„Pacific Solution“


Minimal Sea. Mit Dank an Oscar Keys, Barn Images

(Übersetzung (alle Fehler sind meine) eines Artikels von Mark Isaacs, ehemaliger Angestellter der Heilsarmee in Nauru, erschienen am 2.5.2016 in Foreign Policy)

Die unerträgliche Grausamkeit der australischen Flüchtlingsabschreckungs-Strategie.

Canberras Entscheidung, Asylsuchende in inhumane Einrichtungen in Papua-Neuguinea und Nauru auszulagern, ist kein Unfall. Es ist genau die Absicht.

Am 26. April verkündete das Verfassungsgericht von Papua-Neuguinea ein langerwartetes Urteil über die Rechtmäßigkeit des Internierungslagers auf Manus. Weil 850 dort festgehaltene männliche Asylsuchende nicht aus eigenem Willen nach Papua-Neuguinea kamen, haben sie das Einwanderungsgesetz nicht verletzt, urteilte das Gericht. Sie in unbestimmter Internierung zu halten, in der sie unter regelmäßigen Gewaltakten und unzureichender medizinischer Versorgung zu leiden haben, verletze ihren verfassungsgemäßen Schutz. Am folgenden Tag erklärte Peter O’Neill, der Premierminister von Papua-Neuguinea, daß das Internierungslager auf Manus Island geschlossen würde und seine Regierung Australien zu „alternativen Regelungen für die gegenwärtig im örtlichen „Processing Center“ festgehaltenen Asylsuchenden“ auffordere.

Canberra blieb ungerührt. Noch am Tag des Urteilsspruchs betonte der australische Einwanderungsminister Peter Dutton, seine Regierung würde keine Asylsuchenden von Manus akzeptieren, nachdem Australien „keine Partei in der Rechtsfindung“ gewesen sei. In seinen Bemerkungen repetierte Dutton Punkte der zwischen Canberra und Port Moresby am 19.Juli 2013 getroffenen Vereinbarung, nach der in Australien Asylsuchende und in australischen Gewässern Aufgegriffene „zusammen mit jedem anderen regionalen Staat“ nach Papua-Neuguinea überstellt würden. Die im „Manus Island Regional Processing Center“ Untergebrachten, die „als Flüchtlinge anerkannt würden„, könnten sich in Papua-Neuguinea ansiedeln, der Rest „solle in ihr Herkunftsland zurückkehren„.

Aufgrund seiner geografischen Lage erscheint Australien als unwahrscheinliches Ziel für Flüchtlinge, besonders aus entlegenen Ländern wie Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar und Irak. Ungeachtet dessen haben Zehntausende diese Reise schon unternommen. Diese Menschen haben die Hilfe von Schleppern in Anspruch genommen, um ihre gefährliche Fahrt in überfüllten klapprigen Fischerbooten zu bewerkstelligen, meist ab Indonesien, andere von Sri Lanka, in seltenen Fällen auch von Indien aus. Seit dem Jahr 2000 gab es 1.976 offiziell verzeichnete Todesfälle unter denen, die Australien per Boot zu erreichen versuchten.

Seit dem Vietnamkrieg haben Menschen Zuflucht in Australien gesucht. Erst seit 1992 aber hat sich die Regierung – sowohl die traditionell gemäßigt linke Labor Party wie die eher konservative Liberal Party – für ein Abschreckungssystem entschieden. Im Klartext soll diese Politik jede Bootslandung in Australien verhindern und stattdessen Asylsuchenden in „Offshore Detention Center“ oder zurück zu ihrem Ausgangshafen bringen.

Im August 2012 führte die Labor-Regierung der damaligen Premierministerin Julia Gillard das heutige System der Abschreckung ein, als Reaktion auf einen nie dagewesenen Anstieg ankommender Boote. … 2012 erreichten 278 Boote und 17.202 Menschen australische Gewässer, mehr als alle Landungen zwischen 2009 und 2011 zusammen genommen. Allein in diesem 3jährigen Zeitraum starben 956 Menschen beim Versuch der Überfahrt. Konservative Mitglieder der politischen Opposition und Medien heulten, daß sich Australien in einer Krise der Grenzkontrolle befände. Und die Lösung, so argumentierten sie, liege in der Vergangenheit.

1992 etablierte Premierminister Paul Keating die obligatorische Haft ohne richterliche Überprüfung für alle auf Booten ankommenden Asylsuchenden und ebnete damit den Weg für die harte Grenzpolitik von John Howard einige Jahre später. 2001 ertranken oder verschwanden dann 361 Asylsuchende beim Versuch der Überfahrt nach Australien, überwiegend Afghanen und Iraker. Als Reaktion darauf gründete Howard die ersten „Offshore Detention Center“ in Nauru (ein 5-Stunden- und 2.076-Meilen-Flug ab Brisbane) und Manus Island (etwa 758 Meilen entfernt von Cape York, Australiens nördlichstem Punkt). Im September 2001 wies die Howard-Regierung die australische Marine an, jedes des Flüchtlingstransportes verdächtige Boot abzufangen und an den Rand indonesischer Gewässer zurück zu bringen. Das Resultat: zwischen 2002 und 2006 verringerte sich die Ankunft auf nur 140 Menschen und 13 Boote, ohne offiziell verzeichnete Ertrunkene. Trotz des scheinbaren statistischen Erfolges der Abschreckung schloß die Labor-Regierung unter Kevin Rudd im Jahr 2008 – nach öffentlichem Druck wegen der schlechten Menschenrechtslage – die „Offshore Detention Facilities„.

Vier Jahre später führte die Gillard-Regierung die Abschreckung wieder ein, to “save lives at sea.” Der „No Advantage“ genannte Plan beinhaltete die Wiedereröffnung der „Offshore Detention Center“ in Nauru und Manus. Dem Plan folgend wurden in australischen Gewässern ankommende Boote von Marine- oder Zollschiffen zur Verteilung zunächst zum „Christmas Island Detention Center“ gebracht, runde 1.000 Meilen von der australischen Nordwestküste entfernt. Von dort wurden die ersten Gruppen Asylsuchender im September 2012 in das „Nauru Regional Processing Center“ und ab November 2012 nach Manus überstellt.

Ich arbeitete von Juni 2012 bis September 2013 als Angestellter der Heilsarmee im „Detention Center“ auf Nauru, eine Insel mit etwa 10.000 einheimischen Bewohnern, Sie brauchen nur 20 Minuten, um die gesamte Landfläche zu umrunden. Es ist ein verarmter Ort, mit einer zum Überleben von ausländischer – vor allem australischer – Hilfe abhängigen Wirtschaft. Laut einer Analyse der Australischen Broadcasting Corporation kostete das „Offshore-Detention-System die australischen Regierung in den ersten 10 Monaten des Geschäftsjahres 2014-2015 runde 828 Millionen Dollar.

Als ich zwei Wochen nach der Eröffnung des Centers ankam, war das Land kein Unterzeichner der UN-Flüchtlingskonvention, sprich: es gab kein „Refugee Processing System„. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt beherbergte das Center nur Männer, obgleich das australische Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) ab Juli 2013 auch Frauen und Kinder dorthin überstellte. Niemand wußte, was mit den Leuten passieren würde, am allerwenigsten die Asylsuchenden selbst.

Sie wurden auf unbestimmte Zeit im heißen, feuchten Klima der Insel interniert, endlos wartend auf eine Entscheidung, die womöglich nie kommen würde. Niemand wusste, wohin sie nach dem Ende ihrer Haft geschickt würden. Die australischen Einwanderungsbeamten brauchten 6 Monate, um ein „Refugee Processing System“ für Nauru zu schaffen. Aber es wurde Mai 2014, bis die ersten 13 Asylbewerber als Flüchtlinge anerkannt und ihnen 5-jährige temporäre Visa zur Niederlassung auf Nauru gewährt wurden. Das Leben, das sie erwartete, sah düster aus: es gab nur wenige Arbeitsplätze, kaum wirtschaftliche Aktivität, grassierende Diskriminierung und zahlreiche Berichte von Vergewaltigung und Körperverletzung.

