When Australia signed on to the various United Nations protocols on immigration, they imposed " obligations" that we are bound to follow in dealing with people who claim to be seeking asylum - and demanding entrance to this country. One of those protocols insists that an asylum seeker shall not be returned to a country which still imposes the death penalty as a punishment. It is common for arrivals to claim that they face execution if returned.
Many countries - including America and China - still maintain the death penalty as a punishment for major crime and this is a matter for their own government to decide. When Australia shields a person who may have committed a crime that would bring the death penalty from facing justice in the country where that crime was committed, we are really assisting a felon's escape bid.
Recent events seem to show that Australia's policy on returning asylum seekers has double standards. Sri Lanka has emerged from a long period of civil war and it is claimed that retribution is still a factor in dealings with the vanquished. Many claim that the risk of summary execution is the reason they have joined groups on refugee boats to seek safety in Australia.
It now seems that we are paying a bounty of $3300 to those who volunteer to be returned to Sri Lanka - at Australian government expense in regard to air fares. For those from a poor country, this is a worthwhile sum of money and will go a long way in reestablishing a new life. It seems that monetary reward far exceeds the fear of execution when it comes to a life decision.
There is also a claim that a group of refugees carried out a pirate raid on a fishing trawler and commandeered this ship for their voyage to Australia. Violence was used to subdue the crew. Several were thrown overboard and drowned - and there are survivors who witnessed this event. Strangely, Australia had no scruples in boarding this trawler at sea off Cocos island and the people aboard were summarily returned to Sri Lanka to face piracy charges. Surely piracy and murder could result in execution as a likely penalty.
We certainly do not want immigrants who commit piracy and murder as future citizens and yet many of these United Nations protocols tie our hands when it comes to removing suspected criminals from our shores. It raises the question of whether we should be a signatory to these accords ? Some seem to be very " civilized ", until we look at the fine print and find that all the rights are on the side of the new arrival - and none are bestowed on Australian citizens to keep their land free of marauders.
It is a sorry state of affairs when we are paying those that force their way onto our shores to go home - and also paying the travel bill for them to do so. This might be a good time to withdraw from the United Nations accord on refugees - and clearly state Australia's policy on how we will deal with these matters.
Who we permit to live in Australia is an Australian question - and it should be decided by Australians.\ !
.
No comments:
Post a Comment