What's new

australian navy violates Indonesian waters, Indonesia demands end to Australian provocations

Instead of mumbo jumbo opinion, here's what an expert in Monash University had:
Explainer: the legal implications of 'tow-backs'
Explainer: the legal implications of ‘tow-backs’

Australia has been engaging in “tow-backs” of asylum-seeker boats. This has involved intercepting boats carrying asylum seekers at sea, before they reach Australia, and forcing them to return to Indonesia.

It has also emerged that Australia entered Indonesian territorial waters during at least some of these “tow-backs”. Indonesia has responded strongly, stating that Australia’s entry into Indonesian waters is “a serious matter in bilateral relations”. Indonesia also announced it would set up its own maritime patrols.

Refugee Convention obligations
“Tow-backs” that deny asylum seekers access to Australian waters and territory are an attempt to avoid Australia’s legal obligations to asylum seekers.

However, such practices are misguided. Australia owes asylum seekers it returns to Indonesia a number of rights. This is the case even if they do not land in Australian territory or reach Australian waters.

Australia has voluntarily signed and ratified the United Nations Refugee Convention, which gives certain rights to refugees “towed-back” by Australia. The convention defines a refugee as an individual who is outside his or her country and is fleeing persecution. This may be as a result of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Asylum seekers who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution are not granted any rights under the convention. However, until asylum seekers have undergone a fair and effective process to accurately identify whether or not they are refugees, they should all be granted rights under the convention. This is to ensure that those asylum seekers who are indeed refugees are not wrongly denied rights.

As discussed in a previous article, refugees have differing rights under the convention depending on their connection to Australia. Certain rights are triggered only when refugees are in Australia or even when they are lawfully in Australia (for example, when they are given a visa).

Other rights, however, come into play at the point when Australia starts to exercise power over refugees. During “tow-backs” at sea, this point could be reached when Australia transfers refugees onto its own vessels or takes control of boats that the refugees are travelling on. At the point Australia takes control of the refugees, it exercises “jurisdiction” over them and becomes responsible for them.

Rights owed by Australia to refugees it tows back (on the high seas or even in Indonesian waters) include the right of access to the courts of Australia and the right of refugees to elementary education. The most important right, however, is the right to be protected from being returned to persecution.
Australia is prohibited from sending refugees back to a place where their lives or freedom would be threatened. Australia is also prohibited from sending refugees back to a place that may not protect them.
That is, Australia cannot take refugees back to Indonesia because Indonesia is not a party to the Refugee Convention. There is therefore nothing stopping Indonesia from returning the refugees to their home countries where they face persecution. As such, Australia cannot simply wash its hands of the individuals it tows back.
More at: Explainer: the legal implications of 'tow-backs'
 
Top 4 of top 6 countries from where people seek asylum in Australia are muslim countries. They are Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.
I wonder why muslims from Islamic countries choose a distant kafir country like Australia for asylum, braving many risks and dangers, when there are plentiful Islamic countries in their region.
 
Last edited:
Top 4 of top 6 countries from where people seek asylum in Australia are muslim countries. They are Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.
I wonder why muslims from Islamic countries choose a distant kafir country like Australia for asylum, braving many risks and dangers, when there are plentiful Islamic countries in their region.

well, maybe they had similar reasons as you had.
 
mia_abbott.jpg
 
well, maybe they had similar reasons as you had.
Well, I didn't come in as a refugee in a boat. I was sent by my company here, like the few other countries I was sent to before and many more to come..
 
Well, I didn't come in as a refugee in a boat. I was sent by my company here, like the few other countries I was sent to before and many more to come..

The process of which way did you come to Australia is not my point. The big picture here is better economic condition (job, earn money) to ensure life. These boat people have the same basic reasons as you do, but of course their way and your way are far different.
 
The process of which way did you come to Australia is not my point. The big picture here is better economic condition (job, earn money) to ensure life. These boat people have the same basic reasons as you do, but of course their way and your way are far different.
There are very legal means to do that, and 100s of thousands of people come in legally every year. If these boat people are economic migrants, they should say so and not claim asylum from persecution.
 
Last edited:
There are very legal means to do that, and 100s of thousands of people come in legally every year. If these boat people are economic migrants, they should say so and not claim asylum from persecution.

Well~ 70% to 90% of them were later proven to be true refugees. Even if it were 0%, they must be proven through appropriate due process, not just tow them back. As a legal expert says:

"Asylum seekers who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution are not granted any rights under the convention. However, until asylum seekers have undergone a fair and effective process to accurately identify whether or not they are refugees, they should all be granted rights under the convention. This is to ensure that those asylum seekers who are indeed refugees are not wrongly denied rights."

Boat people genuine refugees
More than 90 per cent of boat people were found to be genuine refugees in the March quarter, figures to be released on Monday show.

But asylum seekers who arrived by plane - despite being eligible for release into the community - were almost twice as likely to be rejected as refugees.

The new figures come after the government, with Coalition support, passed its changes to the Migration Act that introduce explicit discrimination against asylum seekers based on their method of arrival.

All asylum seekers who arrive by boat will now be subject to the no-advantage rules, meaning they could face up to five years' detention in Manus Island or Nauru, and if released into the community, they would not be allowed to work for five years.


Read more: Boat people genuine refugees
 
Well~ 70% to 90% of them were later proven to be true refugees. Even if it were 0%, they must be proven through appropriate due process, not just tow them back. As a legal expert says:

"Asylum seekers who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution are not granted any rights under the convention. However, until asylum seekers have undergone a fair and effective process to accurately identify whether or not they are refugees, they should all be granted rights under the convention. This is to ensure that those asylum seekers who are indeed refugees are not wrongly denied rights."

Boat people genuine refugees
I'm not saying that all boat people asylum seekers coming to Australia are not genuine. What I'm saying is, why come all the way to Australia with so many risks and dangers? Asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq etc. have many Islamic countries in their vicinity where they can get refuge. Persecuted Shia Pakistanis can go to Iran, Sunni Iranians and Iraqis can go to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. Afghans can go to any of 50+ Muslim countries of the world.
 
I'm not saying that all boat people asylum seekers coming to Australia are not genuine. What I'm saying is, why come all the way to Australia with so many risks and dangers? Asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq etc. have many Islamic countries in their vicinity where they can get refuge. Persecuted Shia Pakistanis can go to Iran, Sunni Iranians and Iraqis can go to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. Afghans can go to any of 50+ Muslim countries of the world.

It's about the economy and the stable life of course. And btw, not all those islamic countries sign the UN convention regarding refugees, including Indonesia. Their rights will not be recognized, but they are assured non-refoulement.

And FYI, those islamic countries also host a larger amount of refugees than Australia, although with miserable condition:
refugee.jpg


800px-Refugeeconvention.PNG
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom