Each year Amnesty International releases an assessment of the human rights realities in the majority of countries around the world, and each year it is a sobering reminder of how governments are failing to deliver on their human rights promises.

Life on a boat carrying Tamil asylum seekers to Australia. Pic: AAP / CNN

Our 2010 report shows that torture or other ill-treatment were practised last year in at least 111 countries, there were unfair trials in at least 55 countries, restrictions on free speech in at least 96 countries and prisoners of conscience imprisoned in at least 48 countries. 18 countries executed their own citizens. And the list goes on.

The achievement of universal human rights relies on the world’s governments being held accountable for their actions. It relies on the international community enforcing international law and seeking justice for the victims of human rights violations.  All too often, however, powerful governments stand above the law on human rights and act only when it is politically expedient. 

2009 was a year in which accountability and justice seemed a remote ideal for many, as people’s lives continued to be torn apart by repression, violence, discrimination, power plays and political stalemates.

In Burma, 2200 political prisoners remained behind bars, in extremely poor conditions and with insufficient access to food, water or medical treatment.

In China, thousands of people were executed, including a significant number for non-violent crimes and after unfair trials.

Detentions in Guantanamo Bay were ongoing despite the US Government’s promise that the facility would close - and no-one has yet been made to answer for the abuses committed there.

One would be hard pressed to imagine a more complete failure to hold to account those who abuse human rights than the international community’s paralysis over Sri Lanka.

As reports of abuses by both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan military increased, the UN Security Council failed to intervene. At least 7000 people were killed - some have put the figure as high as 20,000. Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan Government dismissed all reports of war crimes by its forces and rejected calls for an international inquiry.

One year on, the situation for many groups in Sri Lanka remains volatile and dangerous. Despite the end of the conflict, persecution continues and thousands of people remain in camps. Human rights violations are rife and no-one is being held accountable.

So where does this lack of accountability leave the men, women and children facing extreme persecution in places such as Sri Lanka?  Many have no choice but to try and escape, and a small fraction of those fleeing have chosen to seek protection in Australia.

The current Australian debate around asylum seekers is a glaring example of governments seeking to dodge their obligations under international law.  Let’s not forget that asylum seekers are people; not mere statistics or pawns in some political game. We are talking about men, women and children - 90 per cent of whom are found to be genuine refugees who cannot return to their countries of origin because they face persecution.

Over recent weeks we have seen failures on the parts of both of the major Australian political parties in relation to the human rights of asylum seekers.

Despite professing its desire to be a leader in the Asia Pacific region and amongst the G20, in April the Government announced a freeze on the processing of asylum applications by Sri Lankan and Afghan nationals – a move that clearly breaches Australia’s international human rights obligations by discriminating against people on the basis of their nationality.

And just yesterday the opposition announced its plans to take Australia back to the darkest days of the Howard era in terms of its asylum seeker policy – an era in which many genuine refugees were forced to spend years warehoused in isolated detention centres.

In an effort to appear strong, the opposition is proposing the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas and the Pacific Solution, failed policies that punished vulnerable people for exercising their right to seek protection from persecution. These were policies that kept families separated, held genuine refugees behind bars and perpetuated fear and uncertainty for people fleeing violence and torture. As well as being inhumane, these policies broke international law.

Amnesty International’s findings from 2009 highlight that much more must be done to hold governments to account for their actions. That includes Australia. But the report also underscores the fact that some very important progress has been made.  The report celebrates a landmark year for international justice.

For the first time a sitting head of state, President Omar Hassan Al Bashir of Sudan, was named in an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur and Cambodia opened the UN-backed Khmer Rouge Tribunal.

In Peru, Alberto Fujimori was sentenced to 25 years in prison for overseeing torture, enforced disappearances and killings during his time as President.

States claiming global leadership have a responsibility to set an example when it comes to justice.  Yet many members of the G20, including Australia, are failing to fulfil their promises.

Justice matters.  Accountability matters. These are not abstract concepts.  They are crucially important values for those who suffer violations. They deter human rights abuses and ultimately deliver a more stable and secure world.

Governments must uphold human rights, and those in power must stop focusing on political expedience, stop dodging their responsibilities and deliver on their promises.

72 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      06:10am | 28/05/10

      Claire,

      You seem to miss a very basic point. Unless a country has something first world countries want eg oil or uranium, they don’t care and we the pople don’t care. We may pay lip service to condeming such abuses of human rights, but we are not going to put our butts on the line.

      As the world’s population increases lack of interest in the misery of others will decline. A person facing eviction from their home is not going to worry about some one the don’t know becoming a political prisioner.

      The only person who really cared we nailed to a cross years ago.

    • Zeta says:

      09:06am | 28/05/10

      Actually, any one who ever cares gets nailed to a cross. Or shot in the head while driving through Dallas. Or while they’re giving a sermon. Or while signing autographs. Or they’re locked in prison.

