Prev
Next

Is Facebook a human right?

Tory Maguire

by Tory Maguire

02 Nov 11:15am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Asylum Seekers, Boat People, Facebook, Human Rights, Nauru, Refugees, Social Media

90 comments

If you stage a hunger strike on a remote Pacific island and no one can “like” it on Facebook, has it really happened?

Wish you were here… LOL

It sounds like an indulgence doesn’t it. They’re still living in tents but the asylum-seekers on Nauru have set up a Facebook page.

It’s unlikely the 400 residents of the tent city that has sprung up on Nauru are using their allocated Facey time to “like” wry graphic illustrations of the creative process or swap selfies captioned: “kicking back on my own tropic island… wonder what the other half is doing today…”

They’re using their half-hour per person every two days of internet access to lobby for their return to the Australian mainland.

Activists have lauded the page as an opportunity for Australians to get a better understanding of what the asylum-seekers are going through, and for detainees to get their message out.

The Australian government has an obligation to make sure detainees’ human rights are met.

You would expect the basics to be covered. Shelter, food, health care, education, mental health services, access to legal advice, something to take your mind of the excruciating tedium.

But in a world where one of the biggest issues facing those New Yorkers who were not in immediate physical danger was their ability to communicate after phone batteries went flat, electronic communication has crossed into the “must have” list.

It would be unthinkable for the Nauru camp to be cut off from the traditional channels of communication such as a postal service.

The world-over your “one phone call” is afforded even the most reviled criminals.

While for most of us Facebook is an indulgence, for some people it’s a life-line. Denying them the modern day equivalent of a phone call could be a human rights about face.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

90 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dan Ryan says:

      10:29am | 02/11/12

      Interesting thoughts Tory. As the UN Youth Representative for Australia, I recently addressed the UN General Assembly and focused on the role of social media - an increasingly important topic closely linked to principals of human rights. The video and script is at http://www.unyouthrep. com/speech

      Reply

    • A Concerned Citizen says:

      01:57pm | 02/11/12

      This is quite a difficult issue to make a statement about;

      Certainly the provision of internet and the ability to communicate with the world is becoming an increasingly important and useful (and asylum seekers this is no exception).

      On the other hand, we are denying these provisions simply by not paying to bring them over and install them and keep them running- and I definitely understand the opposition to it considering many regard the asylum seekers as unwelcome intruders, and right now are technically squatters.

    • John Taylor says:

      04:13pm | 02/11/12

      Can we not have youth reps who know how to spell?  That would be “principles” Dan.

    • Klanger says:

      10:30am | 02/11/12

      I think these refugees knew what they were in for when they got on the boat.
      5 years on Nauru is nothing compared to what they are leaving behind.
      Do the time willingly or go back to where you came from.

      Reply

    • Iron Chef says:

      10:59am | 02/11/12

      Klanger, you’re a good example of nominative predeterminism. Fancy those greedy refugees wanting a better life for themselves.

    • Klanger says:

      11:17am | 02/11/12

      Iron Chef
      Sorry, I haven’t got a clue what nominative predeterminism means.
      I do know that predeterminism was underlined in red when I typed it in here.
      I am sure that all refugees want a better life for themselves, hell I would go so far as to say everyone refugee or not wants a better life for themselves and that includes Gina and Clive.  I’m truly sorry if you think they are greedy.
      Please enlighten me as to what you meant by nominative predeterminism and try to keep it simple for me.

    • lower_case_andrew says:

      11:38am | 02/11/12

      @Klanger

      “Sorry, I haven’t got a clue what nominative predeterminism means.”

      It’s a wanker’s term. It basically means your name fits your role/job/life.

      e.g. it’s more likely you’ll be a bread maker than a neuroscientist if your surname is Baker.

    • hazym says:

      11:53am | 02/11/12

      Klanger,
      Nominative (pre)determinism is a smart-arse way of saying that your views are determined by your name ie you dropped a klanger with your post. It’s used by insecure people who think that making their writing incomprehensible to the average reader somehow proves their intelligence.

      One might counter that anyone with the word ‘iron’ in their name is incapable of flexible thought.

    • fred says:

      11:57am | 02/11/12

      The former refugees( now fellow Australians)  I know were all about HAVING a life- for themselves and for their families… escaping the fate of fathers, elder brothers persecuted to death etc

      Sure , they know how to suffer, and 5 years without work rights, separated from destitute unprotected loved ones will be suffering big time, but is it necessary, is it humane, will it stop persecuted people from trying to find a safe country?

    • Borderer says:

      12:01pm | 02/11/12

      Nominative predterminism - Nominative, to choose. Predterminism - to predetermine an outcome. Essentially in this context to it is intended to appear interllectually superior by using an excessive quantity of words that essentially mean the same thing. Also known as being a prat, douche etc.

    • Gregg says:

      01:37pm | 02/11/12

      @Fred
      ” The former refugees( now fellow Australians)  I know were all about HAVING a life- for themselves and for their families… escaping the fate of fathers, elder brothers persecuted to death etc

      Sure , they know how to suffer, and 5 years without work rights, separated from destitute unprotected loved ones will be suffering big time, but is it necessary, is it humane, will it stop persecuted people from trying to find a safe country? “

      There’s no question that many refugees will make a great contribution to Australia and have a better life here just as many other immigrants will, but we always can so easily lose sight of the fact that Australia as with other countries only has a particular capacity and we have had a humanitarian program working very well in an ordely manner that goes back decades.

