Amnesty International responds to Senator Steve Fielding’s proposal on asylum seekers
In response Senator Steve Fielding’s announcement of his proposal to send asylum seekers who arrive in Australia to ‘refugee camps’ overseas, Dr Graham Thom, Refugee Coordinator for Amnesty International Australia said:
“Any proposal which suggests that Australia should send asylum seekers back to refugee camps shows a fundamental lack of understanding about international law, and about Australia’s international human rights obligations. As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, Australia is obliged to offer protection to asylum seekers until their claim is assessed, and to refugees who are found to have a genuine protection claim.
“Sending asylum seekers back to any country without first examining their need for protection is a breach of international law. It is also completely impractical and unrealistic. Australia would be trying to return refugees to countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia who are already completely overburdened with refugees. Pakistan, for example, currently hosts 1.7 million refugees. In comparison to these countries, Australia receives only a handful of asylum seekers each year. We have an international legal obligation to provide protection to those people who are found to be refugees.
“Sending asylum seekers back to refugee camps would place Australia in direct contravention of the UN Refugee Convention, which prohibits states from expelling “a refugee lawfully in their territory”. It also puts Australia at risk of breaching the international principle of non-refoulement - returning an individual to face persecution such as torture or death - which is outlined in the Convention against Torture as well as the Refugee Convention.
“Amnesty International has visited refugee camps around the world and can state that they are generally not safe places. In the camps on the Syria/Iraq border which I visited in 2008, the conditions were appalling and extremely unsafe. In these camps, women had been burnt to death when their tents caught on fire, children had been hit and killed by passing trucks and refugees faced extreme weather conditions with little protection.
“It should also be noted that most refugees around the world live in urban situations, not refugee camps. They face exploitation, illegal deportation, physical abuse and detention. In most countries they are given few, if any, rights or even legal recognition. They are unable to work or send their children to school. It is this unsafe existence with little hope of any change which leads to the decision to seek asylum in signatory countries such as Australia.”
Comments
Andrew J S | Posted on 18 March 2010, 04:51PM | Report comment
Hi James
I don’t for a minute support Senetor Fielding, however you nailed it best when you said Australia Voluntarily signed the various treaties. The general population also needs to won over so they also voluntarily support the cause of AI. My point about international law being false - is simply that it is not an enforceable law, to simply expect everyone to blindly obey international law is a flawed assumption, it was volutarily signed and can just as easily be voluntarily dismissed - it is not enforced by anyone. Arguing the merits of policy and making people want to help is the key point - telling somebody they have to because its law, where the law is unenforceable or can be changed, is the wrong way to win the argument.
James | Posted on 18 March 2010, 04:30PM | Report comment
Andrew, I believe that Dr Thom’s illustration of international law here is entirely accurate, and I’d like you to explain exactly how it is “false”, as you allege. I understand your suggestion that international law is outside the everyday experience or knowledge of a lot of people, and that’s fine. That doesn’t however detract from its strong moral underpinning, nor the fact that Australia has voluntarily chosen to sign on to certain international law - in this case refugee law - on the world stage and commit to upholding certain standards that Senator Fielding’s proposals would clearly violate. Not everyone needs to be an expert in international law, but if Senator Fielding is making public statements about how our country should treat refugees, he should be minimally aware of the commitments we have made in that area first.
Andrew J S | Posted on 18 March 2010, 02:40PM | Report comment
I understand your point Michael, however it seems that it a common fallback position of many who support AI is to champion ‘international law’ when arguments are being lost with the general public. Essentially its the same as telling the public that they have to abide by your argument, rather than trying to convince the public that your argument is right. Again all well and good however as International Law is not enforceable the point becomes somewhat moot. Dr Graham was very much in danger of doing just that - which is a pity because he could have reasoned the same conclusion without use of the heavy handed (and false) international law argument.
Michael Wild | Posted on 17 March 2010, 09:28PM | Report comment
Hi Andrew F
Wikidictionary gives the following definition of atrophy. “A reduction in the functionality of an organ caused by disease, injury or lack of use.” As you can see Dr Thom and myself are highly educated!
Andrew F | Posted on 17 March 2010, 03:59PM | Report comment
Michael what does “atrophy” mean?
Michael Wild | Posted on 16 March 2010, 07:21PM | Report comment
Dr Thom’s words are good and true. I SUPPORT THEM FULLY. They would be even better in shorter sentences, written in the active voice etc. Alas high levels of education can atrophy the power to write clearly and persuasively. We’re trying to persuade the public; not merely bureaucrats and international lawyers
Andrew J S | Posted on 16 March 2010, 02:32PM | Report comment
It should not come as a suprise to anyone who is following Steve Fieldings career, that he is happy to walk all over a persons freedom and change laws to suit himself. I don’t think the argument of international law however is an effective one to use against the likes of Steve. Really what you are encouraging him to do is ‘unsign’ the treaty and create the same intollerances within our own society thereby acheiving his goal of fewer arrivals. I really think AI should lower its emphasis on the whole ‘International law’ themed arguments - It would only be an effective argument if there were some form of mechanism to enforce international law. Theres little point getting all worked up about an unenforcable law, far better to win the argument another way.