Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

“if you were locked up in a desert cage for five years without trial or charge, you were beaten and tear gassed and water cannoned and you had committed no crime what would you do?”

In nearly all emotive matters exaggeration and emotional slogans masquerade as truths, but they are essentially beliefs and do need to be logically challenged. It is all too easy to write a few emotionally charged sentences laced with emotive words such as “trial without charge” and “beaten”, and “tear gassed”, but perhaps a more balanced and credible view can be obtained from well researched academic papers that put aside emotive rhetoric and present logical and reasoned arguments based on facts.

Gary Klintworth is a former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal and wrote an informative paper entitled Woomera: Hell Holes and Mandatory Detention of Illegal Immigrants.

Fiona: Welcome to Webdiary, Franklin. If you wish to continue submitting comments for publication on Webdiary, a full name is required, not an alias. If you do not give a full name (or supply the editors with a reason why you must use a pseudonym), this registration will be suspended.

"Akram’s crime was to seek asylum, to fail, and to ask to go home."

Those were your words, Marilyn. Akram asked to go home.

You say: "The point is that he was a refugee and should never, ever have been denied refugee status."

Presumably because his life was under threat. Otherwise, why would you use Akram as an example, if not because he was killed when he went home?

Why otherwise are we being asked to consider "What happened to Akram al Masri"?

But then, once the facts about how Akram was actually killed, you change your tune.

Suddenly: "The article is written about what happened to Al Masri here, not his recent murder.

You've chosen, at very least, a poor example to support your argument.

Certainly Akram's story was heartrending and awful, but his fate ultimately depended not on the Australian government at all, but on what happened in Palestine.

If Akram should have been kept here, given his murder, then why not all those others, too involved in the clan warfare? Should we admit them as refugees, too?

How about people in Mexico caught up in the drug gang wars? Why not battered wives from the United Kingdom? How about girls fleeing arranged marriages in India?

Where does it end?

Thank you Alga for the following comment addressed to me:

 You speak of openness, yet wish to suppress my views when you have no idea of what they are, only what logically I am against.

You've every right to express your views.  Please, the more the better as it gives me a good laugh and makes me wonder what they have been putting in your drinking water. 

Now, what do you mean by ideologist?

"Alga, if you were locked up in a desert cage for five years without trial or charge, you were beaten and tear gassed and water cannoned and you had committed no crime what would you do?

Your entire argument is utterly spurious because all those people you claim are so violent and dangerous are now citizens of this fair land.”

Marilyn, those you emotionally describe as being gassed and beaten, where those who rioted, destroyed their accommodation and the decent facilities designed to hold them until it could be proved they were who they say they were and not a threat to our society. They were also the ones who are violent in nature, either destroyed their personal identification, or failed to bring it with them, which could mean they travelled through many countries deceptively, or destroyed their documentation before finally embarking to Australia.

The people I know don't describe Woomera as a hell hole, but a comfortable place they would've preferred not to be. However their stay was reasonably short as they had their documentation and were honest in their interviews, they disliked intensely those in the camp who did nothing but complain, lie and did everything to disrupt the processes. Why don't you support people who are honest about their stance and not nut cases who are clearly motivated by deceptive intent. But then devout ideologists have only one thing on their minds, themselves and their bizarre beliefs.

Anthony Nolan I thank you for one thing, providing proof of the style of moderation on this site. However, you looking in a mirror and then accusing others of what you see, is a common trait of ideological clones living in square boxes of programmed delusion.

“Democracy is a form of government in which power is held by people under a free electoral system.

In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.”

Our country is not a democracy, as the power is not held by the people, because of a corrupt and unconstitutional voting system. Our country would be a democracy if we have direct voting instead if unconstitutional indirect preferential voting, meaning all votes end up with the two faction religious right controlling Australia.

We have no real freedoms or liberties, as those in power can take what they like when they want any time, as we see every day and unless you are one of them or have lots of money, you have no hope. We don't have the right to choose who comes to our country to stay, that's decided by those whose only desire is profit from more consumers and not the future ecological or social stability of the country.

Justice, not for victims of crime, nor the average person, just the elite and their ideological associates. Our legal system is about power and money, not justice unless it gets big headlines for the corrupt monolithic legal system to give some form of illusion to cover the real truth.

