The right to protest has lost in Sydney. People can protest, but not anywhere where the targets of that protest might see or hear them.
I expect the protest will go ahead, with added banners of "screw the court". And the judge will deserve every bit of that.
Australia has taken a remarkably anti-democratic turn under Howard, and it frightens me.
What's the point of "snipers on the roof" anyway? To take up all the good spots?
Yes, but by allowing ppl to 'jump the queue' you encourage others to do the same. Why follow the process if you see others getting refugee status by ripping up their passports and finding Jesus?
As Che has pointed out, not everybody can even get in the queue. More importantly, we cannot turn a blind eye to human suffering for procedural reasons. That sort of thinking leads to humanitarian catastrophe.
(Oh, and BTW, are all those Zimbabwean farmers "que jumpers"? or do you get a free pass if you're white?)
I consider myself a liberal on asylum and refugee policy, but this guy just doesn't seem like the right case to me.
The problem with being serious about human rights is that you find yourself having to stick up for scoundrels all the time. Panah's a scoundrel. But he is also IMHO at serious risk of persecution if deported, and that is what matters.
The Australian police's reason for the court case: they are planning to block the road, and therefore expect a "full-scale riot".
We'll have to wait till 16:00 AU time (18:00 NZST) to see if the scaremongering little pricks get away with it, or if the judge makes the obvious response of "so don't block the road, you dumbarses".
A good half an hour later there was a bloke in a suit knocking on our window. The SIS had left one behind and the door didn't have a handle to open from the outside. Gold pure gold.
So, did you leave them out there to freeze for a while? Smert' shpionam, and all that.
Speaking only for myself, I would rather give $10 to helping a third world country develop (you know, to people who can't afford air fares) than give $1 to a refugee.
Generally I agree with you; all other things being equal, it is better to help people build their own futures. But it is rather difficult to help people who live under repressive regimes (not to mention morally questionable if it aids the survival of those regimes), and the best thing we can do on that front is help pick up the pieces for those who manage to escape.
Nothing lasts forever, and when governments change and situations stablise, refugees can go home. But sometimes that takes so long that they have become valued members of our community in the meantime, with jobs, families, and children. And under those circumstances, its IMHO better to let people stay if they want to than uproot them again
I disagree. The problem is that people don't have a great deal of confidence in the integrity (or even the intrinsic value) of the refugee system, populated as it is by people who do not share their views.
Translation: the majority of New Zealanders are vicious xenophobes who do not give a rat's arse about human rights.
I think we should reject that characterisation, andactually try and live up to our own fine opinion of ourselves.
I guess we're down to what constitutes a significant risk and how that should be proved. The RSAA found Panah's evidence that he was at risk to be fabricated. What evidence should it have acted on?
Reports by Amnesty International and other NGOs of the religious situation in Iran. And if the RSAA found that that didn't meet the level of persecution required for refugee status, the government should have allowed temporary protection regardless.
Mark: that's why I went straight to Amnesty International, though the US State Department country report on Iran is also an interesting read...