I'VE MOVED!

Hi there,

from now onwards, my blog can be found at

http://probablynotinteresting.wordpress.com/

why have i moved??

it's prettier, and more user-friendly. that's good enough for me!

i hope you will keep reading :)

Electric Shock Therapy, Anyone...?

Here's something fun for you. Note: 'DIAC' is the new acronym for the Immigration Department... Strap yourself in - here we go...

DIAC CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authorising Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for mentally ill detainees.

Long term detainees in psychiatric hospitals whose mental state continues to deteriorate in detention are now being threatened with Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The treatment involves passing an electric current across part of the head, causing the brain to have a seizure (convulsion).

http://www.virtualpsychcentre.com/news.asp?artid=9017

ABSTRACT

“In a stunning reversal, an article in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology in January 2007 by prominent researcher Harold Sackeim of Columbia University reveals that electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) causes permanent amnesia and permanent deficits in cognitive abilities, which affect individuals' ability to function.
This study provides the first evidence in a large, prospective sample that adverse cognitive effects can persist for an extended period, and that they characterize routine treatment with ECT in community settings," the study notes.”

The most important side-effect of ECT is its effect on memory. During the course of ECT most patients will experience forgetfulness and loss of short-term memory especially around the time of treatment. Many people will also notice that they can't remember certain things that have occurred in their lives for up to 6 or 12 months before treatment. This type of memory loss does not always return fully. People contemplating ECT should discuss potential memory effects with their doctor before proceeding.

“Asylum Seekers in their interrogation by Immigration Department (DIAC) officers are expected to remember every detail of their lives and the reasons why they fled their country. In order to validate their stories, they are expected to be able details such as how many people were in the room in which they were tortured, all physical details of the room, times, dates of events etc.” says Pamela Curr of the ASRC “If their memories have been obliterated by ECT, how can they validate their stories, how can they make DIAC and the Refugee Tribunal believe them if they can’t remember what happened.”
“DIAC’s role in authorising treatment which diminishes the capacity of an asylum seeker to make a claim for asylum is a direct conflict of interest.”

Patient 1 in Toowong Hospital was recommended for ECT until DIAC stopped it after advocates expressed their concern and dismay in November 2006. He is still in hospital awaiting a decision. His treating psychiatrist has stated that he is too sick to travel.

Patient 2. The Minister has refused his visa however DIAC have decided not to tell him because he is suicidal. He remains in hospital under close observation.

Patient 3. This man has had 6 ECT treatments and now cannot remember if he has a 417 before the Minister or at what stage his process is. He now has confusion and memory loss. Before detention he was a highly qualified IT technician.

Patient 4. This woman collapsed into unconsciousness in Port Augusta Housing because no one had noticed that she was so depressed that she had neither eaten nor drunk anything for ten days. She is currently threatened with ECT.

"These patients who were well, stable individuals until they were placed in long term detention centres are now terribly depressed. Psychiatrists have written reports indicating that recovery is not possible while their futures are insecure. They have also advised that these patients are not fit to travel. Rather than release them from detention, DIAC are choosing ECT. DIAC are approving a course of treatment which places at risk the mental faculties of people whose very survival depends on their capacity to remember and convince bureaucrats by the acuity of this faculty. They are killing their chances of being believed,” Curr continues.
_______________________________________________

Help the Tamil Asylum Seekers - URGENT!

Points to make:
* These are young men, most of whom are aged 22 & 23 years, the oldest
is 28 years;
* Some have been held, tortured and beaten in Camps in Jaffna because
they are Tamil;
See http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/2/12541.html
* In reality many are computer and accounting students and at least
one is a high School student aged 17years;
* Their families raised the money to send them to safety in an attempt
to save their lives;
Sri Lanka is in civil conflict

See
http://www.amnesty.org.au/news_features/news/refugee/sri_lanka_560,000_displaced_people_suffer_effects_of_intensifying_violence

* It is too dangerous to send them to India because the Sri Lankan Navy
sinks Tamil boats on the basis that they are all Tamil Tigers - not all are;
See http://english.people.com.cn/200609/25/eng20060925_306127.html

and http://www.colombopage.com/archive_07/February16140946CH.html
* If they are captured they are forced to serve in the Sri Lankan
military fighting Tamils; Understandably they do not want to do this;
See http://www.tamilnation.org/indictment/genocide95/gen9560.htm
* They came to Australia legitimately seeking asylum. Under the Refugee
Convention to which we are signatory, Australia is obliged to receive them
and assess their claim.
* They should be provided with legal advice and counselling immediately.
* Many are traumatised from beatings and torture received in detention
camps in Sri Lanka they need counselling and legal advice.
Please ring Kevin Rudds office urgently:

Tel: (02) 6277 4022
Fax: (02) 6277 8495

Email: Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au

Tel: (07) 3899 4031
Fax: (07) 3899 5755

Labor must stand up for the Refugee Convention and demand that Howard
allow these young men to make their claims and to properly assess those
claims.

