The latest shame from Nauru

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby Auggie » 15 Jul 2018, 21:01

johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:That doesn't answer the question as to how you can control numbers.


don't create refugees and you won't need to worry bout that. Do you realise that almost every time we've had a boom in refugee numbers it has been as a direct result of western military action in other areas, namely the middle east? fuck off and leave them to themselves. You can't destroy the homes and all the infrastructure that maintains those cities of millions then cry when those millions go seeking a new home.


So, just to be clear, you believe that we are 100% responsible for the plight of Syrian refugees, and should let in anyone who comes here.

What if the problem was not of our doing, should we treat those people differently??
Last edited by Auggie on 15 Jul 2018, 21:10, edited 1 time in total.
I have officially declared war on OzPol and some of its members. Caesar is marching with his legions on Rome.

A new order must be established!
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby Auggie » 15 Jul 2018, 21:05

johnsmith wrote:then you would be wrong.


No, I'm not wrong; that is what the Charter says, and that is what international law dictates.

johnsmith wrote:it's irrelevant since nothing happens retroactively anyway. Unless you think these asylum seekers have been here since pre 1954? From that point on, it has been totally legal for them to come here to claim asylum regardless of how they get here.


Once again, you misunderstand; their illegal entry status is retroactively revoked, not their status as a refugee. If the person was legally a refugee before entering the country, then they would be entering the country legally.
I have officially declared war on OzPol and some of its members. Caesar is marching with his legions on Rome.

A new order must be established!
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby Auggie » 15 Jul 2018, 21:06

johnsmith wrote:then you would be wrong.


No, I'm not wrong; that is what the Charter says, and that is what international law dictates.

johnsmith wrote:it's irrelevant since nothing happens retroactively anyway. Unless you think these asylum seekers have been here since pre 1954? From that point on, it has been totally legal for them to come here to claim asylum regardless of how they get here.


Once again, you misunderstand; their illegal entry status is retroactively revoked, not their status as a refugee. If the person was legally a refugee before entering the country, then they would be entering the country legally.
I have officially declared war on OzPol and some of its members. Caesar is marching with his legions on Rome.

A new order must be established!
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby Squire » 15 Jul 2018, 21:21

Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:then you would be wrong.


No, I'm not wrong; that is what the Charter says, and that is what international law dictates.

johnsmith wrote:it's irrelevant since nothing happens retroactively anyway. Unless you think these asylum seekers have been here since pre 1954? From that point on, it has been totally legal for them to come here to claim asylum regardless of how they get here.


Once again, you misunderstand; their illegal entry status is retroactively revoked, not their status as a refugee. If the person was legally a refugee before entering the country, then they would be entering the country legally.


Those refugees illegally detained have not entered Australia. They were kidnapped at sea illegally.
User avatar
Squire
Irish wolfhound
 
Posts: 521
Joined: 19 Aug 2016, 11:35
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby johnsmith » 15 Jul 2018, 21:23

Auggie wrote:No, I'm not wrong; that is what the Charter says, and that is what international law dictates.

no, you are wrong
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5044
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby johnsmith » 15 Jul 2018, 21:26

Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:then you would be wrong.


No, I'm not wrong; that is what the Charter says, and that is what international law dictates.

johnsmith wrote:it's irrelevant since nothing happens retroactively anyway. Unless you think these asylum seekers have been here since pre 1954? From that point on, it has been totally legal for them to come here to claim asylum regardless of how they get here.


Once again, you misunderstand; their illegal entry status is retroactively revoked, not their status as a refugee. If the person was legally a refugee before entering the country, then they would be entering the country legally.

refugee my arse, they enter as asylum seekers, not refugees. Something the Australian govt agreed that they could do since 1954. If you don't like it petition the govt. to remove us as a signatory
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5044
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby Auggie » 15 Jul 2018, 21:26

johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:No, I'm not wrong; that is what the Charter says, and that is what international law dictates.

no, you are wrong


Well, since I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and you me, let's agree to disagree on this point.
I have officially declared war on OzPol and some of its members. Caesar is marching with his legions on Rome.

A new order must be established!
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby johnsmith » 15 Jul 2018, 21:32

Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:No, I'm not wrong; that is what the Charter says, and that is what international law dictates.

no, you are wrong


Well, since I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and you me, let's agree to disagree on this point.


there is nothing to disagree about. The UN refugee convention says that people entering a signatory country to claim asylum can do so without applying for visa's etc., and will not be classified as illegal
Australia is a signatory to that convention therefore Australia accepts that anyone entering to claim asylum is not doing so illegally.


apart from a few extreme right wing nutters, even the libs don't call them illegal because they know it's incorrect. The term they use to dehumanise asylum seekers these days is 'unlawful non citizens'.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5044
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby Auggie » 15 Jul 2018, 21:37

johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:No, I'm not wrong; that is what the Charter says, and that is what international law dictates.

no, you are wrong


Well, since I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and you me, let's agree to disagree on this point.


there is nothing to disagree about. The UN refugee convention says that people entering a signatory country to claim asylum can do so without applying for visa's etc., and will not be classified as illegal
Australia is a signatory to that convention therefore Australia accepts that anyone entering to claim asylum is not doing so illegally.


apart from a few extreme right wing nutters, even the libs don't call them illegal because they know it's incorrect. The term they use to dehumanise asylum seekers these days is 'unlawful non citizens'.


Let me give you an example, John Smith:

I travel to Australia and arrive on Australian territory, and for one hour I am walking on Australian territory. An Immigration Official approaches me and asks me (knowing that I have arrived here without a visa): "why are you here in Australia?" I then respond: "I wish to claim asylum."

Until that point that I made it know to that official that I was seeking asylum, had I or had I not entered Australia illegally?
I have officially declared war on OzPol and some of its members. Caesar is marching with his legions on Rome.

A new order must be established!
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby johnsmith » 15 Jul 2018, 21:47

Auggie wrote:Until that point that I made it know to that official that I was seeking asylum, had I or had I not entered Australia illegally?


Not as long as you entered with the intention of claiming asylum, and upon entering you endeavour to find someone of authority to claim asylum from.

If you walk past a police station and stop at the pub for a few beers before the official approached you, then yes, you definitely are an illegal entrant.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5044
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby mothra » 16 Jul 2018, 17:55

Meanwhile:


Image
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby mothra » 19 Jul 2018, 20:35

Image
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby mothra » 19 Jul 2018, 21:37

What is happening on Nauru should shock the conscience of every Australian
Julian Burnside
It is important that we all know the truth of what our government is doing to innocent people

In the middle of 2016 Guardian Australia published the Nauru files: more than 2,000 incident reports recording things that had happened in Australia’s refugee gulag on Nauru. The incident reports – made by people directly or indirectly employed by the Australian government – contained reports of assaults, sexual abuse, self-harm and child abuse. They gave an insight into the living conditions endured by asylum seekers held by the Australian government. Unsurprisingly, they painted a picture of routine dysfunction and cruelty.

A few key facts: Nauru is an island republic in the South Pacific. It is about 4,000 kilometres from Sydney. It is almost exactly on the equator, so it is fairly hot. It is very small: about 2 square kilometres smaller than Tullamarine airport in Melbourne. It has a population of about 9,500 people: less than most Australian suburbs.

Nauru was first used by Australia as a place of detention from late 2001, after the Tampa episode, until about 2007. Its use was revived in 2012. It is used primarily as a place where families and unaccompanied women and children are sent. Manus Island (part of PNG) is used as a place for unaccompanied men.

Almost all the people held on Nauru now have been there for five years. It costs Australian taxpayers about $570,000 per refugee, per year to keep them in Nauru. And that’s just the financial cost: think what it is doing to the soul of our country. Australia is increasingly seen as a country which is intentionally cruel to innocent people.

