More public service contempt for parliament

There have been a couple of troubling incidents this term of government agencies trying to subvert and interfere with the parliamentary select committee process - first DIA making unauthorised changes to the three waters bills, and then Ministry of Health failing to include pro-transparency submissions in its departmental report on the Therapeutic Products Bill. And now we have a third example, with MBIE's chief executive making a non-apology "apology" after being caught trying to subvert the committee process on the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill:

The head of MBIE has apologised to a Parliamentary Select Committee as a senior MP accused staff of “devious” conduct in preparing a report despite clear direction it had not been requested.

[...]

Committee chair and Labour MP Jenny Salesa said today that due to that 50/50 split, they were unable to reach a majority position on the bill and so had not sought a department report, which usually occurs when there is agreement.

Despite this, department officials prepared a report anyway, which Immigration Minister Andrew Little said would be used to inform any changes he would make to the bill as he proceeds to the second reading.

Committee members from all parties today raised concerns with MBIE officials that those staff had circumvented the committee, and in turn submitters, by preparing a report without their input.

Meanwhile, MBIE CEO Carolyn Tremain's "apology" is minimising bullshit, calling her agency’s disobeying an explicit committee instruction a "misunderstanding". Some MPs are talking about complaining to the (powerful) Privileges Committee as a result, and that needs to happen - because what happened was clearly contemptuous of the committee and of parliament, born of MBIE's belief that Parliament "had no choice but to pass the bill".

But prosecuting and sacking a CEO for contempt of parliament only deals with the symptom. The underlying cause - identified by the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties during the recent review of Standing Orders - is that committees are advised by departmental officials, who have deep and fundamental conflicts of interest over the bills they are advising on. The solution is for committees to have their own independent advisors, to provide actual independent advice (and as a bonus, they won't automatically be spies for the Minister on the committee process). But the chances of the executive stepping up and funding Parliament to reduce their own power sadly seems remote.

More petulance from Andrew Little

Back in June, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee reported back on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill, making numerous improvements. But Defence Minister Andrew Little said "fuck transparency" and petulantly undid them. Now it looks like he's going to do a repeat performance. The same committee has reported back on the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill, delivering a unanimous report that it was unnecessary and that it not be passed. They recognised that the bill undermined our international obligations under the Refugee Convention and international human rights law, and effectively criminalised seeking asylum. Andrew Little's response? It's the committee and submitters who are wrong:

Little vowed to continue progressing the bill despite the select committee’s concerns. He said classified information, which the committee heard, would explain the need for this law change.

He reprimanded the select committee on Tuesday, saying there was something “seriously wrong” with it.

[...]

Little said the committee had failed to adequately consider “legislation dealing with a pretty serious potential national security risk”.

...Or maybe his bill really was an ill-considered power grab which infringed fundamental human rights without any justification - and one so awful that even the authoritarians in the National Party could see it (you know you're in trouble when the National Party is acting as your conscience...)

Unfortunately, thanks to single-majority government, Little will probably get his way. He'll convince Cabinet, Cabinet will whip the Labour caucus, and that's 61 votes. The actual merits simply don't come into when one party holds a majority. Which means the sooner this aberration is over and we can get back to the checks and balances of normal consensual MMP politics, the better.

Wood pulls a Dutton

After almost two decades of racism, Australia is finally getting off its "stop the boats" bullshit. But don't worry, racists - Michael Wood has your back!

The Government wants to increase the time it can detain without a warrant people seeking asylum en masse from four days to 28 days.

It also plans to introduce a “community management approach” - including electronic monitoring - rather than putting people in prisons, however, that will likely not be in place before the legislation is passed.

The Government says the bill, to be introduced to Parliament this week, is to ensure those arriving here would have enough time to get legal representation.

...which is pretty tortured logic, because one of the primary roles of those lawyers will be to free their clients from detention. "We have to lock you up so you can get help to not get locked up", seems utterly perverse "logic". Instead, its just the desperate attempt to rationalise punitive racism of the sort seen in Australia. And it shows the utter moral void at the heart of this dying Labour government.

But then, should we really have expected anything better? After all, this is the party that locked up Ahmed Zaoui, of "lie in unison", of leaked smears against teenagers, which removed the right to reasons in immigration decisions and which introduced mandatory detention for the illusory "threat" of "mass arrivals" in the first place. Their record on refugee issues is simply shameful. This is just more of the same.

Wrong, at every level

We all hate Australia for its policy of jailing refugees as a "disincentive" for people to try and escape torture and persecution. But New Zealand does this too, on a much lesser scale. last year, the government finally ordered a review of this disgusting practice. Today, that review reported back, finding that jailing refugees is "wrong, at every level":

My conclusion is that while very short term detention of some arrivals who claim refugee status at the border may be justified (though the current practice of how this is done must change), the practice of long term detention of refugee claimants in Corrections facilities is wrong, at every level. It raises serious issues of non-compliance with New Zealand’s international and domestic human rights obligations. It is also inhumane and contrary to our society’s core values to treat such vulnerable people in this manner, and while a form of long term detention might in extraordinary circumstances be necessary for public safety or national security, the current rate and form of detention is not justifiable on any basis.

They recommend a law change to effectively end refugee detention except in exceptional circumstances, and to significantly increase judicial oversight when it is used. Reviews will be more frequent, and rather than being the current rubberstamp process, will require the government to prove both a need for detention and that they have taken all reasonable steps to enable a release on conditions every time. Detention in Corrections facilities - sticking people in jail and treating them like criminals - will be prohibited. Its an explicit repudiation of Labour's 2006 proposals (which were eventually enacted as the Immigration Act 2009 with Labour support), and of Immigration's general punitive approach.

According to Associate Immigration Minister Phil Twyford, the government accepts the findings. Hopefully they'll prioritise the necessary legislation, rather than dragging their feet on it.

Monstrous and illegal

In September 2021 Ahamed Samsudeen was killed by police after stabbing eight people in an Auckland supermarket. Samsudeen was a former refugee who seems to have been turned into a terrorist by the SIS and police (at the least you can say that their treatment of him did not help the situation, and it seems to have made it considerably worse). After an attempt to prosecute him for terrorism collapsed in the face of the inconvenient fact that he hadn't actually broken the law yet, the government tried to deport him, but were barred from doing so by international human rights law. But now the government has a "solution" for this "problem": simply ignore that law:

The government is looking into whether it will change the law to make it possible to send would-be terrorists, or refugees who have been serious offenders, back to their home countries.

[...]

Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi said the government is talking to other countries about how they deal with deporting protected people - those who face the risk of persecution in their home countries.

"We're currently in a phase where we are asking some experts for some feedback to the proposals. Some of that includes talking to other countries about the regimes that they have in place to relocate people. It's not as easy as it sounds and obviously, that was one of the sticking points with the individual involved.

"So we haven't come to a final position yet. But we have, I guess - in comparison to where we were in September last year, we've advanced a lot of the policy discussions."

The most obvious problem with this is that it is blatantly illegal under international and New Zealand law. While the Refugee Convention allows people granted refugee status to be deported back to persecution when they have been convicted of a "particularly serious crime" and so constitute a "danger to the community", or where there are reasonable grounds for regarding them as a "danger to the security of the country", they are still protected by the the Convention Against Torture and the ICCPR, which forbid deportation to torture and death. Those protections are recognised in sections 130 and 131 of the Immigration Act, and beyond that by the affirmation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment. While the former can easily be changed, the BORA rights are considered non-derogable by the courts (reflecting international law on the issue), so if the government wanted any change to stick, it would have to either directly amend the BORA, or write a nakedly explicit "fuck the BORA" clause into the Immigration Act. Both are obviously constitutionally improper. And even then, it would just move the problem from New Zealand courts to the United Nations (either the Human Rights Committee or the Committee Against Torture, depending). So, this isn't actually a "problem" they can solve, unless they want to turn us into an outlaw regime like Australia which pisses on international human rights law.

Secondly, what is the "problem" they are trying to solve? Looking at their chosen example, its not "people who have been convicted of crimes", but people who haven't been convicted, people who haven't actually committed crimes at all. Which gets us into issues of punishment without trial, which again is simply not the sort of thing countries which respect human rights do. Aotearoa likes to think of itself as one of those countries, and Labour likes to think of itself as a party which supports that. But clearly the current government haven't got the memo, because faced with some legally inconvenient people, their "solution" is simply to get rid of them, and bugger legal process or human rights protections. Which is the sort of mindset you'd expect from someone like Putin, not a New Zealand politician.

What the government is proposing is simply monstrous and illegal. It should not proceed. But beyond that, it exposes a sickness at the heart of government, a mindset of convenience and expediency and a disregard for fundamental human rights. A government infected by such a sickness should not be allowed to continue. Instead, it should be removed from office at the next election.

Finally

Last month, we learned that Australia had agreed-in-principle to Aotearoa's offer to resettle refugees from Australian concentration camps. And today, Australia finally accepted it:

In a major about-turn, Australia has accepted New Zealand's long-standing offer to take 150 refugees a year for three years from detention centres in the Pacific.

The deal aims to rehome some of the thousands of refugees who have arrived in Australia by boat, and been placed in detention in line with the country's policy.

The original offer was made by then-prime minister John Key in 2013 and has continued to be extended by his successors Bill English and Jacinda Ardern.

Australian authorities have rejected the proposal until now, citing concerns that the refugees could claim Kiwi citizenship and then travel into Australia freely.

Australia's solution to that problem has long been a demand that we permanently deny their victims citizenship. Obviously, this has been unacceptable to the New Zealand government. And it looks like we got our way: the refugees won't be denied residency or citizenship. Further, while Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi has said that Australia's border decisions are a question for Australia, he's also said that we expect all kiwis to be treated equally - suggesting there may be diplomatic consequences if they try any continued victimisation.

Obviously, this deal could have been made nine years ago when it was first proposed. The fact that Australia refused over illusory, racist fears, and then tortured these people for nine years, is something Australian politicians need to be held accountable for.

Read the fine print

The Herald reports that after nine years, Australia has finally accepted Aotearoa's offer to resettle people from its offshore concentration camps. Which sounds like great news. Except there's a catch:

The deal was confirmed "in principle" in the Australian Senate this week but awaits further negotiation, including Australia seeking a guarantee there would be no "backdoor" for the people transferred to come to Australia.

Australia is obsessed with the idea that people who have the temerity to request asylum from them can never be allowed to set foot there (apparently they think they're such a great country that people will still want to visit their dry racist shithole even after being tortured by them for nine years). Refugees in New Zealand of course are eventually granted citizenship, which means a right to travel to and live in Australia. Australia's "solution" to this is to ask us to continue to oppress its victims on their behalf by denying them citizenship. Successive New Zealand governments have continuously told them that that's not happening, which is why this has taken nine years. But shuffling this fundamental disagreement behind an "agreement in principle" doesn't make it go away, and its likely that Australia's desire for a "guarantee" will continue to hold things up. So we probably shouldn't expect any concentration camp victims any time soon, unless we rescue them ourselves.

Australia could of course solve this problem itself, simply by exercising its right to refuse entry at the border in the unlikely event that any of its victims show up there again. The fact that they are instead seeking to make us complicit in their oppression speaks volumes about the moral character of their government. Aotearoa shouldn't have a bar of it. Once we accept these people, they're part of the whanau, and we should not cooperate in any way with their abuser.

(Australia's offshore detention regime has been found to constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and is unlawful under international law).

An end to imprisoning refugees?

Back in May, Amnesty International exposed New Zealand's repuslive system of refugee detention, and the ongoing human rights abuses it leads to. It clearly embarassed the government, because today they've announced a formal inquiry into the practice - the first step to ending it:

But following the release in May of a damning report by Amnesty International into the practice, the Government is now acknowledging swift action is needed.

The Minister of Immigration Kris Faafoi and Associate Minister Phil Twyford have ordered a review into Immigration New Zealand’s processes following Amnesty's research. The review will focus on the appropriateness of the use of Corrections and Police facilities for immigration detention.

[...]

[Amnesty International Executive Director Meg] De Ronde welcomes the Government’s prompt response to their meeting but cautions there is still work to be done.

“We’re heartened to see such a prompt and direct result to our research and to the meeting we had with the Ministers and the Asylum Seeker’s Support Trust. A review is a good first step, but we along with others in civil society will be keeping the pressure on until we see legislative change to stop the imprisonment of asylum seekers in criminal justice facilities.”

Good. This practice needs to end. We don't accept it when Australia does it, and we should not acept it from our own government either.

Refugees do not belong in prison

We like to think that New Zealand is a better, kinder place than Australia. We welcome refugees, while racist Australia puts them in Pacific gulags where they are tortured and abused. Except its not true: New Zealand operates its own refugee detention system to discourage and punish those who dare to believe our rhetoric. And according to Amnesty International, it involves widespread human rights abuses:

Shocking allegations of rape, assault and attempted suicide have emerged from asylum seekers who Amnesty International argues are being unfairly detained in prisons by Immigration New Zealand (INZ).

The human rights organisation has released its first extensive report into the treatment of 12 of 86 detained people who sought asylum here between 2015 and 2020.

Amnesty International said at every stage there were failures to ensure basic rights to a fair process.

You can read the full report here. Refugees are unreasonably and unlawfully detained, not informed of the reason for their detention and denied access to lawyers, incarcerated with criminals for years, and abused. The courts, which are meant to protect human rights, rubber-stamp this. It violates the Bill of Rights Act and international human rights law. The underlying reason for detention - to deter claims and punish those who enter New Zealand unlawfully or without travel documents - violates the Refugee Convention.

This has to stop. Prison is an inherently dehumanising environment. Putting people who have been tortured, abused and persecuted there is simply cruel and vicious. But I guess this is another example of Jacinda Ardern's "kindness".

Refugees have no place in prison. If you'd like to tell the government that, you can send a message here.

The Australian courts have had enough of refugee detention

For the past decade, Australia has had a racist, anti-refugee policy. Those claiming refugee status are imprisoned without trial and left to rot in the hope they would "voluntarily" return to be tortured and murdered. When the courts have granted them visas, the government has immediately revoked them on racial "character" grounds, so they never leave detention. Now, the Australian courts have finally had enough of this bullshit:

A Syrian man who has spent the last six years locked up in Australian detention centres after his visa was revoked is free after a landmark legal ruling.

Lawyers for the man, who has lived in Australia since he was 13, successfully argued that he was being held unlawfully because nothing had happened on his case for a year, and no attempt had been made to return him to his war-ravaged homeland.

His solicitor Alison Battison said it was the first time in Australian legal history that someone has been freed from detention under the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which puts the onus on the state to prove a valid reason for imprisoning someone.

As in New Zealand, the courts have ruled that the purpose of detention is to enable a decision or deportation. If there is no decision or deportation process, then the detention serves no purpose and is illegal. The twist in this case is that, because the Australia government has refused to even consider granting a visa, the courts have said that it doesn't matter: the man is free, they can't detain him for immigration purposes, and if they try and arrest him for being unlawfully in the country then that will be contempt of court. The next step is of course a civil claim for damages for false imprisonment, as well as multiple cases applying the same logic to every other long-term immigration detainee.

How will the Australian government respond? Based on their past behaviour, probably with more tyranny. But removing habeas corpus rights is a big step, even for a racist tyrant like Peter Dutton. And hopefully the Australian Senate will refuse to go along with any such attempt.

Doing the right thing

The New Zealand government has done the right thing and granted journalist Behrouz Boochani refugee status:

Eight months after arriving in New Zealand, acclaimed author Behrouz Boochani has been granted refugee status.

The Kurdish-Iranian writer joins a small group of successful applicants – with almost two thirds of asylum claims rejected last year.

Gaining refugee status means he can stay in New Zealand indefinitely and can apply for a resident’s visa.

Peter Dutton will probably lose his shit over this, but fuck him, he deserves to be in The Hague. Protecting victims of concentration camps is exactly what refugee status is for, and if Australia has forgotten that, so much the worse for them. But Boochani is not the only victim of Australian cruelty; we should grant refugee status to everyone in the camps on Manus and Nauru and bring them here for safe lives in New Zealand. And if Australia doesn't like that, then fuck them.

And in the meantime, remember: don't buy Australian.

Escape from Manus Island

Behrouz Boochani is an award winning author and journalist. He is also a refugee, who for the past six years has been detained in Australia's offshore gulag on Manus Island, and in Papua New Guinea. But last night, with the cooperation of the WORD Christchurch festival and Amnesty International, he finally escaped to New Zealand. As for what he was escaping from, The Guardian has the litany of horrors:

Over the six years he was held on Manus Island and in Port Moresby, Boochani witnessed friends shot, stabbed and murdered by guards on Manus Island, saw others die through medical neglect, and watched others descend into mental anguish and suicide.

He was twice tortured for several days in the notorious Chauka solitary confinement block, in the now-demolished Manus detention centre. He was jailed for eight days for reporting on a hunger strike in the centre, which was put down by force by PNG police.

This is basicly nazi stuff. And its our "closest friend" Australia doing it. But countries who run concentration camps, who deliberately leave people to die, who torture, can never be our friends. Which is why you should never buy Australian.

As for Boochani, he will be appearing at the WORD festival in Christchurch tonight, and plans to enjoy his freedom in New Zealand. While he has no plans to apply for asylum here, that could (and should) change if the US withdraws its acceptance. Because what's clear is that he has been persecuted by Australia and its PNG patsies, and would suffer further persecution of returned there. Which gives him a slam-dunk case for refugee status in New Zealand should he need it.

Irony

Since 2013, the Australian government has detained refugees without trial in Pacific gulags, where they are abused, tortured, and driven to suicide. The policy is not just an abuse of human rights and possible crime against humanity; it has also had a corrosive effect on the states Australia uses as hosts. Nauru in particular has turned into a dictatorship, banning the media, evicting the opposition from parliament, and ending freedom of speech in an effort to stop criticism of the flow of Australian gulag money. And now, some of the victims of that regime are applying for asylum in Australia:

A former Nauruan politician is seeking political asylum in Australia as a retrial of anti-Government protestors kicks off in the island nation today.

Squire Jeremiah is a member of the so-called Nauru 19, a group of former opposition MPs and their supporters who were charged with rioting and disrupting the legislature over protests outside the nation's Parliament in 2015.

Mr Jeremiah and his cousin, Rutherford Jeremiah, fled to Australia in September.

He says the Government is determined to have them convicted.

And he's right. Nauru has conducted a campaign of persecution against these people, and then when the courts finally ruled it was illegal, abolished them. Now, they've bought in a Fijian judge, whose claim to fame is purportedly legalising a coup, to hear the trial. As the former chief justice says, this is simply an abuse of the judicial process.

The irony here: Australia's anti-refugee policies in the Pacific are now creating refugees in the Pacific. Its appropriate that they clean up their mess, and give sanctuary to those who they are having persecuted. If not, New Zealand should offer to help.

About time

New Zealand likes to think of itself as not a racist country (despite being founded on the racist dispossession and subjugation of Maori). But for years, we've had a racist refugee policy, which basicly excludes refugees from Africa and the Middle East unless they already have relatives here. Now, the government is finally getting rid of it:

A refugee policy that's been labelled as racist by migrant advocates is being scrapped by the government.

Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has announced as part of the government's three-year refugee policy that it will get rid of the requirement for Middle Eastern and African refugees to have relatives already residing here.

The announcement has come just months before the refugee quota will jump from 1000 to 1500 for 2020.

Africa and Middle East regions will have their allocation increased from 14 percent to 15 percent.

Good. Because the sole aim of the policy seemed to be to limit the number of brown faces old white racists like Don Brash saw on the street. And that is not a legitimate aim of policy at all.

The UK commits fraud to deport people

How scummy is the UK Home Office? This scummy:

The Home Office lied to EU member states to remove victims of human trafficking and modern slavery in breach of European law, according to whistleblowers.

Legal experts have said the practice is “unthinkable” and “a disgraceful and illegal manipulation of the system”. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has urged the sources to contact Yvette Cooper, who chairs the home affairs select committee. “These are clearly serious allegations which must be properly investigated,” said Khan’s spokesperson.

Whistleblowers allege that, while operating as the third country unit, the now renamed Dublin cessation unit (DCU) regularly lied to other member states and manipulated the system by sending them “extra time” letters, falsely claiming asylum applicants had launched appeals. These letters remove the deadline – usually six months – after which someone seeking asylum can no longer be removed from the UK and sent to the EU country determined to be responsible for assessing their claim.

The practice, which started in 2013, apparently continued until at least December last year, the sources say.

The lesson here is that if you give immigration authorities a target for deportations, they will game the system to achieve it, including simply making shit up so they can throw people out and make them someone else's problem. You'd think that this would be a criminal fraud, especially given the consequences (detention and deportation). But I expect that the Home Office staff who falsified these documents will never be held accountable.

Australia's criminal government

Australian Ministers are guilty of crimes against humanity over their treatment of refugees, says a top Australian lawyer:

The top politicians in this country are guilty of major criminal offences, but they are unlikely ever to be tried for them, says lawyer Julian Burnside.

“I think it’s pretty clear that Australian prime ministers and immigration ministers are guilty of criminal offences against our own law,” says the Melbourne-based QC. “The problem is that no one can bring a prosecution for those offences without the approval of the Attorney General. Take a lucky guess what the Attorney General would say.”

The offences he has in mind involve the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers – deliberate and unnecessary cruelty that amounts, he argues in the documentary Border Politics, to torture.

And Australia has laws against that, both under the Convention Against Torture and as a party to the International Criminal Court. But they all have a political safeguard, which means that in practice no member of the government or official will ever face justice for their crimes.

The question then is, at what stage does that political safeguard become a deliberate obstruction of justice, enabling the ICC to assert jurisdiction over both criminals and obstructers? Because that's where this is heading unless Australia sorts its shit out. And as a decent country, the new Zealand government should be making the complaint. Friends don't let friends torture refugees and commit crimes against humanity.

How Australian

Something nasty was hidden in the details of yesterday's budget: the government will spend millions on stopping non-existent refugee boats:

Efforts to prevent boats of asylum seekers heading to New Zealand will receive $25 million in funding.

The initiative will have New Zealand work in other countries to prevent people smuggling ventures, and is part of a wider boost to immigration enforcement announced for Budget 2019 .

The Government says the focus on "Maritime Mass Arrival Prevention" is consistent with long-held policy. But talk of mass arrivals was a "dog whistle" to appear tough on migration, a refugee campaigner says.

Just to put this in context, on March 15 a racist arsehole murdered over 50 people because he thought they didn't belong here. And the government responds by spending millions to prevent refugees claiming asylum here - effectively pandering to that racist and his supporters. How Australian.

Leaving them to drown

Every year, thousands of refugees try to cross the Mediterranean in leaky boats, desperate to escape whatever hellhole they're in and find somewhere safe. Previously, the EU had rescued them when they got into trouble. But now, thanks to Italy, they have a new policy: leave them to drown:

The European Union is to stop the sea patrols that have rescued thousands of refugees and migrants from the central Mediterranean, after Italy’s populist government threatened to veto the entire operation.

Operation Sophia, which has two vessels and five planes and helicopters, was set up in 2015 to prevent loss of life at sea in a year when 3,771 people died or went missing attempting to reach Europe in rickety boats.

The sea patrol element of the operation will end on 30 September, though air patrols will be stepped up. The mission will also continue training the Libyan coastguard – part of a controversial strategy that critics say leads to people being trapped in Libyan detention centres, where they suffer horrific abuse.

Meanwhile, they've harassed and deflagged the independent rescue ships, so there is now no-one to save these people. It is simply a policy of outright murder. And the politicians responsible should go to The Hague for it.

Basic humanity in Australia?

Australia's anti-refugee policy is based on cruelty. According to the Australian government, refugees claiming their rights under international law are a "threat", which can only be deterred by imprisoning them without trial forever in concentration camps, neglecting them, allowing them to be sexually abused and tortured by their guards, and denying them basic medical and psychological care until they either die of preventable diseases, or kill themselves. It is a monstrous, vicious, inhumane, criminal policy, for which its architects and implementers should be facing justice in The Hague. But now, there's a tiny crack, with the Australian parliament voting to allow its victims to be transferred to Australia to receive medical treatment:

Australian MPs have passed a landmark bill with an opposition amendment making it easier for sick refugees held offshore to be treated in the country.

This is the first time in decades a government has lost a vote on its own legislation in the lower house.

The move is a blow for Prime Minister Scott Morrison's minority government's highly controversial immigration policy.

[...]

Doctors will now have the power to recommend transfers for refugees on Nauru and Manus to Australia for treatment. However, the immigration minister could ask an independent panel to review the medical assessment, and would have some authority to overrule it.

Previously, doctors had reported that their medical transfer recommendation were ignored by authorities.

Refugee lawyers thus had to apply for court orders to bring ill people to Australia. There were 44 medical transfers achieved through court battles.

The way the Australian government is acting, you would think this was the end of the world. They have such an inflated view of their own country that they seriously think people will sign up to be tortured in a concentration camp for five years simply so they can set foot on Australian soil to receive treatment in a hospital. But what it is is showing some basic humanity which has long been missing from Australian refugee policy. The Australian government wants its victims to die quietly. The Australian parliament has said that that is simply not acceptable, and recognised that they have a duty of care. But while its a step forward, it also invites the basic question: what is so wrong with Australia and its politics that they had to pass this law, rather than behaving in a lawful and humane manner in the first place?

If this is "terrorism", we should all be terrorists

Yesterday, December 10, was human rights day. And the UK celebrated it by convicting 15 human rights protesters of "terrorism":

In a prosecution that has been condemned by human rights groups, Alistair Tamlit and Benjamin Smoke and the other members of the so-called Stansted 15 were convicted on Monday of endangering the safety of the airport in March 2017.

The court had heard how they used lock-on devices to secure themselves around a Titan Airways Boeing 767 chartered by the Home Office, as the aircraft waited on the asphalt at the airport in Essex to remove undocumented immigrants to Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone.

After nearly three days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial, a jury at Chelmsford crown court found the defendants, all members of campaign group End Deportations, guilty of intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome. They were found guilty under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act, a law passed in response to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

The refugees they saved had their cases reviewed, and most had their deportation orders overturned (because it turns out that the Home Office are bigots who either refuse to believe people are gay, or ignore real threats to their lives so they can meet an arbitrary deportation quota). But the jury weren't allowed to consider that, after the judge effectively directed them to convict.

And that's British "justice" for you: protesting for human rights is now "terrorism", with a penalty of life imprisonment. But if that's the case, we have a moral duty to be "terrorists", and defend human rights against an unjust, tyrannical government.