Human Rights-Based Practice and Community Development - Essay Example

Human Rights Based Practice and Community Development Student Name Instructor’s Name Course Code and Name University Date of submission Human Rights Based Practice and Community Development The policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers: Critical understanding of human rights and community development Australia has always had individuals seeking asylum for decades. There is a major debate going on about the best way that asylum claims should be processed. Participants in this debate share the idea that there needs to be a more effective mechanism of dealing with these claims since mandatory detention is greatly challenged. Contemporary social discourse is riddled with the politicization of asylum seeking in Australia. This discourse has been exacerbated by community fears and concerns about the foreigners, which could possibly undermine the commitment that Australia has to multiculturalism (Bradshaw 2000, 133-145). Consequently, additional issues such as the inflammation of racial prejudice and the division of communities in Australia are hindering cohesion in the nation that is increasingly multicultural. Serious concerns have been raised about the effectiveness and sustainability of the policy of the policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. Not only has it become one of the most expensive polices to execute but it has also raised human rights concerns. This is exacerbated by issues such as riots, hungers strikes, hunger strikes and self harm (Bradshaw 2000, p.133-145). On the other hand, the government of Australia has always been adamant that they are using a rights based approach in making decisions about those who seek Asylum. Human rights issues surrounding the policy of mandatory detention The humanitarian program in Australia has two main components including resettling people who need humanitarian help outside Australia and protect those who have been found within the country as refugees (Crock et al. 2006). Although the government seeks to protect refugees, it must also protect its citizens and other individuals within the country from potential danger. Thus, detaining asylum seekers is meant to protect them and other individuals in Australia from dangers that may come with the Asylum seekers. The definition of asylum seeker is an individual who seeks international protection, but their claim to being refugees has not been determined yet. Hence, vetting these individuals is essential and important because it helps in maintaining safety within the country. The universal declaration of human rights contains the right that individuals have to seek Asylum. The main legal body governing refugee issues is the United Nations Convention on Refugees and as a signatory to the convention; Australia needs to pay heed to the rights stipulated by the convention (Bradshaw 2000, p.133-145). Hence, Australia is required not to return any refugee to the country they came from as this may put their lives at risk. Every human being has a right to be protected from harm. Individuals seeking asylum should not be shunned unless under strictly defined reasons such (HREOC 2004). Although detention seems like a bad way of dealing with detention seekers, the convention leaves the reasons for detention at the discretion of the nation in question. Another stipulation in the convention is that a nation should not punish anyone who seeks asylum and to uphold rights such as the right to work, access to courts and governmental procedures and processes, access to courts, religious freedom, assistance, education and housing. Detaining asylum seekers is seen as a form of punishment by some groups (Briskman et al 2008). Australia is one of the few nations that have a policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers. The UN high commission for refugees has been on the forefront of being against mandatory detention of Asylum seekers. They have consistently expressed that the detention of asylum seekers is undesirable from the start. The argument is that this measure is not consistent with the convention’s requirements and that it should be done only in necessary cases. Hence, detention should not be automatic or prolonged because it subjects individuals to unnecessary duress. Detention is sometimes considered inhumane especially in cases when minors are detained. The position of the UNHRC is that minors should not be subjected to the same mandatory detention as adults. Examination of the politics informing the policy of mandatory detention The word detention elicits different feelings in individuals but the common perception is that it is an action taken against criminals. Those who seek asylum are often not criminals as they have not been declared so by law. As a punishment, detention is applied to individuals who have been convicted through lawful means. In the case of asylum seekers, it adds salt to injury since it is applied to individuals who are most likely fleeing from hardships they have encountered in their mother nations (Hallas et al 2007, p.288). The government of Australia on its part argues that the policy of detaining asylum seekers before any decisions or progress, is made is meant to secure the national borders and discourage any illegal activity, and illegal entry. The main idea that is argued by the government is that mandatory detention acts as a deterrent to potential illegal entries into the country. Hence, completely changing the policy will have negative effects on the border safety in Australia. The power to detain is afforded to the Australian government from the provisions in the migration act. In s.88 of the act, the government is allowed to use authorized officers to keep any individual who arrives into the nation on board a vessel that arrives within the waters of Australia (Human Rights Law Resource Center 2008, p.1). The individual may be detained until they have been granted a permit of entry or until the vessel they came aboard has left. In s.89, the government may detain all individuals who come into the country aboard an aircraft and the detention is subject to end under the same circumstances as in s.88 (Human Rights Law Resource Center 2008, p.1). The individual in case may be detained at the airport or at a different location until all relevant issues are resolved. There is often a distinction between individuals who enter into the country as undocumented individuals and those who have legal documents for entry but later they become illegal. A higher likelihood of an individual’s potential escape is accompanied by a higher level of security Even though detention is for designated individuals, its practice is for anyone within Australia who is undocumented within Australia (Corlett 2005). The refugee council of Australia has also been in opposition of the mandatory detention policy that is implemented in the country. According to the chief of RCOA, the detention of asylum, seekers has numerous negative effects including having an impact on the mental health of detained individual and costing the nation more money than is necessary (Irving 1988, p. 70). Running the detention centers is an expensive endeavor that costs Australia taxes that may have been used on different things. In addition, there is conclusive evidence that the action has acted as a deterrent. However, there is no evidence that can conclusively prove that it has acted as a deterrent. Classical community development model used in advancing a human rights-based response to the policy of mandatory detention, with a discussion of how this can be carried out in practice Community development is inclusive of different strategies that are available to meet needs of groups and individuals in a nation by maintaining a high quality of life for individuals and raising the quality of life for individuals with issues such as poverty (Ravenstein 1885, p.167-227). The type of program that would be used to advance a