Manus and ‘No Advantage’ announcement squib refugee protection
Today’s announcement to open Manus Island is yet another another ill considered plan which will further punish vulnerable people, including women and children.
There’s no reason to believe that conditions will be any different to those on Nauru in the short-term. It’s reckless that the Federal Government is sending families and children there with no appropriate accommodation.
“Once again as with Nauru, the details on Manus Island are sketchy and this is unacceptable when the lives of vulnerable people hang in the balance”, says Amnesty International’s Campaigns Director, Andrew Beswick.
“Detaining women and children, in temporary accommodation, on an island far flung from Australia’s shores is morally deplorable and flies in the face of our international obligations.
“Australia has the capacity to process vulnerable people on the mainland, in a timely fashion and not punish them for seeking a safer life.
“This milestone marks yet another attempt by the Federal Government to create an elaborate plan to punish vulnerable people for seeking safety and protection and squibs our responsibilities under the UN Refugee Convention."
Amnesty International is also concerned by the announcement that those asylum seekers who will be processed in the community will have no working, which could repeat the impoverishment and uncertainty created under the discredited Temporary Protection Visa system.
“This is another punitive measure – there is no average time for resettlement for asylum seekers in transit countries. With no detail with how the policy will apply in practice, what credibility does this policy have?
“The decision to apply the no advantage principle to asylum seekers in detention centres and community detention in Australia is undoubtedly bound to fail, just like all other previous measures based on deterrence have failed.
“The minister's announcements leave nothing but questions - how many years will innocent people be subjected to such an obscure policy? How will this apply? This is indefinite detention that is punitive on every level.
“Introducing policies like offshore processing, with the ‘no advantage’ rule will not make refugees safer but rather undermine prospects for a genuine regional solution for refugees.
“This announcement undermines the Government's attempts to work cooperatively with Asian governments as it sends a resounding message to the region that protecting refugee rights is something to be avoided at all costs," said Andrew Beswick.
Amnesty International would like to assert that its approach to the issue of asylum seekers in Australia is the legal approach whilst the Government continues to evade its international responsibilities under the UN Refugee Convention.




Comments
Michael Wild | Posted on 4 December 2012, 09:35PM | Report comment
You dear, sensitive soul Andrew. I’m happy to be stand by my comments in reply with Mirri though on reflection the issue about survival time in water could have been left out because she was speaking about how to think of these matters after the boat arrived. In this regard I wonder if you dispute the next sentence about being women being more vulnerable to assault robbery and sexual exploitation. (I don’t think the feminists will mind those so you’re quite safe).
Perhaps I could have said “as a group” women will drown a little quicker but I don’t think of survival time in water to be a moral quality though it rather matters in context of water safety. I trust even you do not deny that as a group women are not as physically strong as men. If you have even the slightest problem admitting this than perhaps you should reflect on whether your love of gender justice is suppressing your silliness-detector.
I stand by my comment that while feminism and gender analysis can be of use, this article and Mirri’s hyper-sensitivity to “vulnerable” women was not one of them. As ideologies go feminism has done rather more good than a lot of other ones. Unfortunately most ideologues are prone to believe that it should be applied broadly-indeed to just about every context imaginable. The results help neither the thinker nor the reputation of excessively used ideology.
Andrew J S | Posted on 4 December 2012, 10:28AM | Report comment
Michael
I am a little shocked by your last post in response to Miri’s very valid point.
Sexism exists when we make general assumptions about a persons’s ability based purely on their gender - for example ‘women will die a little quicker and be less able to swim’
What if the women were swimmers and the men couldn’t swim? what if the women were on the deck of a boat when it went down and the men were below Deck? There are so many possibilities however using gender as a filter and not looking any further makes the comment sexist.
More women might die - that may be down to the lack of education on how to swim or many other factors - it is not however because of their gender.
Michael Wild | Posted on 28 November 2012, 09:11PM | Report comment
I’m not sure that your concern for sexism is well placed in this case Miri. If a boat goes down women will die a little quicker and be less able to swim if close to shore. Women are also more easily robbed, assaulted and sexually exploited too.
As a piece of persuasive writing throwing in “women and children” helps personalize them in a way that the word “people” doesn’t. ‘ Women and children’ also generates a more sympathetic response as they are less likely to be frightening or abusive. (While I know people get excited about the ethnic variables in prisons the absolute stand out demographic variable is gender. At last report 90+% of prisoners were male. I sometimes think it would be fun to earnestly quote this figure to some feminists and use it as proof of the oppressive matriarchal society we live in!).
An abiding interest in gender analysis, stereotypes and the hidden, pernicious effects of widely used language is all well and good, This, however, does not mean it can be usefully applied to everything. NB This is written in gentle good humour with no hatred at all.
Miri | Posted on 27 November 2012, 12:48PM | Report comment
Hey, great article, very informative etc. One thing, however, could people please stop saying ‘women and children’? I understand that children are vulnerable but saying that women are too just re-enforces the stereotype that women are less able to cope than men, have less courage, less determination or less understanding about their situation.
The kind of dialogue that ‘women and children’ belongs to perpetrates and strengthens sexism in our society.
Cheers.
(For the haters; yes, this is relevant. Those refugee women are not lesser than the refugee men.)
Adrian Dick | Posted on 24 November 2012, 02:56AM | Report comment
Hi Lachlan
The reason most boatpeople are found to be refugees is because the bar is set to low. The burden of proof is on the Government and not the refugee, with little or no documentation as it is often destroyed, only the refugees account of why they are seeking asylum as there will rarely be another opposite side to their account, tips it in their favor as long as their account is plausible. Thats were there access to legal representation helps.
Lachlan, Amnesty International Australia. | Posted on 23 November 2012, 10:51AM | Report comment
Hey Ann, the facts are that the vast majority of people arriving here Australia by boat to seek asylum are found to be real refugees.
Lachlan, Amnesty International Australia. | Posted on 23 November 2012, 10:47AM | Report comment
Hey John, the human rights situation in Iran is extremely dire. People are regularly jailed for little more than a public comment on Facebook or Twitter.
When people do voice a peaceful protest in Iran, they are dealt with brutally; torture, executions, indefinite detention. That is the reality of what they are fleeing.
We are currently working to free a mother of three who has been failed for little more than protesting the harassment of her family http://www.amnesty.org.au/action/action/30434/
Andrew J S | Posted on 23 November 2012, 09:40AM | Report comment
Marilyn
You really don’t have any interest in supporting real refugees - that is people fleeing with absolutely nothing in fear of their own safety. If they rot in the African dessert you simply just don’t care because they havn’t made the compulsory flight / boat trip to Australia to claim asylum - there is as you know now magic que to join in the African dessert to get here as they await places for resettlement.
If people have the resources to hop on a plane or boat and make it to Australia past or through many safe transit countries - they already are far better off than many others who are condemed to perpetual suffering awaiting resettlement places that are being taken up instead by que-jumping asylum seekers with the means of travelling to our shores.They are que jumping when they take a visa ahead of someone awaiting resettlement who usually has been waiting for far longer with less means than themselves.
Helping those with the means of travelling ahead of those who have nothing is really unfair.
Its got nothing to do with racism, red-neck agenda on any other nasty jibe you can come up with - its about being fair to everyone and not just a select few.
Marilyn | Posted on 22 November 2012, 06:06PM | Report comment
Anne, why don’t you go to Andrew Bolt’s pages and rabbit on there.
The fact is that over 95% are refugees.
Ann Bonser | Posted on 22 November 2012, 05:02PM | Report comment
There is no crime in seeking Asylum, but the crime is, that these people are not true Asylum seekers. It has been proved, over and over, by them throwing away their passports, refusing to be moved to Naru, and also, them opting to go back the country they came from rather than being moved. Another proof is that they give the deeds to their homes to these smugglers, in turn for a safe trip. Then the smugglers go back, and of course claim the homes, which have the wives and children in them. They then have to pay rent for their “own” home, and of course don’t have work, so the smugglers simply put them into prostitution and slavery. Is this what these goody goody Australians want…I do not support “Asylum seekers, leaving their wives and families at the hands of these horrible people smugglers”. Great, the men get a terrific life here in Australia, planning all sorts of illegal operations, while their wifes and children back home are forced into these illicit trades. Good on you, goodie, goodies, time you went and offered yourselves, so the poor families get to be in this nice country too. TRUE Asylum seekers do not threaten to kill themselves by going on hunger strikes, and putting demands on the Governments which the tax payers has to pay for. I would like to see the goody goodies, offering to place themselves in the homes of these poor women and children, these rotten men leave behind to be put into these horrible trades. When one of the goody goodies do this, I will fully support these infiltrators who call themselve Asylum seekers. Wake up Australians, 20yrs, time we will like the Gazza strip.
john | Posted on 22 November 2012, 04:31PM | Report comment
vulnerable ...vulnerable , what does mr beswick mean by that?, does he mean peole with low-income status?, does he mean children and women dont have the chance to have proper education in their country? war is over in srilanka last year so from whom those people are persectued unless they are seeking better lifestyle, i am not saying that is not their right but there is thousands of others who are real could be called vulnerable, africans , christians and other minorities in the rubbish middle east countries, people in tebet prosecuted by the chiness government. can anyone tell me how can we call persian people coming from iran as refugees , refugee of what??? they are muslim citizens living in a muslim country under a leadership chosen by people (the islamic revolution 1979), if they are not happy with their country’s economy they should make a hunger strike in front of ahmadi nijad palace to provide them a better living , not in australia. AUSTRALIA CAN’T AFFORD EVERYONE NEED TO CHANGE HIS LIFESTYLE OR LOOKING FOR A BETTER LIFE.. australia has a moral duty for thousands and thousands of people who are really suffering , people who cant pay thousands of dollar to hire a boat and settle down on our border. GO ON CHRIS BOWEN , AUSTRALIAN ARE PASSIONATE BUT NOT NAIVE .
Andrew J S | Posted on 22 November 2012, 09:49AM | Report comment
Australia simply cannot afford to house in excess of 2000 boat arrivals per month under resettlement programmes - and if this was done how would that be fair to others already waiting for resettlement in transit countries - would that not mean they would have to wait longer or more likely be encouraged to take a boat voyage minus documentation for Australia? Surely giving a minimum port of safety is all that is required given the volume currently arriving.
Andrew Berswick has a overly optimistic view of Australia if he seriously think Australia has any influence over its asian neighbors on their private, Sovereign domestic issues - i suspect this point is just thrown out there because anyone who understands asian culture would know how insulting it would be for an outsider to meddle in private afairs. Why would Australia diliberatly cause insult to its neighbors?
AI’s approach of come one come all until a ‘regional co-operation’ is created really is a psudeo open border policy with no caps on immigration numbers and only policies that encourage people to take boat journeys while waiting for the extremely unlikely utopian vision of regional co-operation to occur.
Michael Wild | Posted on 21 November 2012, 11:11PM | Report comment
What do you mean “squib”? It’s more like being trampled over.