Manus Island Refugee Camp Closure
Australian camp amid safety fears
Refugees held by Australia in Papua New Guinea (PNG) have barricaded themselves inside a detention centre and launched legal action to fight its closure.Detainees, fearing for their safety after crowds reportedly gathered chanting "don't come out", argue that closure will breach their human rights.
Australia holds asylum seekers arriving by boat in camps on PNG's Manus Island and the small Pacific nation of Nauru.
The Manus Island centre is due to close after it was ruled unconstitutional.
However many of those in the camp argue that its closure, ordered by a PNG court and initially scheduled for Tuesday, will deny them access to water, electricity and security.
The local authorities said these provisions would cease at 17:00 local time (07:00 GMT), and that PNG defence authorities could enter the centre as early as Wednesday.
Refugees told the BBC that detainees planned to protest peacefully, and had begun stockpiling water and dry biscuits, as well as setting up makeshift catchments for rainwater.
They claimed that local residents began looting the compound on Tuesday after security guards left.
Under a controversial policy, Australia refuses to take in anyone trying to reach its territories unofficially by boat. They are all intercepted and held in the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres.
Why don't refugees want to leave?
About 600 men have been told to leave the camp, but many have reportedly barricaded themselves inside due to fears for their safety if transferred to temporary accommodation in the Manus Island community.The news has raised concerns of a possible siege at the facility.
"Navy and police [are] heavily armed, but we don't know who they want to go to war with, locals or refugees. So scary," tweeted Manus detainee Behrouz Boochani.
Mr Boochani added that "angry" locals were protesting in front of the camp chanting "don't come out".
Last week, Human Rights Watch warned that the group could face "unchecked violence" by local people who had attacked them in the past - sometimes with machetes and rocks.
Where would they go?
Canberra has consistently ruled out transferring the men to Australia, arguing it would encourage human trafficking and lead to deaths at sea.However, PNG has said it is Australia's responsibility to provide ongoing support for the detainees. The Australian government says PNG is responsible for them.
The refugees can permanently resettle in PNG, apply to live in Cambodia, or request a transfer to Nauru, but advocates say few have taken up these options.
Some men already in the temporary accommodation were "comfortably accessing services and supports there", Australia's Department for Immigration and Border Protection said on Tuesday.
A separate resettlement deal struck with the Obama administration in 2016 saw the US agree to take up to 1,250 refugees from the PNG and Nauru centres.
Last month, a group of about 50 people from the detention centres became the first to be accepted by the US under the agreement.
The agreement, which is being administered under the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR, is prioritising women, children and families and other refugees found to be the most vulnerable.
However, the US has not given an estimate of how long the application process will take and it is not obliged to accept all of them.
How will the closure affect detainees?
Greg Barns, a lawyer assisting with the legal action, said the closure would breach rights enshrined in PNG's constitution."The men are vulnerable to attacks and physical harm so we are seeking to ensure their constitutional rights are not breached and there is a resumption of the basic necessities of life," he told the BBC.
"The men have been dumped on the street, literally. What is going on is unlawful."
The application also seeks to prevent the forcible removal of the men to an alternative centre on the island, and calls for them to be transferred to Australia or a safe third country.
'Australia's Guantanamo'
Australia first opened Manus Island centre in 2001. It was closed in 2008 and re-opened in 2012.Six asylum seekers have died since 2013, including Iranian man Reza Barati who was murdered during a riot.
Earlier this year, the government offered compensation totalling A$70m (£41m; $53m) to asylum seekers and refugees detained on Manus Island who alleged they had suffered harm while there.
The lawsuit alleged that detainees had been housed in inhumane conditions below Australian standards, given inadequate medical treatment and exposed to systemic abuse and violence.
The government called the financial settlement "prudent", but denied wrongdoing.
Posted by BBC, Author unknown
________________________________________________________
RESPONSE
Audience: I think
that this article is mainly focused towards the citizens of Australia, and also
maybe some other surrounding countries because the Manus Island is right above
Australia, and is a territory of Australia. Also, there are several countries
that surround it that may have an interest in what is happening and it may even
concern them. I think article will include people in the age bracket of 18 to
70, because of the nature of the article and the interest of this article would
be aimed at citizens/people who would be able to have a say in the government
and organizations.
Bias: There was
definitely a slant towards the refugees in the camp on the Manus Island and
against the Papua New Guinea Court that had ordered for the closure of the
camp. There is more information of what
is happening on the island and an intense focus on what will happen to the refugees and no mention of what caused
the PNG court to order the closure of the camp. As a reader, I would definitely
have a bias towards the refugees in the camp because you feel for what they are
going through and what they will lose if the camp is closed, including water,
food, and electricity.