Am 31. März hatten die australischen Einwanderungsbeamten 1.131 Asylbewerber begutachtet; 866 wurden als Flüchtlinge anerkannt. Wie viele inzwischen in der nauruischen Gemeinschaft leben, ist unklar. Laut DIBP gibt es immer noch 468 Menschen, die im Nauru Center unter „Open Center Arrangements“ leben, die ihnen freie Bewegung rund um die Insel erlauben, sie aber in der Nacht nach wie vor auf das Center beschränken.

Ich war Zeuge der brutalen Auswirkungen der Haft auf Nauru. Die Gesundheitsdienste sind unterfinanziert , weswegen unweigerlich Menschen zu fachärztlicher Behandlung nach Australien entsendet werden müssen, in der Regel zu psychiatrischer Versorgung. Ich sah, wie sich ein Mann mit einer zerbrochenen Glühbirne aufschlitzte und erlebte einen weiteren, der während einer psychotischen Episode wie ein Hund bellte. Ich tröstete Männer, die einen Selbstmordversuch unternommen hatten. Alle 13 Tage gab es im „Detention Network“ einen Bericht von einem sexuellen Übergriff.

Für diejenigen, die den emotionalen und geistigen Qualen der Haft nicht erliegen, bieten die Inseln kaum eine Art von physischem Schutz. Reza Berati, ein 23-jähriger Iraner, wurde am 17. Februar 2014 auf Manus während eines Aufstands getötet: von einem Mitarbeiter des „Detention Center“. Am 5. September des gleichen Jahres starb ein Iraner namens Hamid Kehazaei (24) an einer behandelbaren Infektion seines Fußes. Fazel Chegeni, ein iranischer Kurde, wurde am 8. November 2015 tot aufgefunden, nachdem er aus dem „Christmas Island Detention Center“ geflohen war, wo er 10 Wochen lang festgehalten worden war. Eine gerichtliche Untersuchung wird Fazel Chegenis Todesursache noch offiziell benennen, Berichte sagen, er sei von den Jahren des Wartens psychisch zerstört worden.

Diese Center bestehen jenseits des öffentlichen Bewusstseins. Journalisten ist der Zutritt verwehrt und es ist ohnehin unwahrscheinlich, überhaupt ein Visum zu bekommen. Alle Beschwerden oder Bedenken zu Vorgängen innerhalb des Center werden an die DIBP gerichtet. Es gibt keine unabhängige Behörde, die die Verfahren in Nauru oder Manus Island überwacht. Weil die australische Regierung entschieden hat, daß sich die Zuständigkeit der Australian Human Rights Commission nicht über die Landesgrenzen hinaus erstreckt, bleibt der Kommission der Zugang zu allen Offshore Detention Center verwehrt. Der einzige Weg für die Australier ist – um überhaupt zu erfahren, was in den Zentren geschieht – wenn Angestellte Zeugnis ablegen. Darauf stehen bis zu zwei Jahren Gefängnis wegen Geheimnisverrat. Glücklicherweise gibt es immer wieder Whistleblower – Sozialarbeiter, Ärzte, Sicherheitsleute, Rechtsanwälte, Beamte – die über die schlimmen Praktiken berichten.

Australiens Umgang mit Asylsuchenden wurde vom UN-Menschenrechtsrat wiederholt scharf kritisiert. Canberra wurde sogar die Verletzung der internationalen Anti-Folter-Konvention bescheinigt. Premierminister Tony Abbott Antwort darauf war, die Australier seien „sick of being lectured to by the United Nations„. Trotz der Mißachtung der australischen Regierung für jede Kritik an der Abschreckung  – sowohl internationale als auch inländische –  kann nur sie endlich das Ende dieser Politik bewirken.

Im Mai 2015 strengten 10 Asylsuchende und ihre Familien, die sich vorrübergehend zu medizinischer Behandlung in Australien aufhielten, ein Verfahren vor dem australischen High Court an, in dem sie ihre Internierung auf Nauru als unrechtmäßig darstellten. Das Verfahren, obwohl unerfolgreich, verschaffte den Familien immerhin eine Atempause vor der Deportation zurück nach Nauru. Das sie vertretende Human Rights Law Center stellte in Frage, ob Canberra verfassungsrechtlich überhaupt befugt sei, Menschen in anderen Ländern zu internieren oder öffentliche Gelder für Finanzierung und Betrieb von Internierungslagern in anderen Ländern auszugeben. Nicht lange danach verabschiedete die Regierung Abbott mit voller Unterstützung der opponierenden Laborpartei ein im Wesentlichen verändertes und rückwirkend geltendes Gesetz, um die Regierungshandlungen zu legalisieren.

Am 3. Februar bestätigte der australische High Court die Position der Regierung und gestattete ihr, 267 Asylsuchende, darunter 37 Babys und 54 Kinder, in die Offshore-Internierung zurück zu bringen. Unter ihnen ein Junge, der nach eigenen Angaben auf Nauru vergewaltigt worden war und 12 Frauen, die im Detention Center übel sexuell attackiert worden waren oder unter den erheblichen sexuellen Belästigungen litten.

Das Urteil elektrisierte Australien. Quer durch das Land versammelten sich Tausende Bürger und forderten die Regierung auf, den Asylsuchenden Bleiberecht zu gewähren. Kirchen und Kathedralen der Uniting and Anglican Church beriefen sich auf die alte christliche Tradition des Kirchenasyls für Menschen, die ihre Deportation nach Nauru befürchteten. Ärzte des Kinderkrankenhauses Lady Cilento in Brisbane weigerten sich, ein 1jähriges Mädchen mit auf Nauru erlittenen schweren Verbrennungen zu entlassen, aus Furcht, die Regierung würde sie nach Nauru deportieren. Alle australischen Bundesstaaten (außer Western Australia) boten die Aufnahme der 267 Asylsuchenden an Stelle ihrer Rücksendung nach Nauru an. Die Familien und ihre Kinder sind noch nicht nach Nauru zurückgekehrt, ihre Schicksale hängen aber in der Schwebe.

Sobald die Einrichtung auf Manus Island geschlossen sein wird, werden die Flüchtlinge und Asylsuchenden wahrscheinlich nach Nauru überstellt. Anschließend aber ist unklar, wo man sie ansiedeln wird. Die kleine Insel kann nur eine bestimmte Zahl von Flüchtlingen aufnehmen. Und die meisten der 395 Flüchtlinge des „Manus Island Detention Center“ verweigern ihre Ansiedlung in Papua Neuguinea. Im September 2014 beschloß die australische Regierung einen $41.43 Million-Deal mit Kambodscha, ein Land mit zweifelhaftem Menschenrechtsstatus, um dort Flüchtlinge aus Nauru und Manus anzusiedeln. Zwei Jahre später sind nur 5 Flüchtlinge in Kambodscha ansässig.

Das Urteil des Supreme Court von Papua-Neuguinea sollte australischen Politikern als Lektion dienen. Ihre Reaktionen darauf beweisen aber, daß die derzeitige Regierung alles tun wird, um die Abschreckung aufrecht zu erhalten – unabhängig davon, wie viel Leid sie verursacht oder wie viele Gesetze sie beugt oder bricht. Dutton wird wahrscheinlich einen Weg finden, sein Kartenhaus – womöglich durch den Vorschlag der Verlegung der auf Manus internierten Männer nach Nauru – aufrecht zu erhalten.

In Australien wird die Abschreckung als „humanitär“ gerechtfertigt, weil sie angeblich Leben auf See rettet. Als Folge wurde vorsätzliche Grausamkeit zum Status Quo. Die inhumane Behandlung in den Internierungslagern ist kein Unfall, sie ist der Kern. Grausamkeit und Isolation sind australische Strategie.

