Saturday, 6 February 2010
Two More Migrants Killed By Egypt On Israel's Border
Two more Africa migrants were shot dead by Egyptian police on Thursday as they tried to cross into Israel. This brings to four the total dying at the border this week, with another critically wounded. Not only to the Egyptian authorities collaborate in enforcing Israel's brutal treatment of the Gazan Palestinians through the blockade, but they are also guilty of acting as surrogates in their brutal treatment of migrants trying to cross clandestinely into Israel.
The Empress' New Clothes In Reverse
Back in 1997, Nu Labour snuck into Maggie's backyard and knicked some old clothes off the Tory washing line, so desperate were they to doll themselves up in her garb, in order to get themselves elected, only stopping just short of the blue rinse.
Now they have clearly seen that the writing is once again on the wall: Thou shalt not get elected this time round! So forewarned they delved into their old dressing up box and tried on their old washed out red rags, so faded now that they hardly look even pink, in order to try and look the part when they try to mimic a bit of the class struggle politics ... but it tastes like ashes in their mouths.
What to do? We're all going to loose out on the gravy train.
Now, so desperate are they that they will try anything, even donning the shop-soiled and distinctly seedy garb of the BNP just to knee their grubby little hands on the reigns of power.
But then again, why should we be so surprised. After all, it is only the Telegraph and Mail that think they have not been brutal enough with all those asylum seekers and foreign students - nobody really believes that "open door immigration policy" rhetoric, just ask anyone banged up in Colnbrook or Yarl's Wood.
So what exactly does she say in her article in the Mail!? Yes, the Mail that renowned friend to the Labour Party.
"I think we need to be radical in our thinking and look at drawing up a point system based on length of residence, citizenship or national insurance contributions which ensures that economic migrants can only access social housing and key benefits when they have paid into the system."
So it's the amount one has paid into the system, the length of time one has lived in the UK (if you were born here of course) or one has held a UK passport. Which kind of shows up the following part of her article: "This isn’t about race, it’s about having a transparent system which people understand and which is fair", as the lie it is. Clearly it is about race, about fear of 'the other', as the only way a foreigner i.e. someone not born in the UK or at least not born to UK citizens, could 'earn' the right is to have paid sufficient NI contributions and taxes.
Also, would this be a graduated entitlement or an absolute entitlement with a threshold for contributions above which one would be entitled? Clearly either would favour those earning higher salaries or wages, reinforcing the Labour party's abandonment of the working class. They have systematically ignored their original support base in order to steal the Empress' New Clothes and now they have belatedly come to the realisation that the fascists have stolen their old clothes that they left out for the dustmen. And instead of trying to win their lost voters back back by showing just how insidious the BNP's racism is, they are trying to adopt the BNP's very own fashion sense (and platform).
A final thought: The Mail regularly states that the BNP and everything it stands for is an anathema to it, yet why do the 3 Hodge-related articles [1, 2, 3] on Thursday contain the same picture of Il Duce Griffin that is almost twice the size of Hodge's?
Now they have clearly seen that the writing is once again on the wall: Thou shalt not get elected this time round! So forewarned they delved into their old dressing up box and tried on their old washed out red rags, so faded now that they hardly look even pink, in order to try and look the part when they try to mimic a bit of the class struggle politics ... but it tastes like ashes in their mouths.
What to do? We're all going to loose out on the gravy train.
Now, so desperate are they that they will try anything, even donning the shop-soiled and distinctly seedy garb of the BNP just to knee their grubby little hands on the reigns of power.
But then again, why should we be so surprised. After all, it is only the Telegraph and Mail that think they have not been brutal enough with all those asylum seekers and foreign students - nobody really believes that "open door immigration policy" rhetoric, just ask anyone banged up in Colnbrook or Yarl's Wood.
So what exactly does she say in her article in the Mail!? Yes, the Mail that renowned friend to the Labour Party.
"I think we need to be radical in our thinking and look at drawing up a point system based on length of residence, citizenship or national insurance contributions which ensures that economic migrants can only access social housing and key benefits when they have paid into the system."
So it's the amount one has paid into the system, the length of time one has lived in the UK (if you were born here of course) or one has held a UK passport. Which kind of shows up the following part of her article: "This isn’t about race, it’s about having a transparent system which people understand and which is fair", as the lie it is. Clearly it is about race, about fear of 'the other', as the only way a foreigner i.e. someone not born in the UK or at least not born to UK citizens, could 'earn' the right is to have paid sufficient NI contributions and taxes.
Also, would this be a graduated entitlement or an absolute entitlement with a threshold for contributions above which one would be entitled? Clearly either would favour those earning higher salaries or wages, reinforcing the Labour party's abandonment of the working class. They have systematically ignored their original support base in order to steal the Empress' New Clothes and now they have belatedly come to the realisation that the fascists have stolen their old clothes that they left out for the dustmen. And instead of trying to win their lost voters back back by showing just how insidious the BNP's racism is, they are trying to adopt the BNP's very own fashion sense (and platform).
A final thought: The Mail regularly states that the BNP and everything it stands for is an anathema to it, yet why do the 3 Hodge-related articles [1, 2, 3] on Thursday contain the same picture of Il Duce Griffin that is almost twice the size of Hodge's?
Friday, 5 February 2010
Solidarity Is Not An Offence
An article in today's Guardian by Rahila Gupta.
