Australian 2013 Federal Election Megathread

[ninwa]

I would like to think this might make either of the major parties reconsider their absurd policies but hey, only wealthy, white people have rights.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/australia-violated-refugees-human-rights-un-says-20130822-2sdxq.html

The major parties pander to the majority uneducated, xenophobic bogan voters in this country. They don't care, so why should the parties?

[Russ]

If there is a genuine national security concern, the HRC can go stuff itself quite frankly.

If there isn't, then they should be treated in a similar manner to other unauthorised arrivees.

Human rights abuses are fine as long as we abuse everyone arriving equally!

The major parties pander to the majority uneducated, xenophobic bogan voters in this country. They don't care, so why should the parties?

It was rhetorical, I'm well aware why the parties are busy pandering. I don't think I've posted my obligatory "democracy sucks" snark this election campaign yet, so I'll do that now :3

[Professor Polonsky]

Human rights abuses are fine as long as we abuse everyone arriving equally!

The HRC did not find that the general asylum seeker policy violates any rights. In fact, this case predates the current policy. It found the indefinite detention of a relatively small number of asylum seekers to be unlawful. The Australian government has defended their treatment, claiming that they pose a threat to national security if admitted. If this is the case, then the HRC should defer to the Australian government (as it almost always should in cases of national security). If it is not, then the government should pick up its game and go by the usual process.

[vox nihili]

The HRC did not find that the general asylum seeker policy violates any rights. In fact, this case predates the current policy. It found the indefinite detention of a relatively small number of asylum seekers to be unlawful. The Australian government has defended their treatment, claiming that they pose a threat to national security if admitted. If this is the case, then the HRC should defer to the Australian government (as it almost always should in cases of national security). If it is not, then the government should pick up its game and go by the usual process.

There is a requirement under international law that people shall not be detained without trial for an extended period of time. So that people can have their day in court and have it quickly. That's why it's unlawful. It's one of the lovely corner stones of law, along with innocent until proven guilty etc.

[Professor Polonsky]

There is a requirement under international law that people shall not be detained without trial for an extended period of time. So that people can have their day in court and have it quickly. That's why it's unlawful. It's one of the lovely corner stones of law, along with innocent until proven guilty etc.

Except that a foreign non-resident doesn't need to be guilty of a crime in order to be inadmissible. As they have never even set foot in Australia, it's highly unlikely that they have committed a crime under Australian law at all. (There are some extraterritorial crimes in our books, I believe, but those are rare.) That does not mean they would not be a threat to national security if admitted. Presumably, no other state would willingly accept them. Hence, you are left in a situation where your only option is indefinite detention.

[vox nihili]

Except that a foreign non-resident doesn't need to be guilty of a crime in order to be inadmissible. As they have never even set foot in Australia, it's highly unlikely that they have committed a crime under Australian law at all. (There are some extraterritorial crimes in our books, I believe, but those are rare.) That does not mean they would not be a threat to national security if admitted. Presumably, no other state would willingly accept them. Hence, you are left in a situation where your only option is indefinite detention.

I can't pretend that I completely follow all of the jurisprudence and the technicalities of international human rights law, though I'm confident in saying that indefinite detention is a breach of a fundamental human right. One cannot be detained indefinitely without a trial that is fair and conducted in a timely manner.

[Professor Polonsky]

Uhh, I was talking ethically rather than legally. Having said that though, I don't think it's ever been definitively ruled that indefinite detention is a breach of international law, though I may be wrong.

[brenden]

Ha! Yeah? What ethics are those, Polonium? Is that, consequentialism? Virtue ethics?  You know what indefinite detention is, ethically? It's fucked, and you know damned well we can do better.

[vox nihili]

Uhh, I was talking ethically rather than legally. Having said that though, I don't think it's ever been definitively ruled that indefinite detention is a breach of international law, though I may be wrong.

I'm certainly not expert on this, and unashamedly so (much prefer my science), but I recently read (though haven't yet finished...should get to that!) a book about human rights law and it explicitly stated that the very, very basics of international law included the presumption of innocence before trial and that one cannot be detained without the opportunity to a fair trial that is conducted "within a reasonable time". Obviously the technicality lies in reasonable time, and makes it fairly hard to enforce, but nonetheless my understanding is that that's pretty important. Hopefully someone will tell me whether I'm right or wrong though!

[Professor Polonsky]

Ha! Yeah? What ethics are those, Polonium? Is that, consequentialism? Virtue ethics?  You know what indefinite detention is, ethically? It's fucked, and you know damned well we can do better.

Again, remember that this is about 46 asylum seekers in particular whom were deemed to be a national security risk if admitted. Assuming deportation is not a viable option (and that they are indeed a national security risk), do you have a better one?

This is not about the current asylum seeker policy, which actually does not involve indefinite detention (thankfully).

[brenden]

 Deemed to be a security risk without trial by an organisation with a conspicuous lack of transparency?

[brenden]

Better option: right to hearing + interpreter, right to challenge, right to a suitably transparent agency as far as security -legitimately- allows. An maybe definite detention so someone is forced to find a better solution.

[Professor Polonsky]

Similar to t-rav, I think the underlying notion that you make (and which I disagree with) is that there is a fundamental right to be admitted into Australia, and that this right can only be taken away in a trial with procedural due process et cetera.

This is nowhere near the current global consensus. If there is even a reasonable suspicion that you may be a national security risk, then it is only fair to deny entry. As long as it is limited to the few cases in which there is a real risk (and since we're only talking about fourty-six cases out of tens of thousands of arrivals by boat, I am willing to take a gambit and say there is a real security risk in this case) then I'm okay with them being denied entry en bloc.

Think of it this way. If I applied for a visa to get to Australia -- even a humanitarian visa -- there are thorough background checks. If I failed those - and there is no guarantee of any hearing, trial, due process or anything at all - then I would be denied the visa.

It's only fair the same procedure applies to those who arrive unauthorised by boat.

[brenden]

Not once did I say the 46 had a right to admission.
Your analogy is missing a crucial point: when you apply for a visa, when it gets denied, you aren't imprisoned for an unknown amount of time.

[Professor Polonsky]

And that's the risk of arriving unauthorised.

Otherwise, we may as well have the Afghani Taliban arriving as asylum seekers, and apparently we can't do anything about it (because it breaches their fundamental human rights or something).