[Mowlana Vector]

When A Family Tree Casts Only Shade & Doubt

The Bakhtiyaris say they are Afghan refugees, but as Russell Skelton reports, the evidence is patchy, often contradictory, or doesn't exist.



Amina, Mazhar and Samina Bakhtiyari at the Port Augusta detention centre
with their mother, Roqia. The Refugee Review Tribunal found Mrs Bakhtiyari's
evidence lacked credibility. (Photo: Paul Harris)

I first became aware of the Bakhtiyari family in 2001, when a welfare worker at the Woomera detention centre - then a place of violence, frustration and rage - told me about an Afghan teenager she had befriended.

The woman told me this boy had arrived at Woomera brimming with optimism but had quickly succumbed to the desperation and manipulative influence of older male detainees.

His name was Alamdar Bakhtiyari. She was deeply troubled by the alarming decline in his emotional state and filed a detailed report to ACM - the US company contracted to run Woomera - requesting intervention.

Alamdar, 12, had suicidal thoughts and had engaged in numerous acts of self-harm, including cutting the word "freedom" in his forearm with a razor blade.

The most distressing moment for the boy had come when he learnt from his mother, Roqia, that his father, Ali, had not been killed by the Taliban but was alive and working in Sydney. The boy could not understand why he could not join him.

While the accounts of Alamdar and his brother Montazer relayed to me by other ACM employees reflected the brutal environment that children were subject to at Woomera, where self-mutilation and attempted suicide were common occurrences, Roqia and her family were also the subject of speculation among other asylum seekers, especially Afghans.

When Roqia and her five children were refused refugee status by the Refugee Review Tribunal on July 26, 2001, after hearing evidence that the family was from Baluchistan, in Pakistan - a region bordering Afghanistan - it confirmed the suspicions of some detainees who had believed all along they were Pakistanis simply seeking a better life in Australia.

Tens of thousands of Hazara Afghans - descendants of the Mongols who settled in Central Asia centuries ago - had fled into Pakistan since the Soviet occupation in the 1980s and had become linguistically indistinguishable from Pakistanis.

There was also considerable speculation about the nature of Roqia's relationship with her younger half-brother, Mazhar Ali, who had chaperoned the family from Pakistan to Jakarta to Darwin by boat in January 2001.

Mazhar Ali mentored Alamdar and Montazer in their father's absence and they bonded closely with him, so much so that both boys told me during an interview over several days at the Baxter detention centre in 2002 that they loved him more than their own father. When Mazhar Ali was deported to Pakistan just days after the interview, the boys became distraught and alienated from their father. I learned later they partially blamed him for Mazhar's removal.

Since his arrival in Pakistan, Mazhar Ali has been in regular contact with Roqia and her lawyers and has apparently devoted himself to finding evidence to establish the family's Afghan history. The Sunday Age understands he has travelled to Shahrestan in Uruzgan province, ironically a region of Afghanistan the Bakhtiyari family said they could never return to. The evidence he has gathered, including a voter registration that can be purchased by any Afghan on the blackmarket for $US20, is inconclusive.

THE first time I saw Alamdar and Montazer was when they scampered behind Sister Brigid Arthur through the foyer of a Collins Street office block early one morning in July 2002 to request political asylum from the British Consulate, in a cynical stunt contrived by refugee activists. The exercise had nothing to do with the welfare of the boys, who had been living in safe houses in Melbourne ever since they escaped from Woomera during a riot, and everything to do with discrediting the Government's policies on mandatory detention.

They had been on the run for weeks, but appeared wiser than their years. I later learnt that Alamdar was suffering acute back pain from an injury he sustained in the escape, and that both boys, distressed at being separated from their mother and sisters, had become unmanageable, refusing to stay indoors.

The stunt captured headlines around the world, but it destroyed any hope of the family ever obtaining refugee status in Australia, and infuriated the Federal Government.

The family's best interests were consumed in the divisive debate that followed as the pro-refugee lobby - a broad church of lawyers, clerics, ALP, Democrat and Green politicians and anything-goes radicals - and the Government waged their arguments through the media.

Then immigration minister Philip Ruddock made his intentions clear, telling ABC radio the day after the Bakhtiyari boys were taken back into custody: "There has been information that the department has received, information from people who have known the family abroad, that they are, in fact, Pakistani . . . That information has been put to Mr Bakhtiyari as part of a process for determining whether or not his visa would be cancelled."

In another interview Mr Ruddock, to the surprise of some in his own department, went further, declaring the family to be Pakistanis and not Afghans.

Within a matter of weeks I found myself and two interpreters sitting on richly coloured rugs among scores of Hazara men in a hostel on the outskirts of Kabul. The men were anxious to help us find a safe route to Charkh, a tiny village in Uruzgan province that Ali and Roqia consistently claimed they had grown up in and from which they fled during the dark days of the Taliban. The men knew Charkh, but had never heard of the Bakhtiyaris.

Before leaving Australia I had interviewed Ali in Sydney at length about where to go and who to interview to verify his story. Speaking through an interpreter, he volunteered the names of people, places and even tea-houses. It has since been claimed by activists, lawyers and minor celebrities who have embraced the Bakhtiyari cause that I and the late Alastair McLeod, a freelance journalist retained by The Australian to make the same trip, went to the wrong place.

I went to Charkh because that was where Ali Bakhtiyari told me he came from and where he directed me to go. It was also where Roqia insisted she came from in her first record of interview and during her appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal. The phrase Ali used in his conversation with me was: "I am from Uruzgan province, Shahrestan district and Charkh village." Nothing could be clearer.

On arriving in Afghanistan I contacted the United Nations, which has the most comprehensive and detailed maps of Afghanistan, and the Afghan transitional government's department of the interior to pinpoint Charkh. There is only one Charkh in Uruzgan and that is where I took a team of experienced interpreters, including one from Time magazine who had covered the war and one from Australia who had worked for Immigration and ACM before quitting in the wake of the Government's refugee policies. Our guide was Mohammad Jan Peicar, a Hazara schoolteacher who had taught in the Charkh Chaprasak district since 1992 and was clearly a respected local figure.

It is now a matter of record that we found no trace of the Bakhtiyaris in Charkh or the district. It is also a matter of record that when Ali Bakhtiyari was confronted with this during a telephone conversation with two of The Sunday Age interpreters and a village elder, he suddenly and quite inexplicably changed his story, claiming that he came first from Charkh Nolije and then Charkh Chaprasak before hanging up. A search of both villages turned up no trace of the Bakhtiyaris.

What is not known is that since my visit, the Karzai Government has dispatched a mission to exactly the same area at the request of migration agents AMPI, representing Roqia Bakhtiyari, and also found no trace of the family ever having lived there or in the district. The Afghan embassy in Canberra has confirmed this.

Last year I went to Baxter and interviewed the Bakhtiyari boys and their father over three days. The boys were disturbed and upset. Alamdar had been classified as a potential runaway and he was showing signs that years of institutionalisation were seriously affecting his emotional state, which I wrote about with Ali's permission.

I also took with me photos of Charkh, of the imam and the village elders for Ali and his family to identify. While I agreed to treat our conversation as off the record until Ali's status in Australia was resolved, I can say I heard nothing from him to persuade me that any of my conclusions had been wrong.