A new self-organising space in Calais is an act of resistance against the brutal measures against asylum seekers.
For all those who have been depressed by increasingly harsh measures against asylum seekers by Britain, France and other European countries, here is a glimmer of hope. The transnational No Borders network and SôS Soutien aux Sans Papiers in France have come together to open a centre in Calais, a "self-organising" space to provide practical support, solidarity and information sharing for asylum seekers. Last summer we were subjected to pictures of people being chased like animals in brutal search and destroy missions by the French police in the woods near Calais, cheered on by the British government. The police dragged away 278 campers, nearly half of whom were minors from places like Afghanistan.
According to Sylvie from Calais Migrants Solidarity, opening this centre is an act of resistance to immigration laws and an attempt to draw attention to the plight of migrants. The No Borders network believes that "in a real democracy, every person enriches society in myriad ways, and no one is surplus to requirements; neither the unemployed, the young, the old, or the foreign". A spokesperson from London No Borders said it will also operate like a drop-in centre, providing clothes, blankets, food and general cheer to those sleeping rough. It will be run mainly by No Borders activists who have been operating on the ground since last year.
The police action has forced asylum seekers to scatter; even the small comfort of solidarity of numbers has been snatched away. Fear of congregating in one place may undermine the potential popularity of such a centre. The legal situation is also fraught with complications. No Borders are relying on the fact that the hangar is private property, legally rented by them. However, that sounds like a fragile defence in the face of a catch-all French law, délit de solidarité, the offence of solidarity, which can be used against those who provide humanitarian assistance. In March last year, for example, a woman was arrested and questioned for three hours for allowing "illegal" immigrants to recharge their mobile phones in her home. The French government claims that this law is only used against traffickers and smugglers. However, No Borders have found that even offering a lift to an "illegal" immigrant has been construed as trafficking.
The mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, has used everything in her armoury to prevent humanitarian aid reaching the migrants and blocked the previous mayor's plans to open another centre like the Red Cross-run Sangatte, which closed down in 2002. The rightwing media are already dubbing the Kronstadt centre Sangatte II, a label that No Borders are keen to avoid because it encourages the view that such a centre is the root of the problem and displaces the focus on the causes of flight – war and persecution.
Ironically, it was the French central government that originally asked the Red Cross to open Sangatte in 1999 in recognition of the scale of the humanitarian problem. It was public pressure, orchestrated by the media, that led the British government to put pressure on the French government to shut it down. We should, instead, be putting pressure on our government to live up to its responsibilities towards asylum seekers under the 1951 Geneva convention in recognition of the fact that many asylum seekers are the casualties of our governments' policies in their countries of origin in the first place.
A new self-organising space in Calais is an act of resistance against the brutal measures against asylum seekers.
For all those who have been depressed by increasingly harsh measures against asylum seekers by Britain, France and other European countries, here is a glimmer of hope. The transnational No Borders network and SôS Soutien aux Sans Papiers in France have come together to open a centre in Calais, a "self-organising" space to provide practical support, solidarity and information sharing for asylum seekers. Last summer we were subjected to pictures of people being chased like animals in brutal search and destroy missions by the French police in the woods near Calais, cheered on by the British government. The police dragged away 278 campers, nearly half of whom were minors from places like Afghanistan.
According to Sylvie from Calais Migrants Solidarity, opening this centre is an act of resistance to immigration laws and an attempt to draw attention to the plight of migrants. The No Borders network believes that "in a real democracy, every person enriches society in myriad ways, and no one is surplus to requirements; neither the unemployed, the young, the old, or the foreign". A spokesperson from London No Borders said it will also operate like a drop-in centre, providing clothes, blankets, food and general cheer to those sleeping rough. It will be run mainly by No Borders activists who have been operating on the ground since last year.
The police action has forced asylum seekers to scatter; even the small comfort of solidarity of numbers has been snatched away. Fear of congregating in one place may undermine the potential popularity of such a centre. The legal situation is also fraught with complications. No Borders are relying on the fact that the hangar is private property, legally rented by them. However, that sounds like a fragile defence in the face of a catch-all French law, délit de solidarité, the offence of solidarity, which can be used against those who provide humanitarian assistance. In March last year, for example, a woman was arrested and questioned for three hours for allowing "illegal" immigrants to recharge their mobile phones in her home. The French government claims that this law is only used against traffickers and smugglers. However, No Borders have found that even offering a lift to an "illegal" immigrant has been construed as trafficking.
The mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, has used everything in her armoury to prevent humanitarian aid reaching the migrants and blocked the previous mayor's plans to open another centre like the Red Cross-run Sangatte, which closed down in 2002. The rightwing media are already dubbing the Kronstadt centre Sangatte II, a label that No Borders are keen to avoid because it encourages the view that such a centre is the root of the problem and displaces the focus on the causes of flight – war and persecution.
Ironically, it was the French central government that originally asked the Red Cross to open Sangatte in 1999 in recognition of the scale of the humanitarian problem. It was public pressure, orchestrated by the media, that led the British government to put pressure on the French government to shut it down. We should, instead, be putting pressure on our government to live up to its responsibilities towards asylum seekers under the 1951 Geneva convention in recognition of the fact that many asylum seekers are the casualties of our governments' policies in their countries of origin in the first place.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
The SIEV 36 Inquest
The coroner's inquest into the fire and explosion on board the SIEV 36 (Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel 36) last April that led to the death of five Afghan refugees and 51 others, including navy personnel, being injured in an explosion and subsequent fire has finally began on 25 January. The incident involving the boat, which was carrying 47 Afghans and 2 Indonesian crew members when it was intercepted by an Australian patrol boat HMAS Albany off the Ashmore Reef, has become a cause célèbre after Navy personnel claimed that the Afghans had deliberately set fire to the boat, and allegations that the navy had in turn beaten survivors from the boat who tried to climb on board their vessels when they were trying to rescue their own personnel were revealed.
