Angela says:
>I think they're prison camps and they're the most
>excessive aspect of racism in Australia today. This is the only instance
>in Australian law which dictates imprisonment without trial,
>where such imprisonment is automatic, where no Australian court can review
>the decision to imprison or the duration of such confinement, where
>imprisonment is indefinite and often lengthy, and where people who are
>imprisoned have committed no crime or been charged with any.
Yes. I don't think that's disputable. I wacthed the ABC report on methods of deporting illegal immigrants last week and was perhaps most appalled by how evidently it was just one small thing that could be 'managed' in a 1hr timeslot from a whole web of hideously unethical actions on the part of the Australian govt.
>...Nowhere else, not even in the NT and WA
>mandatory sentencing laws (of which I posted also recently) is this
>resolute exception from the rule of law enacted.
Isn't mandatory sentencing (apart from itself being a law) also exemption from the ruel of law given that the law is otherwise quite clear about the discretionary power of magistrates and about appropriate sentencing within certain fixed limits. I mean, certainly it bypasses the law as it stands in Australia, which is why legislation was necessary.
>...Racist ignorance _is_ endemic in Australia; extremist and
>opportunistic anti-immigrant politicians _do_ enjoy a lot of support, as
>evidenced by every election since 1992
yes, but...
>You don't believe Australia has returned to the White Australia Policy?
No not quite insofar as the White Australia policy was a public statement about the shared identification of Australians, while this is a racist immigration policy by stealth, pretending it makes no specific division in terms of 'race'. I think that is very different.
>Official DIMA
>handouts on Australian migration policy declare: "Australia has a
>non-discriminatory immigration policy." It does not discriminate against
>people because of their "ethnic origin, their gender, colour or religion."
Which is why it's not the 'White Australia' policy.
>...If we're talking about the mandatory and non-reviewable detention of
>asylum seekers, then the UN has made its criticisms explicit, as have
>other organisations.
Yeah, interested to see the Ruddick refusing a relation between mandatory sentencing and the detention centres in the last couple of weeks. And what makes them different is that mandatory sentencing doesn't have the degree of 'general public approval' which the 'detention of illegal immigrants' does. The ALP couldn't run on a platform of getting rid of the detention centres, but they will run their opposition to mandatory sentencing as far as they can.
>...The then-Labor Govt (which introduced the policy in 1992) ignored the
>report, heading instead into an election in 1996 with a strident
>anti-immigrant line.
Well... anti 'illegal' immigrant line. Which is, again, significantly different in terms of an imaginary Australian position on immigration.
>...In a recent 4-Corners programme, the Human Rights
>Commisioner said in relation to the detention of children in the refugee
>prisons, "Now, I look at the quite atrocious mandatory sentencing laws in
>the Northern Territory -- quite atrocious laws, but I have to say that
>they are positively benign compared to what the Commonwealth is doing
>under its own laws [of mandatory and non-reviewable detention of asylum
>seekers] in relation to these [the refugee] children."
Which is where the minister returned to insisting they are not related. Of course they are, but the main distinction is that mandatory sentencing appears to be about Australian citizens and contravenes a popular imagination of Australian-ness as being about 'a fair go' and so on. I think it's fascinating, given the degree to which Australians tend to disavow 'patriotism', that this disintction based on the qualification of citizenship exists.
...
>> Reports from residents of islands where these people have landed say
>things like 'well i saw them getting of their boats with their Gucci
>sunglasses and their Luis Vuitton luggage'. This kind of thing makes
>people rather skeptical. The amount of money spent by 'refugees' flying
>from Iraq to Indonesia and then catching a boat to Australia has also been
>highlighted.<
>
>Whatever. First, no one has ever explained to my satisfaction why
>refugees have to be poor before they can be considered 'genuine' under the
>provisions of the UN definition of refugee as someone who is fleeing
>persecution, torture, possible death, and nor has anyone convinced me that
>such a presumption is not racist. This was precisely the response of
>countries which initially refused to take in Jewish refugees from
>Germany -- they're "rich" appparently, so switch off the empathy meter.
That's a very good point Angela. I'd like to know what Deborah makes of it. But this discourse on 'wealthy refugees' is also about public representation of need in Australia, where asylum-seekers are supposed to prove how benevolent 'the Australian people' are. And poverty is a criteria for that.
Catherine