It must be said, and it is something seldom discussed by those campaigning for the release of the Bakhtiyaris, that Roqia has a profound credibility problem. In her record of interview and before the tribunal she contradicted herself on numerous occasions. Much of her account of life in Charkh, such as not knowing the name of the Afghan currency, not knowing the names of nearby towns and not being able to cite the years in the Afghan calendar in which her children were born, was implausible. Indeed, Hazara women I interviewed in Charkh were amused by these claims.

Tribunal member Genevieve Hamilton concluded: "The tribunal as constituted usually avoids commenting on an applicant's overall credibility. But in this case the applicant's credibility was remarkably poor.

"The primary applicant is not an Afghan national. The tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution in Afghanistan."

Surprisingly, Roqia has refused to co-operate in any meaningful way with immigration authorities in their bid to establish her identity. She has, however, approached the Afghan embassy in Canberra to investigate her claim that she is an Afghan national. This will take several weeks to process. To make the issue of her identity even more complicated, a man has mysteriously stepped forward in another remote corner of Afghanistan to claim that he is Roqia's nephew.

It is surprising that Ali and Roqia have brothers and sisters, and in Ali's case a mother, still living in Afghanistan and Iran, yet nobody has been able to locate them, not even the two teams of lawyers acting for the family. Evidence from family members as to their true identity would be overwhelming. Only recently have lawyers for Ali Bakhtiyari approached the Afghan embassy in Canberra for help.

Much of the legal effort waged on behalf of the Baktiyaris has gone into a series of costly legal appeals that have failed, and a campaign to discredit Government claims that they are Pakistani nationals.

Behind the scenes, the tactics have been borderline. On one occasion, an affidavit was sent to The Sunday Age interpreter on the Afghanistan assignment with suggested answers to questions. The same interpreter has also been harassed late at night and early in the morning by an activist closely linked to the Bakhtiyari lawyers urging him to renounce the veracity of his work and reports.

For the record, I have never asserted that the Bakhtiyaris are Pakistanis. In years of researching and exploring their claims, I have never made a definitive statement about their nationality, and there is good reason for that.

The Pakistan-Afghanistan border is porous. At least 5 million people have crossed back and forth across it in a quarter of a century of civil war. I have met Afghans returning to Kabul who have lived and worked in Pakistan for 25 years. Their children speak with Pakistani accents, yet they are accepted without a blink as Afghans.

THE fate of the Bakhtiyaris now rests with Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone. With all avenues of legal appeal exhausted and an Immigration Act that requires her to remove asylum seekers who have no valid claim for refugee status, plus documentation from the Pakistani Government that the Bakhtiyaris are Pakistani nationals, her options are severely limited.

She could exercise ministerial discretion and grant the family visas on compassionate grounds, acknowledging that they are Pakistani but also that there is plenty of evidence that they have sustained much emotional damage, and the children cannot be held responsible for their parents' mistakes.

But that would be to create not so much a precedent but a new avenue of appeal for hundreds of other cases, many with far more compelling histories. Does the family that comes from the killing fields of Darfur or a Korean family that has arrived in Australia illegally to obtain specialised health care for a terminally ill child have less claim to Australian citizenship than the Bakhtiyaris?

For Senator Vanstone, the issue is also complicated by the fact that the Bakhtiyaris are a reminder - even an emblem - of Mr Ruddock's controversial period as immigration minister, where compromise was regarded as weakness or an admission that the Government's tough stand on mandatory detention was flawed. Senator Vanstone says the decision has been made, but declines to say when the family will be removed to Pakistan.
=================

SEE ALSO

Leaders' Family Values Go Out the Steel-Barred Window in Bakhtiari Case

Status Denied: Bakhtiaris To Be Deported Today

Govt To Bill Bakhtiyaris For Detention

Bakhtiaris Should Be Relieved: Vanstone


Bakhtiyari Caught Lying By Lying Politicians

[idriys]

http://www.smh.com.a...7497432756.html
http://www.theage.co...l?oneclick=true
Just for a little bit of balance: I expect to be able to present some viewpoints from Pakistan, too.

This post has been edited by idriys: 30 December 2004 - 10:46 PM

[Mowlana Vector]

Why Educate Australians About Refugees?


(Courtesy: The Australian, 31.12.04)

The Temporary Protection Visa Must Go!

Debunking the Myths About Asylum Seekers

[idriys]

All that I can find are these:

www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0409/S00055.htm

www.dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2004/07/next_time_try_a.htm

www.malignetele.com/id263.htm

www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0%2C4273%2C4465247%2C00.html

www.siari.co.uk/Self-harm_self-injury_latest-news.htm

The rest af the 'Australian News' in Pakistan, is about cricket!

This post has been edited by idriys: 07 January 2005 - 08:15 PM

[Mowlana Vector]

Bakhtiaris In Paper Pickle
(6 January 2005)

The Bakhtiari family was turned away from a hotel on the night they arrived in Pakistan, apparently because they had no passports or identification papers.

Bushra Rauf, a receptionist at Flashman's hotel in Rawalpindi, near Islamabad, said the family had turned up on Sunday night.

"We couldn't accept them. They have not any identification papers or passport, so they cannot check in," Mrs Rauf said. "They just left the hotel and we don't know where they have gone."

The director of Adelaide's Centracare, Dale West, a supporter of the family, said an Immigration Department official, Jim Williams, had told him: "We couldn't get passports for them, only entry documents."

Mr West said intermediaries in Pakistan had received two phone calls from the family on arrival and were to have met them but had not heard back from them.

A spokesman for the Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, said an entry document was the same as a passport: "They had the appropriate travel documents that the Pakistan authorities provide for them."
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Andra Jackson

Source
==========================

ALSO SEE
Fixing Australia: Bakhtiari Family Taken, Deported To Danger

Google News Archive: Bakhtiari Family

[Mowlana Vector]

Even Nauru Was Better, Says Returned Afghan
By: Andra Jackson
The AGE (7 January 2005)


Ali Atta at work in Kandahar.

Ali Atta, one of the Afghan asylum seekers on Nauru who took up the Government's offer of assistance to return home, says he now feels duped.

Speaking 18 months after his return, he says even conditions on Nauru were better than the life he has returned to.

A member of the Hazara minority, he fled with his family in 2001 after he was jailed for 10 days by the Taliban.

He financed their escape by selling land and an old truck. He paid for passage on a boat from Bali to Ashmore Reef that ended when they were intercepted by the Australian navy and taken to Nauru.

But when he told his story to the Immigration Department, "they don't believe us, they say maybe you are wrong".

He began to despair of having his claim accepted at the same time as the International Organisation for Migration, private managers of the Nauru detention centre, were "pressuring people to go back to Afghanistan".

The IOM kept announcing that dengue fever had broken out, he said.

He and his wife were given $3000 to relocate with their three children, aged 10, eight and six. On his return he struggled for a year to find work amid intermittent fighting. Eight months ago, he found work as a cook in a United Nations guesthouse in Kandahar, where he earns $US300 ($A400) a month, compared to the $US200 Afghan average. But this comes at a price, because by working for the UN he is a target for insurgents.

His family lives in the UN compound with him, and he said "now my family always dreams of conditions on Nauru.

"Nauru was better than Afghanistan now because the water and electricity (facilities) are destroyed and we don't have any house and it is a difficult life.

"My son and daughter don't like school here because they are educated to a very high level now but here there is only a very low level of education for them."

Six months after his return, he heard that Afghans held on Nauru with him had been admitted to Australia. "I was very sad. I would still like to come to Australia," he says.

An Immigration Department spokeswoman said country security assessments were based on a range of sources and not all Afghans reassessed on Nauru were granted protection.
=======================
ALSO SEE
Winter Takes Toll on Refugees Living in Kabul

[Mowlana Vector]

Poms, Yanks Worst Illegal Immigrants

Afghan and Iranian boat people create headlines but it's the Poms and Yanks who make up the majority of Australia's illegal immigrants.

There were more than 10,000 illegal British and American immigrants in Australia on June 30, 2004, making up about a fifth of all people who overstayed their visas and remained in the country unlawfully.

Another 3,900 Chinese illegal immigrants remained in Australia last year, along with 3,000 Indonesians and 2,800 South Koreans.

Afghans don't rate a mention while there were less than 200 illegal Iranians in Australia in June.

The new figures on illegal immigration were revealed in a report on immigration trends released by Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone.

The report said that while visitors from the United Kingdom and the United States accounted for the highest number of visa overstayers, they were rated as low risk because the number was small as a percentage of the total number of Britons and Americans entering the country.

Around 15,000 illegal immigrants had been in the country for more than 10 years but many of the 51,000 unlawful visitors only stayed for a few days after their visa expired.

"Many people who are recorded as overstayers are simply extending a short stay in Australia by a few days or weeks and leave of their own accord within a short period," the report said.

Australia's population reached 20.1 million at the end of June last year.

The population growth in the 12 months to June 2004 was made up of 121,000 so-called natural increases - births less deaths - and 117,600 in net overseas migration.

Most migrants continue to come from the UK, followed by New Zealand.

The brain drain once again affected Australia, with the country losing almost 29,000 skilled workers - most of whom were young - through permanent emigration last year.

However, more than 44,000 skilled workers settled in Australia.

In total, 59,078 people left Australia permanently in 2003-04, the highest ever number.

The report found a quarter of Australia's workforce was born overseas, with computer professionals, accountants and managers/administrators the top three occupations of migrants prior to coming to Australia.

Humanitarian visas were granted to 788 people already in Australia last year, down from 897 the previous year.

The proportion of migrants settling in NSW was at it lowest level since 1983-84 as a result of a regional migration initiative.

Senator Vanstone said students and skilled workers were driving the change in Australia's migration intake.

"In the case of students, in 2001 the government changed the rules to allow overseas students in Australia to be able to apply to stay permanently as skilled migrants at the end of their studies," she said.

The report predicted Australia's population would swell to around 26 million to 27 million by the middle of this century.
© 2005 AAP

Source
=====================================
ALSO SEE

Families Being Split up, Claim Refugee Groups

Overstayers and People in Breach of Visa Condition

[BOAZ_David]

Ziver, on Jun 17 2004, 10:18 AM, said:

According to Mrs Amanda Vanstone, "There are no refugees in Australian detention centres".

Myyyyy goodness.. u just don't get it do u ! The simple FACT is this.
Refugee is a person defined under the UN convention. article 51 if not mistaken.
It is abundantly clear, that a person is a refugee if they are fleeing imminent persecution or fear for their lives. A refugee is NOT someone who wants a better life. Is it 'reasonable' for a man to go FAR away from his wife and children ? rather than remain as close as possible to them in a safe country ? For those who bring the whole family, the same reasoning applies as outlined in point 2 below.

1/ A person who is in fear of his life, yet leaves his family behind to the very fate he is escaping is irresponsible in the extreme.
2/ Such a person, who travels through not 1, but THREE friendly countries 'fleeing for his life' is AUTOMATICALLY no longer a 'refugee' they are an economic illegal migrant.
3/ It is extremely sensitive to the clear majority of Australians that people who are in Macdonalds Jakarta having a laugh one minute but the next they are 'compassion deserving refugees' in a clapped out old boat en route to Australia, and that they are absolutely NOT refugees. Think about it. they come as MUSLIMS thru at least 2 muslim countries Malaysia and Indonesia, which are more culturally and spiritually compatable.. to Australia ??????

During the Tampa crisis, I spoke to a LOT of people, and out of maybe 20 spoken to, just ad hoc wherever I met them, not a single one was in support of those people, not only that.. they were quite emotional about our borders being breached by illegals.
Absolutely no sympathy for people who will subject their families to the danger of old boats when the deliberately choose to flaut our laws, and they ALREADY had 'safety' in countries they visited before attempting to come here.

I mean.. we might look a bit silly.. but really we arn't. We do know a 'con' when we see it.
BOAZ

[Rob]

Sorry BOAZ David, but it is funny! Have you read the UDHR? I don't know much. I'm a simple fellow, but I know almost the entire UDHR by heart as it was my job. There aren't even 51 articles within the preamble of the UDHR. At best Article 51 is found in the bi-section of linguistics and is about the right to use a specific language in a specific region of the world. What's that got to do with refugees?

Perhaps you are referring to Article 14. It's well worth a read.

Plus, I don't think you'll find anyone here advocating the idea that criminals or terrorsist should be entering Australia freely. What most people do impugne is the arbitrary nature of our refugee system. Of course backgrounds, criminal records should be checked etc. But it doesn't take nearly as long as we are told - and it certainly doesn't take years. A good example is in Sweden where a child under the age of 16 won't spend more than 6 days in detention because if the system works then all the info is gathered in a matter of days/hours. This is what most people have a problem with when it comes to refugees in Australia. The use of administration is inadequate at the moment. And it's certainly not because we're swamped - check out the number of refugees that head to Australia versus those that are currently in Pakistan or Chad.

Trust me mate, I know what I'm talking about, I used to do this kind of stuff for a living. And I hope I've given some food for thought. There's no right or wrong about it, but I thought it necessary to clear up a few points.

[Webster]

BOAZ_David, on Jan 29 2005, 09:47 PM, said:

Myyyyy goodness.. u just don't get it do u !  The simple FACT is this.
Refugee is a person defined under the UN convention. article 51 if not mistaken.
It is abundantly clear, that a person is a refugee if they are fleeing imminent persecution or fear for their lives. A refugee is NOT someone who wants a better life.  Is it 'reasonable' for a man to go FAR away from his wife and children ? rather than remain as close as possible to them in a safe country ?  For those who bring the whole family, the same reasoning applies  as outlined in point 2 below.

I think Rob outlined this quiet well

BOAZ_David, on Jan 29 2005, 09:47 PM, said:

1/ A person who is in fear of his life, yet leaves his family behind to the very fate he is escaping is irresponsible in the extreme.