End this secret incommunicado detention!

Pamela Curr
ASRC Melbourne.

***TAKE URGENT ACTION TO PREVENT APPALLING TREATMENT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS***

***TAKE URGENT ACTION TO PREVENT APPALLING TREATMENT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS***

Hi there everyone,

We have a little bit of a situation which would benefit from 2 minutes of your time.

You may be aware that a few days ago, the Australian Navy intercepted a boatload of 83 Sri Lankan asylum seekers off the coast of Australia, just near Christmas Island.

In a massive contravention of customary international law, human rights law, humanitarian law and Australia's self-assumed treaty obligations, the Howard government has made secret arrangements with Indonesia to send the asylum seekers immediately back to Indonesia, from whence they will be sent back to Sri Lanka. (Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/deal-to-send-boat-people-packing/2007/02/23/1171734021096.html)

Howard has categorically refused to let the men so much as lodge their applications for asylum in Australia, which is their rights under the law of Australia AND international law. Remember, ***arriving in Australia unauthorised, by boat, even with no papers, is NOT illegal!

Sending people back to a place where they may suffer persecution is called 'refoulement', and it is strictly and unambiguously prohibited under international law as a fundamental principle aimed at protecting the rights and the lives of the world's most vulnerable people.

Let's also remember that the Government has just completed work on an 800-bed $360 million detention facility on Christmas Island. It is ready and waiting to receive these asylum seekers, and although i abhor the existence of such a facility, it is vastly preferable that it should be put to use while these men's claims are processed, rather than sending them back to a situation of grave danger.

It is a serious concern that our Government has decided that this kind of behaviour is OK, especially in light of the fact that it has been proven that at least 9 men and 3 children have been killed upon return from Australia to their homelands in recent years.

PLEASE TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO SEND A BRIEF EMAIL TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS.

Here are a few points you may like to make:

* "Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" Article 14, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* Article 33 of the 1951 Refugees Convention *ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITS* sending people back to a country or territory where they may face danger. This is exactly what we're about to do!
* These 83 people are the first asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australia in over a year. Some areas in Europe get 1500 asylum seekers A DAY!
* Some of the poorest countries in the world are the most generous hosts of asylum seekers. Ethiopia, Eritrea etc... Iran and Pakistan both hold over 2 million refugees each. Australia takes 0.05% of the world's refugee burden.
* Historically, asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia are found to be genuine refugees in 92% of cases. Think about it like this: people don't uproot their lives, leave their families and get in a leaky boat for 10 days to travel to a strange country unless they are SERIOUS about the dangers that face them at home.

The Government:
PM John Howard - you'll have to contact him using this form: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm
Kevin.Andrews.MP@aph.gov.au - Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.

AND your local member of the Liberal Party:
using this form... http://www.aec.gov.au/esearch/main.htm


And Labor:
Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) Leader. Let him know that you do not support Howard's approach, and you'd be interested to see what his approach would be. Encourage him to OPPOSE this stunt and provide a strong, principled alternative.
Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) co-leader of Labor party.
Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au - (Labor) Shadow Immigration Spokesman. Would be immigration minister if Labor wins the election. He is generally very open to dialogue and reasonableness but we have yet to see what happens when the rubber hits the road! Encourage him, as well, to take a strong, vocal stand against this awful behaviour.


Thanks very much for reading. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me!

Jessie

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!

Shocking News from the High Court of Australia

See article:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20763005-29277,00.html

Yesterday, the High Court of Australia decided that the Government is much more easily able to send home asylum seekers who have held TPVs. A couple of years ago, the Federal Court found that the it was the responsibility of the Government to prove that it is safe to send people home before doing so, but yesterday the High Court disagreed. Meaning that whensoever DIMA decides that the Taliban doesn't exist anymore (in spite of any overwhelming evidence to the contrary), they can just send people home. And this decision seems to have been made in complete disregard of the fact that this year the Taliban has made a major resurgence in the power vacuum left by the almost totally defunct government of Hamid Karzai.

As usual, Justice Michael Kirby dissented, and made a lot of sense. You can find a few (pretty damn valid) things which he said about this judgement in the article. " Justice Michael Kirby dissented, saying that in both cases Australian decision makers, safe in this country, might regard the beheading of 12 Hazaras as an unimportant or isolated incidents.

"But to a person whose experience had already invoked a well-founded fear of persecution, occasioning flight to Australia to seek refuge and official acceptance and recognition of refugee status, such an instance might be indicative of more widespread, systematic violent activity apt to occasion a well-founded fear of continuing persecution," he said."

This means that people on temporary protection visas have absolutely no guarantee of being given protection in Australia in future, further extending their period of displacement, uprooting and uncertainty. And decisions regarding their futures will be made by the Department of Immigration, which has approx a 50% margin of error for first-instance decisions on asylum cases, and a notorious level of hostility, suspicion and mistreatment of vulnerable people.

Just for fun, I feel like posting some photos of the extremely "safe" Kabul, seen here in the wake of the US attacks. Would you send your family here?







Let's remember all of this in the context of the Edmund Rice Centre report released in August citing at *least* 9 examples of people who have been sent home by Australia and killed almost immediately. These people were sent home when Australia considered it "safe". Are we willing to take that risk again? I - for one - am absolutely, categorically NOT.

When will the calculated, malicious, cruelty stop? How much more blood needs to be spilled? How many more lives need to be destroyed before our country will take up its obligations and honour them with the respect and observance they deserve?

If you are not yet convinced or aware of what the Taliban is capable of, click here for pictures of the massacre at Yakawlang (Hazarajat) in 2001. Warning: there are some extremely graphic images. Extremely graphic images which have comprised the lives, the memories and the trauma of people whom Australia locks up in desert prisons and then deports whenever it feels like it. You are in a position to choose whether or not to see this stuff - many thousands have no such luxury. http://www.rawa.org/yakw-hrw.htm

East Web Fundraiser - Funtimes for a Good Cause!

OH MY GOODNESS!!

Labor's big shift on refugees

Michael Gordon
October 16, 2006

THE Labor Party is set to abandon its policy of giving refugees who attempt to come to Australia by boat only temporary protection, in a fundamental shift in its attitude towards asylum seekers since the Tampa episode of 2001.

Opposition spokesman on migration Tony Burke is expected to announce today the shift to permanent protection — which represents a sharp contrast with government policy — after it is endorsed by the shadow cabinet.

The decision will mean Labor will go to next year's election opposing the two key aspects of the Government's policy — offshore processing in foreign countries, Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and temporary protection visas (TPVs).

More than 900 mainly Afghan and Iraqi refugees remain on the temporary visas after being found to have genuine fears of persecution if returned to their countries.

They are unable to leave Australia and return or seek to be reunited with immediate family members.

Labor's shift could also have implications for the small group of Burmese asylum seekers who were sent to Nauru for processing last month if their claims for protection are found to be genuine.

The decision will end several years of emotional internal debate within Labor on the visa system that was introduced in 1999 in a bid to deter unauthorised boat arrivals.

Mr Burke has refused to be drawn on the imminent shift, but gave a clue to his thinking at a Labor for Refugees dinner in July when he said: "If there is a reason for us to take a TPV policy to the next election, I am yet to hear it."

He declined to comment yesterday, confirming only that he had received a report from Labor's social policy committee. "I'll be responding to the report to the shadow ministry and will have more to say after that," he told The Age.

One of those rescued by the Tampa and living in Melbourne said yesterday the uncertainty about when he might be able to see his family had caused him to be treated for depression last year. The young man had suffered three years' offshore detention, been on a TPV for three years and has another two years before it expires.

Under the visa he has to pay full fees to study, with no certainty that he will eventually be granted permanency. "It's very hard," he said yesterday.

A push to end Labor's support for TPVs was defeated at Labor's last national conference by a vote of 226 to 164 after then leader Mark Latham put his authority on the line. Existing Labor policy provides for two-year temporary protection visas, with an expectation that permanent protection will then be granted.

The 14-page report of the policy committee, obtained by The Age, argues that TPVs should be abolished. "If an applicant is found to be a refugee that person should be given permanent protection immediately," it says.

The report challenges the Government's assertion that temporary protection visas are a deterrent to unauthorised boat arrivals, asserting the system encouraged women and children to risk their lives and follow their husbands and fathers.

The report also argues that uncertainty inherent in the temporary protection system has exacerbated mental health problems for many asylum seekers and that having to re-apply for protection when temporary visas expire forces the refugee to relive past trauma.

Sources say there is now a recognition on Labor's front bench that conditions have remained unsafe in Iraq and Afghanistan for several years, undercutting one of the Government's main justifications for the regime.

The Immigration Department's website justifies the system by asserting that recent experience of changing country situations shows the value of being able to reassess whether a person has a continuing need for protection before conferring permanent or continuing protection.

One source conceded that the policy shift was less radical than it would have been three years ago, when several thousand refugees were on TPVs. The source said Mr Burke had no plans to reconsider the other controversial plank of Labor's policy, support for the Government's excision of Christmas Island from Australia's migration zone.

As at October 6, 9875 temporary protection visas had been granted since 1999, an Immigration Department official said. In addition, 830 temporary humanitarian visas had been granted to unauthorised arrivals in Australia's offshore excised places, such as Ashmore Reef .

About 8450 of these TPV and temporary humanitarian visa holders have since been granted permanent protection.

The official estimated that about 1430 people still held temporary protection and temporary humanitarian visas.