      I laugh when I think of how humanitarian and compassionate Kevin Rudd tried to sound during the last election. I have this theory that on every Prime Minister’s first day in office, he’s taken into a darkened room, deep in the bowel’s of Canberra’s Parliament House - and inside a bunch of old men smoking cigars are waiting for him. One of them says ‘Roll the tape Rupert’, and an old projector screen winds down and shows an idylic beach setting, obviously filmed from a point out in the ocean. Camera zooms on Harold Holt flopping about happily in the water. Then a trio of frogmen emerge from the waves and drag him under. Tape ends. Gravely voice says ‘Now Prime Minister, let’s talk policy…’

    • John A Neve says:

      10:30am | 28/05/10

      Zeta,

      I heard a different story which goes like this. Harold who was a very good swimmer was lolling in the water, relaxed and content with his world. He looked to the shore and saw Zara beckoning, his face clouded over, he turned and swam into the horizon.
      Peace be with you brother.

    • jacqueline says:

      06:12am | 28/05/10

      Yes i saw your interview on the agenda programme last night and how you conveniently ignored the fact that Mr Rudds policies on asylum seekers has probably caused better than 150 deaths through drowning in the last 12 months. You espouse your tirade against reality and good and caring people and ignore everything against your view of the World. PS we should look after Aussies first.

    • acotrel says:

      10:32am | 28/05/10

      ‘Mr Rudds policies on asylum seekers has probably caused better than 150 deaths through drowning in the last 12 months.’ -  Bit of a stretch?  -  Just like blaming Rudd for deaths in workplaces controlled by GRUBS!

    • crystal says:

      11:36am | 28/05/10

      PPS we should look after “earthlings” first

    • Youngster says:

      12:12pm | 28/05/10

      Absolutely correct. Although we will never know for sure, current information is that for every 40 people who have reached Australia on a leaky boat, one has died trying. “Humane” border security policies which encourage or reward people smuggling are a direct factor in these deaths.

    • Magilla says:

      12:40pm | 28/05/10

      No, not really a stretch….Rudd was warned on both accounts that these policies could cause deaths…yet still went ahead.

    • jacqueline says:

      12:42pm | 28/05/10

      Actrol 1 boat left Sri lanka in October 2009 with over 100 people on board heading for Aus, nothing heard since. 11 Sri lankans lost at sea Novermber 2009, 5 more drowned May 2010 and 59 rescued by Russian tanker near cocos Islands, 5 afghans die blowing up boat off Ashmore reef. 42 Afghans die of Malaysia heading for Australia 2nd Nov 2009

    • Eric says:

      06:15am | 28/05/10

      Give me a break. Taking in asylum shoppers has nothing to do with human rights. It’s a matter of people who are perfectly safe in Indonesia, choosing to exploit outdated treaties to take advantage of Australia.

      Amnesty International used to be a human rights advocacy organisation which concerned itself purely with helping political prisoners. Now, it’s lost its credibility by becoming another lobby group for the politically correct cause of the day.

    • acotrel says:

      10:41am | 28/05/10

      ‘Taking in asylum shoppers has nothing to do with human rights. It’s a matter of people who are perfectly safe in Indonesia, choosing to exploit outdated treaties to take advantage of Australia.’  Perhaps you should ask Tony Abbott to publicly declare that he will work to rescind Australia’s signatory status with the UNHCR ? - When Menzies signed it he probably wasn’t of sound mind?

    • DM says:

      08:25am | 05/06/10

      Eric - it’s very rare that I actually agree with you. But in this case, nailed it.

      It is not up to the world leaders to change how things are in other countries, these other countries don’t care what everyone else thinks, until their citizens stand up and say ‘No More’ they will continue to do it, it will take civil war in some of these places (not all) before something happens and I don’t see why the 1st or even 2nd world countries need to but their noses in where they don’t belong

    • S.L says:

      07:25am | 28/05/10

      Jaqueline you are 100% right! No one forced those people onto those unseaworthy boats and besides where did they get the money for their passage? As has been mentioned before if they could afford the extorsionist rates the people smugglers ask for then why didn’t they just hop on a plane with a tourist visa in hand then happily disappear once they walk out of Mascot, Tulamarine etc?

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:36am | 28/05/10

      S.L; that is a very simplistic view if not a simpleton view. To think that prosecuted peoples from these areas are able to walk in and apply for passports let alone book a flight. You oviously have no idea of the reality of the situation some of these people find themselves in.

    • S.L says:

      09:48am | 28/05/10

      Mr Charteris then how did they get to Indonesia in the first place? They aren’t using that country as a public transport interchange. They are flying there on comercial airlines. They are paying US $10,000 plus to a people smuggler, where do they get the money for that? I have been to third world countries and the situation is quite hopeless for the average peasant but these boat people are further up the food chain.

