linksunten Archiv

NEW MATILDA INVESTIGATION By Max Chalmers

So many damning accusations, so little time to report them all. Max Chalmers looks at leaked transcripts from The Moss Review to see what didn’t make the final report.

Asylum seekers allegedly received threats after they provided evidence to the Moss Review and, unbeknownst to Moss, some were interviewed by officials in the Nauruan detention centre after participating in the investigation into allegations of sexual and physical assault.

In leaked transcripts obtained by New Matilda, and shared with Guardian Australia, former Integrity Commissioner Philip Moss raises the fact that a subject he interviewed as part of the process was contacted by a Wilson’s Security intelligence gathering official, after their conversation.

“Now I don’t know the rights and wrongs of that, I just put it out there because there is a suggestion now that some of the information that was given to me is now at large in the centre,” Moss told Lee Mitchell, a Wilson employee during their interview.

Elsewhere in the transcripts, allegations emerge suggesting threats were made against asylum seekers after they spoke to Moss.

In the 86-page report released by the Department of Immigration last week – just hours after news broke of the death of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser - Moss presented evidence and snippets of testimony indicating sexual assaults, harassment, a lack of privacy, and self-harm are part and parcel of life in the Nauru detention centre, where 752 people remain interned.

Despite the level of detail, the leaked transcripts reveal other serious allegations not included in the final report, as well as greater detail about the difficulties endured by asylum seekers in the centre.

Sexual Assault

In one interview, Moss is told by a woman that she was raped in the detention centre, having already fled a sexually violent husband in her country of origin.

First detained on Christmas Island, where she told Moss she felt safe because of a high level of security, the woman was assured Nauru would be safe.

“The doctor on Christmas Island, she told me that you have suffered so much for your children and I want you to go to Nauru because I know that you will be safe and secure there,” the woman recounted to Moss.

“When I came and saw the condition of the tent, and there’s no proper door, just, there’s no cameras, I saw the way it is, I want to see the psychologist here, I mentioned about my past and I said that I’m scared, I’m a single mother and I’m scared – I’m worried about my security here.”

As the opening of the interview makes clear, those fears were justified.

“I want to report a rape, that it happened to me at the camp, and that nothing was done for me,” the woman said.

The lack of security in the centre’s tents, and the inadequacy of privacy in such an environment, was picked up on by Moss in his final report.

He also found evidence that rape and sexual assault allegations had been under-reported by asylum seekers.

Violence and Dissatisfaction With Australian Guards

In an interview with men from various language groups, Moss was told guards had a poor attitude towards asylum seekers in the centre, and that incidents of violence and self-harm had been met with laughter.

One man told Moss he saw another asylum seeker consume mosquito repellent. “The Nauruan security, they just came and they were just laughing at him, they didn’t do anything, sending him to medical or anything, they were just laughing at him,” he said.

Later in the transcripts, a Wilson Security official dismissed the seriousness of the self-harm taking place in the centre, on the basis it hadn’t claimed any lives.

“If people are concerned and that serious about doing something, and wanting to make that kind of statement, my view is that somebody probably would have already passed away,” the official told Moss.

Moss’ report found that 17 minors had self-harmed between October 2013 and October 2014, including an attempted hanging by a 16-year-old.

Asylum seekers often singled out Australian guards in their criticism, and compared Wilson guards unfavourably to Serco staff on Christmas Island.

“The Australians [sic] security, their attitude is very bad,” one asylum seeker said.

Another had this exchange with Moss.

Asylum seeker: “The Nauruans are even better than the Australians.”

Moss: “They’re better in their behaviour? They’re more courteous? Polite?”

Asylum seeker: “They are more human.”

Different groups expressed different levels of distress at being in the camp, with some citing weather and uncertainty about processing as their major issues.

Others were more emphatic.

“You guys keep us under the shit and treat like a mushroom, and feed shit. We’re not getting any equal justice, regarding that so many times we bring up issues but nothing is done yet,” one said.

Concerns that incident reporting is a waste of time are constant throughout the transcripts.

15 Incidents Of Self-Harm Following Morrison Video

As reported previously, a video featuring then Minister Scott Morrison played to asylum seekers in September 2014 sparked weeks of unrest and protests.

The stern video re-emphasised to asylum seekers that they would never be able to settle in Australia, despite the fact others who arrived on Christmas Island at the same time, and had not been transferred offshore, would be.

