Australian Politics Forum - Article 31 UN Refugee Convention

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #45 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:23am

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Macca
Quote:

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

You don’t mention Indonesia where the policy is to send them back where they came from = definitely life threatening and not a place of safety.

Based on your opinion. But there is no proof.

Macca
Quote:

I was not referring to Malaysia d1ckhead

It was the location you specified?

I am quoting the Convention that Australia signed - not Malaysia

Macca
Quote:

As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Send then to Malaysia as an example???? Think you may be wrong about that?

Sending them to Malaysia as a destination is Labor's idea. As for towing them back we have every right to

Macca
Quote:

I was referring to the act of asylum seeking

Once they have set foot in a country that removes the danger they were escaping from then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

Only if they are signatories to the convention – if not these words most likely mean nothing. It's based on the law of the land. The fact that Malaysia have been taking in these people since the Vietnam war tells us a different story to your belief

Macca
Quote:

Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Or not – mostly not. How do you know?

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58927
Here
Gender: male

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #46 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:41am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:23am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Macca
Quote:

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

You don’t mention Indonesia where the policy is to send them back where they came from = definitely life threatening and not a place of safety.

Based on your opinion. But there is no proof.

Macca
Quote:

I was not referring to Malaysia d1ckhead

It was the location you specified?

I am quoting the Convention that Australia signed - not Malaysia

Macca
Quote:

As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Send then to Malaysia as an example???? Think you may be wrong about that?

Sending them to Malaysia as a destination is Labor's idea. As for towing them back we have every right to

Macca
Quote:

I was referring to the act of asylum seeking

Once they have set foot in a country that removes the danger they were escaping from then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

Only if they are signatories to the convention – if not these words most likely mean nothing. It's based on the law of the land. The fact that Malaysia have been taking in these people since the Vietnam war tells us a different story to your belief

Macca
Quote:

Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Or not – mostly not. How do you know?

On almost every point you sidestep your error by making an absolutly irrelivant statment.

Quote:

You don’t mention Indonesia where the policy is to send them back where they came from = definitely life threatening and not a place of safety.

Based on your opinion. But there is no proof.

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety.

Quote:

It was the location you specified?

I am quoting the Convention that Australia signed - not Malaysia

Malaysia is not specified in the convention - that was your addition.

Quote:

Macca
Quote:

As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Send then to Malaysia as an example???? Think you may be wrong about that?

Sending them to Malaysia as a destination is Labor's idea. As for towing them back we have every right to

Australia can do as it pleases That was your statment - you were wrong? It is irrelivant who's idea Malaysia was we cant send them there hence your claim of we can do as we please is not correct.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58927
Here
Gender: male

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #47 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:51am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:23am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Macca
Quote:

I was referring to the act of asylum seeking

Once they have set foot in a country that removes the danger they were escaping from then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

Only if they are signatories to the convention – if not these words most likely mean nothing. It's based on the law of the land. The fact that Malaysia have been taking in these people since the Vietnam war tells us a different story to your belief

Macca
Quote:

Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Or not – mostly not. How do you know?

Quote:

Once they have set foot in a country that removes the danger they were escaping from then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

Only if they are signatories to the convention – if not these words most likely mean nothing. It's based on the law of the land. The fact that Malaysia have been taking in these people since the Vietnam war tells us a different story to your belief
[/quote]

then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

A third country which is not a signatory has no compulsion to follow the rules in article 31 and don't.

The fact that Malaysia have been taking in these people since the Vietnam war tells us a different story to your belief.

Your statment was that Malaysia have a responsibility under article 31 - that was clearly BS.

These people are not taken in by Malaysia they are processed independantly by the UNHCR in Malaysia. Refugees in this position have no future in Malaysia.

Quote:

Macca
Quote:

Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Or not – mostly not. How do you know?

The two major countries which funnel to Australia are Malaysia and Indonesia - neither are signaturies and neither use the convention.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:57am by Dnarever »

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #48 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:02pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:41am:

On almost every point you sidestep your error by making an absolutly irrelivant statment.

Just because you didn't understand it does not mean I side stepped

Quote:

You don’t mention Indonesia where the policy is to send them back where they came from = definitely life threatening and not a place of safety.

Based on your opinion. But there is no proof.

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety.

Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand. They are NOT refugees until they are processed and verified as such. Until such time - they are not RECOGNISED as refugees. All the issues about work, education, settle permanently etc are not available to these illegals either in Australia until they are processed.

