View previous stories
	Safety fears expressed over returns to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka by Refugee Council of Australia & agencies   Open our hearts, and our doors, to refugees, by Malcolm Fraser.   We all share the blame for Australia"s inhumane policies. On the front page of The Age newspaper last Monday, we were given an authoritative account of what is happening on the Nauru detention center. The despair, the disillusion, the self-harm, the attempted suicides are all testimony to the brutality of the current Australian government"s policy - a policy that was initiated by the Liberal Party.   We need to realise that the government is doing these things in our name, in the name of every Australian. Every Australian carries some part of the guilt for asylum-seeker policies that are inhumane and brutal.   Every Australian carries some part of the guilt for asylum-seeker policies that are inhumane and brutal.   There is so much misunderstanding on this issue. Ever since the Tampa incident in 2001, government ministers, both Liberal and Labor, have sought to demonise boat people and make Australians fear them. Such claims are wilful, designed to justify a policy of brutality, and reminiscent of the actions of tyrannical dictators, not of a democratic government in Australia.   Earlier in our national history, when large numbers of people fled Indochina, both the government and the opposition took a different view of these issues and, as a result, we have a thriving, vigorous, vital community of Vietnamese Australians who are contributing enormously to this country.   I had hoped the days of racial discrimination had been put aside and that Australia had developed into a more humane society. I want to deal with one of the false claims that are so often made: that boat people are queue jumpers who are being unfair to those who have spent years in United Nations refugee camps.   In earlier times, the number of boat people who came here were additional to the number we committed ourselves to take from those camps. It was the Howard government that linked the two by determining that for every boat person, the number coming from camps should be diminished. That does not have to be. That was a decision of government that could be undone.   If you lived in a country governed by a tyrannical regime, and your parents had been killed, and family members had been brutalised and put in prison without trial or in some cases shot without trial, what would you then do? You could not go to the government and ask for papers. That would immediately get you into trouble. So people travel without papers, something recognised in the 1954 Refugee Convention, to which Australia was one of the first signatories.   With regard to Australian policy on Nauru and on Manus Island, ask yourself this: are we prepared to allow our government to establish a regime so brutal that the terror it creates would rival the terror from which people flee?   Remember this: the Immigration Department"s most recent figures show that about 90 per cent of those who arrive by boat, once they are processed, are proved to be genuine refugees.   I know in Australia many people now have a fear of Muslims because they believe that terrorism is synonymous with Islam. Our government knows that is false. The largest Islamic country in the world is very close to us, to our north. The Islamic movements in Indonesia are overwhelmingly peaceful and exhibit values of humanity which Australia and its policies seem to have put aside.   Someone said to me only two weeks ago: "We departed from the White Australia Policy too early." Is that the nub of the problem: a different religion and a different colour? Our politicians won"t put it like that, but is that the truth of the matter? Where is the common humanity?   Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott wants all Australians to be taught about Christianity, to be made to read the Bible. Does he not realise that our founding fathers decided that Australia should be a secular state? It was a deliberate act to reject the English idea of an established church. By that decision, there was a recognition that religions and different sects of religions should all be treated in the same way.   I would have no problem with religion being taught in schools, as long as children were taught about all the world"s great religions and the common thread of humanity and of humane values that runs through all those religions. A wider knowledge on these matters would be a good thing.   We also have to recognise that, on occasions, ideologues from every religion have exploited their faith and, in the name of their faith, have preached hatred, brutality and terrorism. Wherever they come from, such people should be condemned.   Since Mr.Abbott has introduced the question of Christianity into public debate, it may be worth asking ourselves also where he can find any justification for Australia"s refugee policies within Christianity or any other religion. How has it come about that the political party that has the toughest policies believes it will win the most votes?   A worldwide campaign to find homes for those who are in UN camps, led by Australia as a new member of the Security Council, would be worthwhile. So, too, would greater efforts by the West to examine its own policies, to see where they contribute to peace or where they contribute to the continuation of terrorism.   There is a federal election in Australia later this year. I have met so many people who don"t want to vote for either party. If Australia had been led in a humane direction, I am sure a majority would have followed.   These policies go to the heart of the core values which we believe are important as a people, as a nation. Although our politicians will vigorously deny it, they have done Australia grave and serious harm among all the countries of east and south-east Asia. Alternative policies are available, as the government well knows, but where is the will, where is the leadership from either party?   * Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983.   The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) has written to Australia’s Minister for Immigration seeking further details on the involuntary return of asylum seekers to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.   RCOA CEO Paul Power said deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan and concerns over human rights in Sri Lanka presented significant barriers to the safe return of asylum seekers.   The Australian Federal Government recently advised that one Afghan asylum seeker had been returned, while 426 Sri Lankans have been returned involuntarily since 13 August. Mr Power said RCOA was troubled by the lack of transparency around the involuntary returns. He said the repatriation of asylum seekers, who after rigorous examination of their claims, are found not to be refugees in need of protection on complementary grounds, were an important part of any robust and credible refugee status determination system.   While voluntary returns were preferable, RCOA accepted that involuntary returns were necessary in some cases, Mr Power said. “However, we are concerned about the manner in which these returns are being conducted, particularly in light of deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan and human rights concerns in Sri Lanka.   “The security situation in Afghanistan remains highly volatile and the capacity of the Afghan Government to provide basic security and protection against persecution, let alone adequate reintegration support and assistance, remains limited.   “There are also on-going reports of serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka, including mistreatment of repatriated asylum seekers, including several reports of failed asylum seekers facing harassment, arrest or torture after being deported from the United Kingdom.   “The Australian Government has provided very little information about the specific circumstances of these cases and it is unclear whether these decisions to repatriate asylum seekers have been subject to any form of independent monitoring or scrutiny.”   In the letter to the Immigration Minister, RCOA has requested further information on:   · Evidence used to determine that the people repatriated did not engage Australia’s international obligations;   · Opportunities provided to these individuals to raise any relevant claims for protection, including on complementary protection grounds, and have access to legal advice;   · Independent monitoring or scrutiny of decisions regarding involuntary repatriation;   · Assurances provided by authorities in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka regarding the safety of and support provided to the individuals returned; and   · Mechanisms for monitoring the circumstances of the individuals returned, to ensure that they are not subject to persecution or harassment or worse.   * In 2008, the Edmund Rice Justice Centre undertook a significant research project - A Well Founded Fear - Deported To Danger, see link below.   http://www.erc.org.au/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=76&MMN_position=79:79   January 2013   Greek court acquits illegal immigrants of escape from "wretched" cell, by Costas Kantouris, Nicholas Paphitis. (AP)   GREECE, Thessaloniki: A group of illegal immigrants was justified in escaping from a police lock-up last year because of the miserable conditions in their overcrowded cell, which was filthy, ridden with disease and had no running water, a Greek court has ruled.   The court in the north-western city of Igoumenitsa said the 15 adults - from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Morocco - had been held for up to six weeks in "wretched and highly dangerous" conditions.   The decision to acquit the migrants of escaping detention is a strong indictment of Greece"s treatment of detained illegal immigrants, which has been criticised by international human rights groups. A spokeswoman for the United Nations refugee agency in Athens said it was a significant first for a Greek court to acknowledge that people held in such conditions had no option but to try to escape.   The country, grappling with revived anti-immigrant sentiment, is the main entry point to the EU for thousands of undocumented migrants from Asia and Africa, and has started a drive to round up and expel them.   More than 30 inmates were crammed into a 15-square-metre cell with no running water or bedding and just one chemical toilet, according to the ruling. It said the Igoumenitsa lockup was never cleaned and the detainees were coping with lice, skin disease and typhoid.   The men had been held in the port city pending deportation for allegedly illegally entering the country, and they escaped on October 1 by pushing past police guards who had entered the cell to clear rubbish.   In his ruling the judge said the duration and conditions of their detention were in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Visit the related web page
	CEOs lobbying for cuts to poor, elderly while reaping billions in Tax Breaks by Ryan Grim and Christina Wilkie Huffington Post USA   The corporate CEOs who have made a high-profile foray into deficit negotiations have themselves been substantially responsible for the size of the deficit they now want closed.   The companies represented by executives working with the Campaign To Fix The Debt have received trillions in federal war contracts, subsidies and bailouts, as well as specialized tax breaks and loopholes that virtually eliminate the companies tax bills.   The CEOs are part of a campaign run by the Peter Peterson-backed Center for a Responsible Federal Budget, which plans to spend at least $30 million pushing for a deficit reduction deal in the lame-duck session and beyond.   During the past few days, CEOs belonging to what the campaign calls its CEO Fiscal Leadership Council -- most visibly, Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein and Honeywell"s David Cote -- have barnstormed the media, making the case that the only way to cut the deficit is to severely scale back social safety-net programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security -- which would disproportionately impact the poor and the elderly.   