According to evidence given by IHMS staff (the company contracted to provide medical services in the centre), 15 patients presented after self-harm incidents, which included slashed wrists, drinking washing powder, and sewn lips.

The IHMS staff told Moss the response to protests and self-harm had been well organised and effective.

Blunt Words

Moss’ final report is written in the kind of neutral prose that could only ever find a home in a government report. But the language of the transcripts is somewhat more blunt.

As New Matilda revealed earlier this month, they record former Immigration Deputy Secretary Mark Cormack speaking freely about the fact Morrison was “shit worried” about Manus style riots and death occurring in Nauru. He also said the then Minister’s “looseness” was to blame for the dissemination of misleading information to the media after the death of Reza Berati, and that the Department did not know whether 10 Save The Children workers banished from the island actually did anything wrong.

Similarly, IHMS staff make a frank admission about the running of the Nauru centre. The Australian government insists it is not responsible for the centre, and is arguing as much in this country’s courts.

“Ultimately the Nauruan's have responsibility for the Regional Processing Centre,” Minister Peter Dutton told media less than a week ago.

Staff working in the centre don’t see things the same way, it would seem.

“It’s also difficult for a lot of people to remember that this is a Nauruan-led operation when everything up front is actually done by others,” one IHMS employee told Moss.

Moss’ report makes several recommendations in relation to communication between Australian and Nauruan forces and organisations.

Deaths At Sea

One of the Save the Children staff ordered off the island by the Department of Immigration had been doing lifeguard work for refugees released from detention. The STC worker was known to be particularly sympathetic to the plight of those in detention and, according to testimony from a co-worker, had warned Save the Children that refugees from landlocked countries would be at risk of drowning at Nauru’s beaches.

While the STC worker was in Australia for a period of respite, a refugee drowned.

The story was recounted to Moss as an example of the STC worker’s failings, not because his warnings had not been acted upon, but because, according to the staff member recounting the incident, it revealed he was too close with the refugees.

New Matilda put questions to the Department of Immigration relating to whether it had changed the report in any way since receiving it from Moss. The Department referred us to Peter Dutton’s office who have ignored questions from New Matilda.

* New Matilda is an independent Australian news outlet.

See also Nauru detention centre likely subject of Senate inquiry

Comments

Andrew McIntosh 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 12:55

When I first saw that Scott Morrison video, my first impulse was to believe that the man is a sadist. Here he was basically taunting refugees. It didn't seem rational, of course, to think that, it was just a gut feeling.

Reading about the reaction from refugees to the video here, I've had that feeling re-enforced. As far as I'm concerned Morrison showed the same attitude towards boat-arrival refugees as the reports of Australian guards here. These people are getting some kind of buzz out of the suffering of others. 

I know that sounds drastic, but I can't help feeling that way. No other explanation makes sense.

Jabba 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 13:12

Thankyou Max. While it is distressing to tears to know that Australia is perpetrating and perpetuating harm and distress to these people it is somewhat heartening to know that there are others willing and able to hold the Government, and those that support it, to account.

downboy 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 14:02

I think Andrew McIntosh is correct about the guards at the detemtion centre. Morrison's cruel and dehumanising words effectivley gave the green light to the abuse carried out against asylum seekers. It is all aprt of creating the government's deterrence strategy.

That any conservative voting Australian could sanction the cruelty of Morrison and the Nauru guards is sickening and I no longer consider the Liberal and National parties to be worthy of continued existence as parties representing Australians - they should be wiped from Australian politics for dragging the nation down to a pariah state.

hannahs dad 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 14:49

Twice at this site in recent daysI have raised the point that it is necessary to have strict protocols followed when dealing with allegations of rape and sexual abuse and that such investigations need to be conducted by qualified experienced skilled professionals.

I was suspicious that such was not the procedure used in this Moss Review.

In a properly conducted investigation the privacy and safety of witnesses is paramount.

Such is clearly not the case here. 

This should be front page news, lead item on TV and radio, this is a major failure at many levels by this [and perhaps previous] government.

Persons in our care have not been cared for. 

Heads should roll , first and foremost that of Morrisson but not limited to him. 

This is an absolute disgrace, it makes ashamed that my country has lost the common human decency we once claimed we had. 

Thank you NM for bringing all this to the front, you shame the MSM by their negligence.

Dipso Facto 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 15:03

Strong condemnatory editorial lambasting successive governments in The Age today, and huge coverage of this article at the top of The Guardian online. Pity Fairfax can't give the news the prominence its editorial implies it should have.

