The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

 

 

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.

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

Message 1 of 403
Latest reply
402 REPLIES 402

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

I disagree. We're talking about migrants to this country.

 

The english kiddies were "legal" migrants and treated harshly enough.

 

Illegal migrants to this country are treated with much more clemency.

 

This case is simply another emotional appeal to break down the Australian border security defences.

Message 251 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

There is a HUGE difference between a migrant and a REFUGEE or an ASYLUM seeker. no doubt over that.

 

Apart from that, what do English orphans have to do with an immigration policy in 2013 for boat people and their access/visiting times to visit their newborn baby in hospital.. zip. 'Orphans' were brought here 1947-1967.

 

A migrant wouldn't be in a detention centre to start with.

Message 252 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions


@izabsmiling wrote:

@am*3 wrote:

Now you are getting really off track in a thread about hospital treatment of a mother who arrived by boat.

 

 


Am3 wrote:TA's stop the boats, turn back the boats, they won't set foot in Australia - where did does that give the impression they can land and be placed in motels?

 

@polksaladallie wrote:

The detainees in motels have not been assessed either.


Am3 wrote:That is not the current system/policy in place today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

my post was in line with these Smiley Happy

 

see the details of detainees and the policy re 48hr transfer etc. in the article I added Smiley Happy

 

 


read the entire article and find out why the policy re 48 hr transfer has not been adhered to.

 

Do you understand what a policy is?

 

additionally, I believe that Am3's post was directed at Icy, whose post I took to be a little tongue in cheek and alluding to the fact that the topic of the thread and the circumstances surrounding the topic are being grossly diluted with nothing more than emotive rhetoric and a desperate attempt to ignore the facts surrounding the situation.


Some people can go their whole lives and never really live for a single minute.
Message 253 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

the churches and charities spend 6 months with refugees..... not asylum seekers.

 

They wouldn't spend 6 months settling in an asylum seeker (who hadn't been granted refugee status)  now would they?Smiley Tongue

 

I know the topic is asylum seekers..

Message 254 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

Opening post, specifically about limited hosptial visiting times for mother and  no visiting times for father and other siblings.

 

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.

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

Message 255 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions


@am*3 wrote:

A Darwin-based support network for asylum seekers says some who arrived by boat in Top End waters earlier this week are showing signs of torture

 

Can't see the connection with that and the mothers treatment or conditions place upon her by the hospital/immigration dept myself.


I will confess that I cannot see or remember why I thought these two articles belonged in this thread, but I'm going to post them anyway, because when i first came across them, they did make me go "aha!, some facts relevant to something i read in this thread, and as I now have 17 tabs open and only 2 screens fired up, I want to close some but not lose them LOL)

 

so here goes

 

Stuck in Indonesia: Asylum seekers before they set sail for Australia

 

Island-hopping the other way

 

 

oops, make that 21 - some were hiding!

 

Fact Sheet 61 - Seeking Protection Within Australia

 

Asylum seekers and refugees


Some people can go their whole lives and never really live for a single minute.
Message 256 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions


@am*3 wrote:

@icyfroth wrote:

No we are talking about people who enter Australia with all sorts of hopes and aspirations and under all kinds of situations and go through all sorts of hardships to eventually settle here to make a better life for themselves.

 

We're crying about a mother deprived of her child in entering this country illegally when so many english children were illegally deprived of their mothers in coming here.

 

 

 


No one disagrees with that. Kevin Rudd included them in his 'Sorry' speech.

 

But they were not asylum seekers nor refugees. Nor do they have anything to do with treatment of a family who arrived by boat and had conditions placed on them re visiting their newborn baby in hospital.

 

There is another thread here started recently, where the UK 'orphans' were brought up, again in a refugee/asylum thread. Not the same topic at all...same comments in that thread.


orphans???????????Many were taken (kept away)  from their parents and their parents from them

.Apologies have been made to them and their parents

There could be similarities depending on how you look at it and depending on how our our Country treats Asylum seekers in the future.

 

"Child Migrants Programme"

An estimated 150,000 British children were sent to overseas colonies and countries in the commonwealth such as Australia. This practice was in effect from the beginning of the nineteenth century until 1967. Many of these children were sent to orphanages, foster homes and institutions run by religious orders, where they were used as a free source of labor and many were sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected.
 