Advertisements

36 Gedanken zu „„Pacific Solution“

  1. Ben Doherty, Guardian: Self-immolation: desperate protests against Australia’s detention regime

    The video footage shot on a mobile phone last Wednesday is unsteady but clear enough.

    It shows a man, drenched in liquid, standing alone in a clearing, pleading. No one, it seems, wants to stand near him. In the background, the white shirts and blue caps of staff from the UN high commissioner for refugees are apparent.

    “This is how tired we are,” the man yells desperately. “This action will prove how exhausted we are. I cannot take it any more.”

    The man makes a swift, small movement with his right arm, and suddenly, his body is alight.

    One clip shows him almost naked at Nauru hospital, pacing up and down and screaming – with peeling skin and severe burns apparent to his arms, legs, chest, and back – while distressed friends plead for him to be given assistance.

    Another shows doctors and nurses struggling to administer painkillers, as Masoumali, still standing, continues to scream. People watching nearby are vomiting. He was later transferred to Australia but died on Friday.

    On Monday evening, Somali refugee Hodan Yasi set herself alight. Reports from Nauru suggest she has severe burns to 70% of her body, with her upper body and face most badly affected.

    One person reported that “all of her clothes were burned off”.

    On Monday night, police surrounded Nauru’s only hospital, where Yasi was initially treated, and physically restrained her friends from seeing her.

    Yasi, who is between 19 and 21 years old, was returned to Nauru less than a week ago, having been brought to Australia last November after being seriously injured in a motorcycle accident. Fellow detainees at the Brisbane immigration transit accommodation say she screamed as she was forcibly dragged out by guards.

    In the days between Masoumali and Yasi’s public acts of self-harm, at least six suicide attempts have been reported on Nauru, ranging from people swallowing razor blades, ingesting washing powder or attempting to hang themselves using bed sheets.

    Sources on the island say self-harm and suicide attempts happen daily. Guards are issued with special hooked knives to cut down people who are attempting to hang themselves. On Nauru, some who survive a suicide attempt are charged, convicted, jailed and fined for the crime of attempting to take their own life.

    Masoumali’s widow, who does not want her name published, told the Guardian that her husband was not given a sheet or a place to lie down, and that the hospital “didn’t even have a clean syringe”.

    She said: “Staff in Nauru hospital couldn’t help Omid in any way because they were unequipped.”

    Der Herr Immigrationsminister Peter Dutton ist übrigens sehr verärgert über die Selbstverbrennungen und beschuldigt australische „refugee advocates“, sie würden Internierte zu Selbstverletzung und Suizid ermutigen. Kopf->Tisch.

    • Hm, ganz vergessen, in diesen Zusammenhang gehört auch der hier ziemlich untergegangene Blog von vor ein paar Tagen über die nach Vergewaltigung schwangere Epileptikerin aus Somalia, der eine Abtreibung, bzw. inzwischen eine OP mit adäquater medizinischer Betreuung verweigert wird, zu der sie nach Australien überstellt werden müßte, da auf Abtreibung auf Manus und in Papua-Neuguinea bis zu 7 Jahren Gefängnis steht und da das Krankenhaus in Port Moresby völlig unzureichend ausgestattet ist: „The Policy Perspective

  2. Der Spiegel schrieb vor einiger Zeit über Nauru:

    „Sie sieht aus wie Scheiße, und sie riecht wie Scheiße, aber wenn Sie Geschäftssinn haben, können Sie in diesem Land ganz schnell eine ganze Menge Schotter verdienen.“ Das war die Leitlinie, die jahrzehntelang das Schicksal der Tropeninsel bestimmte.

    Und der Guardian berichtete heute über Manus Island und Nauru:

    “I have previously expressed my frustration and anger at advocates and others who are in contact with those in regional processing centres and who are encouraging some of these people to behave in a certain way, believing that that pressure exerted on the Australian government will see a change in our policy in relation to our border protection measures,” Dutton said.

    Die Rechtsanwälte also üben Druck aus. Nuja.

    Grüßle, Diander

    • Jane McAdam, The Conversation: How the entire nation of Nauru almost moved to Queensland

      Extensive phosphate mining on Nauru by Australia, Britain and New Zealand during the 20th century devastated much of the country. The landscape was so damaged that scientists considered it would be uninhabitable by the mid-1990s. With the exorbitant cost of rehabilitating the island, relocation was considered the only option.

      In 1962, Australia’s prime minister Robert Menzies acknowledged that the three nations had a “clear obligation … to provide a satisfactory future for the Nauruans”, given the large commercial and agricultural benefits they had derived from Nauru’s phosphate. This meant “either finding an island for the Nauruans or receiving them into one of the three countries, or all of the three countries”.

      But the Nauruans refused to go. They did not want to be assimilated into White Australia and lose their distinctive identity as a people. Many also saw resettlement as a quick-fix solution by the governments that had devastated their homeland, and a cheap option compared with full rehabilitation of the island.

      Australia also refused to relinquish sovereignty over Curtis Island. While the Nauruans could become Australian citizens, and would have the right to “manage their own local administration” through a council “with wide powers of local government”, the island would officially remain part of Australia.

      Frustrated by what it perceived as a genuine and generous attempt to meet the wishes of the Nauruan people, the Menzies government insisted it wouldn’t change its mind.

      So the Nauruans stayed put.

      Nauru today is at the highest level of vulnerability on the Environmental Vulnerability Index. The past destruction wrought by phosphate mining has rendered the island incapable of supporting any local agriculture or industry, with 90% of the land covered by limestone pinnacles.

      It has a very high unemployment rate, scarce labour opportunities, and virtually no private sector – hence why the millions of dollars on offer to operate Australia’s offshore processing centres was so attractive. These factors also illustrate why the permanent resettlement of refugees on Nauru is unrealistic and unsustainable.

  3. Sarah Smith, Guardian: Refugees don’t self-harm because of me, Peter Dutton, they self-harm because of you

    Peter Dutton, what do you do between the hours of midnight and 5am? Do you sleep? If so, I really must ask – how can you? …

    What do you say to a sobbing man at 3am who simply cannot take any more beatings? What do you say to a frantic mother with a sick baby whose condition isn’t being treated adequately? How can we ask them to keep suffering at our hands, knowing our tax dollars are paying for this lengthy and seemingly endless torture? But we do. We beg them to keep going, plead with them not to allow their story to end this way. We cajole, we bargain, we make promises, and somehow, we’ve managed to keep almost everyone alive. It seems miraculous under the circumstances that I haven’t lost anyone I love.

    I can’t tell you what it’s like to live with this fear, this devastation, this utter helplessness.

    What I can tell you, Minister Dutton, is that asylum seekers are not self-harming because of the advocates.

    Asylum seekers are self-harming because of you.

    Michael Bradley, The Drum: No one burns themselves to change their address

    At some point it just gets too hard to maintain the story that we’re pushing some asylum seekers to burn themselves so that others won’t drown themselves (it only sounds so stupid because it is, but that is the logic of our policy). …

    Grow up, Minister. You have personal custodial responsibility for the people you’ve sent to Manus Island and Nauru; their welfare, physical and mental, is legally and morally on you. You may be able to console yourself that the infantile rhetoric you keep spewing out is playing just fine with the majority of the electorate (which, indeed, it is), but it’s not on them; it’s on you. …

    True hopelessness is a rare sensation. Everyone experiences moments in life which feel like it, but they’re mostly a fair way up the hierarchy of needs. They rarely touch on our preparedness to go on living. Omid and Hodan realised last week that they had no reason to go on living. They could not go back to the places they had left; they would never be allowed into Australia; New Zealand would be a possibility but Australia has rejected its repeated offer to take refugees from offshore detention; they could not face remaining in limbo on Nauru.