      The two big questions are:
      1. Why do these people consider they can just push ahead before others just because they have money.
      2. Do we want to have people dying at sea on the way here and/or continually wearing out naval vessels doing recues that Indonesia could not give a stuff about in their waters.

      The smaller questions are the matters of:
      Just how much of a need for asylum do they have and just what level of services should Australia have to provide when these people ought to be in a refugee camp waiting their turn.

      I suppose the more people we have prepared to put themselves first, the more and more activists and people you will call Australians we will have.

    • firefly says:

      04:36pm | 02/11/12

      Agreed Klanger. +1

    • JTZ says:

      05:34pm | 02/11/12

      @gregg a very valid point. Sadly when i say i dont support boat arrivals i am accussed of being racist. The reason i dont support them is because I knowbthere are ppl living in refugee camps around the world who live in fear everyday at thr possibility of attack and murder by groups. The UN likes to boast about this and that but yet they have never and will not ever change the rules of engagement that peace keepers are under. When a refugee vamp is attacked the UN peace keepers are unable to react unless fired upon and many of these militias know this.

      If the UN was truly serious about protecting refugees at camps give thw UN peacekeepers the power to protect.

      Secondly many of those in the camps are there with nothing. Niether do they have money or the ability to pay the thousands. In the recent information release from immigration it showed our intact from these camps in near nil as the spots have beeb filled by asylum seekers.

    • AdamC says:

      10:35am | 02/11/12

      I see no reason to arbitrarily deny asylum seekers in the Nauru refugee camp access to Facebook. To me, it is not so much the lack of access to something that would breach human rights or freedoms, but the unwarranted refusal by authorities to allow that reasonable access.

      Of course, the strategy of trying to ‘humanise’ boat people in order to force policy changes has been tried and failed numerous times before. Border protection advocates like me already know asylum seekers are people. We already know they have mothers, fathers, feelings, hopes and dreams. We already actually have a great deal of sympathy for them. At least, those among them who have bona fide fears of harm, if not persecution. (And I do not see those as the same things.)

      But this empathy will not stop us from supporting strong border protections. Ultimately, Australia’s national integrity must come before the demands of some of our fellow human beings who, often in desperation, front up to Australia on a boat demanding resettlement outcomes.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      10:54am | 02/11/12

      @AdamC - I wouldn’t deny them access to facebook, but I don’t see why we should pay for it - let them by their own mobiles and pay their own bills, if it’s so important - or let the advocacy groups do it for them.

    • fred says:

      12:08pm | 02/11/12

      I welcome the compiuter/Facebook access given to asylum seekers on Nauru. It demonstrates the modern, employable skills of some and allows us to hear their issues.

      During 2001-2008,  the majority of the 1 500 asylum seekers deposited out of Australian sight out of Australian minds on Nauru did not have access to the internet. Many had no English or literacy or technological skills.  The telephone communication was unreliable, the only internet cafe oversubscribed,out of bounds at night and costly for people with no income and reliant on generous supporters in Australia.

      The hunger strike of 45 Hazara men in the Christmas holidays, 2003/04 was not humanised by the media.. they were banned from visiting the island!  I understand the 30 minutes access has now been cut to 15 minutes on the four computers available for nearly 400 men.
      What is the standard set in the contract?

    • AdamC says:

      12:09pm | 02/11/12

      Marley, it seems a little unrealistic to expect these people to pay their own way while they languish on a remote, desolate island. Especially when, sadly, they have probably handed over most of their savings to criminal gangs already.

      Perhaps we could resurrect Nauru’s defunct phosphate mines and puit the boatpeople to work? It would relieve some of their boredom, at the very least.

    • Liam says:

      12:22pm | 02/11/12

      Australia’s national integrity must come before their demands? What on earth do you mean by that?

    • marley says:

      12:56pm | 02/11/12

      @AdamC - well, that depends on whether they get an allowance, as is the case in some camps. I don’t know what the set up is in Nauru. But in any case, it’s not unreasonable to ask the advocacy groups to stump up the cash if they want to be in touch with their client groups. 

      I think that the government does have a duty to ensure the asylum seekers have access to legal advice and to contact with their families. But I frankly doubt that Facebook is essential to achieve either.  Telephone calls or e-mails should be sufficient for lawyers.  As for families left behind, well, the average Hazara villager doesn’t have electricity, never mind a laptop and an internet connection to keep in touch with relatives in Nauru.

    • AdamC says:

      01:24pm | 02/11/12

      Marley, the notion of an allowance sounds about right. Detainees could then choose to spend that allowance on what they want. I still do not see why this should not include internet and Facebook access.

      Fred, personally, I find hunger strikes, and the other emotional blackmail tactics asylum seekers are wont to use, quite a turn-off. I am not sure that publicising them would gain the detainees any friends in Australia. Sadly, idle people can be open to agitation.

      Liam, well, it all rather goes back to the whole ‘we will decide who comes to this country ...’ principle. Few societies have prospered by allowing uninvited foreigners to come into their territory on boats and just settle where they will. Just ask Australia’s original inhabitants.

    • Liam says:

      01:48pm | 02/11/12

      I didn’t realise that Australia was a less prosperous nation now than it was 250 years ago. Mind extrapolating on that a little?