These children were classified as orphans although most were not. The prime consideration was money as it was cheaper to care for children in commonwealth countries than it was in the United Kingdom. This program was carried out with the complicity of the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army among others. At least 10,000 children some as young as 3 were shipped to Australia after World War II, most to join the ranks of the “Forgotten Australians”, the term given for those who experienced care in foster homes and institutions in the 20th century.
 
Among these Forgotten Australians were members of the “Stolen Generation”, the children of Australian Aborigines, forcibly removed from their homes and raised in white institutions. In 2008 Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd apologized to the approximately 500,000 “forgotten Australians” and in 2010 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a similar apology to those who were victimized by the Child Migrants Programme. But, is an apology enough for the unerasable damaged caused to thousands of victims?...
 
 
 

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has delivered a national apology to victims of forced adoption practices that were in place in Australia from the late 1950s to the 1970s.

More than 800 people affected by forced adoptions gathered at the Great Hall in Canberra for the historic occasion.

"Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering," she said.

"We acknowledge the profound effects of these policies and practices on fathers and we recognise the hurt these actions caused to brothers and sisters, grandparents, partners and extended family members.

"We deplore the shameful practices that denied you, the mothers, your fundamental rights and responsibilities to love and care for your children.

"You were not legally or socially acknowledged as their mothers and you yourselves were deprived of care and support.

Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering.

Julia Gillard

 

"We say sorry to you, the mothers, who were denied knowledge of your rights, which meant you could not provide informed consent.

"You were given false assurances. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal."

 
 
 
 
we don't forget these parents and children by making sure history isn't repeated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 257 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions

It appears to me, from that news article I posted earlier, it was the Immigration Dept (or what ever that branch dealing with detainee'sis called) that placed the time limits on the visiting hours, not the hospital.

 

Message 258 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions


@am*3 wrote:

It appears to me, from that news article I posted earlier, it was the Immigration Dept (or what ever that branch dealing with detainee'sis called) that placed the time limits on the visiting hours, not the hospital.

 

On Sky News, Dr Hewson accused Mr Morrison of arrogance, saying his treatment of the woman was ridiculous.

"It's inhumanity in the extreme in my view, I mean a mother in these circumstances is normally given 24-hour access to a child in intensive care," Dr Hewson said.

"I mean for heaven's sake, you know Morrison can go make all the short-term points he likes out there but this is something I think that sends absolutely the wrong message."

The baby was discharged from hospital yesterday.

A spokesman for Mr Morrison yesterday said doctors at the hospital had advised that it is common for mothers not to stay overnight because of bed restrictions.

But in a statement to ABC's AM program, the Mater Hospital suggested the mother should have been allowed to visit her child whenever she wanted.

The hospital says it encourages new mothers to be involved in the baby's care wherever possible to help establish a strong bond, and does not place restrictions on visiting hours.

"Once a mum is clinically well enough to go home, she is discharged from hospital, but is encouraged to be involved in her baby's care wherever possible to help establish and strengthen her bond with her baby," the statement said.

"Mater places no restrictions on women and they can visit their baby anytime where possible."


Message 259 of 403
Latest reply

Re: The Appalling Asylum Seeker Conditions


@izabsmiling wrote:

From the article In reply to your previous posts (as seen above)

 

 

Federal Government policy is for asylum seekers to be transferred offshore with 48 hours, however these asylum seekers have been held at Darwin's Blaydin Detention Centre for five days now.

 

"Originally we did think that they would begin to be sent to Christmas Island and onto Nauru or Manus Island on Wednesday but as of [Thursday] night they were still here in Darwin and apparently the reason they were still here is because of delys with their medical clearances," Ms Murphy said.

 


yes, I do believe that appropriate medical attention should be given seeing as it was reported in that article the AS's showed signs of torture from an undetermined source.

 

a) They need medical treatment for their own health - that's the nice thing to do, wouldn't you agree?

 

b) I would also like such investigations to try and determine by whose hand the torture occurred so that if it was at the hands of one of our authorities/authoritive figures/resources that they can be suitably punished. And if at the hands of others, that either their authoritive figures can be notified or we ourselves take punitive action. Perhaps medical testing is required to determine that depending on the nature of their injuries, medical testing that does not happen in just 48 hours.

 

c) as horrible as this sounds, there is also the question of what communicable diseases (if any) these new arrivals may be carrying/been exposed to before they are released from a situation of quarrantine.


Some people can go their whole lives and never really live for a single minute.
Message 260 of 403
Latest reply