Our own Guantanamo Bays are in many ways just as harsh
Melanie La'Brooy Melbourne Age April 6, 2007
PHEW. That's David Hicks sorted then. Well done everyone. Brilliant timing too; not only pre-election but just in time for us all to sit back and get John Howard-style "relaxed and comfortable" over the Easter break.
Now that there is light at the end of the tunnel for the only Australian in Guantanamo Bay, we can all stop thinking about ponderous ethical problems such as detention without trial or the legitimacy of extrajudicial tribunals and get back to more pressing issues, such as whether actor James Doohan requested that his ashes be launched into space merely to avoid the possibility of being snorted by Keith Richards.
Besides, the whole Hicks saga was an anomaly, wasn't it? And it was primarily the fault of those whacky Americans. The Howard Government's sin might have been one of meek acquiescence, but Australians would never tolerate our Government actually meting out that kind of treatment to anyone. Would we?
Bugger. Just when you're enjoying the view from the moral high ground of the land of the fair go, along comes a boatload of pesky asylum seekers headed straight for Š Nauru. Or back to Indonesia. Basically anywhere but here, thanks.
It's often forgotten that the model for Australia's offshore detention centres is Guantanamo Bay, where during the 1980s and 1990s, the US processed thousands of Haitian refugees. This connection hasn't gone unnoticed by Human Rights Watch either. The Howard Government has objected to what it terms "migratory decisions"; the decision by asylum seekers to continue on to Australia after moving through other countries.
Human Rights Watch noted: "The explicit opposition to settling even recognised refugees because they are secondary movers is what makes Australia's policy significantly different from, for example, US processing on Guantanamo." It hardly needs pointing out that when Human Rights Watch starts comparing you unfavourably with Guantanamo Bay, there's a fair chance you're heading into a future where cosy dinner invitations from President Robert Mugabe can't be too far away.
Think I'm drawing too long a bow? Well, as you discuss the Hicks saga over Easter, here's a fun game of Spot The Difference that the whole family can play.
Detention without trial. Hicks was sent to Guantanamo Bay in January 2002. He is due to be relocated by the end of May this year, meaning that he will have served just over five years in the US military prison. In October 2001, Mohammed Sagar was a passenger on the "children overboard" boat. He was sent to Australia's offshore detention facility on Nauru. Both Sagar and a fellow Iraqi asylum seeker, Muhammad Faisal, spent the next five years in detention on Nauru.
Evasion of fair process. In August 2006 Sagar and Faisal received letters stating that they had been "assessed by the relevant Australian authority to be a risk to Australia's national security". They were not told why or what the accusations against them were. This naturally made it impossible to argue against ASIO's decision. But they weren't allowed to do that either. Nor were they allowed to appeal for protection under the UN convention for refugees.
Retrospective legislation. In response to the 2001 Tampa crisis, the Howard Government drafted the Border Protection Bill, which would have given the Prime Minister the power to direct the use of force to take the ship out of Australian territorial waters, out of reach of the courts. The bill was to operate from 9am - half an hour before the Tampa's captain had sent out the mayday. The Border Protection Bill was defeated by four votes but in November 2003 the Government was successful in pushing through legislation that retrospectively excised 4000 islands from Australia's migration zone.
Modelled on Guantanamo Bay, Australia's system of mandatory detention in remote or offshore locations is aimed at keeping asylum seekers out of the reach of lawyers, human rights advocates, the media and, most importantly, the courts. In pursuit of this objective, the Howard Government unlawfully received intercepted conversations between the shipping line that owned the Tampa and its lawyers. They refused the Red Cross access to the refugees aboard the Tampa. One woman was kept in isolation detention for seven months. Refugees have been imprisoned for years, without the prospect of a hearing before an independent court, in contravention of international law.
Unlike Hicks, the asylum seekers who have been incarcerated in our detention centres have not been accused of any crime, least of all terrorism. Unlike Guantanamo Bay, Australia's detention centres have imprisoned children.
Now that the Hicks case has proven that the Australian public won't stand for one of our own being treated so unjustly overseas, surely we will start to demand the abolition of similar unfair and illegal practices by our own country. A poll conducted by Roy Morgan Research found that 91 per cent of Australians thought that "a fair go for all Australians" was an important Australian value. This belief is undoubtedly why the Hicks campaign started to win the minds, if not the hearts, of the Australian public in recent months. I believe that if the poll question was re-phrased without its final word, that we would still overwhelmingly support it.
Wouldn't we?
Melanie La'Brooy's latest novel is Serendipity.