The inquest follows a lengthy police investigation and an internal Defence inquiry, the full findings of which have not been made public. On its first day, Counsel assisting the coroner, Stephen Walsh, QC, told the inquest Counsel assisting the coroner, Stephen Walsh, QC, laid out the events that led to the explosion, caused by petrol leaking from a 'sabotaged' engine into the boat's bilge, that killed Mohammad Hassan Ayubi, Muzafar Ali Sefarli, Mohammed Amen Zamen, Awar Nader and Baquer Husani. All the surviving Afghans were eventually granted protection visas and, despite opposition calls to charge at least some of them with murder, no one currently faces legal sanction.
Walsh said that the SIEV 36's passengers eventually became extremely agitated when one of them found a warning notice that had been issued to the boat’s crew stating: “You should now consider immediately returning to Indonesia with your passengers and not enter Australian territory.” It was confirmed in later evidence that the navy crew had in fact been ordered not to mention that the refugees were being towed back to Indonesia. The boat’s occupants then became extremely distressed and began to cry “No Indonesia, no Indonesia!”. During the ensuing disturbance Navy personnel claim they saw someone with a lighter near the bilge shortly before the explosion, which blew most of the passengers and navy boarding party into the sea.
Walsh also revealed some of the contents of the internal Defence inquiry, which found that the navy were poorly trained, relied on an inappropriate training manual dating back to 1920. There were also ''inconsistencies and gaps in the relevant policies and procedures'' relating to boarding boats that enter Australian territory illegally. The refugees had not been provided with life jackets that could have saved their lives. “Whilst life jackets for all 49 passengers and crew had been transferred to the SIEV 36, they were stowed on the top of the cabin in large bags that did not allow them to be readily accessed."
In subsequent days, one navy sailor, Able Seaman Adrian Medbury, on board one of the rigid sided rescue boats admitted verbally abusing an asylum-seeker but testified he is "not aware" of kicking him in the head as he tried to board a rescue craft. This incident occurred as he tried to rescue air force medic, Corporal Sharon Jager, who had been part of the boarding team blown into the water. She later testified that he shouted ''Fuck off, get the fuck off her'' to two asylum seekers beside her in the water as he dragged her into the vessel. "I saw him raise one of his feet … He kicked the asylum seekers. From what I saw it was the head." The preferential rescue of navy personnel is backed up their own video footage, which has been suppressed by the Australian government and is still being withheld from the public by the coroner, who claims it could prejudice witnesses. Those that have seen it state that it shows drowning refugees being pushed and kicked off rescue craft, as well as of the events leading up to the explosion
Stephen Walsh in his evidence on the first day stated that this was the official policy of the Australian Defence Force, that personnel be saved before civilians. As a result, it was entirely possible that some asylum seekers had died because of that policy. However, Chief Petty Officer Dean Faunt, the officer in charge of the SIEV 36 boarding party, gave evidence that his training did not require armed forces members to be rescued first, contradicting the Defence department statement.
Other interesting evidence to come out is the fact that Lieutenant Commander Brett Westcott, who was in charge of HMAS Childers, which went to assist the Albany was relieved of his position after complaining that his own senior officers and the Federal Government had handled the incident badly, failing in the end to make any meaningful decision. In police interviews he he is also understood to have claimed that the asylum seekers on the SIEV 36 were dehydrated, weak and confused after being towed in endless circles off Ashmore Reef, with no information as to what was to happen to them. He was also of the opinion that the Childers and its sister vessel, the HMAS Albany, should have taken the asylum seekers to Christmas Island. However, the Darwin-based northern command centre, Norcom, had no clear idea of what was to be done about the asylum seekers and instructed the patrol boats to keep them under control until the larger HMAS Tobruk (then in Darwin undergoing repairs) could reach the scene.
On 1 February Leading Seaman Paul Heatherington told of how he defied orders to stay away from the burning SIEV 36 because there were drowning asylum-seekers clinging to the wreckage that needed rescuing. He claimed that crew aboard the nearby HMAS Childers give orders by loudhailer telling "us to get away from the SIEV." Undoubtedly his actions saved a number of lives that otherwise would have been lost if he had followed orders.
No doubt in coming days more revealing evidence will come out that will throw additional light on something that could be said to resemble a Gilbert and Sullivan, if it weren't for the fact that 5 people dies because of the Navy's ineptitude.
The inquest follows a lengthy police investigation and an internal Defence inquiry, the full findings of which have not been made public. On its first day, Counsel assisting the coroner, Stephen Walsh, QC, told the inquest Counsel assisting the coroner, Stephen Walsh, QC, laid out the events that led to the explosion, caused by petrol leaking from a 'sabotaged' engine into the boat's bilge, that killed Mohammad Hassan Ayubi, Muzafar Ali Sefarli, Mohammed Amen Zamen, Awar Nader and Baquer Husani. All the surviving Afghans were eventually granted protection visas and, despite opposition calls to charge at least some of them with murder, no one currently faces legal sanction.
