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...

[izabsmiling]

---

@my*mum wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
What did you picture then Azure that made you title this thread 'appalling asylum seeker conditions'. When I read that title I immediately imagined rats and disease and abuse of all kinds.

---

Appalling conditions applied to the parents of this baby....... you know........... not being allowed to see the baby at all (father and siblings) not being able to remain at the hospital for the 8 days. (the mother)

No abuse............ no rats, no disease. Had it been, I might have titled it as such. (I will get some ideas next time, shall I so we all know what it means?)

No one knew how long the baby was going to be there. Luckily it was only 8 days.

---

---

seriously? They bought the whole family here whilst in detention!

Goodness ...lets all punish them and their children !!!!! and call this a Christian Country.

Did they relocate even me and make provisions for my accommodation? far less my entire family! The only reason both of us could get to our daughter is because we footed the bill, and at times, including when she was a long way from home, we had to choose which partent would be with her!

Glad that neither you nor your OH were prevented from being there ...as in anyone saying you aren't allowed to be there as seems to be the case with the Father of this ill baby.

Yours and other people's bad experiences should be what everyone else gets otherwise it's not really fair to you is it????

yes, no one knew how long the baby was going to be there (though I suspect the hospital and doctors would have had an educated guideline) so no preparations were made before the birth as it was not a situation ever encountered before...

How do you know that had it have been expected to last more than a few days that preparations weren't being made to make things more accessable?

How do you know the baby would live for the rest of the family to actually get to meet and/or say Goodbye to him/her? That they wouldn't get to be there when and if he/she died? 

The man and the family are in detention! They are not free citizens!

The man isa Parent.So is the Mother.This is Australia 2013.We Aussies are good people...the aussie spirit is simething to be proud of ....or not 

The baby was only there for 4 days whoilst access of the mother was restricted (probably just because of logistics and red tape, not any nefarious reasons to deprive her of anything) The first 4 days the mother was there 24/7 until such time as she was no longer a patient!

yes  and The reason changes the it all and the effect doesn't it ? Makes it easier and better and right .

and LMAO at the reference to the stolen generation back there - hahahahaha - no one was trying to take this baby away from it's mother, short term or long term, and certainly, the access was not being restricted because someone thought the baby would be "better off" with different parents , it seems like a lot of effort was gone to to allow as much access as possible at short notice....

OK laugh.Ask your partner how they may feel if someone said they weren't allowed to meet and see their child.See their sick child in hospital ...Only the female parent, Mother  (milk source ) is permitted.They OK with that?

______________________________________________________________________________________

ps...they are my responses in red...this time.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
Ideally the child wouldn't have needed intensive medical treatment. Ideally the mother wouldn't have needed a Caesarian. Thank goodness care was available to prevent an even less ideal outcome.

---

ideally, none of the family, or any human being should need to seek assylum either.

If the mother really did publicize any displeasure at the treatment she was given and the provisions made for her in this case, that actually concerns me.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

That temporary accommodation and the provisions made for transport and security to enable good medical care are better conditions than what a lot of Australians have access to.

The whole point of assylum is to be safe. The woman, her family and now the newborn are all safe and well cared for.

The whole family are detainees. The conditions that have been afforded to this woman and her family are better than many of those in our prison system have. (I just spoke to a prison officer of a female prison). (Remember not all people are in prison for serious crimes)

As for the father. He is also a detainee and until such time as he is processed, he is a threat to our country. As yet his background has not been fully assessed, so it is not prudent to allow him into mainstream society.

He is far more than a father of a newborn, at this point in time he is a threat to our country.

It only takes one bomb on one person to wipe out a good part of a hospital and other patients as well. Our governemts duty is to protect everyone to the best of their ability.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@azureline** wrote:

The mother was not happy with the situation. Ideally she should have been allowed to be with her baby and have her husband and other children there for visits, at the very least.

---

the husband is an unprocessed detainee and until such time that he has been assessed he is a threat to national security.

[izabsmiling]

Az, I apply to all people what I as an Australian see as acceptable,fair and right.I think that is what you are doing.

Not discriminating 

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@my*mum wrote:

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
What did you picture then Azure that made you title this thread 'appalling asylum seeker conditions'. When I read that title I immediately imagined rats and disease and abuse of all kinds.

---

Appalling conditions applied to the parents of this baby....... you know........... not being allowed to see the baby at all (father and siblings) not being able to remain at the hospital for the 8 days. (the mother)

No abuse............ no rats, no disease. Had it been, I might have titled it as such. (I will get some ideas next time, shall I so we all know what it means?)

No one knew how long the baby was going to be there. Luckily it was only 8 days.

---

---

seriously? They bought the whole family here whilst in detention!

Goodness ...lets all punish them and their children !!!!! and call this a Christian Country.

Did they relocate even me and make provisions for my accommodation? far less my entire family! The only reason both of us could get to our daughter is because we footed the bill, and at times, including when she was a long way from home, we had to choose which partent would be with her!

Glad that neither you nor your OH were prevented from being there ...as in anyone saying you aren't allowed to be there as seems to be the case with the Father of this ill baby.

Yours and other people's bad experiences should be what everyone else gets otherwise it's not really fair to you is it????

yes, no one knew how long the baby was going to be there (though I suspect the hospital and doctors would have had an educated guideline) so no preparations were made before the birth as it was not a situation ever encountered before...

How do you know that had it have been expected to last more than a few days that preparations weren't being made to make things more accessable?

How do you know the baby would live for the rest of the family to actually get to meet and/or say Goodbye to him/her? That they wouldn't get to be there when and if he/she died? 

The man and the family are in detention! They are not free citizens!

The man isa Parent.So is the Mother.This is Australia 2013.We Aussies are good people...the aussie spirit is simething to be proud of ....or not 

The baby was only there for 4 days whoilst access of the mother was restricted (probably just because of logistics and red tape, not any nefarious reasons to deprive her of anything) The first 4 days the mother was there 24/7 until such time as she was no longer a patient!

yes  and The reason changes the it all and the effect doesn't it ? Makes it easier and better and right .

and LMAO at the reference to the stolen generation back there - hahahahaha - no one was trying to take this baby away from it's mother, short term or long term, and certainly, the access was not being restricted because someone thought the baby would be "better off" with different parents , it seems like a lot of effort was gone to to allow as much access as possible at short notice....

OK laugh.Ask your partner how they may feel if someone said they weren't allowed to meet and see their child.See their sick child in hospital ...Only the female parent, Mother  (milk source ) is permitted.They OK with that?

______________________________________________________________________________________

ps...they are my responses in red...this time.

---

neither myself or my husband are unprocessed detainees. Until such time as a detainee is processed they are a threat to national security, regardless if they are pregnant or fathering children.

Would you be happy if the government just let any unprocessed detainee into the country - without conclusive background checks to ensure their legitamcy?

[izabsmiling]

my Mum wrote:neither myself or my husband are unprocessed detainees. Until such time as a detainee is processed they are a threat to national security, regardless if they are pregnant or fathering children.

this Country legally recognises both parents as equals.Why do we not respect our own Laws?

Where is the Mother being 'detained'? Detained is the correct word isn't it?

[freakiness]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

Usually, difficult personal experiences make one more compassionate towards others in the same position.

---

In some it seems to make one more resentful.

[*crikey*mate*]

well, when the father works out how to give birth, he too can no doubt avail himself to biological equality.

Until then, I'd much prefer that any unassessed risks to my country's security and the citizens that live within, be contained.

Now that I have spoken to that prison officer, I understand even more about the risks involved in securing, relocating and transporting a person when there has been ample opportunity for adequate planning with well established protocols. This situation lacks any protocol or precedent far less having any opportunity to plan.

Perhaps you may be happy when an unassessed risk sets a bomb in your neighbourhood or your local hospital, taking themseleves and other innocent people with them in some kind of volatile protest.

They fly into the side of buildings Iza, are you really so naive as to not believe or comprehend that one may perform some other similar act? even if it is only to escape into mainstream society unprocessed?

If not this family, then what about the potential ones in the future whose access we have facilitated by breaking protocol and establishing a precedent for circumventing the protections and barriers in place to protect our country from acts of terrorism and violence?

[punch*drunk]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
Because you have said (repeatedly) that what appalled you is that the mother and child were separated.

Also the question asked about how the mother felt about being separated from her baby was not answered in your link. How she felt about being moved back to Nauru was brought up instead.

---

I can't answer the question about how the mum felt.

The link answered the one about how the mum was supposedly not saying anything but others were...........(the family are speaking but are not being reported on).

I am finding some of the comments and questions a bit interpersonal so I am leaving the thread now.

---

I'm sorry if you found my posts interpersonal az, that was not my intention.

[*crikey*mate*]

remember that if this family are assylum seekers, they have no papers, no hoistory prior to the ten years they spent in detention in Malaysia. We have no idea from where they have really come or with whom they have connections.

even if this family are innocent and genuine, we cannot open ourselves up to potential risk in the future by creating a precedent of circumvention.