Morrison should by rights resign for deceiving the nation, immediately after Pyne.

IAIN HALL 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 16:13

Max et al

All of this high handed moralizing about reactions to people playing the self harm blackmail game is lacking one important ingredient. Namely where is there  one instance of you sending the message that such behaviour is pointless? Because its clearly not going to change the governments' stance. They are simply not for turning on this issue and even if the ALP were to win the next election they are not going to change anything that would risk a repeat of the Rudd flood we saw begin in 2007.

So what can you really do to help these people?

Firstly don't make their acts of self-harm seem at all heroic (as pieces here tend to do)

Secondly stop complaining about Morrison being brutally frank with their non existent prospects of ever being settled in Australia. being Honest to these people is a good thing even thought they don't like the truth its better than the lying about them being able to come here to settle.

Finally there is no point in complaining about the rules being dependent upon an arbitrary cutoff date, the line has to be drawn somewhere and the luck of being one side of the date or another makes no difference in the bigger picture.

MattQ 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 16:20

The concentration camps will close, and the soon-to-be-Australians they torment brought home. Morrisson will not live long. Perhaps heart-disease will claim him early. Yes, heart disease sounds about right.

Australia is still seen as a global backwater, and very few asylum seekers want to come here. The boats will keep coming with the most vulnerable asylum seekers, and some of them will die at sea, but the survivors will be welcomed and processed just as quickly as plane-arrivals. Persecuted minorities will no longer be returned to persecution.

This will all come to pass, and the sky will not fall in. Not even close....

MJoanneS 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 16:23

Good old Iain, if you ever get into trouble and have some unknown crime levelled at you due to some arbitrary cut off date I hope the hell the courts tell you to f off. 

there is no such thing as arbitrary cut off dates for refugees, they are covered by international law the same every day of the year.

 Last night I found an article in the Jakarta post that last Friday 15 refugees who had arrived on Christmas Island on 17 March were taken to Indonesia and dumped on the beach, they were told it was because we had to do it because Indonesia wanted to shoot 2 Australian criminals.  Three of them were young girls. 

Pegi 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 17:39

Mr Hall, ...suffering seems beyond your understanding.

Where is your humanity and the government humanity?

What have you done with your heart?

Where is your compassion?

We have created and been part of these wars in the Middle East and now we don't want any of the consequences.  We spend billions on disrupting, torturing, maiming, raping and killing but when it comes to alleviate the chaos that has been created...the lights are out. 

bullnbush 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 18:47

And this is the Government that our diggers have died for!

Richard2 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 20:15

You are insufferably selfish and smug about it too, Mr Hall..  Can't understand why. you do not have the answers you think you do but regurgitate the usual TeaParty/Rabid Right/Nutjob Neocon material, from blaming helpless, hapless victims to ignoring commone sense and science. There is too much you are wrong about to try and remind you of facts and figures, just pick up a few of the really egregious errors and blunders.

This is wrong. What you type is cruel, heartless and worthy of the most selfish, inward looking xenophobe.

0.5% of alll people seeking asylum (a rith we are obliged to honour under International Law, I believe) arrive by unscheduled boat. They are not devils and demons, but the thugs in costume who lock them up and treat them as we have always suspected, now confirm, are indeed the devils and demons. Nothing justifies or excuses their callous indifference.

Nor yours.  How do you live with yourself?  No mirrors in the house?

chris graham 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 21:22

Iain, I sincerely hope you or members of your family never suffer a similar misfortune to that of the marginalised people you so blithely denigrate.

IAIN HALL 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 21:32

Richard2 

You are insufferably selfish and smug about it too, Mr Hall..

No I've seen what happens when its all about compassion (and chasing the preference  votes of the far left) Don't you remember what happened when rudd when soft on this issue? If it could be guaranteed that this cohort being allowed to settle would not not inspire others to try their arm then we could be more generous but we both know that it would not stop with this cohort don't we?

 Can't understand why. you do not have the answers you think you do but regurgitate the usual TeaParty/Rabid Right/Nutjob Neocon material, from blaming helpless, hapless victims to ignoring common sense and science.

"Blame" does not come into it as far as I'm concerned its all about what is SADLY necessary to solve a problem than is bigger than the discomfort of any individual detainee. 

There is too much you are wrong about to try and remind you of facts and figures, just pick up a few of the really egregious errors and blunders.