    Note your own reaction to the above circumstances. You either find the ability to empathise with a person who feels genuinely hopeless desperation; or you prefer to intellectualise their emotional state and run your ruler over their situation to pass judgment on whether they in fact have the right to feel the way they do. Either way, Omid and Hodan poured petrol on themselves and lit a match. Australia made a choice which caused them to conclude that this was their best remaining choice.

    These „behaviours“ are not a protest or a cry for help. They’re simply the denial of self; the ending of everything; the final, public statement that „I give up; you win.“ The Department of Immigration and Border Protection case file of Masoumali, O. (and most likely that of Yasi, H.) can now be marked with the stamp of successful closure. We kept him out, and the video evidence of his „behaviour“ will viscerally deter others from trying to get in. …

    We’ve managed to ignore an extraordinary volume of awfulness so far: Transfield, which runs the Nauru centre, reported to the Senate in July last year that 253 detainees had attempted self-harm and 33 had reported alleged rapes or sexual assaults.

    When you have people who’ve been in detention for more than 1000 days with zero hope of anything better, it is inevitable that more of them will be graduating from swallowing washing powder to more effective modes of suicide, and more of them will be inclined to do so in ways we find hard to ignore. The political calculus will shift as the toll rises. And, at some point sooner or later, the government of the day will face the backlash of Australia’s collective shame.

    Maybe that’s the point: for the political purposes of both major parties, the only people who really need to care about the walking dead on Manus and Nauru are the individuals who happen to be the prime minister and immigration minister on that day when the music stops and the Australian public seeks to transfer its guilt on to whoever’s then in charge. They’re all gambling that it will be someone else.

    Tired of hearing about this? Omid Masoumali was heard to say, before he set himself ablaze, „This is how tired we are.“ He won’t annoy us with his hopes anymore.

  4. Michelle Gratton, The Conversation: Nothing seems able to make Nauru asylum seekers an issue

    It is hard to credit that two asylum seekers in Nauru could set themselves alight on Australia’s watch and the stories receive, compared to much else, so little attention in our hyper media cycle.

    One would think the death of an Iranian man last week and the self-immolation of a Somali woman would be huge news, putting a great deal of pressure on the government as we move towards the election to outline an exit plan for Nauru.

    The government and the opposition are bipartisan on offshore processing. When it arises, the issue plays in favour of the Coalition, but it is not one Malcolm Turnbull seems naturally comfortably with. For political reasons Labor obviously tries to avoid it. That means the government isn’t being held to serious account – despite efforts by the Greens – in the way it is on much more minor matters.

    In her valedictory speech on Wednesday, Labor MP Melissa Parke described the present system as “a festering wound that is killing off people and eroding our national character and respect”. Some in Labor are deeply unhappy and a few have been recently vocal about the ALP’s approach, but most don’t want the boat rocked.

    As for the Liberals, those who used to speak up for asylum seekers have either left the parliament or gone quiet.

    Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has taken up a shovel to lay blame, bluntly heaping it on the activity of advocates. In a Tuesday statement on the Somali woman, Dutton said it was “of grave concern” she would “resort to such an extreme act of self-harm”.

    “I have previously expressed my frustration and anger at advocates and others who are in contact with those in regional processing centres and who are encouraging them to engage in behaviours they believe will pressure the government to bring them to Australia. These behaviours have intensified in recent times, and as we see, have now turned to extreme acts with terrible consequences.

    “Advocates and others who proclaim to represent and support the interests of refugees and asylum seekers must hear a clear message that their activities and these behaviours must end.”

    In parliament on Wednesday, the Greens‘ Adam Bandt challenged Dutton with a highly provocative question. “Aren’t you just showing pure cowardice by blaming the advocates helping the vulnerable, instead of accepting responsibility for your actions?” Bandt asked, then added: “Can’t we do better than this Labor-Liberal policy of not drowning, but burning?”

    One of the debates of the coming campaign should be the search for practical answers. But it is a debate the government and opposition are not prepared to have, and nor are the media willing or able to give them a hard enough time to force them into it.

    It’s a case study in how interests and circumstances conspire to push some issues off-stage in an election.

  5. Bruce Haigh, Canberra Times: Asylum-seekers: Australians all, let’s hang our heads in shame

    Australia is a sick country, primarily because it has become such a selfish and self-centred country. A sense of entitlement pervades, indeed is encouraged and fostered within the ruling class and politicians. For sure it’s all about us, that is, the white Anglo Christians who comprise the bulk of the Australian ruling class.

    Many psychologists say narcissism is rising in Australia. We don’t have to be told that – we see it before us each day among the poorly performing politicians that the failing major parties plonk before us.

    To say that I am angry with Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten and their sycophantic lackeys, Peter Dutton and Richard Marles, is a significant understatement. The utterly shameful decision not to allow the people on Manus to come to Australia following the PNG Supreme Court decision can only be described as gutlessly self-serving.

    At what point did we embark on becoming the most selfish country on earth. Was it John Howard with his smug „we shall decide who comes here“ exhortation? Or was it his massive mining boom hand-outs to the suffering middle class? Or was it his deliberate attempt to create a ruling elite with his profligate hand-outs to private schools?

    Where ever and however it came about we are now a society divided between the haves and have nots and asylum seekers are at the bottom of the pile of have nots, stripped of their rights even under Australian laws designed to protect them. How sick is that?

  6. Stephen Charles, The Age: Our detention centres are concentration camps and must be closed

    The Prime Minister describes asylum seeker policy opponents as „misty eyed“. They are not – they are furious.

    Many Australians may wonder why it was necessary to set up detention centres in the far north of the country, or offshore, far from the Australian mainland, surrounded by guards and razor wire, in circumstances of great secrecy, with all staff and visiting medical personnel banned from telling outsiders about conditions in the camps, or reporting physical or sexual abuse of detainees.

    Or why it was necessary to make it nearly impossible for lawyers or journalists to visit the centres. Or why the Immigration Department was allowed (or required?) to delay vital medical treatment to Hamid Khazaei, causing his death. Or send a raped and pregnant detainee for an abortion to Port Moresby (where it is illegal) rather than Australia; or delay the treatment or transfer to Australia of the man who committed suicide last week by setting himself on fire on Nauru?

    When Nazi Germany set up concentration camps in the 1930s, the purpose was to separate various groups – communists, Jews, homosexuals – from the German community, to prevent them being „tainted“ by such people. The camps were maintained in great secrecy; most Germans had little or no knowledge of the awful and dehumanising conditions in which detainees were kept.

    Australia’s detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island may have originally been intended to hold detainees for a short period – say, six months – while they were investigated and their claims to refugee status were assessed. But that has long since ceased to justify the existence of these centres.

    The conditions there are bleak, the tropical heat extreme, airconditioning is rare (guards, of course, are in much better, airconditioned, accommodation) – the guards and surrounding locals are hostile, and detainees are regularly physically and verbally abused.

    The worst aspect, however, is the indefinite nature of the detention, and that so many of the refugees who have established their entitlement to refugee status have been held for more than three years, and face an indefinite future in detention.

    A week ago, representatives from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees visited Nauru and told detainees that none of them would escape from the camps within 10 years. In the past week, two have set themselves on fire. It is the only way to end their suffering. Are those cowards and hypocrites in the Australian Parliament going to tell us that this is merely another attention-attracting device?

    To think that Australia was among the creators and first signatories of the Refugee Convention.

    Misty-eyed? That was the last straw for many Australians. No, Prime Minister, we are not misty-eyed, we are blazingly angry at the contemptible policy and disgraceful treatment that successive Australian governments have meted out in our name to asylum seekers, and which so degradingly defame us in the eyes of the rest of the world.

    Prime Minister, it is high time for you and the rest of them to man up, dismantle those concentration camps, fulfil the obligations Australia undertook under international treaties, acknowledge the basic moral and ethical standards on which these treaties are based, and resettle the detainees in Australia.

    Stephen Charles, QC, is a former judge of the Court of Appeal.

