The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

[azureline**]

This is disgraceful and I can only hope the people who are in charge fix this asap.

An asylum seeker who was moved off Nauru to give birth is being locked up for 18 hours a day in a detention centre in Brisbane while her week-old baby remains in hospital with respiratory problems.

The case of Latifa, a 31-year-old woman of the persecuted Rohingya people of Myanmar, has shocked churches and refugee advocates.

She was separated from her baby on Sunday, four days after a caesarean delivery, and has since been allowed to visit him only between 10am and 4pm in Brisbane's Mater Hospital. The boy, named Farus, has respiratory problems and needs round-the-clock medical care.

Latifa is confined to the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation, 20 minutes away, where her husband and two children, four and seven, are being held.

Advertisement

Latifa's husband, Niza, is not allowed to visit the child at all, according to people in daily contact with the family.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-mother-kept-from-newborn-baby-in...

[punch*drunk]

I thought I read they came by boat and I've only read the links from this thread.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I wasn't really connecting it to this situation in that question, iza. I was just curious. Because we have definite no parent policies (apart from regular visiting hours) I suppose that is what I am used to.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Gosh I can be a nasty cow sometimes. Azure, that first line in a comment I made which is at the top of my page was petty and totally uncalled for and I apologise to you. I would delete it but I think that would be cowardly of me.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@**meep** wrote:

---

@legarlu wrote:

How did the family arrive at Nauru from the Malaysian Detention Camp?

---

I came across this article in Mamamia but even in here, its not mentioned:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/asylum-seeker-separated-from-baby/

---

upon researching Nauru yesterday, I found the statement that all Detainees of Nauru had arrived by boat (sic). hence I draw the conclusion that this family at some stage at least attempted arrival by boat, however, I am not sure if they were among those who actually did arrive or were intercepted in transit.

[legarlu]

If they had money to pay people smugglers $1,000's why would they spend 10 years in the Malaysian detention camp?

[izabsmiling]

---

@legarlu wrote:

If they had money to pay people smugglers $1,000's why would they spend 10 years in the Malaysian detention camp?

---

maybe they were trying to do the right thing but couldn't stay where they were any longer?

There people are apparently the most persecuted in the entire world and not allowed to travel without special permission .

Rohingya – The Most Persecuted People in the World

 ROHINGYA, FEATURES

The Rohingya people are one of many ethnic minority groups living inside Burma (Myanmar). They are Muslims and have been marginalized and persecuted in the predominantly Buddhist Arakan State by the Burmese military and police or other agents acting on their behalf.

The Burmese junta has continually tried to pit Arakanese Buddhists and Muslims against one another to keep them distracted and prevent the development of a strong Arakanese separatist movement. This has encouraged further segregation in these communities, and has led to extreme conditions of poverty and deprivation for the Rohingya in Burma.

In addition, The Burmese military has waged a long campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya, complete with disappearances, arbitrary arrests, forced relocation, and many other human rights abuses.

This has resulted in an exodus of the Rohingya to Bangladesh, where they are forced to live in inhuman squalor in UN camps or make their own camps in the surrounding swamplands. They are also at the mercy of a local population who are extremely poor themselves and resent the presence of so many refugees in desperate need of help.

 

The situation of the Rohingya in Bangladesh is so dire that it prompted Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) to call the Rohingya “the most persecuted people in the world”.

Given the conditions in Bangladesh, many Rohingya have tried to escape to other countries by sea, sometimes drifting for weeks without food. One group managed to land on a beach in Thailand after weeks at sea, only to be sent back out to die by the Thai Navy. They were never seen again.

Elsewhere, Rohingya end up as stateless refugees in a perpetual state of uncertainty, often living for years in miserable refugee camps and never granted citizen status. Many of the “boat people” that Australia keeps shuffling around between detention centers are Rohingya. The Australian government wants to “unload” them on Malaysia where they are often treated badly, but even their own courts recognize the abject inhumanity of this policy.

 http://akrockefeller.com/features/rohingya/

Australia has international obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa.