There may be a few points that you are blind to;
1. The person fleeing for his/ her life are attempting to save their families from having to harbour a person wanted by the state. One such man I met had refused to carry out injections of prisoners in order to kill them. This man fled with his immediate family. He is now an important member of the Tasmanian community and has become the local GP in a much needed area. The man in topic had more family and would have taken them with him, had he enough money to bribe the border guards. Having said that, fleeing with four people is less noticeable than fleeing with forty. Hmm it’s starting to get complicated… yes?
I have only presented you with an extremely condensed version of this man’s ordeals. To make such a general statement with disregard to the intricate details of each individual Asylum Seeker or Refugee, is to close your eyes and hold your hands over your ears.

BOAZ_David, on Jan 29 2005, 09:47 PM, said:

2/ Such a person, who travels through not 1, but THREE friendly countries 'fleeing for his life' is AUTOMATICALLY  no longer a 'refugee' they are an economic illegal migrant. 

2. You are right they are ‘no longer a refugee’, in fact they never were a refugee. The correct term used is Asylum Seeker, as pointed out by our Amanda Vanstone. They are seeking asylum in a country able to provide them with economic support and their human rights. So you are not far off the mark.
To say they are automatically no longer a refugee needs some basic interpretation. To become a refugee is not a process that occurs ‘automatically’, as you put it. A person may wonder through every country in the world and not be a refugee. To put the whole process in simple matters to be understood, the Asylum seeker needs to declare they are a refugee to the right person.
Now that we kinda understand what an Asylum Seeker is, as compared to a refugee, we are now able to understand that the statement you made is full of holes and needs to be re- evaluated.

BOAZ_David, on Jan 29 2005, 09:47 PM, said:

3/ It is extremely sensitive to the clear majority of Australians that people who are in Macdonalds Jakarta having a laugh one minute but the next they are 'compassion deserving refugees' in a clapped out old boat en route to Australia, and that they are absolutely NOT refugees. Think about it. they come as MUSLIMS thru at least 2 muslim countries Malaysia and Indonesia, which are more culturally and spiritually compatable.. to Australia ??????

3. Boaz, you must be listening to Allan Jones again, on 2GB. Once again to oversimplify a person(s) case and disregard their whole circumstance over a simple statement such as, ‘people who are in Macdonalds Jakarta having a laugh’. To this statement all I have to add is, ‘how dare they eat Macdonalds, this meal is something that we have, how dare they have something in common with a living breathing human being such as us. I can not believe that they could humanise themselves into believing they are real people’. I understand that it hurts to know that not only westerners have Macdonalds, but hey, it’s a big planet.
I can tell you form personal experience that these Asylum Seekers do not know how far from the shores of Indonesia, Australia may be. They are not seafarers or sailors, they are doctors, nurses, teachers, architects, librarians and children.
The Asylum Seekers are not aware that this newly painted vessel is over run and has a motor that will cease to work about the time they reach Ashmore Reef. The smuggler has assured them in every way possible that they will have a safe journey across the water to the mainland of Australia. In their minds they are not endangering their family but giving them a future.

[quote name='BOAZ_David' date='Jan 29 2005, 09:47 PM']
During the Tampa crisis, I spoke to a LOT of people, and out of maybe 20 spoken to, just ad hoc wherever I met them, not a single one was in support of those people, not only that.. they were quite emotional about our borders being breached by illegals.
Absolutely no sympathy for people who will subject their families to the danger of old boats when the deliberately choose to flaut our laws, and they ALREADY had 'safety' in countries they visited before attempting to come here.

I mean.. we might look a bit silly.. but really we arn't. We do know a 'con' when we see it.
BOAZ

I agree that during the Tampa crisis not many people supported these persons, I think that we as Australians in general are intelligent enough to realise that we did not have the full story at the time, and let me tell you, the full story has never been printed or filmed.
The laws of our great country should never be flaunted.
Boaz, would you please elaborate the article or piece of legislation that makes it a crime to declare refugee status on entering a country?

I know my next statement will surprise you even more…… the Tampa refugees were not all Muslims. Many of the Tampa refugees were in fact Christian…. How do I know?
I was there.

[BOAZ_David]

Thanx Webster, that was good and helpful, and takes the discussion to a deeper and better level. Glad u responded with more by way of facts than just opinion.

1/ Leaving Family, 'harboring' It is a common reality that if they want 'you' but can't find you, they will get ur family. Do I need to say more on that ?

2/ "To be granted asylum under the 1951 UN Refugees Convention it is necessary to demonstrate a well founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. "

Ok.. agreed, they are asylum seekers until they actually have it. Then, they are refugees. Looking at a map of the world, and countries which have signed up to the UN convention, they Include many which are very CLOSE to places like Iraq etc. The catchy little ploy 'they need to declare their status to the 'RIGHT' person is another way of saying they should be able to go wherever they like in the world, but I'm sorry, our law is our law. So, what I said still stands. Christian or Muslim or whoever. As u said.. the 'whole story' of a LOT of this asylum seeker industry has not been told. How many of the people on the Tampa have relatives already in Australia ? So, for them, it would be an attempt to bypass our family re-union immigration laws and due process.

3/ I dont listen to Alan Jones at all. I'm victorian and most of those I listen to I disagree with. by the way.. regarding the full story about the Tampa ? I concluded from the available evidence that they resorted to what amounts to piracy. Your welcome to correct me on that, but not without evidence to the contrary.

ROB ! well done thanx for that. As u can see, I'm in pre alzheimers mode, of having a poor memory during times of high passion. It was the UN convention on Refugees of 1951.. I KNEW there was a 51 in their somewhere. (redish face)
I quoted the relevant bit above.

As for 'it doesn't take very long to process people'. SURE.. that is a big thorn in my side in the whole question. Whyyy does it take so long here ? It wouldn't be anything to do with coaching by smugglers to dispose of identity or papers prior to arrival would it ? or.. it wouldnt be due to lawyers who continually appeal and appeal etc.. nah..couldnt be any of that ... right ?

keep it up..and ur manner is appreciated.
BOAZ

[afroz]

So, Boaz, can I ask a two simple questions.

1. Are there refugees in Australia?

2. Are there detainees being actively mistreated, including bias and prejudice by the authority detaining them?

Simple answers will do please, no play of words, Boaz. These are serious matters, and if one is to defend matters on the basis of patriotism/nationalism/religosity rather than justice, i have not much time for that.

Was Salaam, Peace
Afroz

[Rob]

BOAZ_David, on Jan 30 2005, 03:27 PM, said:

As for 'it doesn't take very long to process people'. SURE.. that is a big thorn in my side in the whole question. Whyyy does it take so long here ? It wouldn't be anything to do with coaching by smugglers to dispose of identity or papers prior to arrival would it ?   or.. it wouldnt be due to lawyers who continually appeal and appeal etc.. nah..couldnt be any of that ... right ?
BOAZ

I understand your point, and it's one shared by others all over the globe and therefore deserves strong consideration. However, that other countries - many of them European - are able to do the exact same work in far less time (years less in fact), when dealing with the exact same smugglers also deserves strong consideration.

[BOAZ_David]

Rob, on Jan 30 2005, 04:13 PM, said:

I understand your point, and it's one shared by others all over the globe and therefore deserves strong consideration. However, that other countries - many of them European - are able to do the exact same work in far less time (years less in fact), when dealing with the exact same smugglers also deserves strong consideration.