    • Nicole says:

      09:56am | 28/05/10

      Rob r, that view is not simplistic at all. It’s a proven fact that most of these people fly to Malaysia and make their journey from there. So why jump on a leaky boat and risk their lives when they are safe and can start the process of seeking asylum there? Because they are Country shoppers. And Jaqueline is correct. Look after our own first, charity begins at home.

    • Trevor says:

      01:35pm | 28/05/10

      It seems rather odd to claim that people fly to Malaysia. If you can fly to Malaysia, why not fly to Australia?

      My main point, though, is that far too often when people are accused of being ‘country-shoppers’ or however you want to describe it, there seems to be a complete ignorance of the fact that only some countries have actually signed up to the Refugee Convention.  The ONLY country that’s a signatory anywhere between here and Afghanistan / Sri Lanka, even with a generous interpretation of possible routes, is Cambodia which is not on the natural Indian Ocean route.  It is not as if people are arriving in Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia and blithely ignoring these countries as resettlement options in preference for Australia.  Those countries have no obligation to accept refugees.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      02:02pm | 28/05/10

      Nicole says:09:56am; If they’re jumping on aeroplanes, why not just fly straight to Australia. I think you will find only a small percentage are actually doing that. And a big chunk of those are on forged traveling documents from secondary coutries like Parkistan. I dont think you’ll find Tamils from Sri Lanka jumping on planes but mostly on boats leaving their own shores. Not only are the opposition climate deniers, they are also GFC deniers, and deniers of war refugees. To try and make political points from the direction they are now going just shows the calibre of the like of Abbott

    • jacqueline says:

      03:03pm | 28/05/10

      Rob they come by boat coz the Govt wouldnt issue visas from afghanistan or sri lanka or malaysia or Indonesia or iraq or iran or the sudan without a good reason.  a bit obvious my friend

    • Nicole says:

      03:53pm | 28/05/10

      @Trevor they may not have an obligation to accept them, but they do accept them. Take the Sri Lankans who hi-jacked the Oceanic Viking for example. It was proven that most of them had already been granted asylum in Indonesia and had been living there for up to five years. Their lives were not in danger, so why did they want to come here? Economical purposes only.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      04:39pm | 28/05/10

      jacqueline says:03:03pm; that makes no sense at all. Get with the program

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      04:50pm | 28/05/10

      jacqueline says:03:03pm; example 200 000 Tamils rotting in Sri Lankan refugee camps being subjected to ethic cleansing. And their biggest concern (according to you) is the government here isn’t issuing visa’s and that is why they’re jumping on boats??? are you really serious contending that?

    • rahi says:

      12:32pm | 29/05/10

      S.L, very ignorant argument. If they would get the visa so easy , they would all catch the plane, they wouldnt risk their lives. Ask them how hard it is for them to get visa.

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:37am | 28/05/10

      I love the fact you give it to Australia and other “leading” countries for locking away refugees. While not an advocate of the practice surely living on Christmas Island with shelter, food and security provided would be far better than the hellhole that are refugee camps or even worse the countries they come from.

      How about instead of “States claiming global leadership have a responsibility to set an example when it comes to justice” we focus on some of these countries that actually commit torture, restrict free speech, and hold unfair trials. But that is just an easy pot-shot at misunderstood, and complicated cultures/religions/regions on the planet, it is far better to attack the west and our selfish attitudes.

    • Grumbles says:

      04:06pm | 28/05/10

      Thats the crux of it isn’t it. These “detention centres” must be luxury compared to living in war torn Sri Lanka, Afganistan or Iraq. Things that people kill for in those countries are provided as daily neccessaties to those in centres like Nauru. They also get entertainment, security, food and water, medical assistance, education, sanitation, law and order etc. Really they should be thanking us.

      The reason these “asylum seekers” don’t come here by plane and disapear is there is no gravy train for those types they have to make their own way without generous government handouts.

      Once in detention they whinge and whine till they get hooked up to the public teat for the rest of their lives.

    • Practicality Pat says:

      08:17am | 28/05/10

      The UN Convention for Refugees was made in 1951 and the 1967 Protocol has Australia blackmailed with archaic treaties made for those times.  Another protocol must be made so we can have a say as to who comes to Australia, whether by sea or air.  Many of these univited guests may not be queue jupers in a legal sense, but they come through countries where they are safe but know Australia is a soft touch for refugees, costing us billions while may Australians do not have a roof over their head, nor a hospital bed and our infrastructure is breaking down.  And when many arrive, they want to continue with their archaic custums such as genital mutilation.

    • acotrel says:

      10:46am | 28/05/10

      You should ask Tony Abbott to publicly declare that he will work to rescind australia’s signatory status with the UNHCR.  He could claim that Menzies wasn’t of sound mind when he signed it!

    • Trevor says:

      01:36pm | 28/05/10

      Those other ‘safe’ countries have absolutely no obligation to accept people for resettlement, as they have not signed the Convention.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:42am | 28/05/10

      Howard’s pacific solution didn’t stop asylum seekers coming to Australia and it wont stop them as Abbott wants you to believe. The fact is over 50% of those peoples ended up in Australia permanently because no other coutry would take them, and that is FACT!

    • George says:

      09:25am | 28/05/10

      @Rob r Charteris

      Yes the Pacific Solution didn’t stop the ‘illegals’ from coming but it surely didn’t encourage their arrival because now more than ever thanks to KRudd Australia is a ‘soft target’.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      10:41am | 28/05/10

      George; After Kev stopped the processing of applications on certain nationalities I dont think you can call him a soft target anymore. And it proves policy ISN’T to pulling factor you claim it is.

    • acker says:

      09:05am | 28/05/10

      I live in a Riverina (Western NSW) irrigation community and Sri Lankan, Pacific and other Sub Continent people have intergrated in fairly well out here.

      In Griffith Indian’s have purchased irrigation properties and are succesfully farming small crops (fruit and veg) efficiently using high security water to grow these crops on smaller parcels of land.

      Unlike larger rice farms which is not such an efficient use of water using flood irrigation on larger properties using large quantities of low security water (often mainly available after droughts)

      I think there is scope to incorporate some kind of settlement of refugees in tandem with a government buyout of some large corporate rice properties with large low security water entitlements, where in turn the state and federal government combine to create

      *smaller economical viable parcels of land
      *smaller parcels of high security water that grow more water efficient crops such as fruit and vegies
      *require low skilled labor such as refugee arrivals
      *farm size small enough for aspirational refugee entrapenuers to attain property ownership
      *provides a nucleus for people of the same culture to establish a home base
      *many Western NSW towns currently have declining populations
      *many Western NSW have schools and hospitals operating well below capacity
      *many Western NSW towns have empty houses
      *Western NSW towns do not have an unexhaustable supply of charity and hand-outs, so if this scheme took place the state & federal government would have to adequately resource it, financialy and putting public servants, refugee counselors, interpretors and special teachers out on the deck in prospective Western NSW settlement locations
      *urban based refugee advocates such as Amnesty International would have to let go of the notion that refugees have 100% rights to settle in urban areas if they are not adequately skilled to suit being employed in urban environments, including being able to afford to live close enough to urban employment and be paid a high enough salary without requiring government housing

      I think if we can get a better deal for asylum seekers, refugees and Australian community acceptance if, Federal, State and Local Governments and various departments including immigration, population, lands department, environment, agriculture, local government, planning, health, education, housing, social security and treasury can get together, possibly even form a working group which could include some Federal and State Ministers and representatives from Local Western NSW Councils that could be prospectively considered.

    • Zeus says:

      09:19am | 28/05/10

      @acker - Your multisectoral solution is so ‘utopian’ , but I agree that it has potentials.

    • acker says:

      10:23am | 28/05/10

      I agree Zeta it is a bit utopian but some groups on both sides of this debate have dug themselves deep into some entrenched positions that I think they could negotiate between themselves to get out of

      Firstly I will assert that the mainstream political parties Labor and Liberal are both just following the public hyperbole vote chasing on this issue

      I actually think there is some common ground that can be achieved between the Greens and the Nationals on this issue

      The Nationals traditionally support the use and availability of low cost/low skilled labor to harvest, plant and maintain intensive fruit and vegetable crops

      The Greens traditionally support the settlement of low skilled refugees and asylum seekers in Australia

      Sticking points appear to be

      The Nationals are concerned about the Government just dumping refugees and asylum seekers into rural communities without providing adequate finances and resources upon placing them

      *example: The Government put a few hundred low skilled African immigrants/refugees in Wagga in a very short period of time recently. That group stretched the non government charity organizations in Wagga to breaking point, because the Federal Government dropped them there in a city of about 40,000 people (adding almost 1% to Wagga’s population) and forgot them. And did provide adequate financial, social, housing, furnishing, interpreting, teaching, cultural plus other necessary on the ground at Wagga resources.

      This is what left a bitter taste in the Nationals mouths about how this is being handled.

      The Greens are worried about these refugees and asylum seekers being located in rural areas

      *example The Government was planning on putting some asylum seekers from overcrowded Xmas Island in the Outback West Australian gold mining town of Leonora, where the local Mayor was welcoming
      there arrival. Senator Hanson-Young had different ideas and seemed to think that the asylum seekers had some god given right to be located in a city.

      I think if the government sends out and continues to provide the appropriate resources with these migrant/refugee/asylum seekers to rural communities that the Nationals will be more negotiable about the idea, remembering rural town population decline is a big problem in a lot of National Party seats.

      And I think if the government sends out and continues to provide the appropriate resources with these migrants/refugees/asylum seekers to rural communities, most of Greens Senator Hansen-Youngs assertions about the need to settle these people in urban environments will look pretty stupid. And Greens will support these people being settled on the mainland not necessarily the city.

      And finally if done properly locating these people in areas wanting more people such as rural areas shows a positive step rather than pumping them into a city often struggling with overpopulation and congestion.

      Key words ..If done properly by the government..not done on the cheap, cutting corners, by remote control by public servants and bureaucrats that remain based in cities (they have to move to and live in the rural areas)

      *Australia is ranked in the top 8% most urbanized nations on the Earth
      *Australia is ranked in the bottom 4% population density nations on Earth

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

    • stephen says:

      12:06pm | 28/05/10

      Top stuff acker, and some States i hope, are already on to it.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:38am | 28/05/10

      Why is it that these professional handwringers still cannot see the glaring difference between ‘Asylum Seekers’ and ‘Country Shoppers’ ??

      Is it ignorance or just plain pigheaded stupidity?

      Until they can acknowledge the difference I couldn’t give a rats arse at anything else they might have to bleat about.

    • Trevor says:

      01:39pm | 28/05/10

      If we’re going to talk about shopping, have you checked which countries are actually on shelves?  We signed up to be on the list of options for refugees.  Indonesia hasn’t, Malaysia hasn’t, Thailand hasn’t.  The majority of countries that haven’t signed the Refugee Convention just happen to be on the route from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

      If we’re going to talk about ignorance, I think that’s where you need to start.

    • Nathan says:

      03:13pm | 28/05/10

      @Trevor, so refusing to sign the convention just absolves Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand etc from all responsibility, does it? Isn’t that an issue in itself, or do we just gloss over that because it’s mostly non-western countries?

      The left wing bleeding hearts revel in criticising their own country, a country signed up and taking in some refugees, but countries that are doing far less get off scot free. Would Indonesia etc be so immune to criticism from the lefties if they were a majority ‘white’ country?

    • Trevor says:

      03:51pm | 28/05/10

      @Nathan, I would agree that’s an issue in itself.  I just think, though, that when people say “why do they come here instead of [country X]”, it’s important to understand that there ARE differences between countries and their obligations.  Whether there SHOULD be differences is a question as well.

    • jacqueline says:

      10:01am | 28/05/10

      You know if you guys would only realise you will get more support with sweet than sour. I would have thought you would be in agreement with any plan than potentially saved asylum seekers lives. And if took of your anti western blindfold and spent some time supporting sensible deterrents to people wanting to put their lives at risk by basically queue jumping. You might find more support from western countries to take in more asylum seekers. In Australia I understand we take in around 13000 per anum no matter how they arrive. And your blind stirring only put up the shutters and encourages politicians to get ever tougher as is happening around the World. Remember you attract more bears with honey than lemon juice.

    • PG says:

      10:02am | 28/05/10

      Just another whine from a bunch of self appointed guardians of the public morality who are quite happy to tell other people how they ought to think and how they ought to behave and what moral code they should live by. Not happy with that they also believe they have some entitlement to say how other people should spend their money. I didn’t sign any treaties or human rights conventions nor was I consulted when someone else signed them on my behalf. I don’t feel under any obligation to assist anybody and that is especially true when someone is bludgeoning me and telling me that I have to uphold other peoples rights. I have no problem with people feeling that they should assist others. Get on with it. Put them up in your house, pay their medical and educational bills and all other costs associated but leave me and my tax dollar out of it.

    • John says:

      10:09am | 28/05/10

      I think we should look closer at the role of NGO’s in this debate who may actually seek to promote illegal arrivals. They have their own political agendas. Refugees are now a big industry for better or worse. The main problem is that NGOs shield themselves from accountability. They provide ways for unqualified and self-serving people to acquire money, influence, and power; and their income depends upon manipulating public opinion, which means garnering support from politicians, other bureaucracies, and the elites.

      There is many thousands of Australia family’s homeless and living on the streets. But because it’s not sexy enough for likes of Amnesty or the urban elites these people are forgotten.

    • fred says:

      10:12am | 28/05/10

      Amnesty International is a watchdog, a report card writer and a welcome critic of the abuses of the rights of human beings everywhere. We are not exempt . That our report card is so critical of the unequal position and treatment of the original inhabitants of this great country should make us change our behaviour. Listen up, Kevin and Tony.  Bob Geldof gave us a real serve about the unequal rights of and inadequate services for of aboriginal Australians, and he is right to name the disgrace and dishonour on all our governemnts,  and on us as a nation.

      I welcome Amnesty shining the floodlights on the illegal obstruction of asylum seekers who want and need protection.Stopping the boats is really about stopping asylum seekers and in our case, asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka (and other cess pits of persecution) with a more than 90% confirmation rate. Yes, they are refugees. Process them inside our borders like civilised countries do! Why not front up to our international obligations, and find a safe place for a few thousand people who have proven the persecution is personal and of their ethnic minority. In a country where 68 000 people go to watch a rugby game this week, what’s a few thousand refugees who will reward the nation with the fruits of their labour and the talents of their integrated well educated children? Our political leaders are mis-leading us into international disrepute. We are a laughing stock in the developed world for our hysteria about a small number of desperate people who cross our border. We can chose how many refugees we select for resettlement from the UNHCR waiting lists in Africa, Thailand, Iran etc but we are legally obligated to protect and process asylum seekers who dare and risk all, and make it to our shores. It’s churlish and wrong to cease the processing for political reasons. Where is our humanity?

    • Bertrand says:

      10:15am | 28/05/10

      Amnesty International currently count amongst their highest counsels a certain Mozzam Begg. This paraphrases Gita Saghal, a previous office holder in Amnesty in respect to Begg:

      At first the Amnesty suggested that Begg only expressed his experiences of detention (in guantanamo); and that they did not promote his views (suggesting that his views fell somewhat short of a belief in the universality of human rights). Soon, they claimed that his views were indeed universalist but that he supported ‘defensive jihad.’ – (which is, after all waged to establish systematic discrimination).  Amnesty International felt that this view was not ‘antithetical to human rights. Although he published in a Muslim Brotherhood journal and has associated with the Jamaat I Islami, the senior leadership decided to endorse him as a human rights advocate.”

      So while AI criticize the Australian Government for not letting sufficient numbers of asylum seekers into the country, they seek the advice of associates of the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations. Worse, they sack members of AI who point out that fundamentalist Islam is hardly in keeping with universal human rights.

    • Jon says:

      02:29pm | 28/05/10

      Thank Bertrand, I was a members years ago this is one of the reasons I left.  The same type influence has recently happen to the UN.

      The UN Human Rights Council is not allowed to judge religions, according to president Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. Criticism of Sharia law or fatwas is now forbidden.

      This ruling follows attempts by the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates at the Council to silence criticism of human rights abuse in the Islamic world. Where Amnesty? - silent!

      I think it is time to leave the UN as a protest, maybe K Rudd will help us that, he’s silent too.

    • 6c legs says:

      10:21am | 28/05/10

      Gee, imagine how much further it’ll drop if GW Abott and Julie Palin are elected…

      Amnesty lost all credibility for me when it allowed one phillip ruddick to be its poster boy.

    • acotrel says:

      10:36am | 28/05/10

      I live in Benalla, and visit Shepparton fairly often.  There are many islamic asylum seekers which have resettled there.  The street violence in that town is not caused by these new citizens!

    • No More Bleeding Hearts says:

      11:05am | 28/05/10

      Does claiming ‘leadership on human rights’ mean that we have to give permanent residence to anyone that rocks up here on boat? Even long after after their conflicts have ended? Surely we’re better off increasing foreign aid to these places than opening the flood gates of mass-immigration? And please don’t tell me the numbers are small.  The numbers are enormous when you add in family reunions and chain migration which continues for decades long after the first “refugee” has arrived.

    • casba says:

      11:27am | 28/05/10

      @acrotel
      Haven’t you heard about the boat that set out from the INdonesian islands to seek Australian asylum in October last year and has not been heard of since?  Over 100+ people (unknown numbers) have not been heard of since. But the press conveniently keeps that one under wraps!

    • acotrel says:

      08:41pm | 28/05/10

      I’ve heard the slander that ‘Rudd has blood on his hands’ !  That he has been assigned resonsibility for many things over which he has no direct control.  If you argue slightly more perversely you can determine that he was responsible for Howard’s mistreatment of asylum seekers too!

    • Blossom says:

      12:36pm | 28/05/10

      I have been on the internet for many years, when children overboard came up, I was visiting an International chat room, I got alot of flack over it. The story went world wide, I spun the lies Howard told us as a defence to us ordinary Australian’s. Only later to have to retract when it was revealed it was lies. I don’t want another era of lies, and children behind razer wire. I feel Abbott is just a Howard clone , unable to make his own policy. I want both side to show humanity.

    • Jay says:

      01:56pm | 28/05/10

      The answer is not to keep trying to save these poor people by bringing them to Australia.It will be an endless task. The answer is to make the UN a legitimate force that can be sent into coutries where despots and lunatics operate and remove them from power and install a democracy.The rich countries will not hesitate to help out to rebuild these countries, but the world has not resolve to make the hard calls because it is not politically correct. Three countries where you could start is Sudan,Zimbabwe and Somalia.

    • Bethany says:

      02:09pm | 28/05/10

      “90 per cent of whom are found to be genuine refugees”
      This figure simply reflects the impossibility of accurately assessing an individual’s circumstances when that individual has discarded their identity documents.

    • No More Bleeding Hearts says:

      02:56pm | 28/05/10

      The problem with accepting large numbers of asylum seekers as permanent residents is that it places a massive burden on our welfare system; increases crime and racial tensions and establishes large enclaves of unassimilable foreigners who share nothing in common with the Australian-born. It’s about bloody time somebody called a spade a spade. The UN refugee convention was drawn up in the era before mass-immigration and the mass movement of peoples. Most of what passes for a humanitarian intake these days is just Labor’s highly successful program of building up a stable bloc of ethnic voters which it then uses to stack its branches and curry electoral favours from. The best way to solve the problem is places like Sri Lanka is to offer them foreign aid and investment and UN intervention where necessary - not soft touch lefty immigration laws that encourage them to get onto the boats and try their luck immigrating a western country.

    • Crash says:

      11:55am | 29/05/10

      Yeah, we should really make sure that these people fleeing persecution stop and apply for a passport from their oppressing government before they get on a boat to escape.

    • Hamish says:

      02:43pm | 28/05/10

      I really pity the guys at Amnesty. I mean, they used to be a serious organisation. Now they’re just another undemocratic, non-representative westerner-bashing NGO targeting the guilty middle-class in developed countries for their share of the global hand-wringing dollar.

      The fact is Australia is pretty low on the list of human rights abusers. Sure, we only house ex-terrorists from the Tamil Tigers who show up uninvited with no identity documents in slightly better accommodation than that to which they’ve been accustomed, but we’re still slightly better than Iran aren’t we?

      Maybe we could promise to re-house all the 16 million+ registered refugees worldwide. I wonder, would that make Amnesty happy? Of course, a lot of the people who come on boats aren’t registered but we’d only have to add another 5-10 million on top of the 16 million. I mean, it would be a disaster for all the people who are already here, but they don’t count, do they.

    • Andrew says:

      04:35pm | 28/05/10

      How many times does it have to be said, “Boat people are NOT refugees or asylum seekers.” They are endeavouring to enter Australia by bypassing the formal processes. They are queue jumpers in the sense that they are not willing to go through the standard channels. This has nothing to do with desperation and everything to do with economics. They are impatient. They are not prepared to wait their turn. Some simply want a better life elsewhere. They are not fleeing persecution or fear of death because of their beliefs.
      No boat person should ever be given permanent residence status. That alone would reduce so-called asylum seekers. Such a policy would not be unkind - we would be expected to return to Australia if we sought asylum elsewhere and the circumstances changed at home.  This is ‘do-gooder’ policy not international law - and it is a disaster for countries already in need of help and now losing their professional people and able-bodied young.

    • Nicole says:

      07:04pm | 28/05/10

      @Andrew, how many times does it have to be said? Until you’re unconscious, your head is black and blue, because you’ve been banging it up against a brick wall. Then you come to, and begin the process again, until you’re unconscious again. It’s a painful, vicious cycle, and it bloody hurts too. Bleeding hearts just won’t listen.

    • Trevor says:

      12:55am | 29/05/10

      @Andrew, it doesn’t have to be said because it simply isn’t true. The Howard Government determined that over 90% of the boat people WERE refugees!!

    • Polly Waffle says:

      06:48pm | 28/05/10

      If the UN Council for Refugees cannot comment on any religion, then Sharia Law can be imported by boat or air at any time at a costline or airport near you.  The UN Convention for Refugees whould be revoked immediately and an Australian Refugee Convention drawn up in a realistic way which mirrors the problems this country has at the moment - lack of water, hospital beds, and the multiculture of genital mutilation and the problem of putting religion ahead of the laws of the land.

    • Michael W says:

      07:02pm | 28/05/10

      Claire, you are so far wrong in your article that I’m not certain where to start. Let’s just look at one glaring point that you seem to gloss right over - you say that ‘assylum seekers’ (or Illegal Entrants, as I would call them) have a universal human right to seek sanctuary from persecution. Absoultely correct! I could not agree more with that point. Which is precisely why their ‘escape’ should end at the first country that they enter WHERE THEY ARE NOT persecuted. In a lot of the illegal ‘boat people’ cases, they launch their final leg of the journey from Indonesia. Sri Lanka -> Indonesia -> Australia. Wrong! No, these are people that want the fantastic life that we enjoy here, and quite frankly who could blame them, but at the expense of others in similar situations who do it the right way.

    • Harquebus says:

      11:53am | 29/05/10

      We don’t have a bill of rights so have no right to comment on human rights.

    • SomeS.Alad says:

      02:24pm | 29/05/10

      The government is damned if they do, and damned if they dont?! They are slagged against the wall if they dont help the asylum seekers and damned if they do.
      I think asylum seekers should be the property of the country they originated from, why should it be Australias burden to help them on board. Not only are boarder protection staff put in life and death situations but at some time or rather there is going to be no more room for these asylum seekers and no more money to help them.

    • Martin Alster says:

      05:28pm | 29/05/10

      “I think asylum seekers should be the property of the country they originated from” - surely, if one is seeking asylum FROM a country that is abusing you, then to be seen as its ‘property’ is simply handing a person back to a ‘bully’ for further retribution (my mother escaped Communist Yugoslavia & those who went back - particularly from the educated middle classes - were taken off the trains at the border & shot, for trying to leave was seen as being a traitor). I’m not sure anyone is the ‘property’ of any country, are we?
      If Australia is a signatory to the relevant international agreements on human rights & the treatment of those seeking asylum, then doesn’t this   mean it is our ‘burden’ to help fellow humans in distress? Isn’t that a good thing to do anyway? If we can’t help those in distress (when we’re able to) then what sort of people have we become?

    • Little Miss Scifi says:

      01:09am | 30/05/10

      God, most of you people are so racist. It makes me ashamed to be Australian. And you hide it behind you arguments of ‘they should come here the legal way’. 

      When you’re running for you life I’m sure legality is the last thing on your mind.

      Are you really that scared that these people are going to take something from you?  Perhaps if your situations were reversed you’d think differently.

    • No More Bleeding Hearts says:

      11:55am | 30/05/10

      Little Miss Scifi I am ashamed tool. Ashamed that I lived in a country with so many brainwashed, naive bleeding hearts. Anyone that disagrees with a lefty is a nasty widdle wacist.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:26am | 30/05/10

      Quite an interesting news conference with Abbott and Morrison this morning outside what appears to be detention centre blabbing on with his usual scare factor rectoric. Then a member of the public fronted him and asked him if he was telling the truth and if this was a core promise. and laughably he and Morrison couldn’t get out of there fast enough saying no comment. I mean Wow!!! two opposition front benchers one being the leader couldn’t stand the heat of one simple question from one joe public. What a gutless coward and a fraud and that’s the gospel truth.

    • Policy observer says:

      04:30pm | 30/05/10

      While I agree that Government policy is abhorrent (both Labor and Liberal) I found Clare’s article confusing and I suppose shallow. Just what is she proposing that we do - take more refugees? Just how many of the 20 million (and the 2 million new ones a year does she say we should take ?

      A more sensible argument is to consider what Australia is good at providing. We are a wealthy nation and our best asset is not settlement (for a paltry 14,000 a year) but cash. We spend between $2 and $5 billion a year on settled refugees (it depends how you count it). Why not spend that money to prevent the cause or to redevelop the host country? Wouldn’t that help many, many more?

      It seems to me that the most humane approach is certainly not Clare’s.

    • Tolerance Drought says:

      05:48pm | 30/05/10

      If we are a wealthy nation, why are so many people on hospital waiting lists?  Why are so many unable to afford houses.  Why aren’t there enough police on the streets, and kids being molested?  It seems our standard of living is falling and yet bleed hearts want to acccept more refugees instead of spending money to prevent the causes of overseas conflicts.

    • PG says:

      06:02pm | 04/06/10

      All the pro asylum seeker crowd and most of the anti-asylum seeker crowd just don’t get it.  I do not have any responsibility to look after anyone and I don’t intend to. I don’t expect anyone to look after me. You are all quite welcome to support your refugee of choice if you wish. Don’t expect my financial support in helping you to feel good. Nor should you expect my government’s support (using my money).  You won’t embarrass me by calling me racist, selfish or heartless. I freely confess that I am guilty of all those virtues.

    • Loz says:

      03:50pm | 21/06/10

      Unfortunately, yes you do. You pay taxes, that contribute towards the wellbeing of our population. That is your responsibility. You don’t have a choice. You can’t opt-out. If you get sick, you will go to hospital - which is funded by the tax-payer. So other people are looking after you.
      All that said - while I don’t agree with any form of the government imposing their ideals of what’s right and wrong on anyone else… I’m pretty sure it’s human decency to give someone a hand up when they’re down. Regardless of whether they came by boat or plane.

    • George says:

      09:42am | 22/06/10

      With a history such as Australia’s in the slave (black birding) trade and the virtual extermination of Tasmania’s aboriginals, who are Australians to preach amnesty or racism? A few pathetic apologies, an annual “sorry day” and kissing the ass of a black American President just for his color does not cut the mustard internationally, no matter how many “asylum seekers” you take in. Instead of giving Australia away to these suspect refugees who have nothing to offer but increased crime, how about giving it back to the aboriginals from whom it was stolen.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 Very difficult to believe the excitment of 'Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme' website doesn't have ppl all over it.

Malcolm Farr

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 As for the 'Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping' website, just how do you contain your excitement?

Malcolm Farr

RT @lynlinking: @farrm51 Well the links should be posted on Twitter more, by people that care about the Government. Perhaps the MSM could help cheers lyn

Malcolm Farr

941 web sites and nothing to read. The rarely visited http://t.co/vPfJmesu sites. http://t.co/MhXMyvZv

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

It’s usually best to avoid putting too many statistics in a post but reading the ACTU’s report…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: The greatest ending to a football season ever?

Dave B says:

Congratulations & well deserved win! I've been a Utd supporter from 7 years of age, even stuck with them when they went down to the 2nd Div. However, despite the X-town rivalry & even as a devout MU fan, I can say that I truly admired the determination, courage & skill shown by the Blues - What a spectacle,… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter