Maqqa, any vessel on the sea - be it Australian navy, Indonesian Navy, Australian merchant vessel or any merchant vessel (Tampa was Norwegian) - has an obligation to prevent death on the sea.

The navy can pick them up - it is a case of what they do with them after that which is the issue for me.

I do not believe they should be allowed to claim asylum at that point and I think they should be taken to Christmas Island - which should be excluded from the migration zone of Australia.

Then a decision can be made - if they are from non-risk countries (Sri Lanka) they should be sent there by military plane.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:29am:


Maqqa, I am asking the question, because I do not know of any structural differences between them. If you do, which you claim to, please present them.  Otherwise you are just blowing in the wind.

There is corruption in Indonesia. A lot of corruption at lower levels, and that is what is allowing these people through. But its is not government policy, and if one of your requirements to stop boat people is to wipe out corruption in Indonesia you are delusional.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:02am:


You seriously get dumber by the post.

It doesn't have to be a ruling on the pacific solution to have ramifications for that policy if reinstated due the similar nature of the policies.

And for the record, the pacfic solution, if challenged on the same basis during it's operation, would have been ruled invalid policy.

One of the first things the high court said in the malaysian solution case was that the country where the asylum seekers were going had to be obligated, under international law, to provide access, protection and effective procedures to deal with them.

Now, go and have a look when Nauru signed the treaty (here's a hint, it was not long ago).

The HC also established that before they can be removed to another country they have to be processed to establish if they had a well founded fear of persectution.

It's not just a matter of taking them to another country and forgetting about the migration act and our international obligations.

Obviously Carr's statement didn't go down massively well with some groups.
But the stance now of the Australian Government and the Opposition is that Sri Lanka is safe.

================


Rejected Tamil asylum seekers are not being returned to a safe environment in Sri Lanka, as Foreign Minister Bob Carr claims. A new report details the rape and torture that truly awaits them, writes Trevor Grant

The Australian Government’s insistence that Tamil asylum seekers can return safely to Sri Lanka has been contradicted by the British High Court and detailed evidence showing that refugees have been brutally raped and tortured upon return.

A new Human Rights Watch report on sexual violence against Tamils by Sri Lankan military and security forces emphasises that returned refugees are generally regarded as traitors and Tamil Tigers (LTTE) sympathisers by the Sri Lankan Government.

The British High Court yesterday gave credence to widely held fears for the safety of returned refugees when it blocked the UK Government’s plan to send back a group of Tamils next week.

The 75 rape victims interviewed for the HRW report were arrested between 2006 and 2012 on suspicion of links with the LTTE, which was defeated and destroyed by Sri Lankan Government forces in the war that ended in 2009. Thirty-one were detained after the war finished, including eight in 2012. HRW says new cases continue to be reported.

One 29-year-old Tamil male refugee returned from France in late 2010, "SV", a poet and writer, told HRW that while being questioned about LTTE links in France he was bashed with metal rods and raped after being taken directly to CID police headquarters from the arrivals lounge at Colombo airport.

"I was kept in detention for more than a month. During this time I was questioned and beaten up every day," he said. "I was beaten with hot metal rods on my back and thighs. I was sometimes poked with the end of a hot poker and they kicked my head with metal-toed boots. I was raped many times. Two men would come to my room and one would hold me down. They would take turns."

A 29-year-old female Tamil refugee, "PP", who had been sent back from Africa in 2010 after spending a year in Europe, told HRW she was also taken to CID headquarters immediately she cleared airport customs.

"The officials beat me with metal pipes and plastic rods filled with sand. I was sexually abused and raped five times by officials while I was there. They took turns raping me. I remember that I fainted the first time. When I came to, I saw that I was bleeding from my genitals and was in terrible pain."

While the report does not state that any refugees returned from Australia were among the 41 men, 31 women and three boys under 18 interviewed by HRW, it makes it very clear that Foreign Minister Bob Carr is wrong to claim that Tamils are being returned to a safe environment, as he has done many times.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 11:50am:



This gets down to the illegals know how to exploit the loophole in our system

I think Australia should have a review on closing these loopholes

What you will get are the raving lunatics from the Greens wanting these loopholes to remain open

Infarction wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:


You get to find that out when the Coalition are back in charge.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:34am:


I have no doubt Abbott will do just that.