nic.suzor.net

Image: crizk

Kevin Andrews has said that Austrlaia would cut its intake of African refugees. Why? Apparently, because they're poor, uneducated, and come from war-torn backgrounds:

“They tend to have more problems and challenges associated with them. Their level of education, for example, is a lot lower than for any other group of refugees,” he said.



“They've been in war-torn conflict for a decade, many of them. Many are young . . . and many have been in refugee camps for decades.



It doesn't make much sense to me to acknowledge you have a problem . . . but not actually slow down the rate of intake until you've dealt with it,” he said.

This is absolutely ridiculous. You can't pretend to be fulfilling your international obligations to accept refugees, but pick and choose on the basis that you only want educated refugees who HAVEN'T come from decades of war-torn conflict.

If refugees have problems 'integrating' into Australian society, the fault lies with us. The convention requires that we accept people who have a well founded fear of persecution. It does not mention that we can legitimately separate persecuted groups into those who are rich and educated and those who are not.

Lets either stop pretending that we're compliant with our international obligations, or actually give effect to the principle that people who have a well founded fear of persecution are entitled to protection.

So this kid goes to a forum with John Kerry and asks why Kerry conceded the election so quickly. He then asks a bit more of a wacky question about whether Kerry was a member of Skull and Bones.

He is forcibly removed from the microphone and escorted to the back of the room. Kerry says, as the police are escorting him away, “let me answer his question”, and continues to answer while the police grapple with the man.

All the while, the man is asking why he is being arrested, and what he has done wrong. Finally he is lying on the floor surrounded by police officers, and you can hear him say “let me go and I'll walk out of here”, “please don't taser me”, “why are you arresting me?”.

And then, they taser him, and he screams. And all this time, Kerry is talking in the background.

I don't have any words for this. It's really, incredibly disgusting. Some of his questions may have been wacky, but they were still legitimate. You don't taser people because they take up too much time asking questions of an elected official. You just don't do it.

Last week, the UN voted 143-4 in favour of a declaration of rights of indigenous peoples. Voting against were Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US.

This comes hot on the heels of the Howard Government pushing through controversial legislation which removes significant autonomy from indigenous communities and overrides the Racial Discrimination Act.

The Howard Government is terrified of debate and discussion on its policies. This legislation was given next to no time for discussion in the Senate, and failed to engage in any significant community consultation. Instead of working with rural indigenous communities to overcome the very real problems that they face, this package is unabashed paternalistic vote-buying grandstanding. If Howard were serious about addressing the health and welfare needs of indigenous communities, his policies would be inclusive instead of being deeply divisive.

I don't believe that a bill of rights can fix all our problems. A universal declaration, however, at the very least provides a means of redress for Government actions which are purely discriminatory (see, for example, Toonen v Australia, where Tasmania's laws prohibiting homosexual sex were finally repealed in the late 90's (after a decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and significant Federal pressure)). Which is exactly why the Australian Government doesn't want to agree to this declaration – it could open the doors further than Mabo v Queensland (No 2)) for Australian indigenous peoples to make legitimate claims within the Australian legal system.

By voting against this declaration, Australia is continuing its long tradition of treating indigenous Australian as second class subjects. By refusing to acknowledge any substantive rights of indigenous Australians, we are condemning ourselves to socially exclusive paternalistic policy.

Much to my shame, I hadn't even heard of this vote until today. Looking back, there were a number of articles in the mainstream media, but much less than I would have expected for what I feel is a completely reprehensible move by the Australian Government.

See over for ambassador Robert Hill's explanation of the vote against.

(Thanks Daithi.)

ROBERT HILL ( Australia), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said Australia had actively worked to ensure the adoption of a meaningful declaration. Australia had worked hard to ensure that any declaration could become a tangible and ongoing standard of achievement that would be universally accepted, observed and upheld. The text of the Declaration failed to reach that high standard and Australia continued to have many concerns with the text. Australia had repeatedly called for a chance to participate in negotiations on the current text and was deeply disappointed that none had been convened.

Regarding the nature of the Declaration, he said it was the clear intention of all States that it be an aspirational Declaration with political and moral force, but not legal force. The text contained recommendations regarding how States could promote the welfare of indigenous peoples, but was not in itself legally binding nor reflective of international law. As the Declaration did not describe current State practice or actions that States considered themselves obliged to take as a matter of law, it could not be cited as evidence of the evolution of customary international law. The Declaration did not provide a proper basis for legal actions complaints, or other claims in any international, domestic or other proceedings.

The Australian Government had long expressed its dissatisfaction with the references to self-determination in the Declaration, he said. Self-determination applied to situations of decolonization and the break-up of States into smaller states with clearly defined population groups. It also applied where a particular group with a defined territory was disenfranchised and was denied political or civil rights. The Government supported and encouraged the full engagement of indigenous peoples in the democratic decision-making process, but did not support a concept that could be construed as encouraging action that would impair, even in part, the territorial and political integrity of a State with a system of democratic representative Government.

On lands and resources, he said the Declaration's provisions could be read to require recognition of indigenous rights to lands without regard to other legal rights existing in land, both indigenous and non-indigenous. Any right to traditional lands must be subject to national laws, or the provisions would be both arbitrary and impossible to implement, with no recognition being given to the fact that ownership of land might lawfully vest in others. Australia would read the lands and resources provisions in line with its existing domestic laws, including the Native Title Act.

Australia had concerns that the Declaration expanded any right to free, prior and informed consent too far, as the scope of that proposed right was too broad. It could mean that States were obliged to consult with indigenous peoples about every aspect of law that might affect them. That would not only be unworkable, but would apply a standard for indigenous peoples that did not apply to others in the population. Australia could not accept a right that allowed a particular sub-group of the population to be able to veto legitimate decisions of a democratic and representative Government. Australia also did not support the inclusion of intellectual property rights for indigenous peoples.

On third party rights, he noted that, in seeking to give indigenous people exclusive rights over property, both intellectual, real and cultural, the Declaration did not acknowledge the rights of third parties, in particular the rights of third parties to access indigenous land, heritage and cultural objects where appropriate under national law. The Declaration also failed to consider the different types of ownership and use that could be accorded to indigenous people and failed to consider the rights of third parties to property. Australia was also concerned that the Declaration placed indigenous customary law in a superior position to national law. Customary law was not “law” in the sense that modern democracies used the term, but was based on culture and tradition. Australia would read the whole of the Declaration in accordance with domestic laws, as well as international human rights standards.

Wile the Declaration would not be binding on Australia and other States as a matter of international law, he was aware that its aspirational contents would be relied on in setting standards by which States would be judged in their relations with indigenous peoples. Accordingly, the Australian Government had been concerned throughout the negotiations to ensure that the Declaration was meaningful, was capable of implementation and enjoyed wide support in the international community. The Declaration failed in all those respects and Australia could not support it.