Home » Toms Shoes Outlet (Page 5)

Category Archives: Toms Shoes Outlet

Toms Shoes Outlet Asylum seekers on Manus speak

Asylum seekers on Manus speak in video

Asylum seekers who found themselves on Manus Island after desperately trying to reach Aus Toms Shoes Outlet tralia ha Toms Shoes Outlet ve begged others not to what they did in a video released by the immigration Toms Shoes Outlet department.

The three minute subtitled video includes grabs from six Iranian men speaking in their native language of Farsi who were sent to Papua New Guinea under the government’s resettlement plan.

Their faces are blurred out but their voices clear as they describe their ordeals. “Please, I’m asking people, it’s a big mistake, please don’t take this journey,” one man says.

Another man describes how people smugglers promised him $10,000 on arrival in Australia, but instead took him and other refugees to a small hut in a jungle.

There they were locked u Toms Shoes Outlet p with no proper food or water, and had to go to the toilet in plastic bags. Immigration Minister Tony Burke says the footage reflects the reality of people smuggling.

“What we have in that footage is people who have been customers of people smugglers saying that the product they paid for has indeed been taken away,” he told reporters in Sydney.

He said the men interviewed were offered no incentive and were not prompted or told what to say.

The video, which will be put up on the Department of Immigration website, will also be distributed in different languages “to spread that information as far and wide as we can, the whole way up the people smuggling pipeline”.

Toms Shoes Outlet Asylum seeker malaria drug con

Asylum seeker malaria drug concerns

Salvation Army worker Simon Taylor claims staff were warned not to take Mefloquine, also known as Lariam, because of adverse health effects.

But a spokesperson for the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection says neither the department nor International Health and Medical Services have warned staff to avoid the drug.

Mefloquine is one of several types of anti malarials available and detainees are assessed by IHMS clinical team members before being prescribed with any medication, the spokesperson said in a statement on Monday.

Mr Taylor says in a submission to a Senate inquiry that asylum seekers were given the drug despite warnings about it to the staff.

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration warns it should not be prescribed to people with a history of depression, anxiety disorders or other major psychiatric illness.

It’s common for asylum seekers in detention to suffer depression, post traumati Toms Shoes Outlet c stress disorder and other mental illn Toms Shoes Outlet esses.

The US military curbed its use among troops after it was l Toms Shoes Outlet inked to permanent brain damage, suicide, murder and domestic violence.

Mr Taylor also said while he was on Manus Island Toms Shoes Outlet between last September and February 2014, there were several camp “lockdowns” when locals with machetes attempted to breach perimeter fences.

Toms Shoes Outlet Asylum and ImmunityAsylum

Asylum and Immunity

Asylum is normally granted to those who fulfil the definition of a refugee in Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. This is someone who to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country It might be questioned whether Assange fulfils the definition, for a number of reasons. The first is that it is not clear what political persecution he fears. The US has not requested Assange extradition from either the UK or Sweden. In addition, the UK and Sweden are both Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. In a line of case law stretching back to the 1970s, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently interpreted the Convention so that any Party to it cannot extradite someone to a State that has the death penalty unless it receives assurances that that penalty will not be sought or applied.

The second reason is that it is not clear that he is unable, or frightened to, seek the protection of his State of nationality (Australia). Even further than this, Article 1F(b) of that Convention states that asylum shall not be granted to those who have committed a serious non political offence. The sexual offences of which Assange is accused in Sweden would fall under this exemption. As the US has not indicted him or sought his extradition on any offence (yet) means that any suggestion of what may happen there is entirely speculative.

Still, Ecuador considers Assange to have a well founded fear of political persecution, and has granted him diplomatic asylum. In spite of the frequent use of the term asylum such a concept is not legally different from asylum more generally. It simply refers to someone who, rather than travelling to the country in which asylum is sought to seek that status, goes into the embassy of that State in another country to make the claim. If that claim is successful, it is important to note, though, that does not give the applicant diplomatic status. This is crucial; what it means is that although he has been granted asylum, Assange is not immune from UK jurisdiction. Hence, he remains arrestable.