Hate, is only found in the ideologically inept, so your post is a reflection of yourself. I am nothing like what you describe and others wish to think. Your type of thoughts, are thoughts of hope and only come from egocentric ideological and religious elitists. When their delusions are revealed, they first resort to being holier than thou, accusations, threats and finally violence in what ever way they can find. You see it world wide in the realms of the god psychopathy. You speak of openness, yet wish to suppress my views when you have no idea of what they are, only what logically I am against.

Fear, again the realm of the ideologist, as their deepest fear is to be wrong, laughably they always are, just like you. I know fear, real fear so I understand what it is, and how to overcome it. But it's clear you have no idea other than fear of your self deception falling apart. Ideologists look down their noses at those who live life fully and responsibly, as they cringe in an ideological and economic windowless box of a mind.

Marilyn Shepherd: "Eliot, do you bother to read or just nit pick?"

Well, I don't mean to nit-pick, Marilyn, but to anyone who didn't know that

•  Akram was actually killed in an inter-tribal feud that also claimed various other members of the two conflicted extended families, and
• Akram actually sought permission to leave Australia for Gaza

a superficial reading of your story might otherwise lead some people thinking he had been killed by Fatah after being deported from here, or something. On political grounds, maybe?

No disrespect, but the circumstances of his death are, I would say, crucial to Akram's story, wouldn't you say?

I don't consider it nit-picking to point out the fundamental fact of how he died, given you are supposedly writing an account of 'what happened' to him.

Without meaning to seem picky, but how a person dies is fairly indicative of 'what happened' to them, no? Their actual death?

Nobody could accuse me of being a friend of Fatah murder squads, so it's not as if I'm trying to do them some favour by observing that Akram's death in Gaza had nothing to do with Fatah, his political beliefs, the conflict between Hamas and Fatah, the Israeli Arab conflict, or any of the circumstances that might normally be regarded as relevant to his status as a 'refugee'.

Otherwise, you might just as easily argue that Tony Mokbel is a 'refugee' from Australia or anyone fleeing gangland violence in Melbourne is a 'refugee' from Victoria.

It maybe a moot point in your view, but possibly fairly fundamental to others' understanding of the topic.

I've been reading Alga's contributions for a while and have noted the patience with which diarists explain, over and over, fundamental principles of democracy and justice and due process and so on. 

But I'm convinced now that Alga is channeling Joh.  He ain't dead folks.  There is the same hatred of the educated, the same paranoid mindset and deep fear of difference.  Don't be fooled I say.  Remember the ignorance and loathing that ruled in Queensland and give it the short shrift that it is due.

Have no truck with proto-fascists.  The quibbling, querulous demands that we have pity on their lack of confidence and semi-literacy mask a deep and abiding hatred of decency, openness and dialogue which are the hallmarks of a democratic citizen.  These types are their opposite.

Richard I try not to be personal, but being accused of hatred, is a personal attack. It does seem some are allowed almost free reign, whilst others are set upon by the clique at any opportunity they can find, to maintain their assumed superiority.

“Now which part of that don't you get?

If anyone had broken the law they would have been charged. Wouldn't they?

And if people's lives are in danger what is wrong with a small deception to get to safety? Are you to inform us that you would sit idly by to be shot again while Australia made up her mind that you could come?

As for your claims about Woomera or detention being a holiday camp you are living in Noddy Land.

What a ridiculous debate you seem to want to conduct when you are looking at it from the prism of a crime committed.

There is no crime, never was. The crime was in 1938 when we denied access to Jews.”

I get it all Marilyn, but aren't prepared to accept any of your reasoning or apologetics. I understand deception is an accepted part of ideological psychology, as an ideologist you see nothing wrong with it at all. You don't seem to realise in your fervent zeal to understand I am against those who come through many countries which they could have stayed in safely, to get to Australia and try to sneak in. I'm not against those who go through the right channels, but I acknowledge your illogical stance.

As it was put to me, being in Woomera was a holiday home compared to Afghanistan where the two people I spoke to came from, personally I don't know. But their description was not one of a prison camp, but a clean comfortable place to stay until they could be classified, they accepted the situation as they were trying to escape violence and ideological suppression in their own land. Unlike others who did all they could to disrupt, destroy the facilities and do all in their power to escape, whilst demanding they get what they want and you support those people and their actions.