You are too driven by emotion for the tough world we live in Richard, sometimes we have to take the harder choice because it is necessary and because it causes a lesser amount of suffering overall.  

This is wrong. What you type is cruel, heartless and worthy of the most selfish, inward looking xenophobe.

I am just absolutely politically pragmatic and I can see that the UN refugee convention is getting very close to collapse just as the international emergency  aid system is close to the point of collapse because the numbers trying to use them are not sustainable.

0.5% of alll people seeking asylum (a rith(?) we are obliged to honour under International Law, I believe) arrive by unscheduled boat. They are not devils and demons, but the thugs in costume who lock them up and treat them as we have always suspected, now confirm, are indeed the devils and demons. Nothing justifies or excuses their callous indifference.

I have never said that they are demons or devils, they are just unwanted. Further I just don't buy the hyperbole about deliberate cruelty by those who are paid to look after them. Mostly I'm sure that those who run the centers just want things to run smoothly even though there is endemic sabotage and attempts to manipulate the system form the detainees.

Nor yours.  How do you live with yourself?  No mirrors in the house?

I have no problem with the way I think about this issue, I don't do "guilt" for saying the truth that you are sacred of.

IAIN HALL 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 21:36

chris graham
 

Iain, I sincerely hope you or members of your family never suffer a similar misfortune to that of the marginalised people you so blithely denigrate.

It boils down to drawing the line Chris, we don't have unlimited ability to absorb every one who wants to come here so where would YOU draw the line?

Jabba 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 21:44

Ian, you seem to be incredibly motivated to prevent others wasting time complaining, because, as you put it,  there is no point as nothing is going to change.

If you truly believe that then what is the point of continually posting on this topic telling people to stop complaining? Altruistic concern for the time wasting of others?  I think not.

Either there is a point complaining and trying to make ones self heard in the hope that more  politicians and more people that learn of the consequences may bring about change, or there isn't.

If you believe there isn't, then why do you keep posting?

Either you don't truly believe that it's a waste of time and you want to be a counter balancing noise, which just points to the hypocrisy of your posting,  or you just enjoy posting contrary arguments for the sake of generating more conflict.

chris graham 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 21:58

Well Iain, I wouldn't jail people arbitrarily, in breach of their basic human rights. You, apparently, would.

PAW 
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 22:27

 I get the impression Iain would lock up his own parents if they did something wrong.

peter hindrup 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 01:37

I wonder at the surprise, the outrage voiced over the refugees --- make no mistake I abhor the mistreatment, the denial of Australian responsibility for their plight --- as this face of Australia has been on show for all to see for the past 60 odd years.  

The refugees deserve to be welcomed into Australia, a tiny, tiny down payment on what we owe the countries we helped destroy, a tiny torch to indicate that Australia has some heart, some decency, an indication that Australia supports international law, understands that in the bigger picture mass movements of people will always overwhelm the arrogant, selfish claim by the predominantly European settlers, or offspring of settlers who declare 'Australia is ours!'

An arrogance I hope to live to see overwhelmed by the reality of mass movement.

To return to the ugly face, Australia has forever supported Israel, and Israel from its inception has flaunted international law, and the plight of the Palestinians has been throughout this period  far, far, worse than the horrors inflicted upon the refugees. 

In saying this I do not intend in any way to diminish the suffering of the refugees.  I simply highlight the extent of the Suffering of the Palestinians.

wideEyedPupil 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 04:23

I agree Andrew. Watching Morrison swagger around the dispatches box in the House made me feel exactly the same way. How anybody could be grinning, strutting around and taunting ALP MPs over a subject involving child abuse and trauma, rapes, serious security problems, deaths at sea and so on I have no idea — I certainly question such a man's sanity.

wideEyedPupil 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 04:26

what's the badge Morrison is wearing in the video?

Max Costello 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 07:09

Dutton's 'Nauru responsible' claim is wrong because detention centres are workplaces, so the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) applies. The Act makes Australia responsible:

(a) s.10 says the Act "binds the Commonwealth" (Australia) and makes it "liable for an offence";

(2) s.19 imposes a "primary duty of care" on workplace operators (e.g., the Commonwealth at detention centres) to "ensure, so far as is practicable," that workers and "other persons" (e.g., at detention centres, detainees) are not exposed to workplace risks to their health and safety;

(3) ss.14 and 272 respectively say duties cannot be "transferred" or "contracted out"; and

(4) s.12F(3) gives the Act's offence provisions "extended geographical jurisdiction", meaning that they apply on Nauru and Manus Island.