  7. Brigid Delaney, Guardian: Eva Orner on Chasing Asylum: ‘Every whistleblower that I interviewed wept’

    “If I had known how tough it would be to make this film, I would never have made it,” says Orner. “You are trying to make a documentary about people that you can’t film, where you don’t have access to the camps, where the government won’t speak to you and where new whistleblower legislation makes it risky for anyone to talk to you.”

    Australian offshore detention centres are shrouded in secrecy, with legislation punishing anyone who shoots unauthorised footage from inside, or speaks out about what is occurring in the camps. Whistleblowers can be sent to jail. Yet some spoke out.

    Their stories are like dispatches from Hades, giving us glimpses into a nightmarish world of pain, disease, violence, despair, boredom and terror.

    One of the first interviewees worked in Nauru. She has a girlish voice, with a rising inflection, and can’t be older than her early twenties: “They asked if we were trained to use a Hoffman’s knife? The knife used to cut people down when they are hanging?”

    The Salvation Army workers arriving in Nauru were mainly young and inexperienced. The young woman reels through their credentials: a manager at McDonalds, a supervisor at JB HiFi, a night fill at a supermarket. “I knew it was a detention centre; I didn’t know people had been there for 400, 500 days,” the worker says.

    Many of the workers were traumatised by the experience, but kept coming back out of compassion for the refugees, and a sense of responsibility towards them.

    Orner says that after the camps were reopened, the hiring was rushed; the Salvation Army, who got the contract, resorted to Facebook for the job ads. “The people selected were inexperienced. They had no training or preparation. Now the camps are just run by security companies – there is no care. There are now people who have been in there for a thousand days.”

    The tents are mouldy, the fences are high, there is no privacy, the bathrooms are filthy and some of the men are housed in a tin second world war shed – in the tropics. Graffiti on the tents reads, “Kill us.”

    Whether she got footage from multiple sources or had one major source at each camp, she won’t say.

    So distressing is the film that there is an argument to be made that it feeds into the government’s strategy of deterrence. After seeing the footage of Nauru and Manus, it’s difficult to imagine any place that’s worse, or that is home to more suffering.

    “How can you have policy change when the two major parties compete to see who can be the toughest on asylum seekers?” asks Orner. “The fact that the Labor party supports off-shore detention is a real crisis point for Australian politics.”

    The film ends on an interview with the fourth prime minister to have a profound and explicit influence on the director: Malcolm Fraser. He was the only politician who agreed to be interviewed for the film. It was the last interview he gave before his death in March 2015.

    “I remember when Fraser let the Vietnamese [refugees] in, and people were saying terrible things about him. But he had such enormous foresight and bravery to let people in.”

    Fraser’s policy of resettling Vietnamese people in Australia in the 1970s is a reminder to our current crop of politicians that there is another way to approach the asylum seeker issue.

    “It [resettlement in Australia] was the right thing to do, especially considering we had been involved in the conflict,” Fraser says in the film, referring to Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam war. Orner believes we should follow that logic to modern conflicts Australia is involved in, in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Yemen; that we should bear some responsibility for resettling refugees those conflicts have displaced.

    “At Fraser’s funeral, the Vietnamese people thanked him for being their saviour. How many politicians could claim that?”

    Chasing Asylum is dedicated to Malcolm Fraser. Orner hopes that the film will make people more aware and compassionate when it comes to asylum seekers.

    “When I started making the film, I realised very quickly: until you see something, it’s easy to ignore it. I thought it was vitally important to see Manus and Nauru. And if Australians could see it – and Australian politicians could see it – they could not accept the current system.”

  8. Melissa Davey, Guardian: Dutton risked safety of asylum seeker sent to PNG for abortion, court finds

    The minister for immigration, Peter Dutton, exposed an asylum seeker who became pregnant after being raped on Nauru to serious medical and legal risks by flying her to Papua New Guinea for an abortion, the federal court found on Friday.

    The minister also has a duty of care to provide a safe and legal abortion to the woman, identified only as S99, who relies on the minister for her care and who has serious neurological, physiological and psychological conditions, Justice Mordecai Bromberg found.

    The woman, identified only as S99, was raped while in detention on Nauru after she fell unconscious as the result of a seizure. She woke to find blood and male discharge on her clothes. The rape resulted in a pregnancy and left her with severe post-traumatic stress disorder, evidence presented to the court from medical experts last week said.

    The expert evidence also said that her neurological condition, suspected to be epilepsy but never diagnosed due to a lack of medical equipment on Nauru, along with a physiological condition Guardian Australia is unable to publish details of, and her poor mental health, meant an abortion was high risk and must be carried out by doctors with certain expertise.

    However, because the Australian government has a policy not to bring asylum seekers to Australia unless the circumstances are exceptional, the immigration department sent S99 to Papua New Guinea for the procedure. She was sent there despite abortion being illegal in that country and the threat that she could be exposed to criminal liability, and despite the lack of appropriate medical expertise and equipment required for her. The minister also refused to send her to a third country, like Singapore or New Zealand, which expert evidence stated had the appropriate medical facilities.

    S99 remains in limbo in Papua New Guinea after her lawyers issued an emergency court order to halt the abortion being performed there and has just entered her second trimester of pregnancy, at more than 12 weeks along.

    Lawyers for Dutton said he did not believe S99’s circumstances to be exceptional and also denied Dutton had a duty of care to her. Handing down his findings, Bromberg disagreed with them.

    “She has no independent means,” he said. “She has been and remains dependent on the minister for food, shelter, security and healthcare.”

    Because of this, Bromberg said Dutton had a duty of care to procure a safe and lawful abortion for S99, and that the abortion he made available to her in Papua New Guinea carried safety and lawfulness risks “that a reasonable person in the minister’s position would have avoided”.

    However, Bromberg said his findings did not mean Dutton had to bring S99 to Australia for the procedure. Other countries with the necessary medical experts and equipment could also be appropriate.

    S99’s lawyer, Ron Merkel QC, told the court on Friday that S99’s distress had grown in recent days, especially after news that two of her friends had self-immolated, and that her overall health was declining.

    Merkel praised the court and Bromberg, which sat on Friday night, for its work in coming to a speedy judgment. But he said: “There is simply no basis for the minister to ask for more than 48 hours to comply with your honour’s order.

    “We say the time has run for the commonwealth to take a leisurely approach to this.

    “Every teaching hospital in New Zealand or Singapore has the required facilities.”

    The risk to his clients health was “grave and imminent” the longer the delay, Merkel added. “That risk is not one she should be confronted with for any reason at all.

    “The minister … has medical advice, he’s had expert evidence, he’s had your honour’s judgment. What more can he need?”

    Lawyers for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection may appeal. As a result, her future remains uncertain and it is unclear where the woman may be sent to receive an abortion if no appeal is lodged.

    Blomberg ordered that the abortion “not be procured so it takes place in any location where a person who participates in an abortion is exposed to criminal liability”.

    He also ordered that it be carried out in a place with the required neurological expertise and facilities, as well as other medical experts who could cater to S99’s existing medical conditions.

    In a statement, the Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said S99 had “been through enough”.

    “The ruling of the court makes it clear,” she said. “This woman is still under the care of the Australian immigration minister and he must act within the law, ensuring that she’s given a safe and legal abortion.

    “This woman should never have been sent to PNG and it’s shameful that she’s been put in this position.”

  9. Joshua Robertson, Guardian:

    Peter Dutton has signalled that he may appeal against a federal court ruling that he breached his duty of care for an asylum seeker who sought an abortion after being raped on Nauru.

    It came as he revealed that Abyan, the Somali asylum seeker whose similar request to have an abortion in Australia created a storm in 2015, had now given birth to the child.

    Speaking about the latest case, the minister for immigration said he rejected “different interpretations online” of a finding by judge Mordecai Bromberg on Friday that he exposed a woman to serious medical and legal risks by flying her to Papua New Guinea. Abortion is illegal in PNG and its hospitals lack the necessary equipment and expertise.

    Dutton, when asked if he accepted that he was wrong in his previous legal position that he had no duty of care for the woman identified only as S99, said: “No, again, I’d ask you to have a look at the judgment of the court as opposed to what’s being read on social media.”

    When pressed on whether he still denied having a duty of care despite Bromberg finding that he had, Dutton said: “Well the matter’s been decided upon and the commonwealth has an appeal period to decide whether or not we appeal.

    “And there are other matters in relation to that case which are ongoing, so I don’t have any further comment to make in relation to that matter.”

    Dutton told a media conference in Brisbane that a woman who previously alleged rape on Nauru and was flown to Australia for an abortion had gone through with the pregnancy and had the baby.

    • Melissa Davey, Guardian: Peter Dutton: no appeal against abortion ruling on pregnant asylum seeker

      The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, will not appeal against a federal court finding that he breached his duty of care to an asylum seeker who became pregnant after being raped on Nauru, and exposed her to serious medical and legal risks.

      On Tuesday Dutton informed lawyers for the asylum seeker, identified only as S99, that he would not appeal against the order from Justice Mordecai Bromberg that he must facilitate a safe and legal abortion for her.

      It means Dutton will now have to fly S99 to a country with adequate medical expertise and equipment to safely perform the abortion she requires because of her complex neurological, physiological and psychological conditions.

      The Border Protection Act allows asylum seekers to be flown to Australia for medical care in exceptional circumstances, but the court heard that Dutton did not believe her case to be exceptional. He had her flown to Papua New Guinea for the procedure instead, despite abortion being illegal in that country and the hospital lacking the expert staff and equipment required to make the operation as safe as possible. The abortion would have placed the woman at risk of criminal prosecution, Bromberg found.

      The case was heard after lawyers intervened on her behalf, saying her health would be placed at serious risk if the procedure went ahead in Papua New Guinea. S99 remains in PNG under police guard.

  10. In Melbourne wurde die Einwanderungsbehörde besetzt, Melissa Davey, Guardian:

    More than 100 refugee advocates and protesters have taken over the federal immigration department building in Melbourne, chanting “Bring them here” and “We can be better than this”.

    The protesters were refusing police instructions to leave the building in Lonsdale Street on Thursday afternoon, and had taken over the department’s second floor space, the foyer and stairwells, as well as gathering in front of the building.

    An organiser of the protest, Emma Kefford, said the rally began shortly after 4pm and added that the group planned to stay “indefinitely”.

    “The goal was to disrupt to some degree because we feel rallies haven’t been getting the message across, and the degree of despair and misery occurring offshore requires a heightened response that intervenes a bit more,” she said.

    “We may be prepared to negotiate with police a little later on, but the plan is to stay indefinitely.”

    Godspeed!

  11. Ben Doherty, gestern im Guardian:

    Ein weiterer Flüchtling – im Alter von 26 Jahren – starb auf Nauru, wahrscheinlich an einem oder mehreren Herzinfarkten, er konnte in Nauru nicht adäquat behandelt werden.

    Zwei Flüchtlinge, einer mit anerkanntem Status, einer asylsuchend, wurden von Einheimischen mit Steinen und einem Messer attackiert und ausgeraubt.

    Mehr als 100 Flüchtlinge und Asylsuchende bitten per Petition um die Erlaubnis, von der Insel gelassen zu werden und dazu Boote kaufen zu dürfen (wovon sie bislang von australischen Grenzschützern abgehalten wurden), um in andere Länder fliehen zu können.

    “We have been living in Nauru as prisoners for three years now. The Australian government has refused to let us in or accept us. We’ve decided to rescue ourselves by getting on boats once again. … All people have the basic right to be free. We want the ability to decide our own future. The Australian government has kept us as prisoners and slaves. They use us for their own political benefits, corporate profits, and games.”

    Die Regierung von Papua-Neuguinea kritisiert scharf, daß gewalttätiges und kriminelles australisches und neuseeländisches Wachpersonal in Manus der Justiz von Papua-Neuguinea durch Ausfliegen entzogen wird.

    One of the major tensions over the Manus camp has been the apparent impunity of Australian and New Zealanders contractors working on the island.

    Expatriates who allegedly break the law on Manus are flown off the island before they can be interviewed by police.

    Two expatriate guards, including an Australian, were named in reports investigating the assault that killed Reza Barati, but only two Manus locals were charged and convicted of his murder.

    Three expatriates, again including Australians, are alleged to have drugged and raped a local woman on Manus. They were flown off the island the next day to avoid a PNG police investigation. And an Australian worker at the centre who robbed a bar was also flown off Manus.

    In recent days a guard has been accused of punching and pushing a refugee inside the immigration detention centre.

    In a formal complaint to the camp operator, Broadspectrum, it is alleged the guard punched a refugee who had permission to visit a friend in a neighbouring compound on Sunday.

    The alleged assault was witnessed by several other people in the detention centre.

    The refugee has also lodged a complaint with PNG police but it is unclear whether the man remains on the island.

    Der grünen Senatorin Sarah Hanson-Young wird das Visum für Nauru und der erbetene Besuch der Witwe von Omid Masoumali verweigert.

    Hanson-Young said her meeting on Wednesday had been requested by Masoumali’s widow, but she was refused entry to Brisbane immigration transit accommodation and told that all visits to detention centres would be blocked until after the 2 July poll.

    Wahlkampf mit schon sehr speziellen „anderen Mitteln“.

  12. Nicole Hasham, Sydney Morning Herald: ‚A story that will stun Australia‘: A Current Affair gets rare access to Nauru

    A virtual media blackout at the remote republic of Nauru is set to be temporarily broken, after tabloid television program A Current Affair announced it had gained exclusive access to the island’s offshore detention centre.

    „The centre was reopened in 2012 and it has taken four years to get it into a state where film crews can see selective parts of it – four miserable years.“
    Lawyer George Newhouse

    Foreign journalists must pay an $8000 visa fee to visit Nauru, which is not refunded if the application is rejected.

    • Dazu auch Helen Davidson, Guardian: A Current Affair: story of visit to Nauru detention centre will ’stun Australia‘

      The human rights lawyer George Newhouse said he was concerned about the conditions under which the news team were granted visas, and that “they may not be seeing the harsh realities of the existence of many of the asylum seekers and refugees.”

      Newhouse told Guardian Australia he’d heard reports the film crew had visited the new hospital, which was not yet operating, and noted it was only last month that a man died “in disturbing circumstances” at the Nauru hospital.

      “There are some offices that are being used for consultations but it’s not operating as a hospital. What they’re seeing is a papier mâché front,” he said.

      “It’s important to note it’s taken four years for Nauru to be in a state where journalists can actually be shown some of what’s going on.”

      He said it was not just journalists who were denied access, but also lawyers.

      “I have clients who have been raped on that island and we can’t even get copies of their police statements,” he said.

      “I’m acting for the family of a man who died on the island and I can’t get access to the island or their court system. It’s a black site in the Pacific and one needs to question the basis on which particular journalists are being granted access to it.”

      The Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said the visit seemed like “ a cynical political move on the eve of the election”.

      “The government has banned me from visiting all of Australia’s detention centres during the caretaker period of government, but it seems this tabloid TV show has been given an all access pass,” she told Guardian Australia.

      “When I visit detention centres, including the one on Nauru, I’m told that the managers madly rush around cleaning things up and trying hide the worst of the neglect before I arrive. I have no doubt that the same thing would have happened before this film crew were allowed into the camp and I’m worried the Australian people won’t see the reality of life inside these camps.”

  13. Kim Son Huang, Standard: Asylpolitik in Australien: Kaum jemand will über Internierungslager reden

    Filmemacherin Eva Orner hat es geschafft, Filmmaterial aus den umstrittenen Internierungslagern zu publizieren. Das ist eigentlich verboten

    Die 2001 eingeführte sogenannte Pazifische Lösung scheidet die Geister. Die einen kritisieren sie als unmenschlich. Andere, wie Österreichs Außenminister Sebastian Kurz, halten Australiens strikte Asylpolitik hingegen für effizient. Dabei werden Bootsflüchtlinge in Internierungslager in dem Inselstaat Nauru und auf die zu Papua-Neuguinea gehörende Insel Manus gebracht.

    Die Bedingungen dort sollen schrecklich sein, das sagen zumindest jene NGOs, die anfangs Zutritt bekommen haben. Mittlerweile lässt Canberra aber kaum noch Informationen dazu nach außen dringen. Die australische Filmemacherin Eva Orner hat es nun geschafft, für ihre Doku „Chasing Asylum“ Filmmaterial aus den Lagern zu erhalten und mit Menschen zu reden, die dort gearbeitet haben.

    STANDARD: Waren Sie überrascht, dass Sie, 15 Jahre nach dem Start der „Pazifischen Lösung“, die Erste sind, die einen Film über Nauru und Manus Island dreht?

    Orner: Als sich 2001 die „Tampa-Affäre“ (siehe Wissen unten; Anm.) ereignete und sich dadurch die „Pazifische Lösung“ ergab, war ich schockiert. Und hätte man mir damals gesagt, dass es sie 15 Jahre später immer noch gibt, hätte ich es nicht geglaubt. Ich dachte, das wird bald wieder abgeschafft. 2013, als Tony Abbott Premierminister wurde, war seine Kampagne gegen Flüchtlinge sehr hässlich. Ich dachte lange, irgendwer wird schon diesen Film drehen. Irgendwann sagte ich mir: Dann mach ich es halt selbst.

    STANDARD: Haben Sie diese Entscheidung je bereut?

    Orner: Ich habe schon einige Filme über schwierige Themen gedreht, aber das war der schwierigste. Mitten in den Dreharbeiten dachte ich mir: Man kann diesen Film nicht machen. Er handelt von Orten, die man nicht betreten darf, und über die jene, die dort waren, nicht reden dürfen. Und dann wurde im Juli 2015 auch noch der Border Force Act verabschiedet. Demnach drohen jenen, die über das Geschehen in Nauru und Manus Island reden, bis zu zwei Jahre Haft. In meinem Film sprechen Leute, die dort gearbeitet haben, aber genau darüber, und ich zeige Filmmaterial aus den Lagern. Wir alle können also im Gefängnis landen.

    STANDARD: Gab es schon Reaktionen von den australischen Behörden?

    Orner: Der Film läuft seit etwa drei Monaten in Australien, und es gab kaum Reaktionen von Behörden- oder Regierungsseite. Erst als ich mit internationalen Medien wie BBC sprach, meinten sie, dass sie nicht glücklich damit wären. Ich denke, es geht der Regierung vor allem um Abschreckung. Damit die Flüchtlinge nicht versuchen, Australien zu erreichen. Damit Journalisten nicht probieren, in die Lager zu kommen. Und es funktioniert. Es kommen keine Flüchtlinge, und kaum jemand will über Nauru und Manus Island reden.

    STANDARD: Was war das Schockierendste, was Sie auf dem Filmmaterial aus den Lagern gesehen haben?

    Orner: Es gibt so viel Schockierendes darauf, etwa Menschen, die sich aus Protest den Mund zugenäht haben. Das Schlimmste ist wahrscheinlich, einfach die Bedingungen dort wirklich zu sehen: Die Menschen leben in Zelten, es herrscht eine tropische Hitze, und es gibt keinen Schatten, keine Privatsphäre. Viele von ihnen sind schon seit mehr als 1.000 Tagen dort. Und dann sieht man die kleinen Kinder, die eigentlich nichts anderes kennen. Sie sprechen sich untereinander nicht mit Namen an, sondern mit der ID-Nummer.

    Zwei weitere Clips aus dem Film:

  14. Schauschau, wie klein und krank die globalisierte Welt ist!

    Wikipedia:

    Ferrovial S.A. (Grupo Ferrovial) ist ein weltweit operierendes spanisches Bauunternehmen mit Sitz in Madrid. Es ist derzeit in mehr als 25 Ländern aktiv und hat ca. 74.000 Angestellte (Dezember 2015).

    Services

    Dies beinhaltet Dienstleistungen im Städtischen- und Umweltbereich und der damit verbundene Unterhalt der Installationen und Infrastruktur. Hierzu zählt das Unternehmen FerroNATS, mit Tower- und Lotsenservice.

    Autobahnen

    Investitionen und Bau von Autobahnen und den damit einhergehende Unterhalt der Infrastruktur. Mit der Ferrovial Tochter Cintra ist das Unternehmen derzeit in Kanada, den USA, Spanien, Großbritannien, Portugal, Irland, Griechenland, Kolumbien und Australien vertreten. Hier werden 28 Konzessionen mit mehr als 2.232 Kilometer Straßen betrieben, in Spanien etwa die Teilstrecken der Autopista del Sol Málaga-Estepona-Guadiaro, in Kanada die 407 ETR, in Dallas, USA die LBJ Express.

    Bauwesen

    Entwurf und Konstruktion komplexer Infrastrukturen, administrativer und industrieller Bauten. Ferrovial Agroman, das für Bauwesen zuständige Unternehmen hat seit 1952 mehr als 4.600 Kilometer Eisenbahnstrecken in Spanien fertiggestellt. Davon sind rund 700 Kilometer Hochgeschwindigkeitsstrecken für den AVE. Die Strecken verbinden: Madrid mit Andalusien (Sevilla und Málaga) mit 160 Kilometer Länge; Madrid mit Barcelona (bis zur französischen Grenze) mit 237 Kilometer; Madrid mit dem Nordosten (Segovia, Valladolid, Galicien, Baskenland und Asturien) mit 128 Kilometer; Madrid – und die Mittelmeerregion (Valencia, Castellón, Murcia) mit 197 Kilometer.

    Flughäfen

    Investitionen und Betrieb von Flughäfen: Hierzu zählen die British Airports Authority mit den Flughäfen Heathrow, Glasgow, Aberdeen und Southampton und die damit verbundene Abwicklung von 140 Fluggesellschaften und ca. 87 Millionen Passagieren.

    Rachel Ball und Daniel Webb, Guardian: Offshore detention was destined to fail and the collapse might be closer than you think

    Confronted with mounting risks and liabilities, Ferrovial, the Spanish multinational that runs the camps on Nauru and Manus, has committed not to retender when its current contract expires. The contract was to end in February next year, but the Australian government recently extended it for a further eight months. Now Ferrovial must either exit the camps, or become mired in material risk – including operational uncertainty, exposure to legal action and the devastation of its reputation – until October 2017.

    Ferrovial’s financial stakeholders have also come under fire. A recent report released by the Human Rights Law Centre and GetUp’s No Business in Abuse campaign reveals the global banks and corporate investors linked to the offshore camps through their relationship with Ferrovial, and calls on them to take immediate action to end the business relationships that associate them with gross human rights abuse.

    Already the Norwegian Central Bank, which holds a stake in Ferrovial, has acknowledged the potential for an ethical problem and referred the issue to Norway’s Council on Ethics for an independent judgment. This response will sound a warning to Ferrovial’s prospective successors: business in abuse will hurt you.

    Ferrovial’s decision to walk away ought to deter any company considering profiting from human suffering. The government’s decision to unilaterally extend the offshore contract despite Ferrovial’s clear indication that it does not want to continue its work in the camps certainly suggests that the market is not crowded with contractors eager to step into Ferrovial’s shoes.

  15. Paul Farrell, Nick Evershed, Helen Davidson, Guardian: The Nauru Files. Cache of 2,000 leaked reports reveal scale of abuse of children in Australian offshore detention

    The Guardian’s analysis of the files reveal that children are vastly over-represented in the reports. More than half of the 2,116 reports – a total of 1,086 incidents, or 51.3% – involve children, although children made up only about 18% of those in detention on Nauru during the time covered by the reports, May 2013 to October 2015. The findings come just weeks after the brutal treatment of young people in juvenile detention in the Northern Territory was exposed, leading to the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announcing a wide-ranging public inquiry.

    The reports range from a guard allegedly grabbing a boy and threatening to kill him once he is living in the community to guards allegedly slapping children in the face. In September 2014 a teacher reported that a young classroom helper had requested a four-minute shower instead of a two-minute shower. “Her request has been accepted on condition of sexual favours. It is a male security person. She did not state if this has or hasn’t occurred. The security officer wants to view a boy or girl having a shower.”

    Some reports contain distressing examples of behaviour by traumatised children. According to a report from September 2014, a girl had sewn her lips together. A guard saw her and began laughing at her. In July that year a child under the age of 10 undressed and invited a group of adults to insert their fingers into her vagina; in February 2015 a young girl gestured to her vagina and said a male asylum seeker “cut her from under”.

    In the files there are seven reports of sexual assault of children, 59 reports of assault on children, 30 of self-harm involving children and 159 of threatened self-harm involving children.

    The reports show extraordinary acts of desperation. One pregnant woman, after being told she would need to give birth on Nauru in October 2015, was agitated and in tears. “I give my baby to Australia to look after,” she pleaded with a caseworker, adding: “I don’t want to have my baby in PNG, the [Nauru hospital] or have it in this dirty environment.”

    The files raise stark questions about how information is reported on Nauru, one of Australia’s two offshore detention centres for asylum seekers who arrive by boat. They highlight serious concerns about the ongoing risks to children and adults held on the island. They show how the Australian government has failed to respond to warning signs and reveal sexual assault allegations – many involving children – that have never been previously disclosed.

    The most damning evidence emerges from the words of the staff working in the detention centre themselves – the people who compile the reports. These caseworkers, guards, teachers and medical officers have been charged with caring for hundreds of asylum seekers on the island.

    Allegations of sexual assault, particularly against young women, are a persistent theme of the files. In one report an asylum seeker described being told she was “on a list” written by local Nauruan guards naming single women they were “waiting for”. “She has received offers to get her pregnant when she gets out,” the caseworker wrote.

    They reveal allegations of misconduct by Wilson Security guards at the detention centre. In one report a “cultural adviser” for Wilson Security, the company that employs guards at the detention camp, allegedly told an asylum seeker who had been sexually assaulted in camp that “rape in Australia is very common and people don’t get punished”.

    Das ist nicht mal die Hälfte des Artikels, es ist kaum erträglich, das und die vielen Querverweise zu lesen.

  16. Guardian: ‚This is critical‘: 103 Nauru and Manus staff speak out

    “This has reached crisis level and requires an immediate response.” said Toby O’Brien, former Child Protection Officer with Save the Children. “The evidence is already overwhelmingly clear.”

    Many of the former staff have already made submissions and given evidence to a number of inquiries, investigations and reviews.

    “We’ve given evidence and it’s been ignored.” said Natasha Reid, Case Manager with Broadspectrum until February 2015, “No change has occurred for the men we worked with since the last Senate Inquiry. The camp is not safer, conditions have not improved, the physical and mental decline of those held continues.”

    Charlotte Wilson, who worked in case management on both Nauru and Manus Island over a period of 1.5 years, said “The Nauru files are damning in their truth, and they are not exclusive to Nauru. The men on Manus are being harmed just as frequently and severely.”

    “I watched these children’s lives being destroyed by these camps,” said Katie Price, Former Child and Youth Recreation Officer, was employed on Nauru with Save the Children for almost two years. “They went from energetic, cheeky, normal kids to completely devoid of all emotion. I recall one 7-year-old child towards the end having a complete breakdown. She collapsed, screaming and kicking and crying for 20 minutes, completely incoherent and would not let go of me. “

    Shivani Keecha, who was the Coordinator of Save the Children’s Child Protection team on Nauru until October 2015, wants to see immediate action taken. “This cannot continue. I worked on Nauru while several previous investigations and inquiries were held. Nothing changed. It was already too little too late. We don’t need more evidence. We know these centres cause unacceptable harm. We need to bring these people to Australia and start the process of rebuilding their lives.’’

    Hayley Ballinger, Unaccompanied Minor Residential Worker and Child Protection Caseworker with Save the Children until April 2015 said “I implore the public and the Government to remember these are people. Kind, ambitious, strong, imaginative, clever, nurturing, loving, real people who are being systemically broken.”

    “They are truly the bravest souls I have ever met, and they deserve a future free from further harm.” said Ms Ballinger.

    Chris Lougheed, Deputy Education Manager with Save the Children, who personally reviewed and submitted a great many incident reports such as those published in the Nauru files, condemned the Minister’s claims that the reports were ‘hype’ and demanded he took responsibility. “These reports are accurate observations written by experienced professionals.”

    “People are in immediate danger. Too much time has already passed. The Australian government must take responsibility and bring them here immediately.” said Mr Lougheed.

    • Guardian heute Peter Dutton attacks Guardian and ABC over reporting of Nauru files

      Australia’s immigration minister has launched a wide-ranging attack on the Guardian and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, saying he wasn’t going to “be defamed” by their reporting of allegations of child abuse and sexual assault at the Nauru detention centre.

      Der Kreis der verabscheuungswürdigen wird wieder größer, nun sind die Medien auch dabei, weil sie berichten und nicht locker lassen. Der Herr Dutton hat schon ein ähm eigenartiges Gebaren und Demokratieverständnis, um im höflichen Modus zu bleiben. Statt den Skandal zu thematisieren, geht er auf die Überbringer der Botschaft los.

      • Schon Duttons Wortwahl ist verwegen.
        Sich dagegen zu wehren, daß Medienberichte über systematische Menschenrechtsverletzungen ihn diffamieren, setzt ja eigentlich vorraus, daß ihn die systematischen Menschenrechtsverletzungen auch betreffen.
        Das ist wie dieser Elternspruch ‚Werde mir bloß nicht schwanger!‘
        Peter Dutton tat schon in der Vergangenheit nichts anderes, als die Gründe für jede Art von Mißständen auf Manus und Nauru den Flüchtlingen, den dortigen Behörden, der australischen Ausprägung der „linksrotgrünversifften Gutmenschen“ oder sonstwem anzulasten.
        Aber wenn es um angebliche Diffamierung geht, sieht er sich selbst auf einmal betroffen.

  17. nd: Australien will Flüchtlingen Einreise auf Lebenszeit verbieten

    Verschärfung des Asylrechts soll nächste Woche eingebracht werden / Anwalt: Regelung womöglich verfassungswidrig

    Canberra. Die australische Regierung will die Einreise von Bootsflüchtlingen auf Lebenszeit verbieten. Das sieht eine Gesetzesreform vor, die in der kommenden Woche eingebracht werden soll. Schon jetzt dürfen Bootsflüchtlinge sich nicht in Australien niederlassen, selbst wenn sie als Flüchtlinge anerkannt werden. Die Neuregelung verbietet eine spätere Einreise selbst als Tourist oder mit einem Geschäftsvisum. Das Gesetz sei grausam und könnte als verfassungswidrig erklärt werden, sagte der Sprecher des Rechtsanwälte-Verbandes Greg Barns.

    »Die Tür nach Australien ist für jene geschlossen, die hier per Boot mit einem Menschenschmuggler herkommen wollen. Sie ist zu«, sagte Premierminister Malcolm Turnbull am Sonntag. »Diese absolut unnachgiebige, eindeutige Botschaft muss klar und deutlich sein.« Die Regierung wolle klar machen, dass sie ihre Position nicht ändern werde, fügte Turnbull hinzu.

    Das permanente Einreiseverbot soll für jene Asylsuchenden gelten, die seit Mitte 2013 in die Auffanglager in Papua-Neuguinea und Nauru gekommen sind.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s