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
Marilyn | Posted on 24 November 2009, 05:35PM | Report comment
Good heaven’s we are talking about 2,000 people.
Get a grip. How many of you have ever had to live in a war zone for your whole life, had your kids beheaded and your sisters sold to old men.
Grow up and stop the pathetic whinging.
Sandy Beach | Posted on 24 November 2009, 04:58PM | Report comment
Marilyn:
Going to a women’s shelter, would be akin to languishing in a refugee camp for years, with the same result.
There are situations where victims of domestic violence, who need housing are being turned away, while assylum seekers are being housed ahead of them.
and, if you happen to be a sole parent in this country, you wouldn’t get anywhere near the welfare benefits that assylum seekers receive.
Besides which, you seem to have missed the whole point of the analogy, which is that Australians are feeling very resentful and are therefore likely to be less willing to help those who so desperately need it.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 04:48PM | Report comment
James
Please read Sandys comment again, the analogy does fit - if you are doing it tough in Australia, as many are, you would feel this way -at least make an effort to understand, If you cannot understand you will never be able to argue with reason or reach people who are genuinely feeling threatened/annoyed by the current situation - and it is these people who are growing in number, People with compassion for the Asylum seekers are rapidly diminishing and you can do something about it only if you have a rational counterpoint.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 04:40PM | Report comment
James,
Many in Australia are barely making ends meet and live in conditions far worse than the detention centres that the Asylum seekers complain about- when you quote the net effect of migration you are including all migration and not just those who came here as Asylum seekers - this gives quite a biased result as it includes all the valuable skilled migration which recently outnumbered the draining welfare asylum migration. Again I ask on what level is anyone appealing to compassion? All I am hearing is demands to come here, Its out international right, demands for welfare and excuses for violence (Riot in centre etc.)People are getting so fed up that talk of leaving the convention as well as TPV’s are getting attention. The majority are growing with resentment rather than compassion, if this continues I think you know what the outcome will be.
James Fehon | Posted on 24 November 2009, 04:08PM | Report comment
Australia is hardly ‘barely making ends meet’, and the economic impact of migration is a net positive. The analogy doesn’t fit, sorry Sandy.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 24 November 2009, 04:05PM | Report comment
Marilyn—- Wow, you really are a piece of work aren’t you?
No doubt about where you are coming from. The “do as I say or else” club? Well, sorry love, grow up, open your eyes and your ears, recognise reality when you see it, stop accepting absolutely everything that so called asylum seekers say, even their patently obvious lies, and then you might sound as though you are living in the real world. Agreements are fine but when the time comes that it can be seen clearly, by most, that they no longer pertain to a present situation, accept that it might just be time to change the rules, for all concerned, or withdraw our support for an obviously flawed convention.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 04:04PM | Report comment
Marilyn
It is you who needs to get over it, the people of this country have he right to say NO, Bleat on about international obligations if you must, we can as a country CHOOSE to unsign the convention and legitimately deport all who land/sail here. Its not like there is an International Authority that would stop us now is it?You like to come down on everyone as if you are somehow superior and yet you fail to realise the will of the people will ultimately decide - put everyone off side as you do you may well find the reaction more extreme than anticipated. Demanding - which is what the current asylum seekers are doing, does not appeal to compassion, it actually makes people defensive. Pretending that the current lot are not demanding after the oceanic incident is just plain silly.
David Ready | Posted on 24 November 2009, 03:28PM | Report comment
Sandy Beach; Your post #109!
Just brilliant. Stunning. Probably the best post I’ve ever read on the internet since I first started using it about 20 years ago. Just a wonder thread of thought! Well done and thank you!
Marilyn | Posted on 24 November 2009, 03:16PM | Report comment
Gee Syria would have liked to “control their migration” as well but we bombed Iraq to bits and they had 2 million refugees lobbing in their country.
Pakistan might have like to control their migration as well but the Russians, the US and others keep invading Afghanistan and they have had millions of Afghan refugees.
Refugees are not part of a controlled migration program anywhere else in the world, only in this dumb, paranoic place.
Get over it. And Sandy, go to a shelter, there’s a dear.
No refugees have ever demanded entry to this place, they are simply allowed to arrive.
Sandy Beach | Posted on 24 November 2009, 03:16PM | Report comment
On the other hand, if they know that I am only allowed to stay in their house, until the situation in my own house improves, and I am no longer going to be a victim of domestic, because my violent partner has moved out, or is in prison and is no longer a threat to me, so me being in their house is only temporary, do you think they might resent me a little less?
Sandy Beach | Posted on 24 November 2009, 03:10PM | Report comment
Metaphorically, I’m a victim of domestic violence and I have to leave my home and my children, for my safety. I knock on someone’s door, but they don’t have to give me shelter, because they didn’t sign a piece of paper that says they have to take me in. I knock on someone else’s door and demand to be allowed to move in, and they have to let me, even though they are barely making ends meet. I then arrange for my children to come and live with me in their house. They don’t have much money, and I am much better off than they are because I receive more welfare payments, and food stamps, and other benefits that they will never get. But I start criticising them, demanding my own room, and telling them I don’t like how they’ve furnished their house, and don’t like the food they give me. Do you think that those people generous enough to take me in, would start to resent me despite their best intentiions at trying to help me in the first place?
Sandy Beach | Posted on 24 November 2009, 02:49PM | Report comment
In the world today, there are far too many countries who are persecuting their people, and too few countries willing to sign-up for taking their share of refugees.