That does not mean that he can be arrested right away, as although he is not immune from UK jurisdiction, the Ecuadorean embassy, and its property are. This is provided for in Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which provides that premises of the mission shall be inviolable.

This is the reason behind the UK suggestion that the embassy could have its immunity removed. The basis in UK law for this is the 1987 Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, section 1(3) of which allows the Secretary of State to withdraw consent for land to be used as diplomatic premises. Such a determination would remove the immunity of the embassy from any police activity. This power i Toms Shoes Outlet s subject, however, to a considerable limitation, that consent can only be withdrawn if it is consistent with international law to do so (section 1(4)). On the other hand, Article 41 of the Vienna Convention requires the mission to respect local and international law.

Presumably the UK argument for removing the Ecuadorean embassy immunity from UK jurisdiction would be that Ecuador is failing to respect local UK laws or interfering in the UK internal affairs by allowing Assange to stay, or is otherwise violating international law. This Toms Shoes Outlet is a novel argument, but a perilous one, and one inconsistent with prior UK practic Toms Shoes Outlet e. It could be argued that granting diplomatic asylum is interference in the internal affairs of the UK, and a failure to respect local laws. However, that does not mean that such a violation would, in international law, be a reason for the UK to remove the immunity of the Ecuadorean embassy. There have been many cases of embassies being used in ways that could fall foul of Article 41 but it has never been considered the case that this has rendered those embassies subject to a revocation of their immunity. The traditional remedy in such circumstances is declaring diplomatic staff persona non grata or breaking off diplomatic relations. It could be the case that the UK could make the argument that removal of immunity is also possible, but it would open a Pandora Box of similar claims by other States against UK embassies, and indeed all embassies of all States around the world. As such, the argument is problematic both as a matter of law and policy. Hence William Hague assertion that there will be no storming of the Ecuadorean embassy comes as little surprise. To do otherwise would, in Sir Humphrey terms, be brave

Assange, however, probably has no reason want to continue his residence in the Ecuadorian Embassy any more than the UK government wishes to have the issue slowly fester. The problem for Assange is that as soon a he leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy, he is liable to be arrested, as he has no immunity from UK jurisdiction. The UK has an obligation to Sweden to extradite him and Assange as an individual, has no immunity. Assange problem therefore is how to leave the embassy and the UK without being arrested. It is true that, pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Vienna Convention that were he to be able to leave the Ecuadorean embassy by car, that car would be immune fr Toms Shoes Outlet om any attempt to search it, and only be subject to stopping if it were a danger to others. Even in the latter situation it would not be possible to remove Assange from the car.

Getting in to or out of the car, at either the embassy or the airport however is likely to be a problem for Assange, as he, rather than the car and embassy is subject to UK legal processes. There are certain prospects for him though. One is that he and the Ecuadoran embassy could place him in a diplomatic bag. Pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Vienna Convention diplomatic bags are not liable to be opened, however, it was never intended that this provision cover the transfer of persons. In 1984, when Nigeria sought to spirit Umaru Dikku, a Nigerian dissident, out of the UK in a crate that was (incompletely) marked as a diplomatic bag, UK police opened the It was accepted that there is an overriding duty to protect life, which would justify opening even a correctly identified diplomatic bag in spite of the strictures of Article 27. Admittedly, in this case Mr Dikku had been drugged and was not seeking to leave the UK, unlike Assange. However, diplomatic bags are not intended to carry anything other than documents or articles intended for official use and the UK would have a reasonable argument for opening any bag that was thought to contain a person.

As a result, although there are possible arguments for arranging immunity for Assange, it is very unlikely that he could personally be immune from arrest when he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy. Given this, and the fact that there is no obligation on the UK to grant him safe passage to the airport his situation will now come down to political discretion. Given that strong words have been spoken on both sides about this matter, it would seem likely that the Ecuadorean ambassador may have to extend his hospitality for some time yet.