Rob.. exactly.. I dont believe out government gets any joy or satisfaction about lengthy stays for anyone in detention centres, and I just hang my head in disbelief each time I see yet ANOTHER appeal by (censored.. censored.. VERY censored) lawyers who keep fuelling this industry.

If u have any light on that..... lemme know.

B

[BOAZ_David]

afroz, on Jan 30 2005, 03:33 PM, said:

So, Boaz, can I ask a two simple questions.

1. Are there refugees in Australia?

2. Are there detainees being actively mistreated, including bias and prejudice by the authority detaining them?

Simple answers will do please, no play of words, Boaz. These are serious matters, and if one is to defend matters on the basis of patriotism/nationalism/religosity rather than justice, i have not much time for that.

Was Salaam, Peace
Afroz

AfROZ.. I'll try but asking me to be specific would entail me researching individual cases in order to be accurate. I believe the media is always being used by all sides on these issues.

I can't comment on mistreatment, because a lot of the behavior is a result of frustration due to 'time' inside. which in turn is due to inability to process, due to lack of documents, or due to appeals after a 'no' etc.. there is no simple blanket answer.

Hope that helps
Peace
BOAZ

[afroz]

Then, I hate to say you are not qualified to make presumptuous comments, including "inside time", on this matter.

There are enough reports, confirmed by government audit themselves, as well as conference paperswhich confirm that maltreatment is not an isolated matter in detention centres. My wife, for example headed such aconference where some of the top officials presented their papers. My wife, yet again, counsels refugees on temporary visas, on a weekly basis.

You say you would have to research...do not know.... etc, yet you have jumped to strong assertions against the refugees. This is grossly unfair to say the least.

Boaz, you are intelligent enough. Yet you still tried to mince words and twist and turn. Facts are out there, yet you prefer to avoid it as well as prevaricate here. I have now lost a lot of hope or credibility in much of what you say.

Was Salaam, peace
Afroz

[BOAZ_David]

SHEIK
there are a few issues with those stories. The first is the Lockwood account of his visit to Canberra.. he only emphasized how 'harsh it was on families'.. did he SCREAM and YELL and JUMP up and down about the 15 criminals who were causing all the problem ? I'd like to know 'what he said' about that, and details of the response. Why are those facts hidden in all this ?

Then, the "I've been here 6 yrs" syndrome... WHY ? why would they be here that long ? could it be that their application was rejected and the lawyers got on the job and filed appeal after appeal after appeal and legal ploy after ploy ? and is it not possible that these people are actually prisoners of the LAWYERS ????

Given that criminals could be dealt with thru a decent reporting system and good communications between detainers and detainees, that kind of problem should have been easily resolved.

If they are then dealth with, what the heck is wrong with the SAFETY of the conditions at the centres ??? were they FED ? were they SECURE ? I refuse to allow my emotional strings to be played like a fiddle when there is so much bias in all sides of the reporting.
BOAZ

[BOAZ_David]

AFROZ...
I disagree mate.. my credibility would be shattered if I made sweeping assertions about specific cases which I dont have much information on. I'm more concerned about the principles involved rather than the specifics.
I cannot deny that u may see some genuine refugees being ill treated, but one needs to know MUCH more about chains of events.. to analyse such 'end results' properly. We both know that there are many vested interests in the refugee/assylum seeker industry.. people who will just use it to raise their own political profile. the Socialist Alliance would be one such disgusting group.
If they were sincere, they would NOT have their sign saying who they are on all the protest signs.
I remain unwilling to make simple answers on specific cases.
Peace
BOAZ (hope ur back is better)

[afroz]

Boaz, I was not speaking of "vested interests". I was speaking of government employees, psychologists who gain nothing from their report writing.

So, in other words, you suggest that there are no refugees in Australia, and that no maltreatment has occurred. Superbly ignorant, mate. That is all I can say. You are sounding more like a fishing politician.

Was Salaam
Afroz

[Webster]

BOAZ_David, on Jan 30 2005, 02:27 PM, said:

1/ Leaving Family, 'harboring'  It is a common reality that if they want 'you' but can't find you, they will get ur family.  Do I need to say more on that ?

2/ "To be granted asylum under the 1951 UN Refugees Convention it is necessary to demonstrate a well founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. "

How many of the people on the Tampa have relatives already in Australia ?  So, for them, it would be an attempt to bypass our family re-union immigration laws and due process.

3/ I dont listen to Alan Jones at all. I'm victorian and most of those I listen to I disagree with. by the way.. regarding the full story about the Tampa ? I concluded from the available evidence that they resorted to what amounts to piracy.  Your welcome to correct me on that, but not without evidence to the contrary.

1/ Is it commonly held that if they want you, and can not get you, they will get your family? Not from my knowledge of talks i have had with many Asylum Seekers or Refugees. But there have been cases of such incidents that i have read. To the point, what difference does this make in a persons flight to freedom? How does this support your conservative viewpoint?

2/ Probably about 5% of the non -afghans that were aboard the Tampa. Does this change the case, No. To attempt to contact a foreign Official would be akin to treason in their country, meriting prison and torture, followed by a bill for the bullet used to kill the family member.

3/ It is important to recognise that the smugglers are the ones we need to target, not the smuggled. The Howard govt realised this and have taken effective steps to punish by example people caught smuggling Asylum Seekers.

Boaz, your thoughts on Asylum Seekers are unbalanced. I see that you have a deep understanding of the issue from a conservative viewpoint. You seem to me to have a lack of deep understanding from a liberal viewpoint. To accurately discuss a topic requires this deep undetrstanding.
I apologise for ass-u-m(e)ing that you listen to Alan Jones.
As for the Piracy, we delve into a deeper story which requires much understanding of their situation at the time.

back to the tennis.... Go Lleyton!

This post has been edited by Webster: 30 January 2005 - 07:52 PM

[BOAZ_David]

afroz, on Jan 30 2005, 08:13 PM, said:

Boaz, I was not speaking of "vested interests". I was speaking of government employees, psychologists who gain nothing from their report writing.

So, in other words, you suggest that there are no refugees in Australia, and that no maltreatment has occurred. Superbly ignorant, mate. That is all I can say. You are sounding more like a fishing politician. 

Was Salaam
Afroz

AFROZ... if it makes you happy .. here

There are refugees in Australia.
There has been ill treatment of refugees in Austrlia .. happy ?

But where does that get us ? I've followed the news close enuf to see the connection between the activities of the 'thugs' referred to elsewhere, and then suddenly there is a 'Psychologists report' or some other group of 'indpendant observers' yeah right.... no gain ? umm political ? The orchestration of protests and stunts and 'timing' was not missed by that astute observer.

but.. having said all that I'm moving to a view of not locking them up. I'm heading in the direction of letting their communities here look after them with a HUGE financial bond held in trust to ensure they dont 'vaporise' sound any better ? . On compassion grounds, I think its better for the people as long as they can be kept track of, that is the ultimate goal, but if I noticed a sudden INCREASE in the arrivals of them, I'd want to see policy adjustments accordingly.

.. but personally the only political involvement is my own, not with any party, though my leanings are toward FF.
I'm probably too radical even for them.