Walsh said that the SIEV 36's passengers eventually became extremely agitated when one of them found a warning notice that had been issued to the boat’s crew stating: “You should now consider immediately returning to Indonesia with your passengers and not enter Australian territory.” It was confirmed in later evidence that the navy crew had in fact been ordered not to mention that the refugees were being towed back to Indonesia. The boat’s occupants then became extremely distressed and began to cry “No Indonesia, no Indonesia!”. During the ensuing disturbance Navy personnel claim they saw someone with a lighter near the bilge shortly before the explosion, which blew most of the passengers and navy boarding party into the sea.
Walsh also revealed some of the contents of the internal Defence inquiry, which found that the navy were poorly trained, relied on an inappropriate training manual dating back to 1920. There were also ''inconsistencies and gaps in the relevant policies and procedures'' relating to boarding boats that enter Australian territory illegally. The refugees had not been provided with life jackets that could have saved their lives. “Whilst life jackets for all 49 passengers and crew had been transferred to the SIEV 36, they were stowed on the top of the cabin in large bags that did not allow them to be readily accessed."
In subsequent days, one navy sailor, Able Seaman Adrian Medbury, on board one of the rigid sided rescue boats admitted verbally abusing an asylum-seeker but testified he is "not aware" of kicking him in the head as he tried to board a rescue craft. This incident occurred as he tried to rescue air force medic, Corporal Sharon Jager, who had been part of the boarding team blown into the water. She later testified that he shouted ''Fuck off, get the fuck off her'' to two asylum seekers beside her in the water as he dragged her into the vessel. "I saw him raise one of his feet … He kicked the asylum seekers. From what I saw it was the head." The preferential rescue of navy personnel is backed up their own video footage, which has been suppressed by the Australian government and is still being withheld from the public by the coroner, who claims it could prejudice witnesses. Those that have seen it state that it shows drowning refugees being pushed and kicked off rescue craft, as well as of the events leading up to the explosion
Stephen Walsh in his evidence on the first day stated that this was the official policy of the Australian Defence Force, that personnel be saved before civilians. As a result, it was entirely possible that some asylum seekers had died because of that policy. However, Chief Petty Officer Dean Faunt, the officer in charge of the SIEV 36 boarding party, gave evidence that his training did not require armed forces members to be rescued first, contradicting the Defence department statement.
Other interesting evidence to come out is the fact that Lieutenant Commander Brett Westcott, who was in charge of HMAS Childers, which went to assist the Albany was relieved of his position after complaining that his own senior officers and the Federal Government had handled the incident badly, failing in the end to make any meaningful decision. In police interviews he he is also understood to have claimed that the asylum seekers on the SIEV 36 were dehydrated, weak and confused after being towed in endless circles off Ashmore Reef, with no information as to what was to happen to them. He was also of the opinion that the Childers and its sister vessel, the HMAS Albany, should have taken the asylum seekers to Christmas Island. However, the Darwin-based northern command centre, Norcom, had no clear idea of what was to be done about the asylum seekers and instructed the patrol boats to keep them under control until the larger HMAS Tobruk (then in Darwin undergoing repairs) could reach the scene.
On 1 February Leading Seaman Paul Heatherington told of how he defied orders to stay away from the burning SIEV 36 because there were drowning asylum-seekers clinging to the wreckage that needed rescuing. He claimed that crew aboard the nearby HMAS Childers give orders by loudhailer telling "us to get away from the SIEV." Undoubtedly his actions saved a number of lives that otherwise would have been lost if he had followed orders.
No doubt in coming days more revealing evidence will come out that will throw additional light on something that could be said to resemble a Gilbert and Sullivan, if it weren't for the fact that 5 people dies because of the Navy's ineptitude.
iPhone And Italian Racism
There have been a lot of claims recently, especially from Italian politicians of the Right, that "Italy is not a racist country." Others, like the Catholic Church* and many foreigners actually living in the country beg to differ. This argument stretches back to the time of Mussolini with claims that he was not anti-Semitic (even becoming an academic issue), that he tried to counter Hitler's race policies and fought their introduction in Italy. However, last November's publication of his mistress Claretta Petacci's diary finally nailed that lie. She even quotes him of boasting "I have been a racist since 1921. I don't know how they can think I'm imitating Hitler," in 1938 prior to the introduction of the Manifesto della razza.
The reason we bring this up again is the news that iMussolini, an iPhone application which allows users to download Mussolini's speeches on video, is being withdrawn due to a legal dispute. The significance of this is that it is Italy's top rated iPhone app, selling more than 1,000 per day during the first week and quickly becoming the best-selling iPhone application on Apple's Italian on-line store. A quick look at the ratings of iL Duce's videos on You Tube, where you don't need to go to the expense of actually owning an iPhone, shows just how popular those speeches still are. Interestingly, of all his speeches, the rather ambiguous 'discorso contro razzismo tedesco' (speech against racism) seems to be the one that carries the most dissenting comments from his posthumous supporters, especially when compared to the videos where he announces and justifies the Manifesto della razza.
See also: Ku Klux Clan.
* L'Osservatore Romano (semi-official newspaper of the Vatican) editorial: "Italy needs to deal with its racism, it is a weeping sore that needs to be treated." "Not only are they disgusting in themselves, but the incidents which dominate the news at the moment take us back to a dumb and savage hate towards another skin colour which we thought we had left behind."