The refugee problem is already causing problems for most of the countries in Europe, because once these various ethnic groups have been allowed to stay, they don’t just sit quietly and be grateful for the fact that they are safe, and given shelter, assisted with welfare, are given jobs etc. allowed to bring their families. They turn on the very people who have given them refuge, demanding Sharia law, that certain national holidays no longer occur, and that religious symbals be taken down, a whole town in Sweden being taken over, a march in London claiming the UK is gonna be Muslim, riots in the streest of Paris, to name but a few.
Even here in Australia, we have been criticised and ridiculed for what we eat and how we dress.
You can’t blame people for being fearful of what’s happening, and just a little resentful.
Sandy Beach | Posted on 24 November 2009, 02:46PM | Report comment
if there really are 42 millions people in the world needing help from persecution and oppression, it is an appalling condemnation of the UNHRC.
What the hell do these people do besides allowing the situations within those countries creating this world-wide refugee problem, to continue.
Where was the UNHRC when Sadam Hussein was running rampant through the middle-east? When the war in Sri-Lanka was going on for 25 years, when the Taliban and before them the Russians, were persecuting the Afghan people?
Are they really that weak and powerless, that they can’t do something about these situations, before they get out of control?
Peter Edwards | Posted on 24 November 2009, 10:45AM | Report comment
Norman Hunter—- I’m still waiting on your answer to my question as to why no one from Sri Lanka is heading for either the Seychelles or Madagascar to start the process of applying for refugee status as both are signatories? And lets not forget that the Chennai government (Tamil Nadu) has also offererd housing & resettlement, all social supoort and citizenship to any tamils wanting to go to Tamil Nadu. Also, no one on these posts seems interested in the statements from Mr John McCarthy, Rudd’s envoy to Sri Lanka stating that during his inspections he has seen no eveidence of mistreatment and he is very happy with the conditions and the speed of resettlement?
David Ready | Posted on 24 November 2009, 10:27AM | Report comment
Rebekah Omond; This thread was started by me criticising Irene Khan for getting involved in Australian domestic politics and criticising Malcolm Turnbull, which seems to be a sport these days, especially by the Australian media, with them focusing off the real issues like the carbon tax which is about hit us all between the eyes, and which will be bigger than the GST.
Have you noticed that the media, and Irene Khan, are fixated on Malcolm Turnbull when it comes to the boat people and the carbon tax, and just about every other issue, as though he should be in the position to fix both, and also to give KRudd a free run at world domination.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 10:25AM | Report comment
James
Don’t for a minute think that i am advocating the return of TPV’s, however I am stating why the argument for them is progressing. I think TPV’s are grossly unfair. I also beleive that a country has an absolute right to control its immigration policy and this aspect appears to be slipping from australia control - there are more genuine refugees in Indonesia right now than we can afford to intergrate into our society, and the speed at which they are arriving here is gathering. If we keep the illusion of a quota system - only boat and plane overstayers will immigrate here as there would not be any places left for anyone else - goodbye orderly familiy reunion and skilled migration, hello everyone else.
Rebekah Omond | Posted on 24 November 2009, 10:20AM | Report comment
Also, in response to comment 87 by David Ready that ‘Obviously I am against the way they get here, the queue jumping, the payment of people smugglers, the putting in danger the lives of their wives and children’.
The introduction of the TPV actually increased the numbers of women and children coming to Australia by boat, as it meant that their husbands/fathers could not bring them to Australia on a TPV. In order for families to be reunited the women and children had to risk the dangerous boat journey.
Rebekah Omond | Posted on 24 November 2009, 10:13AM | Report comment
David Ready, you have referred to ‘boat people’ throughout your comments, however those who arrive by boat make up the minority of those seeking asylum in Australia. Do you have the same opinion of asylum seekers who arrive by plane?
The number of asylum seekers coming to Australia is minimal in comparison to the rest of the world. The UNHCR’s most recent statistics show that in 2008 Australia had only 0.26% of all the asylum seeker applications world wide. When they arrive here they are processed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Those who are found to be refugees are given protection visas, those who are not are sent home. There have been many references to free loaders, however the majority are genuine asylum seekers seeking safety, not a better lifestyle.
James Fehon | Posted on 24 November 2009, 10:08AM | Report comment
TPV’s would I assume still only be granted to genuine refugees, who would have been found to have a legitimate claim for asylum – I don’t see why they should be denied the right to have their family reunited if they’ve passed the requirements for this … TPVs are ineffective (again, the push factors create a flea from someones country, not domestic policies) and cause unnecessary trauma for the people we’re meant to have granted asylum (who’ve already suffered prolonged periods of fear and uncertainty).
The riots in Christmas Island have more to do with the conditions (overcrowding) and impact of detention than what you seem to imply is a … racial predisposition? “Foreigners are more likely to be violent in our cities”, really? The Rudd Government may have made a number of improvements, but some lingering aspects of Howard’s shameful approach continue to cause trouble.
Andrew J S | Posted on 24 November 2009, 09:52AM | Report comment
Hi James
You really need to know how people feel, so you can respond accordingly - the TPV is getting support because it prevents the family reunion aspect of the current boat people - ie it gives the illusion of some control of immigration. But if you are honest, we really have lost control of our immigration policy as any sence of a quota is all but lost if we keep accepting boat after boat and then their family reunion. We might as well change our flag to white, stop spending money on military and become one great big welfare quarry for the world - ie everyone can live off the royalties off plundering the country dry of natural resources (uranuium, copper, gold etc.)
How long till the violence in Xmas island - ie the riot - spreads to our cities?