In aus.religion.christian Richard Kerr <> wrote: > Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:

>>

>> In aus.religion.christian A 'Net friend wrote:

> [snip]

>> > So what value Australian law if you condone illegality?

>>

>> I do not personally think it devalues Australian law to recognize

>> that there are such things as genuine refugees fleeing real

>> political persecution and personal danger, and that such refugees

>> can be found also amongst the illegal arrivals on our shores. I

>> do not think it devalues Australian law to recognize that

>> some illegal arrivals are people who genuinely need and deserve

>> our help.

>>

>> In fact, Australian law generally takes this into account, and

>> will in fact allow refugee status, and residency, to be granted

>> to people determined to be genuine refugees according to some

>> standard, even if they have arrived illegally.

>

> I was trying desperately not to buy into this, but I can't take it any

> more.

>

> Australia is legally obliged to detain people who arrive illegally

> within its territorial waters and ascertain their refugee status if they

> request us to. If they are not refugees we are legally able to, and

> usually do, deport them.

Yes.

> When our goevrnment order the Tampa out of our waters it had to force a

> special piece of legislation through parliament that retrospectively

> declared the action legal. The Labor party supported it.

There was some legislation, which failed in the senate, which was (I think) intended to support ordering a ship out of Australian waters, after it had arrived.

The actual action with respect to the Tampa was to order it to remain outside our waters -- an order given just half an hour before it was due to cross into our waters on its existing course for Christmas Island; a course which it had previously declared to Australian search and rescue authorities, with their approval and support.

It is fairly difficult to get good information on some of the issues surrounding this case. The government has acted to keep available information to a minimum, with what I could only call cynical contempt for our supposedly free and open society. For example, the call for assistance originally sent out by Search and Rescue has since been classified "in the interests of national security". <http://www.smh.com.au/news/0108/30/national/national106.html>

News blackouts have also been applied, especially with respect to the actions of the SAS. From an opinion piece in the Australian.

<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,2778580%255E7 583,00.html> If the blackout on information concerning the Tampa is any indication, the public's right to scrutinise security issues is already being treated with utter contempt. The involvement of armed SAS troops was used as an excuse to block all usual information channels, including the defence media liaison unit. The media was barred from talking to departmental officers, defence personnel and the asylum-seekers, even though the crisis involved unarmed civilians. In what was a humanitarian story, every effort was made to prevent the media from giving a human dimension. Even though the asylum-seekers are now on board the Manoora, and the SAS is no longer involved, the clampdown continues for none other than political reasons. Contrast this with the relatively open access to Australian Defence Force personnel during the East Timor crisis two years ago.

The more I hear about this, the more angry I become. Richard: don't stop contributing, particularly if you can give good information on background and events.