Quote:

It was the location you specified?

I am quoting the Convention that Australia signed - not Malaysia

Malaysia is not specified in the convention - that was your addition.

Read my initial OP

Quote:

Macca
Quote:

As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Send then to Malaysia as an example???? Think you may be wrong about that?

Sending them to Malaysia as a destination is Labor's idea. As for towing them back we have every right to

Australia can do as it pleases That was your statment - you were wrong? It is irrelivant who's idea Malaysia was we cant send them there hence your claim of we can do as we please is not correct.

I am right because Australia can do as it pleases under it's laws. Under Article 2 - these illegals are obligated to abide by these laws

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #49 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:03pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:05am:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:56am:

So what part don't you understand?

In sub clause 1 it states in part

coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened

Now tell us how many countries between Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq have sign the UN Refugee Convention

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

More than 10 in any direction they want to head with Australia the furthest away

Therefore these people are country shopping

where are you unwise one

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!! Reply #50 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:25pm Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:51am: Your statment was that Malaysia have a responsibility under article 31 - that was clearly BS. where did I say Malaysia have a responsibility under Article 31??
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58927
Here
Gender: male

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #51 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:33pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Sub-section 2 is why they are detained!!

The asylum status is what they are applying for.

Until such time they are regularised/approved they are locked up!!

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

Macca
Quote:

Malaysia is not specified in the convention - that was your addition.
Read my initial OP

How did I put Malaysia into your post?

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #52 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:36pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Sub-section 2 is why they are detained!!

The asylum status is what they are applying for.

Until such time they are regularised/approved they are locked up!!

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

for dna who is really really slow

Section 1 provides for people fleeing persecution to cross the border into another country to claim asylum

The people who are taking ship from Malaysian territory into Australian territory are not claiming asylum because of persecution in Malaysia. They are claiming asylum from their original country of origin - NOT Malaysia.

So that this gets through your head and every other lefties' head.

EVERY country needs to have a set of guidelines and laws to deal with people entering their country illegally - FACT!!

They can either make it up themselves and/or they use another country's laws or the UN Convention as a guideline - FACT

FACTS - there are no country in this world that have their own laws reflecting word for word the UN Convention.

The UN Convention is a set of principle - but it's up to each country to develop their own unique application and implementation

FACTS are - even if you sign up to the UN Convention the law of that land will ALWAYS override the UN Convention. WHY? Because the country can ALWAYS walk away from the UN Convention ANYTIME under Article 44.

So while Malaysia and Indonesia have not signed up to the UN Convention - they have laws that deals with those entering their country. Even if the law is to shoot them - it is still a law.

dna tells us that Malaysia does not have to follow Article 31 - this is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. OF COURSE they don't.

But they have used it as a guide. How can we tell?

Article 31 recognise mandatory detention. Malaysia has mandatory detention.

Article 31 assist in sending people to a 3rd country. Malaysia have been doing this for years.

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58927
Here
Gender: male

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #53 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:43pm

Quote:

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety.

[color=#0000ff]Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand

. They are NOT refugees until they are processed and verified as such. Until such time - they are not RECOGNISED as refugees. All the issues about work, education, settle permanently etc are not available to these illegals either in Australia until they are processed.[/color]

Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand

.

Refuge: a person who flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc.

Obviously when I refer to a refugee in a country not covered by Australian Law or the UN convention I am using the dictionary meaning and not the more restricted test used by the UN convention which is not applicable to them - my understanding is just fine thanks.

Again you seem to have side stepped the point with your incorrect assesment.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20508
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #54 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:44pm

Asylum seekers continue to come to countries whom have signed the refugee convention because there own country is unsafe, which is why they are granted refugee status.....If the only way to stop people seeking freedom is to treat them inhumanly or ignore their plight for domestic political gain then we have truly reached the bottom of the barrel.....If people are deemed refugees they deserve our help not our scorn and ridicule.....WTF is wrong with you people when our political leaders can tell you it is alright to treat people like criminals when they have broken no laws and only accepted the help we offered them.....The ALP and Coalition are both guilty of playing politics with peoples lives when they have no right to ignore international treaties we have signed that lead to these drastic outcomes in the first place???

Angry

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58927
Here
Gender: male

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #55 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:45pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Sub-section 2 is why they are detained!!

The asylum status is what they are applying for.