Because failure to comply with an Act duty is an offence, the Commonweatlh is criminally liable. The Act's regulator, Comcare, should be laying charges against the Commonwealth.

IAIN HALL 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 08:39

Jabba
 Ian, you seem to be incredibly motivated to prevent others wasting time complaining, because, as you put it,  there is no point as nothing is going to change.

Sometimes people have to be reminded that resistance is futile

If you truly believe that then what is the point of continually posting on this topic telling people to stop complaining? Altruistic concern for the time wasting of others?  I think not.

My point is situation specific and not one that can be universally applied as you are suggesting here. I enjoy trying to bring the truth to you minions of the left.

Either there is a point complaining and trying to make ones self heard in the hope that more  politicians and more people that learn of the consequences may bring about change, or there isn't.

As a I said in the previous comment there is no point about complaining about detaining the so called asylum seekers, our courts have found  it to be lawful and our major  political parties have found that it is effective. Nothing else matters

If you believe there isn't, then why do you keep posting?

Because its the conspicuously compassionate who tie themselves in knots over this issue that I am trying to enlighten.

Either you don't truly believe that it's a waste of time and you want to be a counter balancing noise, which just points to the hypocrisy of your posting,  or you just enjoy posting contrary arguments for the sake of generating more conflict.

The truth will set you minions of the left free from your angst on this issue, and I enjoy the journey.

chris graham
 

Well Iain, I wouldn't jail people arbitrarily, in breach of their basic human rights. You, apparently, would.

That is not an answer to the question I put to you Chris, its a diversion. Though on that point  I admit that I have no problem with the detention of anyone who arrives without a visa especially when I know that all they have to do is ask to be returned home  and therefore freed from detention. 

talknic 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 09:22

@ IAIN HALL  "resistance is futile"  thanks Prime Minister Tojo

PAW 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 10:10

Iain has just proved why he is here, that is to be a nuisance and nothing else.

Pixelated 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 10:23

Iain, your tactic as usual is to ignore the substance of any article and just post your particular agenda. You love to try to define what we should be talking about.

But how the hell you get "people playing the self-harm blackmail game" from allegations of rape is just beyond me.

LaLegale 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 11:45

It is unspeakably distressing for me to read the Moss Report for a number of reasons.

In 2011 I was employed in the National Communications Branch of the then named Department of Immigration and Citizenship. As part of my job, I learned to use media monitoring programs and learned about social media - including Twitter. I set up a twitter account.

Every day at work I would read news reports in relation to ministerial directions on asylum seeker policy. I became very concerned, particularly at the mention of the "Malaysia Solution" that was being proposed by the Prime Minister Julia Gillard. My only recourse was to use my newly set up Twitter account to post comment that the Malaysia Solution was not consistent with Australia's obligations under the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory. I continued to post Tweets in my own time, using my own equipment, posting comment about the Refugee Convention, and critical of government asylum seeker policy. I was posting these comments as a private citizen,

In about May 2012, the National Communications manager Sandi Logan, posted a tweet from his departmental Twitter account, to spruik the success of a Sudanese refugee who had qualified to be a doctor.  For many reasons, I saw this tweet (as against the reality of the government's asylum seeker policy) as an example of breathtaking hypocrisy. It was early in the morning and I was at home, I responded to this tweet saying words to the effect that perhaps now this young doctor might heal all those in illegal and immoral detention centres.

Nothing was ever said to me at work, although I sensed 'vibes' around me, but in May 2012, without consulting me, my manager Sandi Logan wrote a complaint to the department's workplace relations section to have me investigated for breach of Code of Conduct. 

After twelve months of court action seeking an injunction to prevent my sacking (for I knew it was inevitable, as it was personal) my employment ended on 29 September 2013, the Federal Circuit Court having failed me. The judgment from Neville J stated that I had sought immunity by way of a constitutionally implied freedom of political communication, in spite of the fact that I had made submissions to the court that while there may be a fetter on the implied freedom, any legislative fetter would need to be appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end, in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government. Neville J ignored these submissions, wrongly representing my application and circumstances and leading to a flawed judgment, and subsequently, my dismissal. To add insult to injury he added another ground for denying the application - I had not yet been sacked,

Since that time I continue to post tweets about government asylum seeker policy. I am writing these words to let readers know that many were aware of the dangerous territory that was being charted with asylum seeker policy, (including, no doubt many of the 8000 employees of the department), and as private citizens we opposed those developments, trying to raise consciousness in the community about our legal obligations - and the hurt that was being done to asylum seekers in our name. 

