From the Sydney Morning Herald:
UN human rights review: Countries line up to criticise Australia for its treatment of asylum seekers
November 10, 2015 – 7:36AM
Nick Miller Europe CorrespondentGeneva: Australia has copped a barrage of criticism at a United Nations human rights forum over its treatment of asylum seekers on the high seas and in offshore detention centres.
Countries taking part in the review also noted Australia’s inadequate treatment of Indigenous people, the high level of violence against women, and the spread of Islamophobia.
But Australia was defiant as dozens of countries called on it to wind back or end boat turn-backs and mandatory detention, and grant refugees their full rights.
Australia’s delegation, which included MP Philip Ruddock, insisted that turning back asylum seeker boats and putting asylum seekers in overseas detention centres was necessary, and had saved lives.
The UN Human Rights Council’s official review of Australia’s human rights policies took place at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on Monday. The scrutiny comes at a time when Australia is vying for a two-year term on the council.
During the review, representatives from more than 100 countries gave recommendations on how Australia should improve its human rights record.
Countries including Brazil, Turkey, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Bangladesh – even Rwanda, Iran and North Korea – expressed concern over Australia’s treatment of refugees.
The presence of women and children asylum seekers in detention centres came in for particular criticism. …
Countries taking part in the review also noted Australia’s inadequate treatment of Indigenous people, the high level of violence against women, and the spread of Islamophobia.
France’s spokesman Thomas Wagner called for Australia to “develop alternatives to the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, especially when dealing with children”.
Germany’s representative said Australia should “critically review” offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island.
He recommended Australia “remove children and their families, and other individuals at risk – in particular survivors of torture and trauma – from immigration detention centres”.
Bangladesh’s representative said Australia’s response to migrant arrivals had “set a poor benchmark”, calling for the repeal of mandatory detention for asylum seekers – and she was also concerned by “firsthand reports of discrimination and racism, particularly associated with Islamophobia”.
The United States encouraged Australia to “ensure humane treatment and respect for the human rights of asylum seekers, including those processed offshore”.
The US said the processing of refugees and asylum seekers should be “closely monitored”, though it stopped short of calling for the offshore centres to be closed.
Countries not normally celebrated for their human rights records joined the criticism of Australia.
North Korea’s representative said his country was “seriously concerned at continued maltreatment of and violence against the refugees and asylum seekers”.
Iran expressed its “deep concern about the mandatory immigration detention regime”.
And China said Australia should safeguard the human rights of “all refugees and asylum seekers who reach Australian shores”.
Most countries acknowledged that Australia had made progress since its first human rights review in 2011.
However Russia pointed out that Australia had fully implemented just 10 per cent of the 145 recommendations it had accepted from that review – a statistic it plucked from this year’s report by the Australian Human Rights Commission.
* So real immigration restrictions require real force and perhaps real blood to generate costs and fear to discourage people from trying to challenge the barriers.
Australia has my respect for its decisive policy without shedding the kind of blood the GDR did at their pretty bloody effective border wall. But North Korea, China and Russia criticizing Australia on the basis of human rights??? Very funny… Who knew that the sense of humor of the Chinese was that good? I’m waiting for the Peoples Republic’s answer to Charlie Chaplin or at least Roberto Benigni… The UN and especially the Human Rights Council is the joke that doesn’t stop giving. Can’t wait for Somalia and Saudi Arabia to come out with some harsh words about the womens’ rights situation in the US with respect to the 20 cent wage gap and the rape culture among white college frat-boys….
Maybe North Korea could do some consulting in Australia and the US about humane ways to secure national territory? After all they seem to know a thing about sealing the borders…
Regarding the question of immigration, Americans make too much of the illegal component when the real issue is the total magnitude. Indeed the legal component alone made up of “compassionate” cases of “family unification” may be too much to be overwhelming the American culture, its community and ability to assimilate the newcomers. But nobody even has the courage to question even this legal component. It’s also unfortunate that immigration skeptics are painted as racists. I bear no ill-will to our Mexican neighbors. I wish them peace, prosperity and everything good. I welcome them to visit and hope we can show them our most gracious hospitality during their time here. But I’m probably not alone in expecting them to return home to their own neighborhoods in Mexico where they can build and grow their own country. If the left is right in there being differences to their vibrant diversity, then these differences should be respected, preserved and allowed to develop on their own trajectory in their own territory. Immigration skepticism can be voiced as a positive and compassionate position without animus against those being kept out. I like my my neighbors in my neighborhood. I might invite them to visit for a barbecue, but if they decide to set up camp, expropriate space or change the rules in my home that’s way too much.