    • Gregg says:

      01:51pm | 02/11/12

      @Fred,
      How hungry do you reckon they would be in a refugee camp as 40M + others are?
      Doubt there’d be any hunger strikes!

      And Liam
      National integrity means our government managing our borders and as John Howard put it ” we’ll decide who comes here “

      If you want a rafferty’s rules approach to Australia, that may be your wishful thinking.

    • AdamC says:

      02:10pm | 02/11/12

      Liam, well, the Australian ‘boat people’ (us) did pretty well out of the affair, but I am not sure that the original inhabitants feel as happy about the way things have turned out. Or are you one of those people who think aborigines should be grateful for getting their land taken away by univited foreigners?

      Perhaps that coule be the new boat hugger slogan: “Throw open the doors. It worked for the aborigines!”

      Not the angle I would take, but each to their own.

    • Liam says:

      02:31pm | 02/11/12

      Of course I wouldn’t, I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it was to assert that Australia is less prosperous now than it was 250 years ago, when it is clearly not. Obviously not for Aboriginal people, but for the nation as a whole, of course it is.
      What particular part of the Australia psyche do you think will suffer due to an influx of foreigners? Because it appears to me that we’ve had an influx of foreigners over the past half-century, and it has proved to be generally positive to the nation.

    • Gregg says:

      03:10pm | 02/11/12

      @AdamC
      As strange as it may be to compare current situation of people using smugglers to first fleet and others arriving over the centuries and
      ” Not the angle I would take, but each to their own. “

      Yep, entirely different geometry/trigonometry and like talking of potatoes and bananas having a lot in common.
      Australia was hardly a governed land back a few centuries ago, let alone developed or a Commonwealth of Australian States.

      We have like most developed countries established a sound government, one of the most stable going about and part of that stability is having control over who comes here.

    • AdamC says:

      03:20pm | 02/11/12

      Liam:

      “Of course I wouldn’t, I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it was to assert that Australia is less prosperous now than it was 250 years ago ...”

      Er, I don’t think I did assert that. I made the point that indigenous Australians were displaced by what could be described as unregulated immigration.

      “Because it appears to me that we’ve had an influx of foreigners over the past half-century, and it has proved to be generally positive to the nation.”

      Indeed, it has, by and large. In part it has been positive because it was based on an orderly migration program under the control of Australian officials. This has allowed Australia to control the number of arrivals and apply criteria for suitability for settlement in Australia. Indeed, I see protecting the integrity of Australia’s immigration program as possibly the most important reason to overcome the scourge of people smuggling.

    • Joan says:

      03:43pm | 02/11/12

      Access to a computer and Facebook page is not a Human Right at all - there`s only 800 million active Facebook users compared to 7 billion world population- computers and Facebook unnecessary luxury items for asylum seeker camps. -  asylum seekers should be thankful for safety, food, shelter provided. Australian people not given free of charge access to computer - why should asylum seeker?

    • Robert Smissen of country SA says:

      04:27pm | 02/11/12

      So AdamC would you like to gaurantee face book to all the homeless people in Australia not to mention all the remote Aboriginal settlements too?

    • lower_case_andrew says:

      10:37am | 02/11/12

      Q. “Is Facebook a human right?”

      A.  No.

      Reply

    • fred says:

      12:20pm | 02/11/12

      is communication with loved ones?
      with a lawyer?
      Just check the communications infra structure on Nauru and speculate on what the internet may mean to both locals and their unwilling Australian detention guests.

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      12:47pm | 02/11/12

      No fred, and no.

      Is access to clean water, food and shelter a human right? What makes these people more important than our own homeless and disadvantaged? Why should we give one group access to the internet, while the other doesn’t even get to eat?

      Let them have internet, but we shouldn’t pay for a damn thing.

    • James1 says:

      01:49pm | 02/11/12

      Just to clarify Admiral, the homeless in Australia have access to the internet via our network of public libraries, and they have access to food via our welfare system.  You would be hard pressed to find a starving person (who wasn’t on methamphetamines or something similar) in Australia, homeless or otherwise. 

      This is not to say that asylum seekers should have their mobile telecommunications devices paid for by the Australian government, more that they don’t have access to anything the average homeless person doesn’t.  It just happens that homeless people generally choose not to take these opportunities up.

      “Let them have internet, but we shouldn’t pay for a damn thing.”

      Personally, I think the activists should put their money where their mouths are, and pay for that internet access themselves.  Can I take it you are volunteering for a portion of that duty, fred?

    • Made in USSR says:

      02:53pm | 02/11/12

      And that’s about it.

    • franklin says:

      10:39am | 02/11/12

      Do refugee advocates ever wonder why destitute refugees living in squalor in UNHCR camps in Africa and Asia do not stage hunger strikes or threaten self harm. Or set up their own facebook pages to draw attention to their desperate plight. Asylum seekers who are well fed can afford to stage hunger strikes, refugees who struggle to find their daily food and shelter cannot afford to stage hunger strikes.

      The following is an excert from an informative article entitled Our sailors are Sick of Being Taxi Drivers and Baggage Handlers by Chris Kenny from The Australian dated July 23, 2012:

      Apparently a sailor recently was admonished by an asylum-seeker who wanted more care taken with his bag because it contained a laptop.

      I wonder if refugees fleeing persecution to UNHCR camps in Africa and Asia carry laptops with them.