The reason we bring this up again is the news that iMussolini, an iPhone application which allows users to download Mussolini's speeches on video, is being withdrawn due to a legal dispute. The significance of this is that it is Italy's top rated iPhone app, selling more than 1,000 per day during the first week and quickly becoming the best-selling iPhone application on Apple's Italian on-line store. A quick look at the ratings of iL Duce's videos on You Tube, where you don't need to go to the expense of actually owning an iPhone, shows just how popular those speeches still are. Interestingly, of all his speeches, the rather ambiguous 'discorso contro razzismo tedesco' (speech against racism) seems to be the one that carries the most dissenting comments from his posthumous supporters, especially when compared to the videos where he announces and justifies the Manifesto della razza.
See also: Ku Klux Clan.
* L'Osservatore Romano (semi-official newspaper of the Vatican) editorial: "Italy needs to deal with its racism, it is a weeping sore that needs to be treated." "Not only are they disgusting in themselves, but the incidents which dominate the news at the moment take us back to a dumb and savage hate towards another skin colour which we thought we had left behind."
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Christmas Island / Abbott Plays The 'Race' Card / The Population Debate
Part 2 of our Australia update:
Hunger Strike
So far this year 9 boat with more than 500 refugees have arrived on the shores of Christmas Island after being intercepted by the Australian navy. On Monday the 181 passengers and 4 crew arrived on the island and parliament was warned that the detention centre was "just one boatload away from reaching capacity." This means that there are more than 180 detainees on the island, with 1460 in the detention centre itself, including 200 in tents, with 288 in the nearby construction camp facility.
Throughout January the Australian government has been receiving other warnings about the potential for unrest due to overcrowding. On 14 January the Immigration Department warned its Minister that the government should start processing asylum-seekers on the mainland or risk further riots and disturbances at Christmas Island's detention centre. Two weeks later on 26 Jan the head of Kevin Rudd's bill of rights consultation committee, Frank Brennan, reiterated the need for the government to transfer asylum-seekers to the mainland, saying conditions on Christmas Island now resemble those seen in the darkest days of the Howard-era.
The government's response to this latter warning was to transfer 115 mostly Afghan refugees moved off Christmas Island to mainland and to announce another batch of visas to be issued within days. Unfortunately, on the 28 January, after raising everybody's hopes, only 8 visas were actually issued, sparking protests over the slow processing of asylum applications. More than 150 Sri Lankans (the official government figure was 133) started a hunger strike.[1] Gathering in the camp's recreational area, they refused to go back to their compounds and held up placards reading: 'Oceanic Viking six weeks, Christmas Island six months', 'How long do we have to stay here?' and 'Protection not detention'. Another point of protest was against the recently introduced ban on mobile phones and the treatment of the 9 Tamils charged with November's disturbances.
According to official figures the average wait for an asylum-seekers on Christmas Island to be processed is 107 days. But unlike the mainland, where they had to be processed within 90 days, Christmas Island is officially outside Australia's migration zone and therefore operates wiith no time limit for asylum processing. This has led to some Tamils having been detained on Christmas Island for up to 11 months, however the official line on this is that it is due to security concerms over links with the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). Immigration Minister Chris Evans warned the Tamils to quit their hunger strike, saying that even peaceful protests could actually hinder it. "I want to make it very clear to them and to the community ... we're not going to be responding to this."
The opposition parties were swift to exploit the issue, with the Liberal (read: Conservative) immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, who was on a visit to the Island at the time, claiming that the protesters had nothing to complain about. "I think Australians can rest easy about the treatment of asylum seekers on Christmas Island ... this is more of a cry for attention rather at this stage rather than anything of any great seriousness, and frankly they have nothing to complain about in terms of the facilities or the services, or the treatment that they're receiving on this island. I think we have a lot to be proud of in the way that people are being looked after here. I thought the standard of facilities at least met that standard, if not better in some cases." Independent Senator Steve Fielding, who was accompanying him, went even further and claimed that "facilities on Christmas Island are pretty good and look more like a motel than a detention centre"!
21 November 'Rioters' Charged
On 20 January 11 Tamil and Afghan men appeared in Christmas Island Magistrates Court charged with 23 counts of riot, assault and possessing weapons following the disturbances on 21 November last year that left 40 people injured, including 3 that were hospitalised in Perth with broken bones. Immigration Minister Chris Evans said: "If any of them are found to have committed a serious offence, it may affect the granting of a visa." Practically, if sentenced to 12 months or more, they will not be granted leave to stay in Australia, and even then could still be refused visas. However, ever eager to point score, Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison called on the Government to rule out visas for the men whatever the outcome.
Abbott Plays The 'Race' Card
On 22 January, Tony Abbott, the new leader of the strangely misnamed Liberal Party, decided he would seek to occupy the moral low ground of the immigration debate. Having ousted the previous party leader Malcolm Turnbull in a row over his emissions trading bill, part of a far from Green Liberal environmental policy, to be replaced by Abbott the head of the party's flat-earthers. Turnbull's position on immigration, despite having been a leading member of the government that brought in the 'Pacific Solution', also played a part in his downfall.