I, for one, was (wrongly) found to be in breach of the code of conduct with its defamatory imputations, and was deprived of my livelihood for having done so.

Now, as I read the Moss Report in its full horror, and see government 'tap-dancing' in its attempts to discredit the report while denying responsibility for those crimes, I am truly heartbroken to see that the consequences of serial governments' asylum seeker policies have exceeded all my worst expectations - worse than I ever had the imagination to see. 

IAIN HALL 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 13:33

Pixelated
 Iain, your tactic as usual is to ignore the substance of any article and just post your particular agenda. You love to try to define what we should be talking about.

But how the hell you get "people playing the self-harm blackmail game" from allegations of rape is just beyond me.

The part of my comment that you cite above refers to this passage form the article:

One man told Moss he saw another asylum seeker consume mosquito repellent. “The Nauruan security, they just came and they were just laughing at him, they didn’t do anything, sending him to medical or anything, they were just laughing at him,” he said.

Later in the transcripts, a Wilson Security official dismissed the seriousness of the self-harm taking place in the centre, on the basis it hadn’t claimed any lives.

“If people are concerned and that serious about doing something, and wanting to make that kind of statement, my view is that somebody probably would have already passed away,” the official told Moss.

Moss’ report found that 17 minors had self-harmed between October 2013 and October 2014, including an attempted hanging by a 16-year-old.

So it appears that it is you who has not properly read the article not I.

Cheers

terrybm 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 14:16

Hello Iain,

In response to your claims about the treatment of people seeking refuge from war ravaged countries; wars to which we send our own troops.  For God's sake man they are fleeing the ravages of war, ravages from which you purportedly fled in the 1960s.

Is there not an element of reborn racism in the present aversion to settling non-Christian, non-white, non-European refugees?

Self-harm is not recognised as an instrument of blackmail in the fields of psychotherapy or psychiatry, here or anywhere else in the world.  That is purely an invention of your own bigotry and ignorance.

Self-harm is the result of "deep distress and emotional pain" and we can well imagine how the conditions under which these refugees are interned would cause such distress and pain. 

Another claim of yours is to imply a deterrent value to keeping these people in such inhumane conditions.  

Such a deterrent factor, although denied by the LNP government, is all good and well if you are willing to turn a blind eye to the psychological pain and distress of our fellow 'man'.   To this add the inflicted sufferings of sexual abuse, assault, rape, murder and the imprisonment of children and the subsequent psychological damage they will carry throughout their lives.  These are the factors that underpin 'deterrence'.

All of the above are either mentioned in the Moss Review and/or numerous other reports on these internment camps.  It makes a mockery of our commitment to humanity, not to mention our contravention of the Charter of Human Rights to which we are a signatory.  Such are the practices you advocate so you can live in cosseted ignorance and comfort.

Shame on you!  You express views that are even further right than Morrison and the far right of the LNP coalition.  Your views are so far right that they are anathema to 'democracy and liberalism', views so extreme as to border on 'fascism'.

Why don't you admit your own assumptions and express them rather than playing the reactionary to the views and beliefs of other writers in these columns.  Your constant dissection of the expressions of others without evidentiary follow up merely indicates the shallowness of your argument and that you are bereft of new ideas or originality of thought. . 

Marga 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 14:18

MattQ:

We are all entitled to our dreams, you too.

But why the reference to concentration camps?  Do you know that at least one of the camps has recently been partially re-opened to house asylum seekers?  And they are happy there because they have plenty of room.  They have to open more if the flood of people expected to arrive, will actually do - unless Brussel takes stern action.

All this in Europe and here would not need to be if the UN would take charge.  People would be given a UN refugee identity and live in these camps, which I call UN Homelands,  until it is time to go home or go to a newly created (re-zoned that is) country in their region.  It could all be handled in an orderly fashion.

Of course, people would be entitled to apply to migrate from UN Homeland to other countries but would only be regarded as normal immigrants subject to the conditions of normal immigrants and competing for a permanent visa on merit.