Opinion: Not knowing
any other information on why the PNG court ordered for the closure of the camp,
I cannot say that I completely disagree with what is happening without any
further details. However, knowing what will happen to these refugees if the camp
is closed, including the lack of basic rights and resources I would completely disagree with the closure
of the camp. I think also if they were to close the camp, they would have to
provide adequate support to the refugees not only dumping them in the street. I
think that if the residents of the Manus Island are already protesting against
the release or relocation of the refugees into the island, then there should be
governments, especially the Australian government. I think that the
resettlement deal done with Obama during his term in presidency should be
considered again because it would give them a good chance for the restart of
their life.
I agree that the writer of this article had a bias for the refugees and against the PNG Court. However, I also believe that the bias was against the locals. The article talked a lot about how the refugees were under physical attack by the locals and how the locals were yelling at the refugees. This gives a bad reputation for the locals and the readers would naturally develop a slant against them. On the other hand, the article describes the refugees by saying they are planning on a peaceful protest, presenting a better reputation for them in the situation that they're in. I also agree that it would be nice to know more details on the closure of the refugee camps. I also think better, more effective solutions need to be made for the refugees.
ReplyDeleteI missed that bias against the locals earlier, but I definitely agree with you. They are held in a very negative light even by the comparison to what the refugees are facing and how they are responding as you said.
DeleteOur team agrees that closing a camp is exposing many refugees and forcing them back into the streets. This is why the author’s bias is against the PNG, because as a reader, we are concerned about the refugees. Yet, we are not aware of the Australian situation and the true causes behind the closure of the camp, so as a reader, our opinion is based on human rights and our ethics. We also agree that the article lacks information on why are the refugees no longer wanted, however it makes emphasis on not knowing whose responsibility would the refugees become. We agree with the author of the review in the sense that the government should be involved and take it’s responsibility. We also think the author’s bias is towards the refugees because it says that locals are being violent meanwhile the refugees are using peace to protest. We agree that actions need to be taken to ensure their safety and rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sanny that the bias is going toward the refugees, and also the locals. I also feel the refugees are getting a little more of a beating, because the locals form around the area are shouting " Don't come out" They aren't wanted in the locals eyes, and the refugees are not looking for help, because they are scared for their safety, as the article said. My question is, why were they held up Australia in the first place? are they trying to get into Australia? The article was talking about the refugees wanting a peaceful protest, whereas they locals didn't want that, they were physically attacking them. One thing i want to say is that, the refugees aren't in a good environmental conditions, especially with hardly and water, food, and electricity. I think the refugees should have better living conditions.
ReplyDeleteOur team agree that the refugees are doing what they are doing to stay where they are, they need to give a legal action so the closure so the happen, closing the camp will mean to put in risk and send them to the streets. The author has a bias against the Papua New Guinea and we can see why, but the article dont explain exactly why they dont want the refugees and why is people so angry at them and we support the author in his opinion that we disagree with the closure but we dont have all the details
ReplyDeleteAs we can all surely agree, the constant migration due to civil conflicts has caused a great deal of pain with all of the nations involved, and even though as an outsider looking in, I can relate with the issues in hand, but instead of trying to neutralize these types of ravenous and outlandish situations, Australia is adding more wood to the fire with their recents actions against the act of migration into the country. What the people of Australia don't realize is that the people entering the nation aren't doing it because they have a choice; They are currently in civil conflict, which puts the lives of men,women and children at risk, this explains their reluctance to leave, as they fear for Safety against the enemy in hand. Our personal opinion should be that the matter should be fixed in a strong and diplomatic agreement, where personal prejudice is not an issue in hand. It would drastically cause an impact on how migration is seen today.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think many governments these days are more focused on their own people and forget that their country might be the only hope for refugees. This has definitely become a big problem around the globe and it has to be addressed. I think what you suggested about the diplomatic agreements should occur not only in this situation, but across multiple different countries and governments.
DeleteWe surley agree that the people on the refugees are really having a very painful time since they are dumped on the street and the locals want them out of the Manus Islands, but the people has to understand they are passing through tough times their rights need to be respected as the Article 14 states (Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution). Also the Australian people need to have consciousness that the people that are entering for refugees are suffering a war and they need help, and need to think if that happened to Australia I would like someone to help us. Another point that we have is that eventhough the australians need to understand that the refugees is to help the people of MAnus Island is that the amount of migration will increase and that may affect the people in Australia and that is the reason for the physical violence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is from Esteban Guardado Lomeli, Jorge Medina, Rodrigo Fernandez, and Rodrigo Leal.