PEACE
BOAZ

[afroz]

And thank you.

Was Salaam
Afroz

[BOAZ_David]

afroz, on Jan 30 2005, 10:12 PM, said:

And thank you.

Was Salaam
Afroz

YOUR MOST WELCOME

BOAZ

[Webster]

BOAZ_David, on Jan 30 2005, 09:35 PM, said:

YOUR MOST WELCOME

BOAZ

Boaz please read this speech by I'm sure someone you highly respect. It may give you some of that much needed balance I talked about, in order to carry an effective discussion accross.
When you're ready to become Muslim, just PM me .

[Mowlana Vector]

The Flawed System That Failed 'Anna'
By: Michelle Grattan

Australia's detention regime is endless in its ability to shock. And the same goes for federal immigration ministers.

Amanda Vanstone's response to the revelation that a seriously mentally ill woman, Cornelia Rau, had been incarcerated in Baxter and elsewhere for months, on suspicion that she was an illegal immigrant, is extraordinary. Vanstone knows the Government is on the back foot. But she is defiant.

Let us consider what the minister says about the case of "Anna" as she called herself, before her identity was established (no thanks to the Government).

Anticipating attacks, Vanstone condemns in advance as "opportunistic" criticism of those who "have worked to care for the woman and determine her identity".

Presumably she means that critics will use the case to back up earlier reflections on the detention system or to make a political point. That's irrelevant - strong criticism of the handling of this case is called for. The failure to identify the woman quickly, or to properly diagnose her condition, is an appalling indictment of the system.

Refugee advocate Pamela Curr, alerted by Baxter detainees that the woman was behaving in a highly disturbed way, contacted Vanstone's office in December. She was given the answer she has become used to - "we don't discuss individual cases". In January she made another call, talking to Paul Giles, one of Vanstone's advisers, to get the same response.

It was only after the story was reported by The Age's Andra Jackson last week that the identity of the woman was established - by her own family realising that this was probably the relative for whom they had been searching for months.

Jackson's story reported the woman appeared to be mentally ill and quoted Curr saying "she exhibits psychotic symptoms, screaming and talking to herself at times, and screams in terror often for long periods especially when locked in the cell". A spokeswoman for acting immigration minister Peter McGauran said - you've guessed it - that he could not comment on individual cases.

Vanstone has a duty of care over everyone who is in detention. Her office had also been alerted, in a way that should have led to immediate intensive investigation and identification of the woman. It has been a monumental failure.

Vanstone urges us "to consider the difficulties facing authorities in establishing the identity of someone who provides false information, provides no documentation and is either unwilling or unable to assist in confirming identity".

Really? What, one might ask, are police facing all the time, when confronted by criminals who won't tell them what they've done or, sometimes, who they are? Police and Immigration Department officials are supposed to have investigative skills.

The Queensland police interviewed this woman soon after she escaped from hospital last March. Local Aborigines who found her in North Queensland were concerned by her strange behaviour, and took her to the police. The police referred her to Immigration in early April after, Vanstone says, she told them she was a German citizen here on a temporary visa. Her story was that she had arrived in Melbourne around mid-March. She gave false names and history.

Vanstone says Immigration talked with Commonwealth and state agencies, had consular representatives visit her, and made "contact with the governments of several countries". Australian representatives overseas made "checks".

Why then, did Immigration miss picking her up from the missing persons list? Rau was reported missing around August and the NSW police appealed for help late last year.

We read all sorts of great stories about how missing people are traced. Here is someone who was on a list (obviously under a different name but there were photos and a mental health history filed with the police), and detained by the Commonwealth. Yet in all the checking that Vanstone claims was done, the listing and the detainee were never connected, until the family contacted police last week and police contacted Immigration at Baxter.

Then we have the issue of the medical assessment of Rau and her treatment while in the care of the Immigration Department.

Vanstone declares: "From the moment she came into Immigration detention she was provided with medical care, including psychiatric care which ultimately led to her admission to a psychiatric facility in Brisbane for assessment. This found that, while having some behavioural problems, she did not meet the criteria for a mental illness."

A group of Aborigines who had limited contact with the woman recognised she had problems that were serious enough to hand her over to the police. The detainees in Baxter knew she was in a bad way.

Yet the doctor or doctors who saw her under the aegis of the Immigration Department diagnosed her as just having "some behavioural problems". Maybe Immigration needs new doctors. It is alarming that serious mental illness can't be distinguished from "behavioural problems" - perhaps those looking at these things are too conditioned to people in detention being driven to strange behaviour.

Vanstone says Cornelia Rau's "is a tragic case, but one that has been resolved, giving comfort to the woman's family".

It doesn't give much comfort to her family however, to know that Cornelia has suffered months of anguish that should have been avoided. Nor can it give comfort to the community to know that someone can be "lost", Kafka-like, in the system, or that when a minister's office is alerted to a problem, nothing much seems to happen.

In her statement Vanstone notably makes no reference to the contacts made with her office, and this is the first of many questions that she should answer, before or when parliament resumes this week.

Just for starters: Was the minister personally alerted after Curr rang in December and January? Did she get regular updates on the case - if so, when and from whom? Why wasn't Cornelia identified from the missing persons list? How many doctors examined her in Brisbane and Baxter and what is their explanation for apparently misdiagnosing her mental state? Has the minister called for a report on alleged mistreatment of Cornelia while she was held in the Brisbane women's prison, which Immigration uses because it has no facility in that city? The claims, made by a group which advocates for women in prison, are that she was restrained in body belts and handcuffs, and put in a rubber room.

One of the most frightening aspects of this affair is that, according to Curr, everything the Immigration Department did was lawful. The system has failed totally, but lawfully. The law requires a person to prove that he or she is a citizen or resident: Cornelia did not do so, presumably because of fear of being taken back to the psychiatric hospital from which she had escaped or because she was not in fit mind.

One of the difficulties for refugee advocates in this case was that a lawyer could not become involved until Cornelia signed a form allowing that, which she did only recently. Things are loaded against someone who is helpless, for one reason or another.

The Rau case brings back under scrutiny a detention system in which many injustices have been done.

A most obvious current one is the treatment of failed asylum-seeker Peter Qasim, a Kashmiri from Indian-occupied territory who has been detained for more than six years. He has suffered depression and has spent some time in psychiatric care. He has said he is willing to be repatriated but he doesn't have papers and the Indian Government will not accept him. Vanstone's spokesman says there are "still identity issues" with Qasim and efforts continue to be made to secure his "genuine" co-operation on these. The Government is within its legal rights in keeping him incarcerated. But on any grounds of morality or decency this man should be let out and allowed to stay in Australia. He has no security or character issues that can be raised against this. The case is a scandal. As Adele Horin, writing recently in The Sydney Morning Herald says, "Qasim should be a household name in Australia".

There has been a lot of talk recently about how, now that the Government has control of the Senate, it will be the back bench that puts pressure on Howard over a variety of issues. There is already a ginger group on tax. It is time that some of those who have been deeply troubled over the years by the Government's policy on asylum seekers, children in detention, temporary protection visas and the like took up the Qasim case. In the past, the pressure of MPs such as Petro Georgiou, John Forrest and others has led to some limited wins. They should familiarise themselves with the Qasim case, raise the issue in the party room, and press for his release. If the dreadful experience of Cornelia Rau refocuses attention on what else is happening at Baxter, it will have achieved something positive.