      The fundamental question of the asylum seeker issue is should the few places in Australias refugee resettlement program be allocated to those most in need,, or should the places be allowed to be taken by asylum seekers with many thousands of dollars to criminal gangs of people smugglers to travel around the world to their preferred destination country.

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/our-sailors-are-sick-of-being-taxi-drivers-and-baggage-handlers/story-fn8qlm5e-1226432215861

      Reply

    • Dan Webster says:

      11:22am | 02/11/12

      @ franklin
      Well said, I fully agree.

    • HappyG says:

      12:51pm | 02/11/12

      @franklin. Had I been that sailor the aforementioned laptop would have gone straight in the drink. Refugees my arse. Country shoppers, nothing more, nothing less.

    • Mel says:

      04:32pm | 02/11/12

      Spot on Franklin, these affluent country shoppers avail themselves of the services of criminals to buy their way to Australia are prolonging the suffering of true, law abiding refugees waiting their turn in UNHCR camps.

    • Meh says:

      10:43am | 02/11/12

      FB is just a communications platforn, which is small when compared to email user base, which itself is small when compared to phone or snail mail. The refugees deserve to be able to communicate with people, but FB is far from being a ‘right’.

      Reply

    • willemrt says:

      10:44am | 02/11/12

      Thats assuming that Facebook is the only option.

      The internet has been declared as a human right by some European countries. Facebook is one of the many tools available on the internet.

      Its like saying is Evian water a human right. No.. but clean drinking water should be.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      10:50am | 02/11/12

      They are tricking the Australian public. When they get onto mainland Australia, I it’s obvious they’re friends will follow and we’ll be labelled amongst their community as suckers.

      Reply

    • Jack says:

      11:41am | 02/11/12

      We already are known as suckers; that’s why they come.

    • expat says:

      10:59am | 02/11/12

      “You would expect the basics to be covered. Shelter, food, health care, education, mental health services, access to legal advice, something to take your mind of the excruciating tedium.”

      At least a six or seven billion people live without the latter 4, many also would not have the first two either. Why all of a sudden is the expectation on the government (any government) to provide a comfortable or even modest lifestyle for people?
      These people are criminals, they have made an illegal attempt to enter Australia, treat them like criminals. As for criminals and the level of comfort, that in itself is a joke, jails need to be concrete, metal bars, bunk beds and crappy food, not the 3 star hotels they are held in at the moment.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      11:51am | 02/11/12

      It is not illegal to enter a country to claim asylum. They’re not criminals.

      We could just withdraw from the refugee convention and let them die on our doorstep or simply sink the boats when they close to Australia. We have no legal obligation to help our neighbour if their house is on fire. Or to call an ambulance and help someone trapped in a car after an accident. Or to help a lost kid who comes to our front door and says they are being followed. But many people in this country believe it would be the right thing to do.

    • fred says:

      12:45pm | 02/11/12

      Most of “these people” , boat arriving asylum seekers,  turn out to be refugees fleeing persecution.

      “These people” under international and Australian law, have the right to cross our borders if they seek our protection from persecution. That is what Ming signed us up for.  An asylum seeker is a potential refugee , deserving of the benefit of any doubt, and in Australia’s recent history, asylum seekers who dare to come the perilous boat journey way, are, after long delays in processing, determined to be refugees and therefore not able to be returned to danger.

      In a migration program running at over 200 000 selected permanent settlers, a few thousand desperate potential refugees are no threat. Better that we select them fromm the UNHCR pool in Jakarta than let them risk a fatal boat journey from Indonesia . The 600 places for Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans from the Jakarta UNHCR pool this year ( program: 20 000 places)  is pathetic.The backlog created by an average resettlement intake from Jakarta of 70 pa in a 5 year period before Labor was shamed into increasing it to 500 one year, creates the push factor, feeds the transportation business, and desperate asylum seekers with no life in Indonesia and no life going back ,will get on boats. .

    • Gav says:

      01:12pm | 02/11/12

      “It is not illegal to enter a country to claim asylum. They’re not criminals.”

      True, if they are in fact legitmate refugees, not purely exploiting an opportunity for economic/lifestyle upgrade at the expense of all of us. This is the main concern of most average people, the majority would absolutely help their neighbour/some kid at the door etc, but that spirit of generosity needs to be tempered with caution and common sense, not naivety.

      Let the chant of “Redneck” directed at me begin…

    • expat says:

      01:28pm | 02/11/12

      Sure seek refugee status because its the simplest and most cost effective way to obtain residency.

      Fred like many of the other compassionate individuals, you are blind to the extortion of the system by a large majority of these asylum seekers. They are sold a dream which is not a bad option in reality, get on the boat, get picked up by customs (none have intentions of making landfall without detection like say the United States), live in a high quality facility with all the trimmings complements of the tax payer for 5ish years, then accept a nice government pension, housing, all inclusive. As one of the most isolated countries in the world, we should have very few migrants from the middle east, they should be going to europe (geographically closer, easier to get to). They don’t go to europe because they know the better deal is found down under.

      I have no issues with people migrating, i’ve personally emigrated ex Australia to other countries, but they must do it the correct way. All these “asylum seekers” do is clog up spots for legitimate immigrants who would come with better intentions and are more likely to benefit society.