While asylum seekers and refugees are in Australian territory (or otherwise engage Australia's jurisdiction), the Australian Government has obligations under various international treaties to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected. These treaties include theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). These rights include the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

As a party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that asylum seekers who meet the definition of a refugee are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. This is known as the principle of non-refoulement.

Australia also has obligations not to return people who face a real risk of violation of certain human rights under the ICCPR, the CAT and the CRC, and not to send people to third countries where they would face a real risk of violation of their human rights under these instruments. These obligations also apply to people who have not been found to be refugees.

 https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/asylum-seekers-and-refugees

[*crikey*mate*]

My GUESS, is that they were indeed initially seeking asylum. recall that the purpose of asylum is safety and freedom from religious and political persecution.

Many of the Burmese refugees hope that things will settle down, that their millitant government will be overthrown or drawn into line so that they can return home in safety. In the context of true asylum, they are not fleeing because they WANT to leave their country, but because they have genuine concerns for their lives but hope to return.

The fact that several thousand choose which camp they settle in is reflected by this theory. Some of the camps offer an education equivilent to the Qld (and Now Australian) Curriculum. The goal of which is to attain the skills and qualifications so that they can return to, rebuild and reestablish their home communities.

There are currently at least 600 odd students who have completed their education to a grade 12 Aust standard in these camps, however there are no facilities or resources for Teriary Education. There are however some trades available, and whilst the skills are relevant and applicable, may not be "internationally recognized", but certainly capable of providing the skills their current community needs to assist aide workers with sustainability.

For 480 of those Australian Entry Qualified Tertiary students, there are private sponsors and places in Australian Universities, however red tape (specifically their lack of papers) has so far thwarted attempts to extend the offer. In short, we have no legal way of getting them here. The places are offered on the understanding that once the degree is completed that they will return to the camp or their country (if safe to do so) to inject their skills back into their community with the goal of rebuilding. They accept that they will never be granted any status that allows them to remain in Australia, now or in the future.

My GUESS is that during those 10 years where they were safe, they got tired of waiting (The situation in Burma has been prevalent for over 60 years now) and either heard about "a better life" or found out how to get to the transport required to attempt the journey. I believe that there are very long waiting lists even for those who do  "find out how", so it may also have been a case of them having to "wait their turn" for available transport.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@legarlu wrote:

If they had money to pay people smugglers $1,000's why would they spend 10 years in the Malaysian detention camp?

---

maybe they were trying to do the right thing but couldn't stay where they were any longer?

There people are apparently the most persecuted in the entire world and not allowed to travel without special permission .

Nobody is allowed to cross international borders without special permission - it's called documentation and passports etc.

The Burmese refugees in Thailand are trapped in a designated region as obviously, it is not safe for them to return home, but without paperwork they are not permitted to enter further into Malaysian territory. They are allowed into that territory, made available by the government despite having no legal obligation to do so, for reasons of safety, but are not permitted to "cross international borders" so to speak.

[*crikey*mate*]

There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum, however if a person comes to a country to seek asylum, their refugee status will then be assessed. If a person is not a refugee, they will not have the rights and the country will not have the obligations that the legislation and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees give to refugees.

[izabsmiling]

my mum wrote:My GUESS is that during those 10 years where they were safe, they got tired of waiting (The situation in Burma has been prevalent for over 60 years now) and either heard about "a better life" or found out how to get to the transport required to attempt the journey. I believe that there are very long waiting lists even for those who do  "find out how", so it may also have been a case of them having to "wait their turn" for available transport.

if she was pregnant they may have needed better care than was available to them in Malaysia.She has diabetis and did initial scans show twins?

There would also be the fear of being sent back ....with the added fear of  having any more than 2 children taken from you if they are forced to sign a 2 children max agreement.