DeleteOur team believes that, refugees go there because of a reason, they want safety. And by closing the camp, the refugees will go unsafety to the streets. The camp is helping people so, why close it? On this article we only have the thoughts of the refugees, not the people of PNG so, they probably have their own reasons on closing it, we don't know. It would be so much better to know the opinions of the people in PNG, to know their reasons for mistreating them. However we believe that there is never an excuse for mistreatment. As humans, we must always care for everyone specially the people that are most in need, like them. They fleed their country for stafety and a better quality of life, so it is really disappointing, to see the people of PNG mistreating them.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the refugees in the camps are very worried for their safety and feel very insecure about the situation. We think that they are living in very bad conditions and that they shouldn’t be treated that way. Since we don’t know the reason why they want to close the refugee camp, we can’t really have an opinion about that, but we are certain that if the refugees wanted to protest peacefully, the locals shouldn’t have physically attacked them. And we also agree on the bias, because as a reader when you examine the article you see more information on why they shouldn’t close the camps and not a lot of information telling the reason to close the camps.
ReplyDeleteWe agree that the reader may have a bias towards the refugees because there is no information about why the Papua New Guinea Court decided to close the camp and that there is a great concern for the lives of the refugees. We also agree with the concern for the refugees lives and that the government needs to provide aid for those in need and help them create a better life for themselves. This is a very controversial topic because everybody has a different opinion on the topic and everybody has different concerns. We can’t decide which decision is wrong because there is no information about why the PNG court decided to close the camp. It is very hard to deal with where to relocate refugees and how to help them.
ReplyDeleteWe agree with Enrique, as he mentioned if they close all of the camps most of the refugees if not all are going to be sent to the streets and could lead to future problems. Also we agree that the lives of the refugees is the main concern so the government should be able to invest in providing help for those in need and help them go ahead in their lives. In the article we could not find a specific reason of why they want to close the camp but instead just gives reason of why it is important to keep the camps functioning for all refugees. With some research made we found in BBC that some staff from the refugees camps are now leaving the place making the place abandoned and letting the refugees by themselves, some lawyers of refugees are making lawsuit in PNG to prevent the camp closure but anything could happen.
ReplyDeleteManus Island: Refugees refuse to leave Australian camp amid safety fears (2017 October 31) Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41812189
As everyone one else has said, this article was heavily biased towards the refugees and against the locals and the PNG court. This could be seen by the way the author emphasized the locals shouting at the refugees and making it clear how unwanted they are. I also agree that there was a decided lack of information regarding the reason the refugee camp is being closed which leads me to suspect that the author is concealing information. Personally, I found this article pretty worrying since refugees these days have fewer and fewer places to go.
ReplyDeleteWe agree that the reader may have a bias towards the refugees because there is no information about why the Papua New Guinea Court decided to close the camp and that there is a great concern for the lives of the refugees. We also agree with the concern for the refugees lives and that the government needs to provide aid for those in need and help them create a better life for themselves. This is a very controversial topic because everybody has a different opinion on the topic and everybody has different concerns. We can’t decide which decision is wrong because there is no information about why the PNG court decided to close the camp. It is very hard to deal with where to relocate refugees and how to help them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the target audience and bias of the article, the people housed in this camp should not just be thrown out. Instead a plan should be made so that they can be safely and having all basic necessities before being relocated to a preferred location. It seems the government and the local people no longer want the camp open but that does not mean that you can just throw the human beings living there on the street to die. Instead a plan should be made and implemented to make the transition safe.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that the Article is angled towards Australians, I would also argue that the article is more international or even appeasing to an American audience more than you said. This is because of the comparison to Guantanamo, this makes sure that any American's reading the article will be able to put what it is into context. Overall I also think that the Guantanamo comparison is accurate seeing as these people are being held against their will many have been offered freedom but due to extenuating circumstances have to been able to achieve it. This is an injustice to human rights and relocation must be put into practice. It's hard to say how much responsibility PNG has over this matter, but they are nonetheless a key player. This is a very sticky situation with no obvious course of action but something needs to happen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of you in that the author of this article is very biased against the PNG Court and is for the refugees. Seeing how the author writes information on how the refugees are struggling show how difficult it is for them. The fact that the refugees don't even want to leave because they fear for their lives shows how serious this issue is. I find it very sad to think that people would even throw people out on the streets and leave them there. More information about the closure of the camp would have been better and I feel that the author may be leaving out some information. Overall, I think that something needs to be done about this situation in a peaceful way.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this article is angled towards Australians to raise awareness about activity that could possibly be going under the radar. I wish that we lived in a world where people's livelihood was put above the laws or judicial code of a nation. The bias here is easily with the refugees. If the PNG plans to kick the people out, then at least they could be considerate enough to come up with a plan to make sure they have a place to stay.
