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?

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@poddster wrote:

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

---

And as I keep saying, it is NOT against the law to arrive in this country seeking asylum.

And it is our shame that we incarcerate those that are seeking asylum despite better practices overseas proving that their ways of processing asylum seekers is far more successful and humane than ours.

[Anonymous]

And it is our shame that we incarcerate those that are seeking asylum despite better practices overseas proving that their ways of processing asylum seekers is far more successful and humane than ours.

you didn't read what i posted.

did you    

[Anonymous]

And as I keep saying, it is NOT against the law to arrive in this country seeking asylum.

but it is illegal to enter this country

without authorization - hence the need

to detain. 

[Anonymous]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

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..."

---

abc fact check said he was right 

[i-need-a-martini]

I read it Julia.

Perhaps you should read this:https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/publications/asylum-seekers-refu...

It explains Australias harsh uniqueness in our mandatory and PERMANENT detention of asylum seekers. I actually can't find another country that detains refugees permanently. Every country except Australia seems to follow the same rules - process them as quickly as possible and then allow them to leave detention centres and become part of the community whilst their claims are being investigated.

I'd like it if you could prove me wrong but all my research in the last hour points to Australia being on it's own in this behaviour.

[Anonymous]

How about Sweden that has no detention for asylum seekers and it takes them only 3 months to decide the fate of the asylum seekers. 

incorrect on both counts.

http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/sweden/detention-conditions

[Anonymous]

I'd like it if you could prove me wrong but all my research in the last hour points to Australia being on it's own in this behaviour.

try denmark and the others

i pointed out in my previous post.

A number of independent observers have criticized Denmark’s policy of indefinite detention.

http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/denmark/introduction.html

[i-need-a-martini]

OMG...

They are detained for processing.

If they did something illegal, then they would be treated as any other criminal would be - in a correctional facility with all the other criminals. But they are not crimnals are they?

The Law Council of Australia makes it clear in their national Policy Statement on Principles Applying to the Detention of Asylum Seekers which covers all laws and principles related to asylum seekers when they say this:

 “Illegal entry” is the expression used in the Refugee Convention. The use of this expression in these principles is not intended to imply that it is not lawful to seek asylum."

Anyway, I am tired of going around in this circle so will go to bed instead.

[gleee58]

And none of the above is reason for abuse not to be investigated.

[Anonymous]

then I suggest you look at countries like Italy that only hold asylum seekers for 35 days whilst they verify their identities.

wrong again (unless you mean the 

average time is 35 days)

Length of detention. Following the 2011 amendment to the Consolidated Immigration Act, which transposed the EU Return Directive, the maximum period of detention was extended from six to 18 months.

http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/italy/introduction.html