    • Kiddo says:

      01:50pm | 02/11/12

      Fred says Most of “these people” , boat arriving asylum seekers,  turn out to be refugees fleeing persecution.

      Fred, its been posted many times on the Punch alreay, the reason for the high number of boat arrived people being determined as refugees is because they have no ID on them, and in the absence of that, our processing officials have more or less no choice but to grant them asylum as “refugees feeling persecution”

      I don’t doubt that some are genuinely fleeing persecution, but it is a racket, evidenced by the fact that ‘refugee’ used a passport to get to Indonesia\malaysia and then lost it before getting to australia.

    • A Concerned Citizen says:

      04:41pm | 02/11/12

      Chris
      ” We have no legal obligation ... to help a lost kid who comes to our front door and says they are being followed. But many people in this country believe it would be the right thing to do”
      The problem is that most of us would decline from doing this if we had the faintest suspicion that the kid him/herself was trouble or a threat to the house or anyone in it.

      It’s the exact same reason not as many Australians are sympathetic to our latest asylum applicants; instead of coming from civil first-and-second-world societies hit by dictatorships or war, our intake now mostly comes from lawless, tribal, extreme-religious third-world societies- and thus many don’t want the risk of taking in anyone who fits that description themselves. The fact some migrants have indeed followed this attitude (the rioters in Sydney as one example) only cements this issue as a problem.

      With no discriminatory criteria to filter this out of asylum applicants, most play it better-safe-than-sorry by blocking them all out.

    • Lloyd says:

      11:12am | 02/11/12

      The internet is a human right because in many oppressive countries, it is all they have to see windows into other worlds outside the repressive regimes they live in. Gay people for instance: I am so lucky to live in this beautiful country, but if I lived in Nigeria, or Iran, or countless other countries I would think I was the most reviled person alive…the internet has changed all that, thankfully. On the Facebook subject, I only just got back onto it after two weeks after being “blocked”...I found out the only reason I couldn’t get on was because of this mystart incredibar virus that weaselled it’s way onto my computer…Sad fact: FB addict.

      Reply

    • Gordon says:

      11:14am | 02/11/12

      I suspect “the world over” your “one phone call” is a figment of the imagination of people who watch US crime dramas on TV.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      11:18am | 02/11/12

      Q. “Is Facebook a human right?”
      A.  No.
      However, access to reasonable communication is. This could include post, phone and/or internet but not necasarily all 3.

      Reply

    • lower_case_andrew says:

      11:49am | 02/11/12

      @Al

      Indeed.

      If one has some “right” to a supposed “phone call”, does that also give that person an automatic right to host a social media campaign, advancing certain politics?

      Do prisoners have a “right” to political activism, beyond their gaol cells, simply because they are allowed to communicate with a lawyer or family member?

      Prisoners have a right to food and drink.  But this doesn’t mean they’re allowed room service from the local Thai bistro, or order in a case of French bubbly. (Well, unless they’re Alan Bond.)

      Keeping in mind the reason for the incarceration or holding in the first place, it would seem obvious that some forms of communication can and should be controlled. These people are being isolated for a reason; to make dangerous, illegal migration an unattractive proposition to themselves and prospective asylum seekers.

      I’m very unsure of what “rights” asylum seekers are entitled to, or should be entitled to.  The whole issue confuses me, as I hope it confuses most everyone with a conscience.  We’re talking about choosing the lesser of evils here.  But I’m fairly sure that the right to some communication doesn’t mean the relative luxury of Facebook.

    • fred says:

      12:27pm | 02/11/12

      JUst check the communications infra structure on Nauru for Nauruans… reliable telephone network? posal system? any newspapers? local TV?

      Asylum seekers held in detention indefinitely unwarranted really, , with no means of employment, separated from loved ones MUST have the means to communicate with family and with legal representatives. Prisoners do, and asylum seekers are not criminal nor have they been charged with a crime.
      Think again, Al. What is reasonable, what is civilised, what would you want/expect in their place?

    • Gregg says:

      02:42pm | 02/11/12

      @Fred
      ” Think again, Al. What is reasonable, what is civilised, what would you want/expect in their place? “
      They certainly do not want a bar of the normal UNHCR refugee processing seems very clear.
      They should expect that anything past that is a bonus and our Australian government is being suckered into much much more but why should the government be concerned, it is just taxpayers footing the bill and many Australians going without.

    • James says:

      11:25am | 02/11/12

      What are rights anyway? People seem to say human rights as if the universe adheres to some sort of moral code.

      This just highlights how religious people are even when they say they are not. Progressive enlightenment values are just Christianity without the god aspect and can only exist because societies which have adopted them have overwhelming cultural, military and economic hegemony. Once this hegemony is successfully challenged all this talk of rights will go out the window.

      Reply

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:40am | 02/11/12

      You’re right to say that “rights” are just something that a society adopts and enacts in laws.

      Rights are only self-evident when everyone adopts them.

    • K^2 says:

      01:46pm | 02/11/12

      @James - The universe DOES adhere to certain moral codes.  Thats exactly the point. 

      Natural Law is built around the idea that there are certain universal rules that apply to all.  Gravity is one such - you can disagree with it, but just try jumping off a 12 storey building and see what happens.  Universal/Natural law are these laws that exist and are irrefutable whether you like it or not.  This idea has been around for a long time, and the original charter of human rights are built off these foundations.  All common and federal law, are built from the foundation of natural law.  Most religions are built off the basic tenet of natural law - this is why so many of them appear similar in many respects because these natural laws were known already.  All “rights” come from this tenet of natural law - educate yourself on it and find out what it actually means.