ReplyDeleteAs most of you said this article is on the side of the refugees and against the PNG court. However, I think that they were also very critical of Australia for not being willing to help in this situation. I do not know any background information on this article but it seem to me that the Australians have at least some responsibility for the creation of this camp. Therefore it seems only fair that they would help by taking in refugees. It is disappointing that it seems that nations are becoming less and less willing to accept refugees when they have no where else to go. Although the US agree to take some of these refugees they have not actually accepted many of them and Australia refuses to take any. These world powers who have the resources need to be willing to help nations and people with less resources.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with what everyone has said about the bias being slanted towards the Refugees, since their voices are being herd though direct quotes. And only the negative actions of the Indigenous people and government are mentioned. I think that it is really sad that first the refugees were taken in and now they are just being thrown out. I know that this could be an annoying situation for the indigenous people, however their country accepted these people and offered them help. And as others have previously stated, I think that these days the wealthier countries are more reluctant to help out other suffering nations.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the audience, however i think that it could be narrowed down a little more, to not just the nations as a whole, but going deeper, the people that these refugees affect. Also i feel like it could be targeted to outside countries like the US, to get their help in this situation. I also agree there the writer of this article has bias towards the refugees and against the PNG. After reading this, i also would say that i don't think they should close down the camp. there is too much at stake for the refugees and too much that they would lose. I agree with what Ben said, that the US should take part in this and maybe help these refugees. I just definitely feel like Australia needs to do something to help these people out.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the audience can be target to outside countries. I had originally placed it as Australians because the Manus Island are a part of Australian territory, therefore it would more directly affect the Australians and the government, just because they are the more likely people to me most affected. However, the audience can be viewed as a much larger group, especially because anyone can help the refugees, and I think that it is good for other countries to know what is going on either to help them or even just to prevent things like these from happening.
DeleteThis is definitely a stick situation in which it is clear that the refugees need to find a place to live, but it is hard to say whose responsibility it is to solve this. Should it be up to the Australian government merely because these people arrived at the Australian shores? Or should it be the PNG Government's responsibility? Or should the UN have the onus for deciding where these refugees should find homes. So often in situations like these it is easy to cast blame on a government or an organization, but what is much harder is, rather than merely casting blame, to find a real and workable solution. I think that the article could have done a better job in presenting the information more fairly as the article's bias against the Australians is fairly clearly presented and makes it harder to sift out the whole truth and decide what should be done in the future.
ReplyDeleteMost of the people who already wrote agree with the opinion and the bias being slanted in favour of the refugees, and I too agree with what they said. However, I also like what Ben Stocksdale said about how they were very critical toward the Australian government for not helping the refugees and I like that as well. Most news agencies are usually in favour of refugees because they have no home and have suffered a lot and I respect that. However, if the refugees in Australia are refusing to obey to Australian laws, then I think that Australia has a right to be angry or mad at them. If they are mad at them, then the Australian government should be expected to not help the refugees at all or give them very little aid.
ReplyDeleteJust as everyone has mentioned that the intended audience was the refugees but as Krista suggested this could be more directed to the effected refugees in a whole. My only concern and question is why are we living in the time where the aid from the indigenous people is unprecedented and why are they limiting themselves from helping theses refugees by the law and or judicial code as Ben had earlier mentioned. Its also safe to say that the government didn't come up with a full proof plan in organizing where they would go once kicked out, and that Australia should at least show some consideration. And as the Wanderer mentioned these refugees came from a beat-up life style; they don't deserve this.