Although most of the refugees on Nauru have been there for five years, some of the children are younger than five years old. They were born there to refugee women. They are classified in Australia’s Migration Act as “transitory children”. They are treated as boat people, even though they have lived their entire lives in detention on Nauru.

Children are a very important part of offshore detention. More than half of the Nauru files concern mistreatment of children. They range from a guard grabbing a boy and threatening to kill him once he is living in the community to guards slapping children in the face. In September 2014 a teacher reported that a young classroom helper had asked for a four-minute shower instead of a two-minute shower.

Her request has been accepted on condition of sexual favours. It is a male security person. She did not state if this has or hasn’t occurred. The security officer wants to view a boy or girl having a shower.”

The Nauru files are the first chance most Australians had to get a glimpse inside the detention centre on Nauru. It is extremely difficult for ordinary Australians to get to Nauru: a visa application costs $8,000, which is not refunded if the visa is refused. Journalists find it virtually impossible to get a visa to go to Nauru. So how else do we find out what our government is doing to the people who have come to Australia asking to be protected from persecution?

It is interesting to think about the secrecy which surrounds offshore processing. Prime ministers, including Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull, and government ministers like Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton refer to asylum seekers as “illegals” and describe offshore processing as “border protection”. In saying these things, they are lying to you. Refugees arriving by boat do not commit any offence by coming to Australia asking for protection. And we do not need to be protected from them.

The end result is that many Australians think offshore processing involves protecting us from criminals, which might make sense if it was true. But it is false.

We are imprisoning innocent human beings – men, women and children – without charge, without trial. And we put them in hellish conditions until young children try to kill themselves or engage in self-harm, and are denied decent medical care because Nauru does not have a sophisticated medical system. When an application is brought in the federal court of Australia to have those children brought to Australia for proper mental health treatment, Dutton pays lawyers to oppose the application.

And all this is hidden from us, because we can’t go there to see what is happening, and in any event Australia makes sure that visas are only available to people it likes. In 2014 the federal parliament passed the Australian Border Force Act. Part 6 of the Act is headed “Secrecy and disclosure provisions”. It includes section 42, which makes it a criminal offence, punishable by up to two years prison, if a person who works in the immigration system discloses any fact they learned while working in the immigration system. Whoever leaked the Nauru files took a risk by disclosing facts which should shock the conscience of every Australian.

Reading the Nauru files, you learn that in September 2014, a girl had sewn her lips together. A guard saw her and began laughing at her. In July 2014 a child under the age of 10 undressed and invited a group of adults to insert their fingers into her vagina.

The government’s response to the publication of the Nauru files was little short of astonishing:

The documents published today are evidence of the rigorous reporting procedures that are in place in the regional processing centre – procedures under which any alleged incident must be recorded, reported and where necessary investigated …”

It was also evasive:

Many of the incident reports reflect unconfirmed allegations or uncorroborated statements and claims – they are not statements of proven fact …”

All We Can’t See is an opportunity for artists to respond to the hidden facts on Nauru. It is painful to see a sculpture of a child who has cut herself and has sewn her lips closed. But it is important that we all know the truth of what our government is doing to innocent people. Because our government, while spending billions of taxpayers’ money harming refugees, is anxious that we should not know the truth.

It is the reason we need All We Can’t See.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/19/what-is-happening-on-nauru-should-shock-the-conscience-of-every-australian
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby johnsmith » 20 Jul 2018, 08:24

mothra wrote:It costs Australian taxpayers about $570,000 per refugee, per year to keep them in Nauru.


there goes the retards argument that it saves us money.

With $570 000 we can pay them the dole for about 50 yrs. The majority of refugees are actually constructive members of society who contribute to our economy and cost us far less than $570 000 over the course of their lives, let alone per annum. There is no economic reason for keeping them out.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5044
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby mothra » 05 Aug 2018, 15:08

Image
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby Auggie » 06 Aug 2018, 09:05

Peter Dutton deserves to be round up and shot.
I have officially declared war on OzPol and some of its members. Caesar is marching with his legions on Rome.