* It’s funny to hear N. Korea going after Australia about refugees, but it makes a certain amount of sense. N. Korea, after all, has generated the largest refugee flow in E. Asia in recent times. If China hadn’t absorbed all those North Korean refugees from famine, the regime might not have survived. So North Korea has an interest in pressuring countries to accept refugees.
I saw a lot of them first-hand back in the 90s. Those around my age or a little younger who were still growing during the famine were markedly stunted. I mean really short. Ordinarily Koreans – especially northerners – are relatively tall. My friend’s mother was from what is now North Korean territory and his uncles are all six footers.
Sweden on the other hand is just pathetic. I hope Sweden’s elites enjoy their moral preening while they still can. The Norwegians and Danes just told them to shove it when they started pouting that all the migrants they invited in should be “shared equally.” As though they’re cookies in a kindergarten fer chrissake…
* Australia should tell them get stuffed and go ahead and set up their own UN, with blackjack and hookers !
When paragons of respect for human dignity; like Rwanda, Iran and North Korea, are against you, it’s time to have a long hard think about developing your own Bomb..
The UN is clearly concerned that the Aussies have implemented a democratically popular anti-illegals tactic. This cannot be tolerated!
* Australian migrant policy is totally sane BUT its foreign policy has been insane.
As a puppet of American neo-imperialism, it has supported actions by US and NATO that brought so much misery to the Middle East.
Australia also joined with US and EU in targeting/damaging Russia over Ukraine.
It’s good that Australia isn’t into INVITE. But it also needs to stop supporting the agenda of INVADE. One is tied to the other.
Russians must enjoy sticking it to Australians who have acted as shills of the US.
* The Australian representative needs to turn the tables, to reframe the issue and charge that the accusers are afraid of diversity and demand that they account for why they hate diversity so much. Australia simply has a different vision, a different viewpoint, from their attackers and the doesn’t want to conform to the uniform, stale, intellectually bankrupt, views held by their accusers.
Why do Germany and Sweden hate diversity so much that they publicly attack a country that follows a diverse (different) policy than the one they favor? What kind of bigots run Germany and Sweden such that they would attack the principle of diversity so openly?
* I think the critical countries should be leading by example and take those refugees themselves and show the world how to treat them properly.
* No one pays attention to Iran or NK, and even Russian statements are taken with a grain of salt, which is why I focused on Germany and Sweden.
Moral preeners hate being put on the defensive regarding being anti-diversity. Such an attack serves two purposes, 1.) it puts the spotlight on the fact that diversity is not some uni-directional concept which always and only aligns with multiculturalist viewpoints and 2.) it elevates the moral position of Australia’s policy to be on par with the multiculturalist viewpoint. Preserving Australian culture enhances diversity in the world and surely Germany and Sweden are not opposed to increased levels of diversity in the world.
There is internal diversity (all countries have a mishmash of cultures inhabiting the land within their borders) and there is external diversity (Japanese culture is different from Finnish culture) but the problem is that modern usage of the term diversity only refers to internal diversity and there is a lot of moral preening and symbolism attached to the term, so hijack that moral preening and symbolism and attach it to the concept of external diversity and make like Germany and Sweden are pariahs for opposing “diversity” (external form, not internal form.) Why do Germany and Sweden want to eradicate diversity in the world? Are they a nation of monsters?
* The UN is the most poisonously anti-white organisation in existence. It’s the essence of quantity over quality – a shrinking minority of white countries being lectured and bullied by the representatives of the planet’s exploding population of non-whites.