As part of their push, they are advocating a "territorial tax system" that would exempt their companies foreign profits from taxation, netting them about $134 billion in tax savings, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies titled "The CEO Campaign to ‘Fix’ the Debt: A Trojan Horse for Massive Corporate Tax Breaks" -- money that could help pay off the federal budget deficit.   Yet the CEOs are not offering to forgo federal money or pay a higher tax rate, on their personal income or corporate profits. Instead, council recommendations include cutting "entitlement" programs, as well as what they call "low-priority spending."   Many of the companies recommending austerity would be out of business without the heavy federal support they get, including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, which both received billions in direct bailout cash, plus billions more indirectly through AIG and other companies taxpayers rescued.   Just three of the companies -- GE, Boeing and Honeywell -- were handed nearly $28 billion last year in federal contracts alone. A spokesman for Campaign To Fix The Debt did not respond to an email from The Huffington Post over the weekend.   The CEO council recommends two major avenues that it claims will produce "at least $4 trillion of deficit reduction." The first is to "replace mindless, abrupt deficit reduction with thoughtful changes that reform the tax code and cut low-priority spending." The second is to "keep debt under control over the long-term by focusing on the long-term growth of entitlement programs."   CEOs are encouraged to present a Fix-The-Debt PowerPoint presentation to their "employee town hall [meetings and] company meetings." To further help get the word out, the campaign borrowed a page from the CEOs this fall who wrote letters encouraging their employees to vote for Mitt Romney, or face job cuts. This time, the CFD has created two templates for bosses to use at their companies.   But in the past week, in order to make their case to the millions of Americans who don"t work for them, CEOs fanned out into television, to convince the rest of the country that slashing the social safety net is the only way to reduce the deficit.   In an interview aired Monday, Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein said Social Security "wasn"t devised to be a system that supported you for a 30 year retirement after a 25-year career." The key to cutting Social Security, he said, was simply a matter of teaching people to expect less.   "You"re going to have to do something, undoubtedly, to lower people"s expectations of what they"re going to get," Blankfein told CBS, "the entitlements, and what people think they"re going to get, because you"re not going to get it."   Blankfein and Goldman Sachs don"t have to worry about lowering expectations. After receiving a $10 billion federal bailout in 2008, and paying it back a few years later, Goldman Sachs recently exceeded Wall Street analysts expectations by announcing $8.4 billion in third quarter revenues for 2012. On the heels of a great year, Blankfein is expected to take home an even larger salary than he did in 2011, when he made $16.1 million.   To understand the importance of banking profits to the members of the deficit council, one need look no further than the two top-ranking members of the Campaign To Fix The Debt"s steering committee, former New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg (R) and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat. Gregg is currently employed as an international adviser to Goldman Sachs, while Rendell collects his paycheck from the boutique investment bank Greenhill & Co.   Following Blankfein"s evening news appearance on Monday, Cote, the Honeywell CEO, sat down with the same network on Tuesday, and said essentially the same thing that Blankfein did.   Cote ranked 11th on a list compiled in a recent study conducted by the Institute for Policy Studies of executives who have saved the most from the Bush tax cuts. According to the IPS, Cote"s taxable compensation for 2011 was a bit more than $55 million, and he did not pay about $2.5 million thanks to the Bush tax cuts.   After mentioning a few scary-sounding deficit statistics, he suggested the government raise revenue by ending individual tax credits and deductions, which he said amounted to a $1 trillion "giveaway" in 2011. It was clear, however, that Cote hadn"t come on the show to talk about taxes.   "The big nut is going to have to be [cuts to] Medicare/Medicaid … especially with the baby boomer generation retiring. It"s going to literally crush the system."   But while Cote strongly recommends cutting those benefits, when it comes to the tax obligations of corporations, he"s clear about what he wants: a corporate tax rate of zero.   "From a fairness perspective, nobody would be able to stand [a zero tax rate on corporate profits," but if the U.S. really wanted to create jobs, he said this spring, "we would have the lowest rate possible."   At Honeywell, Cote practices what he preaches. Between 2008-2010, the company avoided paying any taxes at all. Instead, the company got taxpayer-funded rebates of $34 million off of profits totaling nearly $5 billion.   Part of what makes the lobbying blitz around the fiscal cliff so complex for CEOs on the Fiscal Leadership Council is that many of them need more than just low tax rates. They also need Congress and the White House to maintain current defense spending levels so they can continue winning enormous contracts.   In 2011, $40 billion of taxpayer money was divided among just nine CFD member companies, led by defense giant Boeing, which raked in $22 billion in federal contracts alone, more than the other eight companies combined. For his efforts as CEO, Boeing"s Jim McNerney took home nearly $23 million in compensation last year.   But even as McNerney lends his name to the deficit commission, his company has quietly begun laying off U.S. workers ahead of defense cuts that are expected to be part of a deficit reduction deal. The company denies that federal spending has anything to do with the job cuts, but defense industry analysts aren"t convinced.   At least one faction of Boeing"s workforce is thriving: Boeing lobbyists in Washington have made $12 million since January fighting proposed cuts to defense and aerospace projects. Visit the related web page
	View more stories