A new order must be established!
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby HBS Guy » 06 Aug 2018, 09:11

And turdfull with him!
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 47522
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby mothra » 06 Aug 2018, 11:21

Image
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby mothra » 06 Aug 2018, 14:41

This Is How Peter Dutton Tried To Avoid Moving A Sick Asylum Seeker Kid From Nauru To Australia

This week, Peter Dutton was once again forced by the federal court to transfer a sick child from Nauru to Australia for medical treatment. We say forced, because representatives for the Minister for Home Affairs actively fought to prevent the transfer by arguing that the child in question wasn’t actually that sick.

Evidence presented by advocates for the child showed that she had been self-harming by cutting her legs and arms superficially. She had also been refusing food and water. A psychiatrist had diagnosed her with Major Depressive Disorder and Resignation Syndrome, a serious illness that’s been found to affect the children of asylum seekers in Sweden. Children with the syndrome withdraw completely, ceasing to walk, talk, or eat.

Despite these symptoms, Peter Dutton’s department chose to present evidence from a different psychiatrist, who wrote that there was “no clear evidence for a depressive illness and this seems more likely to be a severe reaction to her situation”. In other words, the government appears to have essentially admitted that offshore detention is harming children, while in the same breath attempting to prevent one of those harmed children from being given access to the healthcare she needed.

Thankfully, the court rejected this characterisation. “I accept the submission on behalf of the applicant that she requires urgent medical attention to prevent further deterioration of her health and to begin effective and ongoing treatment,” Justice Robertson wrote in a July 26 judgment. “I also find that the applicant is at serious risk of permanent complications from her current medical situation and find that the applicant appears to be at imminent risk to her health, both in the short term and in the long term.”

“It follows that I do not accept the submission on behalf of the Minister that the applicant has not shown sufficient evidence of the seriousness of her medical condition”.

This is the far from the first time the government has fought against the transfer of a child from Nauru to Australia for medical care. There have been at least twelve cases now where Dutton has been forced by court order to act. Not every case is the same, and the government’s arguments have been different each time. But this week’s case provides a pretty chilling example of the level to which Peter Dutton and his department have sunk: actively opposing the provision of adequate care to sick kids by trying to argue they are less sick than they are.

George Newhouse is the director of the National Justice Project, which represented the young girl in this case. He told Junkee that NJP finds the way the government is approaching these cases concerning.

“Our position is that the welfare and safety of individuals, particularly children, is paramount and young lives should never be put at risk to achieve political objectives,” he said. “We are very concerned about the health and welfare of children on Nauru, and if the current policy continues, I fear that a child might die there.”

Those concerns were echoed by Asylum Seeker Resource Centre Detention Advocacy Manager Natasha Blucher, who pointed out that the government’s duty to these kids goes way beyond ensuring they don’t die.

“The Australian government has a duty of care for children sent to Nauru — including to provide them with medical care, a safe community to live in, education and developmental opportunities,” she said.

“Instead, they have denied these children all of these basic rights for over five years, locking them up on a remote island in a filthy camp. It’s appalling that our government is fighting in the courts to prevent children from receiving critical medical care, even when their lives are at risk.”

And if you take anything away from this story, let it be that: the Australian government is still fighting in the courts to prevent children from receiving critical medical care, even when they might die otherwise. How are we letting this happen?


http://junkee.com/sick-asylum-seeker-child-dutton/170198
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: The latest shame from Nauru

Postby Auggie » 06 Aug 2018, 18:03

Government psychiatrists are employed by the government to favour the government. It’s ridiculous. It was a good decision by the court.

As JS said: people before politics, people before profits, people before numbers.
I have officially declared war on OzPol and some of its members. Caesar is marching with his legions on Rome.

A new order must be established!
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Previous

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests