What About The Children?

[the_great_she_elephant]

I am amazed and disgusted that in all the indignation over what Gillian Triggs should or shouldn't have done or who said or didn't say what to her, not ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN  except, finally, Malcolm Turnbull, has commented in any way on the contents of her report..

She found that  over a 15-month period from January 2013 to March 2014, spanning both the Labor and Coalition governments  there were 233 recorded assaults involving children and 33 incidents of reported sexual assault. 

If these findings are true - and as far as I know nobody has so far disputed them -   then what is going to be done about it? Who had the duty of care? who is going to be held responsible. What measures are going to be put in place to stop this abuse happening in future?

Both Gillian Triggs and George Brandis are astute and comparitively wealthy adults able to instruct top  legal practitioners to protect their reputaions - but who is going to protect the safety of these children? How many more children have been abused since March 2014? Is a child perhaps being abused in a detention centre  even while you are reading this post? 

Surely to goodness after all that was learned from the Children In Care Royal Commission this report cannot simply be put in a "don't want to know" basket while both sides of Pariament try to gain political mileage out the motives of the Human Rghts Commissioner or the behaviour of the Attourney General.

At some point -though probably not in the lifetime of this government  or even  the one that follows it - there will inevitably be a Royal Commission into the treatment of children in detention centre. what do you imagine its findings are likely to be?

[vicr3000]

Yes, we made a mountain out of. Molehill, we did that.

By allowing them to come here in the first place when they had already been stopped by Howard.

So the mountain was created, no doubt about it, thank Rudd for that.

[poddster]

Perhaps I can formulate a cohesive and logical argument for you Martinus.

Seeing that entry into the country without a passport and visa is against the law and if you do enter the country you will be put in detention if you don't have those documents.

But if you have red hair (it doesn't matter if it is natural or not) those rules do not apply and you will be given free entry and supported by welfare.

Can you imagine the flood of red haired "asylum seekers" arriving?

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@poddster wrote:

Perhaps I can formulate a cohesive and logical argument for you Martinus.

Seeing that entry into the country without a passport and visa is against the law and if you do enter the country you will be put in detention if you don't have those documents.

But if you have red hair (it doesn't matter if it is natural or not) those rules do not apply and you will be given free entry and supported by welfare.

Can you imagine the flood of red haired "asylum seekers" arriving?

---

Dadong!

Incorrect Poddster.

Seeking entry into this country without a passport and visa for asylum is NOT against the law.

Full stop.

[poddster]

Martinus you have failed to grasp the  issue, evasion perhaps?

Entry into the country without documents ? Go to detention, do not pass Go, Go straight to Detention.

Red hair? No probs here is your "get out of Detention" and as you pass go you can collect your welfare.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@poddster wrote:

Martinus you have failed to grasp the  issue, evasion perhaps?

Entry into the country without documents ? Go to detention, do not pass Go, Go straight to Detention.

Red hair? No probs here is your "get out of Detention" and as you pass go you can collect your welfare.

---

Not sure what you think I am evading? You made an incorrect statement. I corrected it. 

Yes we do send asylum seekers into detention. Indefinitely. We are one of the very few countries in the world (or perhaps the only one?) that does this.

That is our shame.

[poddster]

Tsk Tsk Martinus, you are doing the 1.....2..... sidestep. Unlike most Lefties you are astute enough to comprehend what I mean 🙂

[Anonymous]

*sigh*  how many times have you tried

to explain it, poddster?

Any person arriving in Australia without a visa, including an asylum seeker, is an "unlawful non-citizen" under Australian law.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

Yes we do send asylum seekers into detention. Indefinitely. We are one of the very few countries in the world (or perhaps the only one?) that does this.

wrong again

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

Despite this provision, asylum seekers are placed in detention facilities throughout Europe, North America, and Australia, owing to their illegal entry or presence. In its July 2000 review of reception standards for asylum seekers in the European Union, UNHCR found several different types of detention in operation, including detention at border points or in airport transit areas, and that the grounds for detention also vary.2 For example, refugees and asylum seekers may be detained at the ‘pre-admission’ phase, because of false documents or lack of proper documentation, or they may be held in anticipation of deportation or transfer to a ‘safe third country’, for example, under the provisions of the Dublin Convention.3 Several countries have no limit on the maximum period of detention, including Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, while others provide maximum periods and require release if no decision on admission or removal has been taken. Increasingly, the practice among receiving countries is to set up special detention or holding centres, for example, in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States; such facilities may be open, semi-open, or closed. Because of demand, many States also employ regular prisons for the purposes of immigration-related detention; in such cases, asylum seekers are generally subject to the same regime as other prisoners and are not segregated from criminals or other offenders.

http://www.unhcr.org/419c778d4.html

[i-need-a-martini]

I suggest you both look at the legal position for asylum seekers outlined in the UN Refugee Convention (of which we are a signatory) together with our Migration Act 1958.

But in a nutshell:

IT.

IS.

NOT.

ILLEGAL. 

TO.

SEEK. 

ASYLUM.

And Poddster, I have no idea what you think I am evading. Spit it out or stop playing games. 

[poddster]

You may have missed this

Perhaps I can formulate a cohesive and logical argument for you Martinus.

Seeing that entry into the country without a passport and visa is against the law and if you do enter the country you will be put in detention if you don't have those documents.

But if you have red hair (it doesn't matter if it is natural or not) those rules do not apply and you will be given free entry and supported by welfare.

Can you imagine the flood of red haired "asylum seekers" arriving?

There you go spelled out and bolded

[i-need-a-martini]

And Julia, perhaps Morrison should have read the rest of Article 31. The bit where it defines "illegal entry".

It specifically says that "...a restrictive approach to defining this term is not appropriate..."