human rights based approach to the issue of mandatory detention is to have a community model based on public programs that work towards having a society with less economic barriers (Bradshaw 2000, 133-145). The neo-classical equilibrium perspective sees migration as an inevitable part of the development. This is an important perspective when dealing with mandatory detention. When people coming into Australia are considered as contributors to the development of the community, their treatment of these individuals is likely to improve (Green & Kathy 2010, p. 65-70). According to the theory, one of the major causes of migration was the economy (Carr 2010). However, this is not the only reason why people migrate. Back in the 1800s when the theory was developed, the main reason why people migrated was to go to areas with a greater potential for economic gain. With the changing global world, migration now happens because of additional issues such as persecution, threats and violence. Migration creates a spatial equilibrium that is essential in the development of communities. As people move into a new community, they bring with them new ideas and labor. With this, equilibrium is created gradually; the journey towards the achievement of this equilibrium takes years and even decades (Ravenstein 1885, p.167-227). The gradual growth is what results in community development. This is only possible if migrants are allowed to act and make decisions like other individuals. The theory considers that each migrant is an individual who is capable of rational thought (Ravenstein 1889, p.214-301). Hence, they will make decisions based on a cost benefit calculation and make decisions that will build both them and their community. In the case of Asylum seekers, they have been uprooted from their lives and the very act of migration shows that they want to have a better life. If they are to make rational decisions, they need to be at their best both mentally and physically. Detention may tamper with either if these conditions causing the individual and the society greater harm (Robjant et al 2009, p.306-312). Owing to the potential that is spelt out in this community development model, a human rights based approach should be used when dealing with decisions about the detention of asylum seekers. The Australian government vowed in 2008 that they would continue to enforce the mandatory detention law but that the enforcement would use detention as a last option hoping to reduce the number of individual in the mandatory detention centers (Edwards 2011). In order to ensure that a more humane way of treating asylum seekers is adopted; consultations need to be made so that relevant parties work towards find alternatives that do not hurt the interests of Australia. One of the solutions is that the temporary protection visa should not be used anymore so that the permanent protection visa is available to asylum seekers as soon as possible. This will lessen the amount of time spent at detention. Instead of having a mandatory detention policy, there should be compulsory processing for all asylum seekers (Australian Council of Churches of Churches 1992). This will allow for vetting without encroaching on human rights. This will ensure that asylum seekers are released as soon as they are processed and cleared in terms of health and security (Coffey et al. 2010, p.2070-2079). In this processing, it is essential that children and their families are processed before anyone else. Instead of having detention centers, Asylum seekers should be used within the community while their papers are being processed. The system installed for tendering the management of detention centers should be gotten rid of, and all the management should go back to the government to allow for better control. All the initial screening of Asylum seekers should also include checking for trauma and torture, and giving these individuals priority (Edwards 2011). Trauma and torture should be identified using UNHCR guidelines. This is important because these individuals are already in pain and further detention will do them greater harm. Fast track facilities for processing should be included at Christmas Island. This endeavor should use resources that are currently being used in detention and pacific solution. Mandatory detention of asylum seekers in Australia will remain a controversial issue for as long as it is not addressed. Asylum seekers are human beings who have gone through challenges and have ended up in a country where they hope to live without the stress of what they have faced before. Detention in itself is a scary experience especially for asylum seekers going through posttraumatic stress disorder. One of the main issues with detention is that it affects the mental health of asylum seekers is affected in the long term. This is because the Australian Government is seen as implementing policies that breach human rights. However, Australia is also attempting to protect its borders from unlawful entry, and to deter any attempts and illegal entry. The reasons for both sides are important. Instead of changing the policies, they need to be modified such that the alternatives offer a solution that does not compromise then security of Australian borders. List of References Australian Council of Churches 1992, Report on the Present Situation of Asylum Seekers detained at Port Hedland Reception and Processing Centre, March. Bradshaw, T.K 2000, Complex Community Development Projects: Collaboration, Comprehensive Programs and Community Coalitions in Complex Society, Community Development Journal, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 133-145. Briskman, L., Latham, S., & Goddard, C 2008, Human Rights Overboard: Seeking Asylum in Australia, Scribe, Melbourne Carr, R 2010, Broadening the Scope of Historical Enquiry Into Australian Refugee Policy, http://aph.org.au/broadening-the-scope#more-492' (Accessed 3 March, 2013). Crock, M, Saul, B & Dastyari, A 2006, Future Seekers II: Refugees and Irregular Migration in Australia, Federation Press, Leichhardt NSW Corlett, D 2005, Following Them Home: The Fate of the Returned Asylum Seekers, Black Inc, Melbourne Coffey, G, Ida K, Robyn, S & Maria, MT 2010, The meaning and mental health consequences of long-term immigration detention for people seeking asylum, Social Science and Medicine vol. 70, no.12, pp. 2070-2079 Edwards, A 2011, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and ‘Alternatives to Detention’ of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Stateless Persons and Other Migrants UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), Legal and Protection Policy Research Series No 17, April. http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=4dc935fd2 (Accessed 3 July, 2013). Green, JP & Kathy, E 2010, The health of people in Australian immigration detention centres, Medical Journal of Australia vol. 192, no.2, pp. 65-70 Hallas P, Hansen AR, Staehr MA, et al 2007, Length of stay in asylum centres and mental health in asylum seekers: a retrospective study from Denmark, BMC Public Health 7, p. 288 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) 2004. A last resort? Report of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention Canberra, May Robjant, K, Rita, H & Cornelius, K 2009, Mental health implications of detaining asylum seekers: systematic review, British Journal of Psychiatry, vol.194, pp.306-312 Human Rights Law Resource Center 2008, Australia’s Immigration Law, Policy and Practice, http://www.hrlc.org.au/files/5R97TIVTNA/Factsheet%20-%20Immigration.pdf (Accessed 3 July, 2013). Irving, P 1988, The Detention of Asylum Seekers and Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Immigration and Nationality Law and Practice, October, p. 70 Ravenstein EG 1885, The Laws of Migration, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 48, pp. 167-227 Ravenstein EG 1889, The Laws of Migration, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 52, pp. 214-301. Read More