Source
============================

SEE ALSO
Vanstone Defends Cornelia's Handling

She's Australian & Mentally Ill - Yet Immigration Locked Her Up

Anna's Story

[Mowlana Vector]

Subclass 26A


Simon Ellis (left) and Rodney Afif
in the emotively powerful Subclass 26A.

Devised and directed by Bagryana Popov
45downstairs until February 27

Bagryana Popov can hardly have known how timely this production of Subclass 26A was going to be, opening just as the shock-waves from the Cornelia Rau case are still reverberating.

The mistreatment of a mentally ill Australian citizen incarcerated in a detention facility seems a palpably obvious injustice, but Popov asks whether the purely political classification of individuals as "illegal" can justify precisely the same the treatment suffered by Rau.

This movement, dance and spoken-performance piece, accompanied by Elissa Goodrich on a variety of percussion instruments, shows us what is encountered on arrival, in detention and in the interviews undergone by asylum seekers. Performed in a stark white space with an economy of gesture and words, it is chilling and discomforting.

Most of the words are not invented, but read or spoken from official documents, such as the letter that accompanies the refusal of visa applications.

Like the bewildered asylum seekers, we must struggle to understand the reasons behind the cruelties of "rules" that are designed to disguise the real agendas. What emerges is a world that is as much a bureaucratic nightmare as anything in the writings of Franz Kafka.

What becomes clear is the shocking fact that crimes against humanity are being enacted in our name, less bloody and dramatically life-threatening than the terror these victims have fled, but terrifying to imagine being inflicted on ourselves.

And nothing justifies this treatment except the "otherness" of Iraqis, Afghans, Chinese or simply Muslims.

Each part of the process dehumanises, from the initial "sorting" on arrival at the detention centre, the petty rules and refusal to provide explanations once there, walls everywhere, the desperation of existing outside a known time-frame, to the deliberate confusion engendered in the interviews and their questions that seem to make no sense.

Truth struggles to be heard and madness becomes as inevitable a reaction as impotent rage.

The power of the piece is its creation of the sense of being trapped in this space with the performers. Simon Ellis, Natalie Cursio and Nadja Kostich, as camp officials and guards, reveal degrees of disaffection and damage to their own humanity. Majid Shokor, Rodney Afif and Ru Atma are their victims, treated guilty until proven innocent.

Let's hope some of those Australians who find no reason to criticise the treatment of asylum seekers see this powerful and moving piece.

Source
==================================

SEE ALSO

Habib, Rau Cases Prompt Rights Bill Calls

Detention: Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Odyssey of a Lost Soul

Exposed: The Darkest Corners of Our Lives

[Mowlana Vector]

Vanstone Brings Different Approach To Immigration

Human rights advocate and immigration agent Marion Le says Amanda Vanstone has brought a more pragmatic approach to the Immigration Department.

BARRIE CASSIDY: What is going on within the system? Human rights advocate and immigration agent Marion Le is standing by in Canberra. Good morning.

MARION LE: Good morning, Barry.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Could you give us a sense, given your experience with both political contacts and within the department, what's changed since Amanda Vanstone took over from Phillip Ruddock?

MARION LE: I think since Amanda took over there's been a - sorry, I'm getting feedback here.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Are you? We'll try and work on that. We'll try and fix it. Let us know if you have got a problem and we'll come back to you. How is it now?

MARION LE: I think that's okay now. That's fine.

BARRIE CASSIDY: All right. The question was: what's changed now that the ministers have changed?

MARION LE: Since Amanda Vanstone has taken over there's been a much more pragmatic approach, I think, to solving some of the problems. Now, whether that came about because of the election on the horizon, but certainly there was an attempt to solve the Nauru situation. There's been a number of attempts to release a lot more people out of the other detention centres. Baxter is now down to the lowest numbers I think that we've had in detention since the early 1980s. Yes, I think basically this minister has been much more pragmatic and probably in some ways a lot more dogmatic. But she's been willing to learn, to admit that the department has made mistakes and to in the face of new evidence go back and have her department look at the situation of people who have been held long term in detention.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Why is it, though, that we seem to be reading of more individual cases since Amanda Vanstone took over? That didn't seem to be the case when Philip Ruddock was there.

MARION LE: Phillip Ruddock was very proud of his record that he had the greatest number of ministerial interventions of any minister. That means that, by the time people went through a process, if it was flawed then their cases go to the minister and he would intervene. That was very good. Phillip Ruddock, to my mind, was the best informed of any immigration minister we have ever had, and I have been involved for about 30 years. He could do that because he understood the system. He had been a person who had been negotiating the changes in the regulations. He had been in opposition as the opposition spokesman for many years. So he knew the Migration Act intimately. At that point, though, I did say to him once, "Look, Minister, if you have to intervene that many times, there is something drastically wrong with the system."

What we've got now is the system that is still clumsy, not working, people drop through the cracks. We've got a new minister who perhaps is not as well informed. We've got ministerial advisers who are on a very fast learning curve. People are being rejected through no fault of their own and the migration agents, the advocates out there are trying to get through to the minister, finding that it is impossible and more and more is coming out in the media.

MATT PRICE: How are the detainees reacting to reading in the last week or so all these headlines about the need for skilled and unskilled labour and the push for more skilled migrants to come across? I suspect many of them would be ideally placed to fill some of the gaps.

MARION LE: I'm sure they would. There are some very highly skilled people in our detention centres. But I think we've got to look at the situation under which people come. The people who are mainly in the detention centres, not all of them, are people who have come here and claimed asylum. Now, I'm strongly with the government, strongly with the minister, that if you are coming here seeking a migration outcome and pretending that you are a refugee, obviously that's not something that we want to happen. So we've got, you know, this problem that when people come seeking asylum are found not to be refugees, then do we allow them to, in the terms that Minister Ruddock made famous, jump the queue and then apply for migration? I don't really think that's what we want to be doing.

But the people we have in our detention centres are largely people now who are stateless and so they're just sitting there, as Peter Qasim, for example, who's been there for over seven years. What's the point of that? We're wasting people's talents, We're wasting young people's lives, and certainly we could be letting them out and into the community. The South Australian government has been very strong on that for a number of years.

MISHA SCHUBERT: Just wondering in light of the last week's coverage of Liberal Party backbenchers taking up this issue again of mandatory detention, long-term mandatory detention and Family First trying to use their muscle to agitate with the Prime Minister, what are the prospects, in your mind, for some real reform around that issue?

MARION LE: Hopefully at the moment with that pressure coming on the government from the backbench I hope we will have reform. There is no sense, in my opinion, it's totally unconscionable, to be locking up people for long periods of time. As I say, that's a total waste of human lives and it's definitely in breach of all the international conventions to which we're signatories and some of those to which we're not. So I would hope that the backbenchers keep pushing the government and saying that this is just not on. We cannot keep people in detention for no reason other than that they've come here seeking asylum and for some reason they can't go back.