So Abbott's pronouncements ahead of Australia Day were also part of his efforts to try and lay out his agenda, and a bizarre mixture they were too. Whilst saying that Australians should be especially concerned if Indians are victims of racially motivated crime (as has been occurring increasingly frequently), he also warned about the rise of "ethnic gangs" and that perceptions of "ethnic street crime" threatened public support for immigration, support that he then went on to try and undermine.
He also argued that "It would help to bolster public support for immigration and acceptance of social diversity if more minority leaders were as ready to show to mainstream Australians values the respect they demand for their own."
"Some recent immigrants seem resistant to Australian notions of equality. There is, I suspect, an anxiety that the great prize of Australian citizenship is insufficiently appreciated and given away too lightly."
That asylum seekers must be deterred from trying to reach Australia by boat as "a matter of principle", regardless of how many immigrants arrive by other means. "A strong border protection policy is perfectly consistent with a large and inclusive immigration policy. In fact it's probably essential if the public is to be convinced that Australia's immigration policy is run by the Government rather than people smugglers."
"There is an important distinction between boat arrivals on the one hand and on the other people who arrive without putting themselves in peril, on a valid visa, and only subsequently become unauthorised over-stayers."
And on the issue of population growth he said, "It's easy to worry about the future environmental sustainability of Sydney and Melbourne, each with seven million people, when land and water resources are already under such pressure."
"The immigration rate should depend upon the strength of Australia's economy, the confidence of our society and the readiness of potential migrants to make a commitment to their new country."
[Australia does not have a] "fixed carrying capacity. My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia."
However, the killer quote that nails down his bizarre mix of conservative ideology with a dash of liberal dressing, is the rather rose-tinted statement: "For all the misguided and sometimes cruel treatment of Aborigines, the ethnic typecasting and occasional snobbery which still exists, Australia has rarely seen domestic discrimination based on race or culture."
Needless to say, rival politicians were swift to criticise Abbott. Australian Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young claimed: "Let's call this for what it is - Tony Abbott has blatantly played the race card in time for Australia Day," He was also using the same tactics as former prime minister John Howard. "The challenge for the [current] prime minister is not to allow this poisonous speech to drag him and his government down into another fear-driven debate."
The president of the Refugee Council of Australia, John Gibson, said Mr Abbott was making pronouncements on border protection without properly appreciating all the contributing factors. "His comments completely ignore our overarching obligation to the refugee convention which is to deal [with] and process humanely people arriving on our shores."
Abbott responded to the criticism by claiming that 'anti-immigration radicals' were too quick to stereotype migrants and refugee advocates were too quick to stereotype critics as rednecks. He said he supported high immigration intakes and described his speech as a "modern defence of a very traditional policy."
"We've always had our anxieties about immigration but I have to say that by and large we've managed a really successful immigration program despite those anxieties. The important thing is to be able to have a mature and intelligent debate about immigration without ... the instant [that] issues are raised, people rushing around with accusations of racism."
The Population Debate
Australia has also been going through a population debate similar to that sprung on the UK by the Tories and anti-immigration fundamentalists like Alan Green (Mr MigrationBotch) and other flat-earthers like Nick Soames and Frank Field. However, instead of the usual round of politicians saying that nay more of those nasty foreigners would be 'bad for us', the Australians by and large appear to be saying 'bring them on' (as long as they don't come uninvited by boat). That is except for the Greens, but more of that later.
Release of the Treasury's 2010 Intergenerational Report, rather than an impending general election, has reopened this debate. When similar projections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics were released last year, Australian PM Kevin Rudd claimed he welcomed of a 'big Australia' despite the misgivings of some like Treasury head Ken Henry and Labor backbencher Kelvin Thomson ("We are sleepwalking into an environmental disaster”). Now Rudd appears to be less enthusiastic, possibly as a result of Abbott's embracing the idea in his Australia Day statement, even though his own party is largely against the possibility.
So both Labour and Liberal parties appear divided and the only one that has come out unequivocally against 'big Australia' is the Greens! Greens leader Bob Brown instead decided to marshal the sort of arguments put forward by the Right in the UK to justify cutting immigration: "Most people think our lifestyle is good, but some of the bigger cities are bursting at the seams. We're at record high immigration and it's got to be reviewed. I think immigration levels should settle down much lower than they are at the moment, without cutting humanitarian immigration." Except that he couched his arguments in terms of maintaining a "sustainable population", something that has earned him criticism from other Green environmentalists. [1, 2]
Against that, along side arguing that failure to address climate change would damage the economy - "If we don't tackle climate change, we not only lose quality of life ... but we lose eight per cent of the gross national product" - he actually marshalled an argument regularly used by No Borders group against immigration controls - "You can buy your way into this country if you're rich or you're highly skilled" - in support of cutting immigration!
SIEV 36 report tomorrow.
[1] One refugee advocate claimed up to 350 people were involved. The hunger strike ended after three days, when a number of people received medical treatment after passing out.
Hunger Strike
So far this year 9 boat with more than 500 refugees have arrived on the shores of Christmas Island after being intercepted by the Australian navy. On Monday the 181 passengers and 4 crew arrived on the island and parliament was warned that the detention centre was "just one boatload away from reaching capacity." This means that there are more than 180 detainees on the island, with 1460 in the detention centre itself, including 200 in tents, with 288 in the nearby construction camp facility.
Throughout January the Australian government has been receiving other warnings about the potential for unrest due to overcrowding. On 14 January the Immigration Department warned its Minister that the government should start processing asylum-seekers on the mainland or risk further riots and disturbances at Christmas Island's detention centre. Two weeks later on 26 Jan the head of Kevin Rudd's bill of rights consultation committee, Frank Brennan, reiterated the need for the government to transfer asylum-seekers to the mainland, saying conditions on Christmas Island now resemble those seen in the darkest days of the Howard-era.
The government's response to this latter warning was to transfer 115 mostly Afghan refugees moved off Christmas Island to mainland and to announce another batch of visas to be issued within days. Unfortunately, on the 28 January, after raising everybody's hopes, only 8 visas were actually issued, sparking protests over the slow processing of asylum applications. More than 150 Sri Lankans (the official government figure was 133) started a hunger strike.[1] Gathering in the camp's recreational area, they refused to go back to their compounds and held up placards reading: 'Oceanic Viking six weeks, Christmas Island six months', 'How long do we have to stay here?' and 'Protection not detention'. Another point of protest was against the recently introduced ban on mobile phones and the treatment of the 9 Tamils charged with November's disturbances.
According to official figures the average wait for an asylum-seekers on Christmas Island to be processed is 107 days. But unlike the mainland, where they had to be processed within 90 days, Christmas Island is officially outside Australia's migration zone and therefore operates wiith no time limit for asylum processing. This has led to some Tamils having been detained on Christmas Island for up to 11 months, however the official line on this is that it is due to security concerms over links with the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). Immigration Minister Chris Evans warned the Tamils to quit their hunger strike, saying that even peaceful protests could actually hinder it. "I want to make it very clear to them and to the community ... we're not going to be responding to this."
The opposition parties were swift to exploit the issue, with the Liberal (read: Conservative) immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, who was on a visit to the Island at the time, claiming that the protesters had nothing to complain about. "I think Australians can rest easy about the treatment of asylum seekers on Christmas Island ... this is more of a cry for attention rather at this stage rather than anything of any great seriousness, and frankly they have nothing to complain about in terms of the facilities or the services, or the treatment that they're receiving on this island. I think we have a lot to be proud of in the way that people are being looked after here. I thought the standard of facilities at least met that standard, if not better in some cases." Independent Senator Steve Fielding, who was accompanying him, went even further and claimed that "facilities on Christmas Island are pretty good and look more like a motel than a detention centre"!
21 November 'Rioters' Charged
On 20 January 11 Tamil and Afghan men appeared in Christmas Island Magistrates Court charged with 23 counts of riot, assault and possessing weapons following the disturbances on 21 November last year that left 40 people injured, including 3 that were hospitalised in Perth with broken bones. Immigration Minister Chris Evans said: "If any of them are found to have committed a serious offence, it may affect the granting of a visa." Practically, if sentenced to 12 months or more, they will not be granted leave to stay in Australia, and even then could still be refused visas. However, ever eager to point score, Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison called on the Government to rule out visas for the men whatever the outcome.
Abbott Plays The 'Race' Card
On 22 January, Tony Abbott, the new leader of the strangely misnamed Liberal Party, decided he would seek to occupy the moral low ground of the immigration debate. Having ousted the previous party leader Malcolm Turnbull in a row over his emissions trading bill, part of a far from Green Liberal environmental policy, to be replaced by Abbott the head of the party's flat-earthers. Turnbull's position on immigration, despite having been a leading member of the government that brought in the 'Pacific Solution', also played a part in his downfall.
So Abbott's pronouncements ahead of Australia Day were also part of his efforts to try and lay out his agenda, and a bizarre mixture they were too. Whilst saying that Australians should be especially concerned if Indians are victims of racially motivated crime (as has been occurring increasingly frequently), he also warned about the rise of "ethnic gangs" and that perceptions of "ethnic street crime" threatened public support for immigration, support that he then went on to try and undermine.
He also argued that "It would help to bolster public support for immigration and acceptance of social diversity if more minority leaders were as ready to show to mainstream Australians values the respect they demand for their own."
"Some recent immigrants seem resistant to Australian notions of equality. There is, I suspect, an anxiety that the great prize of Australian citizenship is insufficiently appreciated and given away too lightly."
That asylum seekers must be deterred from trying to reach Australia by boat as "a matter of principle", regardless of how many immigrants arrive by other means. "A strong border protection policy is perfectly consistent with a large and inclusive immigration policy. In fact it's probably essential if the public is to be convinced that Australia's immigration policy is run by the Government rather than people smugglers."
"There is an important distinction between boat arrivals on the one hand and on the other people who arrive without putting themselves in peril, on a valid visa, and only subsequently become unauthorised over-stayers."
And on the issue of population growth he said, "It's easy to worry about the future environmental sustainability of Sydney and Melbourne, each with seven million people, when land and water resources are already under such pressure."
"The immigration rate should depend upon the strength of Australia's economy, the confidence of our society and the readiness of potential migrants to make a commitment to their new country."
[Australia does not have a] "fixed carrying capacity. My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia."
However, the killer quote that nails down his bizarre mix of conservative ideology with a dash of liberal dressing, is the rather rose-tinted statement: "For all the misguided and sometimes cruel treatment of Aborigines, the ethnic typecasting and occasional snobbery which still exists, Australia has rarely seen domestic discrimination based on race or culture."
Needless to say, rival politicians were swift to criticise Abbott. Australian Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young claimed: "Let's call this for what it is - Tony Abbott has blatantly played the race card in time for Australia Day," He was also using the same tactics as former prime minister John Howard. "The challenge for the [current] prime minister is not to allow this poisonous speech to drag him and his government down into another fear-driven debate."
The president of the Refugee Council of Australia, John Gibson, said Mr Abbott was making pronouncements on border protection without properly appreciating all the contributing factors. "His comments completely ignore our overarching obligation to the refugee convention which is to deal [with] and process humanely people arriving on our shores."
Abbott responded to the criticism by claiming that 'anti-immigration radicals' were too quick to stereotype migrants and refugee advocates were too quick to stereotype critics as rednecks. He said he supported high immigration intakes and described his speech as a "modern defence of a very traditional policy."
"We've always had our anxieties about immigration but I have to say that by and large we've managed a really successful immigration program despite those anxieties. The important thing is to be able to have a mature and intelligent debate about immigration without ... the instant [that] issues are raised, people rushing around with accusations of racism."
The Population Debate
Australia has also been going through a population debate similar to that sprung on the UK by the Tories and anti-immigration fundamentalists like Alan Green (Mr MigrationBotch) and other flat-earthers like Nick Soames and Frank Field. However, instead of the usual round of politicians saying that nay more of those nasty foreigners would be 'bad for us', the Australians by and large appear to be saying 'bring them on' (as long as they don't come uninvited by boat). That is except for the Greens, but more of that later.
Release of the Treasury's 2010 Intergenerational Report, rather than an impending general election, has reopened this debate. When similar projections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics were released last year, Australian PM Kevin Rudd claimed he welcomed of a 'big Australia' despite the misgivings of some like Treasury head Ken Henry and Labor backbencher Kelvin Thomson ("We are sleepwalking into an environmental disaster”). Now Rudd appears to be less enthusiastic, possibly as a result of Abbott's embracing the idea in his Australia Day statement, even though his own party is largely against the possibility.
So both Labour and Liberal parties appear divided and the only one that has come out unequivocally against 'big Australia' is the Greens! Greens leader Bob Brown instead decided to marshal the sort of arguments put forward by the Right in the UK to justify cutting immigration: "Most people think our lifestyle is good, but some of the bigger cities are bursting at the seams. We're at record high immigration and it's got to be reviewed. I think immigration levels should settle down much lower than they are at the moment, without cutting humanitarian immigration." Except that he couched his arguments in terms of maintaining a "sustainable population", something that has earned him criticism from other Green environmentalists. [1, 2]
Against that, along side arguing that failure to address climate change would damage the economy - "If we don't tackle climate change, we not only lose quality of life ... but we lose eight per cent of the gross national product" - he actually marshalled an argument regularly used by No Borders group against immigration controls - "You can buy your way into this country if you're rich or you're highly skilled" - in support of cutting immigration!
SIEV 36 report tomorrow.
[1] One refugee advocate claimed up to 350 people were involved. The hunger strike ended after three days, when a number of people received medical treatment after passing out.
Jump The Train, Jump The Border Fundraiser
" 'La tren de la muerte' is dreadful, because it generally leaves during the night, and the migrants take advantage of the darkness to clamber aboard without paying. But many are mutilated or even killed in the attempt." Jorge Ramirez, Office of the Defender of Migrants in Guatemala's Human Rights Prosecutor's Office.The so-called "train of death" heads north to Mexico City from the south-eastern Mexican state of Chiapas, near the Guatemalan border. Once the train is moving, hundreds of migrants try to climb aboard. But many don't make it, and fall under the train or are caught in the wheels, losing a leg -- or their life -- in the attempt.
"And now things are even more complicated, because once they make it onto the train, the migrants run into 'maras', violent youth gangs who extort them. And whoever refuses to pay can end up dead, but although it is a perilous route, we are seeing increasing numbers of women and children undertaking the journey, to try to reach the American dream." There are children as young as nine years old who are put into the hands of "coyotes" or people traffickers, to take them to the United States and reunite them with their families there.
Increasing numbers of Central American migrants who have crossed Guatemala's northern border into Mexico are deported every year. Nearly 100,000 Central Americans were sent back home from Mexico in the first half of the year, seeing their dream of a better life cut short before they could even reach the U.S. border. Spokespersons for migrant shelters and advocacy groups like the Casa del Migrante and the Mesa Nacional de Migraciones of Guatemala, and the Centro de Atenciun al Migrante in Honduras say the emigration flows are growing steadily, due to the difficult economic and social conditions in the impoverished nations of Central America.
The number of migrants travelling by land from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua who are deported every month from Mexico averaged more than 16,000 in the first few months of the year. But that average could double by the end of the year, said Ramirez. "Emigrants who are deported return (to their homes) destitute, without money, with only the clothes on their back, hungry and enormously frustrated," he said. "According to the studies we are currently carrying out, migrants who pay coyotes fall into debt to do so, because the cost can run as high as 5,000 dollars," he said.
If they are intercepted once they are in Mexico, they are placed in the custody of the National Migration Institute. Many are held in the Tapachula shelter while awaiting deportation. Eduardo Quintero, with Guatemala's Casa del Migrante, said migrants deported by land are generally sent home during the night, which puts them at higher risk of abuse at the hands of police. But although many deportees complain of mistreatment, 95 percent try to cross into Mexico again, said Ramirez.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)