      Facebook is not a natural law - therefore not a human right.

    • James says:

      02:33pm | 02/11/12

      K^2 I don’t think you know what you are talking about even if you think you do, but you sound like a typical libertarian. Natural law is a product of the enlightenment which as I said is just secular Christian mumbo jumbo used to further liberalism in all its forums(progressivism, conservatism, etc).

      The universe obviously does adhere to physical laws but to ascribe some sort of intent or moral code to it is just religion.

    • K^2 says:

      02:50pm | 02/11/12

      Ok James - well I guess Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Hobbes, Aquinas (the list goes on) were all just clueless too right? I can assure you it has nothing to do with religion what-so-ever.  You can ascribe moral code to mankind without the need to associate it to religion, this is your own lack or broader understanding telling you it needs to be attached to religion because it was never the case.

      Intended to be part of a comprehensive theory of practical reasons that are fit to direct us to the common good of each of our communities and its members, any natural law theory of law brings to bear on law all the theses proposed and defended in natural law theory’s moral and political parts and in a sound understanding of the human makeup and of the lasting characteristics of our circumstances. Issues such as the following three are treated by natural law theory as integral to legal science, theory or philosophy. NOT RELIGION.

    • Philosopher says:

      03:12pm | 02/11/12

      ha ha K^2, you are referring to men who theorised about quasi-theistic ‘natural law’ prior to the Enlightenment, to invoke a post-enlightenment definition of natural law, i.e. physics. Not only do you not have a sense of humour, you are also all mixed up.

    • K^2 says:

      03:49pm | 02/11/12

      @Philosopher sheez , I was trying to give a very very basic description of something bleedingly obvious that can not be refuted, inherent in nature.  This is the idea behind the natural law.  If you can’t see past the overly simplified version of it that I am limited to posting on here you need to just wake up…but coming from someone that makes racist jibes about goats and hijabs I’ll take anything you have to say with a grain of (natural) salt.

    • K^2 says:

      04:12pm | 02/11/12

      @Philosopher - troll fail.

      If you can not see past simplified watered down version for quick consumption as opposed to the literally millions of pages written on the topic of natural law both pre and post “enlightenment” then you are a complete simpleton.  Would you feel better if I said Locke, Montaigne and Voltaire?  You sound like a baby boomer so I suppose you ascribe to the Mandeville concept; an awareness of the importance of wealth, power, and commercial prosperity for the happiness of a nation led him to insist that private vices were in fact public benefits if prudently regulated.

      Besides the fact that your “rebuttal” is nothing more than a straw-man argument.  Added to that your little adhominem attack because you think people should laugh at your pathetic dad jokes. 

      What because I used examples pre-enlightenment and an example of physics? (which is a natural law like it or not pal just shows how much you don’t know) Physics is considered a natural law of the universe, it was used as a simplified example but obviously not simplified enough for you.  It is considered a constant of nature. 

      If you want to just find my posts and put your little territoral scent on it, at least have some clue before you make a complete fool of yourself with your rubbish and little cultural digs at what animals people have in their vicinity or what headgear they might wear.

    • A Concerned Citizen says:

      04:55pm | 02/11/12

      No K^2, James is right.
      These rights ARE nothing but the cultural background of the people that drafted them based on what THEY think are important. The ‘law of the land’ is nothing more than a make-believe attitude by individuals who consider what they THINK they are entitled to- and is arguably less real than enforced laws.

      Certainly as humans have corresponding needs, their idea of what a ‘right’ is will constantly overlap in some areas, but overwhelmingly there are debates on what people are in fact, entitled to as an inalienable right. Especially as many rights come at the direct expense of other rights.
      The right to democratic control impairs free enterprise (if locals reject a building application, for example- and free enterprise impairs democracy if the reverse were true).
      The ‘right to life’ without exception violates the right to abortion (and arguably euthanasia).
      The right to a jury robs the jurors of their rights to liberty and to work.
      The right to free speech is considered a violation of safety (free press/wikileaks) or sanctity of religion (Muslim opposition to blasphemous material).
      Many would argue the right to eat contradicts the fact that ‘there is no free lunch’

      So tell me, which of these are ‘universal’?
      In fact, if a right WERE ‘universal’ or ‘natural’, everybody the world over would be upholding it, no questions asked.
      But they’re not.

    • chuck says:

      11:42am | 02/11/12

      Why worry about f/b when a vast majority of these illegal immigrants can’t spell their names or remember the details of their birth/family/education etc?

      Reply

    • fred says:

      12:50pm | 02/11/12

      How is your Arabic, or Farsi, Chuck?
      We Australians are a multi cultural, multi lingual people and English is a very difficult language to learn as an adult.  I’m reading the postings from the prisoners on Naur, and amo amazed at their skills . I hope the Salvos have got English and computer classes organised, so their communication will improve.

    • expat says:

      04:50pm | 02/11/12

      ^ Chuck is referring to the fact that once here these individuals forget about there own backgrounds, completely as if they never existed. English is a non factor..

    • Rossco says:

      11:44am | 02/11/12

      Computers and internet shouldn’t be a human right. I don’t even think prisoners should be allowed these resources. More rubbish we have to pay these illegal immigrant freeloaders for.

