Skip to main content

Australia's shame

Australia, like many countries around the world, is confronted with so-called illegal immigrants seeking to enter the country.  Problem is that Australia deals with the issue in a harsh and inhumane way.    No less importantly, as the case detailed below so clearly shows, actions such as those of the Australian security agency, create an untenable and outrageous result - that is, the possible detention of a mother and child indefinitely without trial and their no knowing the basis for it.

"David Manne of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre has launched a High Court action to break the impasse facing refugees who have been adversely assessed by ASIO.

His action is to be applauded. The problem, which currently affects 62 people in Australian detention centres, needs to be solved urgently.

The problem is exemplified by the case of Ranjini. Shortly before Mothers Day, Ranjini and her two children, aged 6 and 9 years, were removed from the community and placed in detention at Villawood.

They are refugees: that fact is accepted by the Government. They are in detention now because their protection visas have been cancelled.

Why? Because ASIO has assessed them adversely on security grounds. They will not tell her why. The best guess is that her husband, who is dead, may once have been a driver for Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka. Even if that is true, it does not involve the woman and her children in any sort of offence, and it says nothing about their character.

They may remain in detention for years, perhaps forever. How can that be, in a free democratic country like Australia? It is the result of two court decisions which most Australians have never heard of.

First, if a person is adversely assessed by ASIO, they are not told what facts ASIO took into account in forming its views, so it is virtually impossible to show that ASIO was wrong."

****

"This case, and the case of Ranjini and her children, raises three questions we should face squarely. The way we answer these questions will define what we are as a country:

Should any person be held in custody indefinitely, absent any allegation that they have broken the law?

Should any person be locked up indefinitely without being given a chance to challenge, in a meaningful way, the reason for their detention?

Should any child face the prospect of lifetime imprisonment?

At present, Australian law allows a child to be imprisoned (potentially for life) without having broken the law and without being able to challenge the reason for their imprisonment.

It is a scandal that our law allows this. Regardless of your views about refugees, I cannot think that many Australians would support such obvious injustice. Regardless of your views about refugees, we should all hope that this High Court challenge succeeds."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

Robert Fisk's predictions for the Middle East in 2013

There is no gain-saying that Robert Fisk, fiercely independent and feisty to boot, is the veteran journalist and author covering the Middle East. Who doesn't he know or hasn't he met over the years in reporting from Beirut - where he lives?  In his latest op-ed piece for The Independent he lays out his predictions for the Middle East for 2013. Read the piece in full, here - well worthwhile - but an extract... "Never make predictions in the Middle East. My crystal ball broke long ago. But predicting the region has an honourable pedigree. “An Arab movement, newly-risen, is looming in the distance,” a French traveller to the Gulf and Baghdad wrote in 1883, “and a race hitherto downtrodden will presently claim its due place in the destinies of Islam.” A year earlier, a British diplomat in Jeddah confided that “it is within my knowledge... that the idea of freedom does at present agitate some minds even in Mecca...” So let’s say this for 2013: the “Arab Awakening” (the t

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as