Christmas Island: So Where the Bloody Hell Are You??

I know I'm supposed to be waxing lyrical about the beauty of southern France (and I will, I promise!), but I'm afraid this is taking precedence at the moment! This evening something landed in my inbox which I feel compelled to share with you all.

You may know that the Australian Government has just spent $360million on a shiny new detention facility on Christmas Island. Its capacity is 800 people, and it has purpose built rooms designd to hold children. Does the idea of imprisoning innocent, already traumatised children not quite sit right, or is it just me...?

Also, the figure of $360million is particularly interesting when you consider that EIGHT people have arrived unauthorised in Australian territory by boat in the last 12 months. If we divide these 8 people into the $360m, we come up with the princely sum of $45million per head. Wowee. That is some hella expensive accommodation, even if it IS in the name of border protection! Do you think it's worth it?

In fact, if we generously divide the $360m by 12,000 (the number of unauthorised boat arrivals over the past TEN YEARS - the entire duration of Howard's term in office), we come up with the not-insignificant figure of $30,000 per head. That might be worthwhile (at a stretch) if the 12,000 were dodgey brothers or terrorists, but remember that upwards of 90% of them have been found to be genuine refugees, fleeing persecution and in desperate need of protection. For a government which prides itself on good economic management, I have to say I think a preschooler of less-than-average intelligence would do a better job.

Anyway, here is a photograph of said detention facility....

Can you imagine its isolation, and its separation from mainland Australia, legal assistance, community support, media, and the lifeline of visitors... This is a system purpose-built to traumatise and discourage people to the extent that they would rather risk torture and death at home, than wait out access to the rights they hold under Australian law, treaty law and customary international law. Deterrence has always factored highly in the government’s motivation. Julian Burnside QC often comments on this idea of deterrence, and his argument follows thus: "Mr. Ruddock and Mr. Howard have made it clear that the mandatory detention system, and the iniquitous Pacific Solution, are designed to "send a message". This decodes as: we treat innocent people harshly to deter others. The punishment of innocent people to shape the behaviour of others is impossible to justify. It is the philosophy of hostage-takers."

Although Burnside is accused from time to time of engaging in hyperbole, his rationale in this instance is difficult to fault. The Executive Committee of the UNHCR has also made a comment on the use of detention for anything other than a legitimate administrative purpose, concluding that "detention of asylum seekers which is applied… as part of a policy to deter future asylum seekers, or to dissuade those who have commenced their claims from pursuing them, is contrary to the norms of refugee law. It should not be used as a punitive or disciplinary measure for illegal entry or presence in the country".

What do we have to say about that, Messrs Howard & Ruddock...?

I'm in Europe at the moment, studying international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law. More often that I care to mention, Australia is cited as an example of a country which drastically misinterprets an twists the meanings of the rights and obligations enshrined under international law in this field, and we are rapidly becoming a laughing stock and a worst-case-scenario when it comes to respecting human rights.

This is a Federal election year. Enough said. Let your ballot do the talking. This kind of (extremely expensive!) cruelty is not OK!