The universal declaration of human rights contains the right that individuals have to seek Asylum. The main legal body governing refugee issues is the United Nations Convention on Refugees and as a signatory to the convention; Australia needs to pay heed to the rights stipulated by the convention (Bradshaw 2000, p.133-145). Hence, Australia is required not to return any refugee to the country they came from as this may put their lives at risk. Every human being has a right to be protected from harm.

Individuals seeking asylum should not be shunned unless under strictly defined reasons such (HREOC 2004). Although detention seems like a bad way of dealing with detention seekers, the convention leaves the reasons for detention at the discretion of the nation in question. Another stipulation in the convention is that a nation should not punish anyone who seeks asylum and to uphold rights such as the right to work, access to courts and governmental procedures and processes, access to courts, religious freedom, assistance, education and housing.

Detaining asylum seekers is seen as a form of punishment by some groups (Briskman et al 2008). Australia is one of the few nations that have a policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers. The UN high commission for refugees has been on the forefront of being against mandatory detention of Asylum seekers. They have consistently expressed that the detention of asylum seekers is undesirable from the start. The argument is that this measure is not consistent with the convention’s requirements and that it should be done only in necessary cases.

Hence, detention should not be automatic or prolonged because it subjects individuals to unnecessary duress. Detention is sometimes considered inhumane especially in cases when minors are detained. The position of the UNHRC is that minors should not be subjected to the same mandatory detention as adults. Examination of the politics informing the policy of mandatory detention The word detention elicits different feelings in individuals but the common perception is that it is an action taken against criminals.

Those who seek asylum are often not criminals as they have not been declared so by law. As a punishment, detention is applied to individuals who have been convicted through lawful means. In the case of asylum seekers, it adds salt to injury since it is applied to individuals who are most likely fleeing from hardships they have encountered in their mother nations (Hallas et al 2007, p.288). The government of Australia on its part argues that the policy of detaining asylum seekers before any decisions or progress, is made is meant to secure the national borders and discourage any illegal activity, and illegal entry.

The main idea that is argued by the government is that mandatory detention acts as a deterrent to potential illegal entries into the country. Hence, completely changing the policy will have negative effects on the border safety in Australia. The power to detain is afforded to the Australian government from the provisions in the migration act. In s.88 of the act, the government is allowed to use authorized officers to keep any individual who arrives into the nation on board a vessel that arrives within the waters of Australia (Human Rights Law Resource Center 2008, p.1). The individual may be detained until they have been granted a permit of entry or until the vessel they came aboard has left. In s.89, the government may detain all individuals who come into the country aboard an aircraft and the detention is subject to end under the same circumstances as in s.

88 (Human Rights Law Resource Center 2008, p.1). The individual in case may be detained at the airport or at a different location until all relevant issues are resolved. There is often a distinction between individuals who enter into the country as undocumented individuals and those who have legal documents for entry but later they become illegal. A higher likelihood of an individual’s potential escape is accompanied by a higher level of security Even though detention is for designated individuals, its practice is for anyone within Australia who is undocumented within Australia (Corlett 2005).

Read More