ReplyDeleteThis problem has created an extremely big controversy, this has shown a darker side of Australia, since Australia has always taken action and has always raised the voice for refugees. I believe this is an issue that has not been given the proper attention in the international panorama, and in a close future probably this is an issue that should be immediately addressed to an NGO such as Amnesty international, of course this can only be made if the human rights of this refugees are in fact violated. Regarding the author this is a very well written news article, the article clearly states the conflict and where does it stands. But the author could have given or shared a personal opinion regarding this topic. My opinion towards this topic is that it is a harsh and controversial topic, which has not been given the attention it requires.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/27/manus-island-closure-faces-local-opposition-and-legal-challenge
we completely agree with your opinion, even though the article does not specify why are they closing the camp or which are the reasons in order to take this important decision, We believe it is only fair to give some kind of protection to the refugees, find them shelter, somewhere else to go, or give them financial aid, because it is important to remember that they are still humans, and a very vulnerable group, it is not okay to leave them without any help and so unprotected. We think an NGO should make an intervention and help all those refugees and help them set up in another location or something like that.
ReplyDeleteREFERENCE: Jazeera, A. (2017, October 29). Why is the Manus detention centre being closed? Retrieved November 03, 2017, from http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/manus-detention-centre-closed-171024212852806.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Article makes sense for us because it comes from a trustable source (BBC) and talks about what is going on at the manus island refugee camp closure and the Author's bias is more against the PNG court because of the closure of the camp and sending many refugees to the streets when the locals don't want them to come out.The writer knew what the article was about because he included responses of the Audience, Bias and his own opinion about the issue and that helped us understand the topic more.We understood the author's bias which was against the PNG court and more feeling towards the refugees in the camp because if you put yourself in their position (No camp equals to no resources) you will have a hard time. We agree with the first commentator because we have the same opinion that the article is more against the locals and towards the refugees. It does give the locals a bad reputation for them for yelling at the refugees "Don't come out!". We do agree with the article that its bias it's more against the locals for what they’re doing to the refugees and that actions need to be taken and remind the people refugees have rights too.
ReplyDeleteWe believe the author of the article is biased towards the refugees. The author writes his article cleverly by being careful with the words used throught. He mentions that the refugee camps are looking to be closed but the manner of which he frases those sentences comes across as a criticism towards the people who want to close the camps down. By doing this he manipulates the reader into favoring the refugees. If the author were to expand further on the reasons behind the attempts to shut the camps down, his blog would seem more neutral which is what a blog like this should look like. We agree with Juan Carlos when he says that these conflicts might affect other countries. Australia is worsening the situation with their recent actions against migration in the country, and as euronews says, "Australians will not be able to walk away from legal, financial and moral responsibility for the men."
ReplyDeleteE. (2017, October 31). Tensions rise as refugees refuse to leave Australian camp in Papua New Guinea amid safety fears. Retrieved November 03, 2017, from http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/31/tensions-rise-as-refugees-refuse-to-leave-australian-camp-in-papua-new-guinea
We totally agree with your opinion. The human right’s of the people inside the camp are being violated and they need to do something to prevent this from happening, maybe an NGO may take action to help the refugees. Knowing what will happen to the people inside the camp, if it is closed, we are in disagree with the PNG closing the camp. People can´t be sent to the streets just like that, they didn't gave any explanation of why they want to close it. This ´people should be help to imporve their condition,New Zeland is already proposing them to restablish in their country.
ReplyDeleteTo see what they want to do ... go to http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australia-refugee-centre-manus-island-1.4385659
I completely agree with the author and your opinion as well. The author states the situation very well, although, he is a little sided towards the refugees side, but he still states facts and reasoning from both sides. I agree with your opinion on how refugees can't be treated that way and that they should be treated equally as every other citizen. I think that this is a bad movement towards the refugees by closing the camp for them and trying to make them homeless. They should maybe create another system or organization which helps them in the best way possible to achieve the greatest way of living for those refugees in Australia.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many others that the article reflect's negatively on the PNG's, Australia's, and the locals' actions. I feel as if a lot of details are missing and so I don't want to blow the situation out of context. I would need to know more to understand each sides' actions and what a good solution would be. Clearly the refugees are unsafe and in need of a better living conditions but where and how I am unsure of. I agree with Ben and Krista that the article is trying to provoke more of a response from nearby Australia but also aims for more of a international audience where countries like the United States might step in.
ReplyDeleteWe agree with your opinion about the refugees that are inside the detention center without many needs and that people can help them. We think people should be more empathetic with this kind of situations because of how their country was almost destroyed and cannot live very well. We also agree in that seeing if the deal with Obama should be renegotiated but with Trump (this would be pretty hard). At last we think that the refugees should be treated fairly like other people. We think that dumping people in the street as you mentioned should be a bad decision by the government and see other solutions for this problem.
ReplyDelete