Gay asylum seekers will be sent to PNG despite threat of imprisonment

Printable View

03-08-2013, 08:40 PM
MKR&*42

Gay asylum seekers will be sent to PNG despite threat of imprisonment

Quote:

GAY asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat will be resettled in PNG despite facing prison under local laws that criminalise homosexuality, the attorney-general says. In Sydney to announce federal funding for the HIV/AIDS Legal Centre, Mark Dreyfus said no group of asylum seekers would be ruled out of the government's new policy to send them to PNG.

"It's a general policy that anyone who arrives in Australia by boat without a visa ... will be transferred to Papua New Guinea,'' Mr Dreyfus told reporters.

Homosexuality is illegal in Papua New Guinea and can attract a jail sentence of up to 14 years.

"At the same time our minister for immigration Tony Burke has made it very clear that those transfers won't occur until there is appropriate accommodation and appropriate circumstances for everyone who is sent,'' he said.

Mr Dreyfus said Australia would not pressure PNG about changing its laws.

"We don't think that that's necessary in order for Australia to comply with our international legal obligations and the obligations that we have under the Migration Act.

"I'm not going to give you a running commentary on laws of countries in our region.''

Most recently in 2011, the PNG government told the United Nations it had no plans to decriminalise homosexuality.

PNG = Papua New Guinea

tl;dr Basically, if you go to Australia on a boat without a visa they will send you to a country where homosexuality is criminalised - ergo, if you're gay you will have to lie through your teeth or risk up to 14 years in jail. I understand that it's not exactly a great thing to be trying to sneak into a country without a visa, but sending them off to a completely different country with "not as socially advanced" laws existing is beyond silly.
03-08-2013, 08:43 PM
e5

How can they label someone as gay? Surely they'd just deny it :/
03-08-2013, 08:47 PM
MKR&*42

Quote:

Originally Posted by e5

How can they label someone as gay? Surely they'd just deny it :/

Yeah you could quite easily deny it, but you'd have to keep up the lie for quite some time which would be quite a struggle for many - especially if some of the asylum seekers were gay couples for example.
03-08-2013, 08:49 PM
e5

Well I'd expect them to do their business in private!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intersocial

Yeah you could quite easily deny it, but you'd have to keep up the lie for quite some time which would be quite a struggle for many - especially if some of the asylum seekers were gay couples for example.
03-08-2013, 08:53 PM
MKR&*42

Quote:

Originally Posted by e5

Well I'd expect them to do their business in private!

You can still kiss and hold hands and stuff in public and people would kind of gather :P
03-08-2013, 08:55 PM
e5

Well to avoid 14 years, I wouldn't lol. Good job im not gay or seeking asylum!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intersocial

You can still kiss and hold hands and stuff in public and people would kind of gather :P
03-08-2013, 08:55 PM
karter

i legit thought papua new guinea was only forest and tribals
03-08-2013, 09:32 PM
Stephen

who gives a crap. Let them forever drop the soap in the prison showers
04-08-2013, 03:01 AM
Daltron

Well as it's now known that they will be sent there, I guess homosexuals with a real fear they would be prosecuted will have to seek asylum somewhere else :/
04-08-2013, 08:03 AM
JerseySafety

Good, keep them out of countries. Should just imprison them all trying to sneak onto Australian soil.
04-08-2013, 09:54 AM
-:Undertaker:-

The problems of the world are not the problems of Australia.

In any case in regards to this, there's a two sided coin - whilst the HM Australian Government (funded by the Australian taxpayer) shouldn't pay a penny piece towards ANY asylum seekers in my opinion, there ought to be room to allow these people help. So what would I propose? the same that I always propose in these cases;- if you feel so strongly about helping 'gay' asylum seekers, then you should be allowed to accept them into your care and home, pay for them and so on.... you essentially accept them as your personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility - the unique idea that everybody else shouldn't be made to pay for the things you care about.
04-08-2013, 08:45 PM
GommeInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The problems of the world are not the problems of Australia.

In any case in regards to this, there's a two sided coin - whilst the HM Australian Government (funded by the Australian taxpayer) shouldn't pay a penny piece towards ANY asylum seekers in my opinion, there ought to be room to allow these people help. So what would I propose? the same that I always propose in these cases;- if you feel so strongly about helping 'gay' asylum seekers, then you should be allowed to accept them into your care and home, pay for them and so on.... you essentially accept them as your personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility - the unique idea that everybody else shouldn't be made to pay for the things you care about.

Seems like a reasonable idea. If an Australian family or person cares about the well-being of asylum seekers, let them look after them and help them assimilate through that way. The only problem is, if the asylum seeker disappears should it necessarily be the Australian national's fault?
04-08-2013, 09:29 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Seems like a reasonable idea. If an Australian family or person cares about the well-being of asylum seekers, let them look after them and help them assimilate through that way. The only problem is, if the asylum seeker disappears should it necessarily be the Australian national's fault?

Of course not as that's a concept alien to common law - although I would say that a payment from the family to the government should be made prior to them being accepted into the country as a sort of 'insurance' cost in that in the event of the asylum seeker going missing, that money would go towards tracking them down and deporting them.

The asylum seekers would have no right under any circumstances to any welfare and would be the financial responsibility of the family - I would also have strict limits on numbers allowed meaning it would at most be in the low thousands. All of this said, I don't personally think many of the do-gooders who are all for letting anybody and everybody in would actually step forward and take the risk themselves. :P
05-08-2013, 01:23 AM
GommeInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Of course not as that's a concept alien to common law - although I would say that a payment from the family to the government should be made prior to them being accepted into the country as a sort of 'insurance' cost in that in the event of the asylum seeker going missing, that money would go towards tracking them down and deporting them.

The asylum seekers would have no right under any circumstances to any welfare and would be the financial responsibility of the family - I would also have strict limits on numbers allowed meaning it would at most be in the low thousands. All of this said, I don't personally think many of the do-gooders who are all for letting anybody and everybody in would actually step forward and take the risk themselves. :P

Yeah, they're more idealistic than actually doers. They're more good-idea'rs, than do-gooders. It seems like quite a good scheme, and after a while that asylum seeker could either become a citizen after perhaps working or generally behaving by the law, and all is well. It'll show commitment if they manage to stay and not leave or disappear. But that part of the scheme would need careful planning.