Wrong again Marilyn, I'm not looking at it from a perspective of a crime committed, but from a ration and logically sane aspect, not an emotional ideological aspect. I brought up ethical and sane reasoning which you dismiss, preferring to stick with the emotional and disruptive side of the situation. This has cost the country millions and probably disenfranchised many who really need this countries protection, more than the nutters you support. I also see the Australian judiciary and legal system as completely incompetent, corrupt and useless for equality of legal opportunity and justice. All the legal system does is support it's vested interests, bleed the average person of any hope of justice and fatten the bank balances of the socially and logically inept.

In relation to the Jews, stiff, the quicker Israel disappears, the quicker the world will settle down a bit. You don't want to debate Marilyn, you may just want to be right at all costs and probably insult and belittle to achieve that aim, not very nice dear.

Michael We both know big business and the government are happy to renege on any contract they enter into, unless it is with their mates, then they compensate them for their ill deeds. The average person is just fodder for their greed and the bureaucracy is twice as bad as they have no accountability for any of their actions, only long term rewards. When you come to someone's house, you are expected to abide by the requirements they set, that's an ethical contract. A visa sets out the length of your contract and the conditions of your stay in this country. Why should we have to justify our position in wanting to keep this country safe from the viewable shambles of the world under the control of despotic ideological controlled countries. I don't accept holier than thou ideologists demanding we dispose of any form of protection and open our doors to whatever violent, disruptive and religious nut case wanting to come here. I understand the European followers of god who invaded this country never gave a thought for those who inhabited and looked after it and it's future for so many thousands of years, nothing has changed. When it comes to god and its followers, they are just following the pattern of their ancestors, be right at any cost and bugger the outcomes.

Surely you are nit-picking, Alga, re visas as contracts. The number of simiar 'contracts' I've made with government departments both State and Federal over the years where the other party has broken the agreement would see me in a lifetime of litigation were I actually to go to court over the matters.

I'm curently involved in a ding dong battle with the ATO over personal tax. I reckon they have reneged on agreements at least six times and most certainly broken their contractual agreement in their dealing with me as  a taxpayer.

Pointing out their obligations gets me nowhere of course - just more aggro.

Consider the Palestinian case of Akram who was released from detention by order of the Federal Court granting habeas corpus. [10] On 15August 2002. He arrived on Ashmore Reef in July 2001. In Woomera he was processed and rejected. He formally applied to be returned home. He packed his bags expecting to leave in February. On 18 February a public servant told him that he could not be moved anywhere. He went berserk understandably and smashed his right hand through a plate glass door, being hospitalised for weeks. With other Palestinians in the same situation he then wrote to Minister Ruddock in February, March, May and July 2002 asking to be returned home or at least released from punitive detention.

Justice Merkel had the opportunity to observe the unhelpfulness of some of the public political language used in these situations. He said:

60 In any event, while it is literally correct to describe the applicant as an "unlawful" entrant and an "unlawful non-citizen" that is not a complete description of his position. The nomenclature adopted under the Act provides for the description of persons as "unlawful non-citizens" because they arrived in Australia without a visa. This does not fully explain their status in Australian law as such persons are on-shore applicants for protection visas on the basis that they are refugees under the Refugees Convention.

The Refugees Convention is a part of conventional international law that has been given legislative effect in Australia: see ss 36 and 65 of the Act. It has always been fundamental to the operation of the Refugees Convention that many applicants for refugee status will, of necessity, have left their countries of nationality unlawfully and therefore, of necessity, will have entered the country in which they seek asylum unlawfully. Jews seeking refuge from war-torn Europe, Tutsis seeking refuge from Rwanda, Kurds seeking refuge from Iraq, Hazaras seeking refuge from the Taliban in Afghanistan and many others, may also be called "unlawful non-citizens" in the countries in which they seek asylum. Such a description, however, conceals, rather than reveals, their lawful entitlement under conventional international law since the early 1950's (which has been enacted into Australian law) to claim refugee status as persons who are "unlawfully" in the country in which the asylum application is made.

Enough already of the “illegal immigrant” crap, people smugglers and other nonsense continually being spouted by journalists.

Not a word of it is true.

Marilyn, of course they are allowed to come here, most apply for and sign a visa, in which they legally agree to leave Australia when their Visa expires. A visa is no different to any other legal contract, which means you adhere to the requirements to obtain the legal right to enter Australia. I believe all rational people are prepared to stand by their obligations in contractual arrangements, which are not deceptive or designed to disenfranchise the parties, a Visa is a contractual arrangement.

Are you saying people who disregard their contractual arrangements and lie about their intent, should be seen as honest and reputable, when you would be the first to scream if someone reneged on a contract with you, which caused you financial, social and ecological harm. I am fully acquainted with what happened to Al Masri whilst he was in this country deceptively, I don't believe anyone should be subjected to repressive acts, or unnecessary incarceration.

That's why, unless under extreme circumstances, asylum seekers who come here deceptively, should he placed on a return flight, or their boats turned around and they are safely returned to the place of their embankment.

I've served time in a couple of the most notorious maximum security prisons in the country. Detention centres are holiday homes without leave passes; it's only some of the people and their actions which give the impression they are more than restrictive institutions designed to curtail peoples movements, until they can be properly classified. I've also met two people who were in Woomera, they said it was fine and they got what they needed, but they did have negative things to say about those who only caused trouble and constantly made demands, which is typical of those trying to hide truth

Your continuous assertions that I hate are typical of your ideological inadequacy, if you knew me and my life then you may see things differently, but I couldn't care less. It's probably because I'm not an educated person and struggle to compile my responses satisfactorily for programmed ( educated) ideologists, which narks you. Sorry about that, but it's your problem not mine.

There are many successful do gooders, I believe it depends on who you aim to help which determines doing good. The first priority should be to your immediate community, followed by your state and country.

Richard: Alga, this post is/was dangerously on the edge of personal abuse. Please keep decorum.

“So Alga, try and find a lick of sense to write about instead of spewing out hate and bile will you dear? “

Well Marilyn Shepherd, it doesn't take long for ideologists to resort to their lowest common denominator and start accusing others of hate, when they display condescending hate for rational logic and the health of this country, by forcing their primitive notion that humans some how are more important that sanity, social stability and ecological sustainability. So they stoop to fake accusations, apologetics and denial. Hate is purely the realm of those ideologists who accuse others of it, you get it all the time from god loving primitives, no logic, sense or reason, so they start spewing out their empty accusations and display their hate for those with disagree with their illogical stance. Add their primitive ideological egocentricity and you have the situation the world faces today, carnage.

Human rights, you must be joking, show me where in the world there is displayed anything but so called human rights to destroy all life ideologists come in contact with, particularly if they believe in god. On one hand you wish to flood this country with those who suppress the rights of all life, on the other hand you want this country to allow what is happening else where in the world, when you allow open entry to violent mentally unstable primitives into relatively calm countries on their terms. Then you declare they must have these mythical human rights, whilst the people of this country have no right to determine who or who should not come here, especially when they pay large sums, lie their way in, display a preponderance for violence and follow primitive suppressive cults, very logical indeed.

Your link proves nothing and I have read it before, it says nothing about why Al Masri came here. I did some research on the Al Masri clan from Palestine yesterday and found they have been violently feuding for the last hundred years, resorting to all kinds of violence to gain an upper hand. I'd like to know how Al Masri can be an atheist, when his clan is extremely religious. But then again it is a well know fact that god believers deem it appropriate to lie to those they don't see as their equals, to gain advantage, the world is filled with verifiable examples throughout history. If these people were turned around as soon as they landed, we wouldn't be paying out millions, just to satisfy the egos of do gooders who always stuff things up in the end for the majority, as we see with the politically correct cult, a pathetic failure. So the money was spent on them, as without them coming here, no money would have been wasted.

Even though his language is abrasive, there is a germ of truth in what Alga says. Indeed, we must treat all persons in our jurisdiction with dignity and humanity. Nevertheless, we need to remember that only a very few make it to countries as far away as Australia. The vast majority move to neighboring countries ( some of which don't have sufficent resources for their own people, much less refugees).

It is not rational to spend relatively large sums of money on a few, and neglect the many.

It seems to me, that if we were serious about solving the tragedy of refugees, we would strengthen the UN's civil/military powers to act qucikly, decisively and independently of the politcal process when it judges a state has failed, or when a country invades anotehr. Our governments, of course don't want that, partly because they don';t want to cede a level of autonomy to the UN, and partly because the tragedy is partly caused by our own manipulations.

Marilyn: "It makes not a lick of difference how many countries Akram crossed to get here. 98% of the people who passed through those countries are still here. And what do you call a sane country dear? Are countries sane? Akram is not from Lebanon."

Coming through many other countries shows the intent was not to flee persecution, but to specifically get to Australia and be prepared to pay for it. I would send all those coming from middle eastern and northern Asian countries by boat back to where they came from straight away, or one of the countries they transited through.

A reasonably sane country is one where you don't have religions or other suppressive ideologies trying to control the lives of the inhabitants, where moral and politically correct insanities are kept to a minimum, sadly we are losing the plot in those directions. You never find sanity in countries or people who are under the control of religious cultures and their associated despotic barbarities and suppressions.

These people are primitive war mongers and they bring that mentality to our shores, that's why they are prepared to self harm and act like spoilt brats to get their way. Their lives revolve around suppression and violence, just look at their women, yet some want to flood this country with this form of suppressive religious insanity. That's the only type of empty logic we can expect from those living in ideological fairy lands.

The huge amount of money wasted on people like this, would be better spent on the indigenous, mentally ill and disabled, instead of adding more and more misfits to our welfare lines and increasing social disruption.

I must confess that I have only read a section of your lengthy article and I cannot quote or select any issues about which could argue - even if I wanted to.

I have never had any quarrel with the sincerity or feelings in your posts - in fact I agree with your sentiments and would never contradict your factual quotes.

Saying that I support your views is an individual opinion that wouldn't have much value, but I do mean it.

And I wish you well - a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Cheers Ern G.

Whilst I have sympathy for genuine refugee's who we invite to this country, we have to understand this person had to pay to go through many countries before reaching Australia and had to pay a large sum of money for the final boat trip from a country of his own faith. Considering these people are god loving beings and the countries surrounding where they come from are also god loving countries, why don't they stay in one of those. God loving countries are basket case of violence debauchery and slaughter all in the name of god. Yet some want these emotional misfits and viewable uncontrollable people coming here and bringing their barbaric ways of life with them, seems like a death wish to me.

If countries of their own belief won't take them, why must we, a reasonably sane country, want to accept clearly violent people here. Childishly they seem to think if they throw tantrums, harm themselves and create problems they will gain sympathy and get what they want. Only immature children and emotionally out of control and primitively minded adults throw tantrums, demanding they get treated as they want and not in the manner those helping them need to. In the god fuelled countries they came from and those they passed through, they would be treated much worse than here, yet some do everything to encourages these trouble makers to come here and demand we allow them to stay under their conditions.

Our country is struggling under the weight of diminishing ecological resources because of too many people, yet the ideological want to make it worse by importing more of these trouble makers. They also want them to be allowed to come here with no checks and get more benefits than those born here.

Spend the money on real Australians and send back all those not invited to Australia. Otherwise we will end up like lots of European countries, filled with religious violence, or maybe follow England which will have a majority muslim population in a few years, a wonderful thought for the future. More god lovers, means more trouble, there are no other supporting facts.

Akram al Masri may have feared for his life in Lebanon, but that's the nature of his belief, culture and lifestyle and it's not Australia compatible.

Eliot, I sent McGeough the news that Akram had been slaughtered in the hope that he could find out why.

He did.  Do you think I don't bother to read these sorts of reports after I provide details?

The article is written about what happened to Al Masri here, not his recent murder.

As Akram was forcibly deported in September 2003, was shot one other time and by the way cannot use his arm, what does a vendetta started in 2005 have to do with the price of the article I wrote?

Here's some background on the clan feud that took Akram al-Masri, researched and written by Paul McGeough:

IT BEGAN with a mango three years ago. A member of Gaza's powerful Masri clan had stopped to buy fruit at a roadside stall in 2005, but the vendor did not have enough small change to break his 20 shekel note - equal to $5.

The Masri man pulled a gun and killed the vendor, who was a member of the Abu Taha clan.

By the end of last year, the ensuing feud had claimed the lives of 29 people - 10 from neither clan. Sixty had been wounded and homes and businesses on both sides had been torched....

Mind you, for some, even Australia is not a safe place for refugees:

The family of a Sudanese refugee who died after being attacked outside a western Sydney hotel, have appealed for help to find his killers.

A group of men attacked 26-year-old Geoffrey Taban at Parramatta in Sydney's west in the early hours of Saturday December the 9th.