond the, to be honest, tripe put forward by the left leaning “industry” that can always be relied upon to support people who are obviously not deserving of very much sympathy at all simply because their lies and demands as well as some of their backgrounds prove that they don’t deserve anywhere near the level of support that they demand, and get, from the Rudd government, at the expense of many, many more deserving and genuine refugees that go through the proper channels and apply and wait until their name is called.
Marilyn | Posted on 20 November 2009, 09:00PM | Report comment
Why do the nasties write on an Amnesty website? Go and haunt Andrew Bolt.
Sandy Beech | Posted on 19 November 2009, 06:33PM | Report comment
Where will the bleeding heart brigade be, when the bombs start going off?
Cos that’s how these Tamil’s operate - after all they are the inventors of the suicide bombers and bra bombs.
They’ve already shown how far they are willing to go to get what they want.
Now they see just how weak our Government is, believe me, it won’t be long before they start demanding more and more, and meanwhile, the poor overburdened Australian taxpayers get to foot the bill.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 19 November 2009, 10:25AM | Report comment
I very strongly support the comments above. Australia should be calling for the conventions and agreements, now over 60 years old and no longer relavent to finding solutions to the mass movement of people all over the world, mostly simply looking for a better lifestyle and not escaping persecution.
Rudd’s envoy to Sri Lanka, John McCarthy has stated publicly that after inspection the refugee camps throughout Sri Lanka he is satisfied and very happy with how they are being run and that 135000 have been resettled in the last 3 months and the remaining 140000 will be returned to their towns and villages by Christmas. No mention of ill treatment or “persecution”, the popular word used by organisations such as AI and of course the “persecuted” illegal economic migrants who have proven many times that they are quite prepared to say and do anything to get what they want and with Rudd in government, that is exactly what they get, regardless of what the Australian public are saying.
David Ready | Posted on 18 November 2009, 11:27PM | Report comment
I also object to your president (of AI) getting involved in Australian domestic politics and criticising the Leader of our federal opposition, Mr M Turnbull for his opinions on these illegal refugees. How dare she! Where’s her voice for the criticism of Kevin Rudd for the softening of the temporary visa policy which has seen an influx of illegal, country shopping, queue jumping illegals putting their own lives, and the lives of their children at risk. Sheesh! That’s the problem with you bed-wetting, lip-biting, hankie-sucking lefties; you don’t look at the whole picture.”
David Ready | Posted on 18 November 2009, 11:26PM | Report comment
Why are they coming to Australia all the way from Sri Lanka where there is no longer a problem? These so-called asylum seekers are not that, they are queue jumping, country shopping, illegal immigrants, a number of whom are NOT refugees. The Oceanic Viking is NOT an refugee processing ship. It simply rescued these people in International Waters & returned them to the nearest country, the very thing which these so-called “refugees” should have done themselves, that is, sort refuge in the closest country to their homeland; not country shop to Australia. The captain of the Oceanic Viking shouldn’t have to decide if they are “refugees” or not; that’s not his job. Where’s your voice when it comes to REAL refugees languishing in camps for up to 9 years and being persecuted in the meantime? Where’s your voice when it comes to the 25000 homeless in Australia, and the many pensioners who have been waiting up to 12 years for public housing when this rabble gets almost immediate housing?