However, let there be no doubt:   the real reason why the asylum seekers in our 'gated communities' (my new terminology here) are unhappy is because they have fallen for a Ponzi scheme.   They paid people smugglers oodles of money with the promise of a permanent visa in Australia (or Europe for that matter) plus other perks - and then it did not eventuate.  They not only lost their money but also their face (shaming their families).     This is no different to greedy Australians hoping for a high yield investing in a Ponzi scheme on the advice of crook financial planners - and then the thing collapses,  and the investors want their money back.

In general, I don't have much sympathy with those investors (of course there are exceptions), greed never pays.  Similarly, I don't have any sympathy with those people-smuggled asylum seekers, although there are genuinely deserving asylum seekers around, just not among the money-paying variety.

Pixelated 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 14:40

Iain, 

No, my point is that you won't even acknowledge the rape allegations. Instead, you want a narrative that is only about the cherry-picked parts of the article that support what you want to talk about.

It's pointless arguing with you, that much is obvious. But it is worth pointing out to everyone else that you refuse to engage with the substance of the articles you comment on.

IAIN HALL 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 15:29

terrybm
In response to your  claims about the treatment of  people seeking refuge from war ravaged countries; wars to which we send our own troops.  For God's sake man they are fleeing the ravages of war, ravages from which you purportedly fled in the 1960s.

My father certainly said that he was afraid of ww3 starting after the "bay of pigs" and that was one of the reasons that he brought his family downunder but it was never the main reason, no the main reason was far more prosaic, my dad hated being cold and he though that life would be better here. his reason like so many of this cohort of asylum seekers was economic and the apocryphal tales of war was the excuse.

Is there not an element of reborn racism in the present aversion to settling non-Christian, non-white, non-European refugees?

No not really because if you check and  survey our now diverse population you will find taht the dislike of irregular arrivals is not restricted to "non-Christian, non-white, non-European" people.

Self harm is not recognised as an instrument of blackmail in the fields of psychotherapy or psychiatry, here or anywhere else in the world.  That is purely an invention of your own bigotry and ignorance.

Self harm is  the result of "deep distress and emotional pain" and we can well imagine how the conditions under which these refugees are interned would cause such distress and pain. 

You got that from Dr  google didn't you? Self harm and threats of self harm are often a tool of manipulation in institutional settings 

Another claim of yours is to imply a deterrent value to keeping these people in such inhumane conditions.  

Such a deterrent factor, although denied by the LNP government, is all good and well if you are willing to turn a blind eye to the psychological pain and distress of our fellow 'man'.   To this add the inflicted sufferings of sexual abuse, assault, rape, murder and the imprisonment of children and the subsequent psychological damage they will carry throughout their lives.  These are the factors that underpin 'deterrence'.

Maybe it is necessary to be blind to that smaller suffering in order to mitigate a larger quantum of suffering in the longer term Terry and as such that makes it the lesser of two evils.  

All of the above are either mentioned in the Moss Review and/or numerous other reports on these internment camps.  It makes a mockery of our commitment to humanity, not to mention our contravention of the Charter of Human Rights to which we are a signatory.  Such are the practices you advocate so you can live in cosseted ignorance and comfort.

Well as I said earlier if we were to be  generous and welcoming to this cohort do you really think that they would not  be replicated with even more trying to come here the same way? the evidence of the Rudd flood says that I am right to be certain that they would soon be followed by many more boat loads.

Shame on you!  You express views that are even further right than Morrison and the far right of the LNP coalition.  Your views are so far right that they are anathema to 'democracy and liberalism', views so extreme as to border on 'fascism'.

Actually my views are entirely democratic and liberal its just that I think that this country can not accept all comers who front up in leaky boats. Call me selfish if you like but I believe that we can not and we should not have an ever increasing population in this country and that if we are going to limit our population (as we should for environmental reasons) than in new people we need should be made by us in the old fashioned way. (and no by us I don't mean "white people" I mean the currently diverse people that now call themselves Australians no matter what their ethnic origins may be).    

Why don't you admit  your own assumptions and express them rather than playing the reactionary to the views and beliefs of  other writers in these columns.  Your constant dissection of the expressions of others without evidentiary follow up merely indicates the shallowness of your argument and that you are bereft of new ideas or originality of thought. .

My views are quite clear from my comments and as this is an informal discussion what sort of "evidentiary follow up" do you want?

IAIN HALL 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 15:42

Pixelated
No, my point is that you won't even acknowledge the rape allegations. Instead, you want a narrative that is only about the cherry-picked parts of the article that support what you want to talk about.

So you want to talk about rape allegations?