Most of the people now there long term are people who are stateless and are there because of mistakes made very early on by the department, not because of their own problems. They're being sorted out bit by bit. But it is appalling that it has taken over four years, for example, to sort out some of the Afghani cases and say, "Look, we've made a mistake. You're not Pakistani after all. We now admit that you're Afghani." They've been locked up there for four years. It's just shocking.

ANDREW BOLT: The UN High Commission for Refugees last week noted a big fall in the number of refugees around the world and attributed it largely to many fewer refugees coming from Afghanistan and Iraq, both countries of which have been liberated. Do you think the more extreme refugee advocate should now acknowledge that the liberation of those two countries, with Australia's help, has in fact done more for more refugees than any other action of any other government?

MARION LE: Well, I think there is a double question there. I think the people who fled from Afghanistan at the height of the Taliban, we've got numbers of those people, as I say, still locked up here in our detention centres which is appalling. But certainly the UN is now attempting to have people go back, and that's one of the primary roles of the United Nations, is to find durable solutions, and where possible most people want to return to their own countries when the situation stabilises.

ANDREW BOLT: Isn't that the point? Without the liberation of Afghanistan, say, 2,000,000 Afghanis would not have been able to return to their country as they have done. I'm just saying: hasn't the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq done more good for more refugees than any other action of any other government?

MARION LE: Well, I don't see that that follows, actually, because both of those countries are still highly unstable. We still have people who are political refugees fleeing both countries. Afghanistan, for example, the United Nations and the Afghan government, including our local ambassador, have said very strongly that no-one should be returned there against their will. Anyone who has fled this point in time cannot necessarily be offered security. Unless they judge themselves to be safe, then they shouldn't be sent back because, outside of Kabul, there is still no security in Afghanistan. So we may be talking about the liberation of a country, but it is perfectly lawless. I was there, you know, about 18 months ago and the situation on the ground is still bad.

ANDREW BOLT: Misha has just come back from there and that's not the picture she wants, but anyway.

BARRIE CASSIDY: We will have to leave it there, but thank you very much for your contribution this morning. Appreciate it.

MARION LE: Thank you.

Source
=====================================

SEE ALSO
SUNDAY Interview: Amanda Vanstone

Vanstone's Oldest Admirer

[Wolf]

Quote

Outcry over school 'raids' to detain children
March 16, 2005 - 4:23PM

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Argument raged today over immigration officers removing children from schools and locking them in detention centres.

Parents, opposition politicians and medical experts say the practice is cruel and must stop.

They condemned the Immigration Department after the NSW Teachers' Federation uncovered what they said were instances in the past fortnight of immigration officials detaining school children because their parents had overstayed their visas.

The federation maintains that children as young as six were taken to Villawood detention centre, in some instances after being removed from their school yards by immigration officials.

It is investigating immigration raids on schools in Stanmore, Kogarah, Chester Hill, and a Seventh-Day Adventist school.

In one instance, two girls aged 11 and six were taken from a school in Sydney's inner-west and immigration officers refused to allow the principal to contact the children's carer, the federation's senior vice-president Angelo Gavrielatos said today.

Advertisement
AdvertisementThe Immigration Department has confirmed the raids but said today it only occasionally entered schools.

"The number of cases where officers need to enter school premises to detain children is very small," a spokesman said.

"We work closely with the school in question to ensure as far as possible the cases are handled sensitively ... we attempt to engage the assistance of the school principal to resolve any issues relating to pupils."

However, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said children were only taken to Villawood after advice from detained parents.

One incident had occurred where a principal was notified and the parents had asked that the child be removed from the classroom.

"If you wish to create the impression that there are immigration officers running around snatching children from schools, good luck to you," Senator Vanstone said.

She said newspaper reports were exaggerated, adding: "My advice is that over the last couple of weeks there have been two instances in NSW schools.

"The supposition put to me that children were taken from a schoolyard in front of other children is not correct."

Mr Gavrielatos called on the federal government to end what he maintained was a "cruel" policy.

"We are shocked and appalled at the events of the last week or two which have seen officials from the Department of Immigration enter our schools and remove children from schools," he told reporters in Sydney.

"This is an absolute outrage, it has shocked us all. We call on the government to end the cruelty ... and observe the basic rights that these children have."

NSW Parents and Citizens' Association president Sharryn Brownlee said parents were horrified about the reported schoolyard raids, and the students had been traumatised.

"The impact on these young children's lives will remain with them forever," she said.

The National Association of Practising Psychiatrists said the raids would have a huge impact on the children detained, their friends and school staff.

"It's very traumatic for everybody and it could well have long-lasting effects on some of them," president Dr Jean Lennane said today.

"There's nowhere for them to look for help or security - if you can't rely on a school as a place of safety, where can you look?"

Labor's immigration spokesman Laurie Ferguson said the Immigration Department's actions were "absolutely over the top and unnecessary."

NSW Education Minister Carmel Tebbutt would not comment on the raids today but a spokesman previously said the Immigration Department's actions were inappropriate.

http://www.smh.com.a...0913654553.html

Obviously these children pose a real and significant threat to the safety of the country.

[Mowlana Vector]

(cartoon courtesy of Bill Leak , The Australian, 10 March 2005, P.12)

[Mowlana Vector]

Howard Set to Free 120 Detainees

Australia's longest-term detainees may soon be released into the community under a major change in Government policy being spearheaded by John Howard.

Cabinet is considering releasing, on some form of temporary visa, failed asylum seekers who have been detained more than three years and cannot practically be repatriated. About 120 people, who came to Australia in boats, are in this category, although the cases of about 30 of them are already under review.

Mr Howard is responding to backbench pressure and increasing community disquiet. The detainees' plight was highlighted by the case of Cornelia Rau, an Australian resident mistakenly locked up at Baxter.

Government sources said cabinet was seeking a way to release the long-term detainees without sending a wrong signal to people smugglers.

Cabinet discussed the issue on Monday, including whether there should be a new form of temporary visa, and what power the Immigration Minister had to issue a conditional visa. The aim would still be to have these people leave Australia eventually if possible. Officials' work will come back to cabinet within weeks, possibly as early as Tuesday.

Some long-term detainees have appeals under way. There are problems getting travel documents for some; a few are stateless. The longest serving detainee, Peter Qasim, a Kashmiri, is in his seventh year, with India refusing to accept him.

Victorian Liberal backbencher Petro Georgiou, a strong advocate for the detainees, said last night: "It's very important that the regime of indefinite detention be terminated. People who are not a threat to Australian security should be let out of detention."

He said the Government should also give permanent visas to the several thousand refugees on temporary protection visas, but Government sources said the temporary protection visa issue was not before cabinet.

Liberal backbencher Bruce Baird, from NSW, who with Mr Georgiou and Judi Moylan (WA) met Mr Howard recently to plead for a change of policy, told Lateline on Friday that Mr Howard was "sympathetic in listening to our story". National party whip John Forrest said yesterday: "I'm hopeful of a shift in policy on long-term detainees."

David Manne, co-ordinator of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre in Melbourne, said the indefinite detention policy needed "wholesale reversal".
Source
=============================================

ALSO SEE
Refugees Found To Be Wrongfully Detained

A New Twist in the Mandatory Detention of Refugees