Cheers --

~~~

I just want to clarify a few facts here, on minor details of events, without further expressing strong views on the matter of legalality, morality, compassion, fairness, etc.

In aus.religion.christian A 'Net friend wrote: [snip]

>> First of all, it should be noted that the master of the Tampa

>> picked up the asylum seekers at the request of Australian

>> search and rescue authorities. He diverted, guided by Australian

>> aircraft, and rescued a large number of people from an unseaworthy

>> vessel.

>

> Perhaps you should check your facts on that. I think originally

> there was a distress call from the sinking vessel. Australian

> authorities merely guided and aided the rescue.

The vessel was first sighted by an Australian coastwatch aircraft. They sighted an SOS written out on the deck.

At this point, Australian Search and Rescue identified the Tampa as the nearest vessel, and requested them to give assistance. The Tampa diverted as requested, and was guided by coastwatch aircraft to the Indonesian vessel.

I do not of any radio message sent for help; my understanding is that an SOS was spelt out somehow physically on the ship, and sighted from the coastwatch aircraft. Certainly the Tampa did not pick up a distress call. They rather received a request from Australian Search and Rescue.

>> Regardless of who they were, or why they were traveling,

>> or how foolhardy their trip; surely everyone at least agrees that

>> a rescue was appropriate.

>>

>> Next, the Tampa started to sail for Indonesia. This was the right

>> thing to do. The sinking ferry was from Indonesia, and they were in

>> the Indonesian sea rescue zone (though the actual rescue was requested

>> and co-ordinated by Australia). However there were several problems.

>> Indonesia did not want them; and threatened to fire on the ship if

>> it approached. The asylum seekers did not want to go back, and asked

>> to go to Christmas Island instead. And also Christmas Island was the

>> nearest port.

>>

>> Someone here spoke of "piracy", as if the captain was forced to go

>> to Christmas Island, and Ruddock has spoken of "duress".

>>

>> No doubt the asylum seekers argued aggressively against a return to

>> Indonesia, and apparently some threatened to jump overboard. But

>> shouting and tantrums are not piracy, and neither are they truly

>> duress. The captain remained in control, and he made the decision.

>

> ... and that decision was made in defiance of clear and certain

> instructions from the Australian government not to enter Australian

> territorial waters. He also relayed a highest priority medical

> distress call, which was proven entirely unjustified when

> Australian military medical personnel boarded his ship. If he

> acted without duress, then he acted entirely inappropriately.

No, that is not correct. In fact, the decision to turn and head for Christmas Island was made after the Tampa first contacted AusR (Aus Rescue) for advice, and was advised that as master of the ship he had full discretion. The Tampa then advised AusR of their new direction, and was given instructions for proceeding to Christmas Island, and for handling customs.

The instruction to turn away from Australian waters only came much later, and (unfortunately) just before the Tampa actually made it into our waters on their existing course.

The matter of medical emergencies is not clear cut to me. I would expect the ship's master should take the gravest possible view of medical problems on his overcrowded ship; but I am not at this stage in a good position to judge exactly what either side has actually claimed, or when, or what the real medical position was.

Cheers -- Chris

~~~

Joan wrote: >

> "Richard Kerr" <> wrote in message

> .

[snip]

> > Exactly. While everybody rabits on about the relative rights of us vs

> > them, the "flood" of "illegal immigrants" or our responsibilities under

> > law, we are in fact missing a very important point.

> >

> > It is important for us to be kind.

>

> Yes it is, to all, not just to those who can afford an illegal passage.

Have > you considered how unfair and unkind this is to those who have to wait? or

> is "showing" how kind Australia is to the world more important.

We weren't facing the choice between allowing these people or some others into the country, we were facing the choice of whether we forced them back to sea or allowed them to land and be processed.

At the moment some these people may still end up back in Australia, we're just paying Nauru to house them while they are processed.

A massive over reaction and a non-solution to the problem!

What needs to be done is get our relationship with Indonesia to the point that we can start policing the people trade at their end, rather than having to face these decisions at this one. I think it was right for Reith and Ruddock to visit Indonesia to attempt this, but it's a shame that the Indonesians were not predisposed to negotiate, largely because of our hamfisted treatment of the Tampa issue.

-- Regards,

Richard Kerr

~~~

A 'Net friend wrote: >

> Richard Kerr wrote:

[snip]

> > We're a nation devoid of benevolence and we don't care who knows it.

> >

> > That's what this whole sorry saga says about us.

>

> R U NUTS!! How many millions of taxpayers $$$ have been spent on these ppl

> already, and how many more to come? Australian workers resent that, and

rightly > so. We have to work to pay taxes and expect, nay demand, that our hard

earned tax > dollars be spent for our benefit.

For what it's worth the Government's handling of this crisis was about the most expensive way we could possibly handled. Rather than just processing them on land we had a full scale military operation in place for over a week to keep them supplied at sea, we're transporting them a quarter of the way 'round the planet and _then_ we're paying a foreign government generously to take care of them. what financial balls up.

At least if we'd kept them in the country the money would have staid in the country giving jobs to good, honest, hardworking Aussie tax payers.

-- Regards,

Richard