OK we can do that. The problem about such allegations is that they are easy to make but devilishly hard to prove to a standard that our law requires IE "beyond reasonable doubt" In law to get a conviction when there is an allegation of rape is hard because often there is no forensic evidence (as is the case with these allegations as I understand it) so then it boils down to the old "he said she said" dichotomy which means that if these allegations were to be tested in a court the chances of securing a conviction are very low indeed. So how do you think that the evidentiary deficit in these allegations can be addressed? Do you want a lower standard of proof for testing such allegations? I don't.

See its not an easy question is it?

It's pointless arguing with you, that much is obvious. But it is worth pointing out to everyone else that you refuse to engage with the substance of the articles you comment on.

I am more than capable of addressing each and every point in the article but that would be a very quick way to utterly wear out my welcome here at NM, so I pick something as a starting point and see where it takes us .

Grace57 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 22:28

Please..Please...a request...Iain Hall...stop writing!!!  You are embarrassing yourself...with your lack of compassion and any display no human decency on this issue.... who made you judge and jury on this subject?  I have never once, said that refugees were 'unwanted'???  You don't and never will speak for me..so please don't even attempt to try...

talknic 
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 23:56

Someone is a great believer in digging deeper holes.

"So you want to talk about rape allegations?"

They seem to be catching on. It is part of the subject.  Whereas their father's immigration isnot.

"The problem about such allegations is that they are easy to make but devilishly hard to prove to a standard that our law requires IE "beyond reasonable doubt" ....etc etc ... Do you want a lower standard of proof for testing such allegations? I don't".

A presumption of innocence where something might be illegal.  Fair enough.  What I don't understand is why they don't show the same respect where asylum seekers,  refugees and their possible desire to immigrate are concerned, none of which are illegal.

"See its not an easy question is it?"

So?  Is that a reason not to ask it?

"I am more than capable of addressing each and every point in the article"

Any supremacist worth their salt would be

"but that would be a very quick way to utterly wear out my welcome here at NM"

Another very quick way is to display complete unawareness that they already have.

talknic 
Posted Thursday, March 26, 2015 - 00:30

@ Marga "All this in Europe and here would not need to be if the UN would take charge"

Uh? It would "not need be" if people were not refiugees or in need of asylum.

“People would be given a UN refugee identity and live in these camps, which I call UN Homelands" 

Where would these be?

“It could all be handled in an orderly fashion"

Tell the Australian Government.  They're our representatives at the UN.

"The real reason why the asylum seekers in our 'gated communities' (my new terminology here) are unhappy is because they have fallen for a Ponzi scheme."

Oh this IS going to be interesting!

"They paid people smugglers oodles of money with the promise of a permanent visa in Australia (or Europe for that matter) plus other perks - and then it did not eventuate"

No they paid what was probably the last of their money to escape war, persecution in the hope that they would be safe.  The majority return voluntarily

"They not only lost their money but also their face (shaming their families)."

Example of this shaming families...thx ... I'll wait

"This is no different to greedy Australians hoping for a high yield investing in a Ponzi scheme on the advice of crook financial planners - and then the thing collapses,  and the investors want their money back"

Exactly.  Of course. No different at all!  Right? Except  .... Greedy Australians aren't fleeing war zones and persecution.  Greedy Australians are not facing a terrifying journey in a small boat. Greedy Australians want more than they invested and some investors aren't greedy at all.  The people running the ponzi schemes certainly are.  Yet you don't bother to condemn them at all. 

Refugees and Asylum seekers just want safety.  They don't want their money back!

"I don't have any sympathy with those people-smuggled asylum seekers, although there are genuinely deserving asylum seekers around, just not among the money-paying variety."

 Asylum seekers, refugees, illegal immigrants, by far the majority and who come by plane don't have any money? AMAZING! Do they sneak on board?

MattQ 
Posted Thursday, March 26, 2015 - 00:54

Hey marga. Concentrating people into a camp, as distinct from dispersing them throughtout the country. Call it what it is. Manus, Nauru, and Villawood are concentration camps by the very definition of what they do: Concentrate a 'group' into a small space. Concentration camp is an entirely appropriate descriptor. They are 'camps' in which people are 'concentrated', or, if you like, 'non-dispersed'. You can go with 'non-dispersal camps', and no-one will know what you're on about. Hence the use of a phrase which is wholly descriptive of the purpose of their lodgings. To concentrate them in camps. I really don't think I can say it any clearer.