Until such time they are regularised/approved they are locked up!!

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

for dna who is really really slow

Section 1 provides for people fleeing persecution to cross the border into another country to claim asylum

The people who are taking ship from Malaysian territory into Australian territory are not claiming asylum because of persecution in Malaysia. They are claiming asylum from their original country of origin - NOT Malaysia.

So that this gets through your head and every other lefties' head.

EVERY country needs to have a set of guidelines and laws to deal with people entering their country illegally - FACT!!

They can either make it up themselves and/or they use another country's laws or the UN Convention as a guideline - FACT

FACTS - there are no country in this world that have their own laws reflecting word for word the UN Convention.

The UN Convention is a set of principle - but it's up to each country to develop their own unique application and implementation

FACTS are - even if you sign up to the UN Convention the law of that land will ALWAYS override the UN Convention. WHY? Because the country can ALWAYS walk away from the UN Convention ANYTIME under Article 44.

So while Malaysia and Indonesia have not signed up to the UN Convention - they have laws that deals with those entering their country. Even if the law is to shoot them - it is still a law.

dna tells us that Malaysia does not have to follow Article 31 - this is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. OF COURSE they don't.

But they have used it as a guide. How can we tell?

Article 31 recognise mandatory detention. Malaysia has mandatory detention.

Article 31 assist in sending people to a 3rd country. Malaysia have been doing this for years.

So now you agree that I was not the person who put Malaysia into the post?

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #56 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:51pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Quote:

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety.

[color=#0000ff]Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand

. They are NOT refugees until they are processed and verified as such. Until such time - they are not RECOGNISED as refugees. All the issues about work, education, settle permanently etc are not available to these illegals either in Australia until they are processed.[/color]

Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand

.

Refuge: a person who flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc.

Obviously when I refer to a refugee in a country not covered by Australian Law or the UN convention I am using the dictionary meaning and not the more restricted test used by the UN convention which is not applicable to them - my understanding is just fine thanks.

Again you seem to have side stepped the point with your incorrect assesment.

Show me this "dictionary meaning"

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58927
Here
Gender: male

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #57 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:51pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

[quote author=Jim_Puddle-Duck link=1356652490/46#46 date=1356813671]
On almost every point you sidestep your error by making an absolutly irrelivant statment.

Just because you didn't understand it does not mean I side stepped

I thought that your problem was that in almost every case your second statment contradicted the first and in one claimed you hadn't even said it.

Just keep moving the goal posts.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #58 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:52pm

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Asylum seekers continue to come to countries whom have signed the refugee convention because there own country is unsafe, which is why they are granted refugee status.....If the only way to stop people seeking freedom is to treat them inhumanly or ignore their plight for domestic political gain then we have truly reached the bottom of the barrel.....If people are deemed refugees they deserve our help not our scorn and ridicule.....WTF is wrong with you people when our political leaders can tell you it is alright to treat people like criminals when they have broken no laws and only accepted the help we offered them.....The ALP and Coalition are both guilty of playing politics with peoples lives when they have no right to ignore international treaties we have signed that lead to these drastic outcomes in the first place???

Angry

Labor have been playing politics and is costing us billions

The LIBs got the policy correct - Labor changed it and created a problem

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58927
Here
Gender: male

Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Reply #59 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:53pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Quote:

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety.

[color=#0000ff]Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand

. They are NOT refugees until they are processed and verified as such. Until such time - they are not RECOGNISED as refugees. All the issues about work, education, settle permanently etc are not available to these illegals either in Australia until they are processed.[/color]

Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand

.

Refuge: a person who flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc.

Obviously when I refer to a refugee in a country not covered by Australian Law or the UN convention I am using the dictionary meaning and not the more restricted test used by the UN convention which is not applicable to them - my understanding is just fine thanks.

Again you seem to have side stepped the point with your incorrect assesment.

Show me this "dictionary meaning"

I am not going to mail you my dictionary but I feel their is about an even money chance that you have access to google and about 50 dictionaries.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: With maqqas information, what is the % of illegals to Aust
* This poll has now closed *
100% 2 (40.0%) 99.9% 1 (20.0%) 98% 0 (0.0%) 90% 1 (20.0%) 88% 0 (0.0%) 80% 1 (20.0%) 79% 0 (0.0%) 101% 0 (0.0%) Total votes: 5 « Created by: progressiveslol on: Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:27pm »