      Reply

    • dweezy2176 says:

      12:08pm | 02/11/12

      Of course they deserve basic human rights ... bread and water ... Can’t hang on to the necessary paperwork but computer literate? Pull the other one its got Minister Blow-in on it#

      Reply

    • Fed Up says:

      12:26pm | 02/11/12

      These boat people are doing it better than alot of low/fixed Australian income earners, many of whom haven’t the money to pay their next electricity bill….thanx to Labor…let alone be able to indulge in social media like Face Book.
      Not into tweeting,face book or any other time wasting function….too busy living my life.

      Reply

    • K2 says:

      12:31pm | 02/11/12

      No, it is not a human right.  FB, along with internet access, and a computer are luxury items that they can enjoy once their application has been processed, and they have found themselves employment and can pay for this luxury on their own. 

      If FB and internet access is a human right, then I assume the NBN will be free for all Australians to use?  If this is not the case, then no.

      Nowhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does it mention facebook, or internet access.  It does however mention
      “Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” so before they address the facebook issue, perhaps this one is more important and also more applicable to the circumstance….

      Reply

    • fred says:

      12:54pm | 02/11/12

      Universal Declaration of Human Rights : 1948

      Article 9 is so relevant… ad the 1951 Un Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocal equally so.’
      Tell our Parliamentarians.

    • fred says:

      12:32pm | 02/11/12

      I wonder how many of the indefinitely imprisoned Australian asylum seekers on Nauru have tertiary degrees in computer technology or in electrical engineering, or accounting and other skils?

      Clive, send over a plane to get them and put them to work!

      Reply

    • Philosopher says:

      01:16pm | 02/11/12

      I hear many of them are pretty handy with a pair of pliers, electrical wire, a hollow pipe filled with nails and a mobile phone. If Clive or Telstra have no jobs for em, I’m sure someone over here will find their skills useful.

    • L. Dingle says:

      12:40pm | 02/11/12

      The mere fact that Facebook has been limited by the govt is testimony that the mental and physical human rights abuses occurring on Nauru are indeed something shameful to hide. To deny someone unfettered free right to association is also saying that they are doing it in other areas as well. Same behaviour different context. Contaminated water. One part-time psychiatrist to 1500 capacity in the centre, no refrigeration for clean,cold water no fans or air-conditioning. People on the island fear becoming sick as the only treatment is quarantine another word for isolation. When people are sick the last thing their body needs is to be isolated for healing purposes. There should at least be caring staff with them when they are quarantined, but there is no confirmation of this.  Neglect forms part of abuse.
      The greatest predictor of future abusive behaviour is often past behaviour, but the implementation of Nauru is not stopping boats this time, as we have a worldwide refugee crisis the likes of which we have never seen and certainly was not there 10 years ago during the Howard era. It requires a humanitarian response. The Govt. have said Nauru was necessary to make the oceans safe but the use of satellite calls did that for refugees who were then operating within Maritime law. This required a legal and swift response “at all speed” under law. The numbers of refugees soared. Sept. 12 our biggest record in 50 years for arrivals. THAT is why Nauru opened. The Govt. say Nauru was necessary to make the sea safe. The sea was ALREADY safe with satellite. Nauru was opened simply because neither side of our Govt. wants them here. They can’t say that as we are signatory to the Refugee Convention, so now the insidious move in incise our country from the migration zone. As tho one fell swoop of legislation and process can replace the compassion of a humanitarian response.  We side with a country that blows up their homeland and then refuse to accommodate the few brave people who make it here as the refugee result of our making.
      The very least they should have is Facebook. The first Nauru saw human rights advocates sending phone cards so they could phone home. That was not restricted. Facebook is the equivalent of this. Denying people connection to their loved ones and the outside world is human rights abuse, the Govt. know this, so they get away with that by limiting it to minimal use. More isolation just like quarantine, just like a tiny island in the middle of the ocean. As we mentally internalise our external environment, imagine how isolated and disconnected they must feel within themselves. Isolating people externally and restricting communication in an attempt to break them so you can advertise this to the Australian public as a resounding political success in stopping boats is both statistically inaccurate spin and human rights abuse. As a nation we should be both ashamed and willing to immediately rectify this crime against humanity.

      Reply

    • Kassandra says:

      12:45pm | 02/11/12

      The world-over your “one phone call” is afforded even the most reviled criminals.

      While for most of us Facebook is an indulgence, for some people it’s a life-line. Denying them the modern day equivalent of a phone call could be a human rights about face.

      Well this is a great example of hyperbowl. The “one phone call” is a myth in most parts of the world, and where it exists is more of a privilege than a right, even in the USA where the myth was invented in their TV shows. If you don’t believe me try getting arrested in a random assortment of places around the world and see how many give you the right to a phone call, let alone access to facebook. I wish facebook was a myth, can’t stand the thing myself.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      12:55pm | 02/11/12

      Q. Is Facebook a human right?
      A. What an utterly, utterly stupid question that you actually answered yourself.  I really wish I wasn’t sucked in by the stupid headline, wasted 2 mins reading and now even typing this crap respons to a crap article.  They are allowed half an hour every two days - they have communication - if they choose to waste it on Facebook that’s their problem.

      Reply

    • Philosopher says:

      01:44pm | 02/11/12

      probably they use their precious internet time on porn. Face it, that’s the real reason why they come over here, isn’t it? Not much fun looking at hijabs and goats all day, after all…

    • fred says:

      01:00pm | 02/11/12

      Even 15 minutes on a shared computer in a tent in the tropical heat of Nauru is a lifeline, a connection to the world.

      Maybe a skype connection to SBS and ABC investigative journalists and newsreporters will give Australians access to and a much needed insight into indefinite immigration detention of non criminal asylum seekers, who yearn for freedom.

      Reply

    • Philosopher says:

      02:37pm | 02/11/12

      fred, I have insight into life as a refugee. My insight has prompted no sympathy, however. Quite frankly the cashed-up boaties are profoundly ungrateful, and I have no interest in becoming infected with their particularly virulent disease, which slaughters man, woman and child alike. Congratulations for your support of them; however you won’t find many like-minded Australians here.

    • K^2 says:

      04:17pm | 02/11/12

      @Philosopher - you got the words insight, and incite mixed up again
      *facepalm*

    • L. Dingle says:

      01:00pm | 02/11/12

      The Dept. of Immigration has said the reduction to half an hour computer access is not to limit access to the media, but rather to deal with an influx of detainees.
      The offer of extra computer devices from advocates has had no response.

      Reply

    • Liam says:

      01:38pm | 02/11/12

      My initial response to the question was a resounding no, of course Facebook isn’t an universal right.

      But when thinking about it a little more, it is a great way for these people to engage directly with large audience, without having to go through a third party where messages can be skewed (mass media, Government reports etc.) Surely it is a human right to be able to broadcast your message, unedited, to as many people who are willing to listen.

      Reply

    • Jess says:

      01:40pm | 02/11/12

      Let them have facebook. I’d be suggesting that all usage of the computers is monitored. It would be another tool for Immigration officials to help identify people. Checking of friends and past history on facebook could be a tool used to sort the genuine refugees from the country shoppers.

      Reply

    • wolf says:

      02:09pm | 02/11/12

      If you block access to facebook how can they tell other people how terrible their conditions are, and not to bother coming by boat? I was under the impression that this was the governments intention behind sending them there in the first place.

      Reply

    • Rita says:

      02:21pm | 02/11/12

      I don’t see why they’re up in arms about going to nauru.  Surely, if the place that they’ve come from is so terrible, then Nauru should be pretty good compared to that.  If they don’t like the terms that being an illegal immigrant entails, then send your immigration paperwork in properly and come in through the front door, or suck it up and wait out your time on Nauru.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      05:33pm | 02/11/12

      Nauru most likely is better than from where they came from. But that is also ultimately the reason that the boats of refugees continue to arrive. The only way this disincentive will work in the long run is if we make conditions as bad or worse than where they’re coming from. But do we want to do that?

      And if its not going to work, why place them in bad conditions in the first place. Eventually those who are deemed to be genuine refugees are going to end up in Australia.  Do we want them to arrive soon and start contributing to society, or pay huge amounts of money to support them in Nauru for 5-10 years, finally allow them but with a significant number of them suffering from mental illnesses?

    • Nauru Eyes says:

      03:41pm | 02/11/12

      No one has blocked access to Facebook.  Anyone can do what they want.  The reality is that the bandwidth on Nauru is limited.  The reason that they were offline yesterday had nothing to do with The Salvation Army.  It was an internet problem affecting the whole island.

      Reply

    • Bananabender56 says:

      03:58pm | 02/11/12

      Does this mean the NBN is being extended to Nauru? If not then the next refugee protest may be threatening self harm because of low bandwidth.

      Reply

    • Stormy Weather says:

      04:09pm | 02/11/12

      The internet is not a human right like owning a phone is not a human right.
      It’s just silly.
      I’d be more concerned about essentials that are human rights like food, water and shelter. The erosion of policy that once protected people’s rights and the means to escape poverty.
      Very concerned about utility companies exploiting their monopoly eg. the increase in water bills in Victoria. Absolutely disturbing that this “essential” service could one day be unaffordable to many.

      I also don’t understand why we are so obsessed with the internet and infrastructure while the basics like PT and infrastructure to to get to the other side of the city are decaying. It seems everyone will be able to communicate to anyone across the other side of the World and share their monotonous lives however we’ll regress to riding horses and carriages just to get to work, ok, slight exaggeration.

      Mind you, 30 minutes of internet access every two days is pretty crap. Especially if you have slow internet like I do and some pages take hrs to download. It could take half an hour just to get on the first webpage.
      Why can’t they have more time and be able to bank their time?
      When you are isolated in the community or from the rest of the World, your family, friends and support, the internet can be the only thing that stops you from going crazy.

      Reply

    • Tartan Smurf says:

      06:25pm | 02/11/12

      I equate a hunger strike to a child holding their breath.  Trying to get something they’ve been denied by emotional blackmail (same goes for sewing lips together).  In the end you get the same result, the child falls over, passes out and starts breathing again.
      People fleeing true violence, and really in fear of their life would welcome the safety and security of Nauru, Christmas or Manus Island with food, shelter, medical care and facebook.
      Economic “refugees” on the other hand are merely protesting their loss of freedom by not being immediately accepted as genuine.
      Keep putting a bowl of porridge in front of them….they’ll eat it eventually.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter