Island nation of Nauru fixes trial by barring laywers entry

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-04-26 12:35pm

The Australian Government is paying for a Queen's Counsel and a barrister to defend Nauru against a challenge to the legality of its asylum seeker detention centre.

But the three asylum seekers at the centre of the case will not be represented by its Australian legal team that brought the action on their behalf. Their lawyers' visas were revoked.

Instead, they will be represented by one of the island's 11 "pleaders" - para-legals who are allowed to appear in court but are not trained lawyers.

The Australian Government confirmed it was paying costs as part of its detention centre agreement with Nauru.

Australia is paying the Government of Nauru to hold the illegal immigrants, while their claims are being processed(via the slow track) and Nauru wants the money. Also Nauru gets to keep the facilities biuld there after the entire issue is resolved.

The order to cancel the laywer's visas game directly from the President of Nauru. Australia's responce was:

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said: "Australia has not, and will not, seek to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. The Australian Government is not a party to the case, we have nothing to do with the matter and the question of legal representation for the asylum seekers is simply a matter for the Nauruan Government."

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-04-26 09:42pm

Its great how AU media never says things like 'and NZ took a similar number of refugees, processed them quickly, and they don't have any problems'

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-04-26 10:01pm

Is Australia really as xenophobic as I hear? I know a lot of EU nations that'd love to have this attitude to immigrants, but sometimes it seems a tad excessive.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-04-26 11:36pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Is Australia really as xenophobic as I hear? I know a lot of EU nations that'd love to have this attitude to immigrants, but sometimes it seems a tad excessive.

Australia isnt xenophobic per say, we let a large number of legal immigrants in each year, but in general the Australian culture is against illegal immigrants.

And since almost nothing ever needs to touch the consitution, we dont have consitutional challanges every second week(*cough*canada/USA*cough*) everytime the government passes a new bill.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-04-27 02:09am

ggs, the problem here being that an asylum seeker is a person whose immigrant and/or refugee status has not yet been determined, hence they are not illegal immigrants, which is what the whole sticking point is about. If they were processed quickly and their status cleared up, then they could either be given permission to stay (if actual refugees) or shiopped back to wherever they came from (those who didn't get asylum granted), instead of being held indefinitely in what amounts to a prison.

Edi

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-27 08:12am

ggs wrote:And since almost nothing ever needs to touch the consitution, we dont have consitutional challanges every second week(*cough*canada/USA*cough*) everytime the government passes a new bill.

There's a simple solution to those challenges: Congress can stop trying to pass unconstitutional laws.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-27 08:32am

Iceberg wrote:
There's a simple solution to those challenges: Congress can stop trying to pass unconstitutional laws.

Well, they're a declaration of [usually a typical right wing idiot politician- remember that ridiculous display of public piety when the 'under God' thing happened?] position to pander to voters more than anything else. You know, the fuckwit kind.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-04-27 10:29am

Edi wrote:ggs, the problem here being that an asylum seeker is a person whose immigrant and/or refugee status has not yet been determined, hence they are not illegal immigrants, which is what the whole sticking point is about. If they were processed quickly and their status cleared up, then they could either be given permission to stay (if actual refugees) or shiopped back to wherever they came from (those who didn't get asylum granted), instead of being held indefinitely in what amounts to a prison.

Edi

In general, the governments stance is they are illegal immigrants until proven otherwise.

They are held outside the zone in which you can claim refugee status in, and since they have never entered the zone in which they are legally allowed to claim refugee status they cant claim refugee status.

If they manage to make it to an area were they can claim refugee status, it another story.

Also they have a habit of bogging the courts down with apeals once they do get into Australia.

Thus they are illegal immigrants, not legally recognised refugees.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-04-27 10:40am

Is it just me or Nauru sound like the name for a fictional country?