Australian Government secretly flies pregnant refugee out of country before hearing - Polidicks

[QUOTE][B]The federal government has secretly flown a pregnant refugee out of Australia to escape a court injunction, chartering a jet to fly her back towards Nauru and the detention centre where she was raped.[/B] In an extraordinary effort that appears to be an attempt escape the reach of Australian courts, the government on Friday swiftly moved the 23-year-old Somalian, who is pregnant as a result of being raped on Nauru, from Villawood detention centre. The woman, known under the pseudonym Abyan, was raped by an unknown assailant in July. No one has been charged with assault. Since her pregnancy has become known, she had been pleading with Australian authorities for weeks to be brought to Australia to terminate the pregnancy. Because of restrictive abortion laws in Nauru and PNG, there was nowhere in Australia’s offshore detention network where she could have the termination. Abyan was brought to Australia on Sunday evening, and held at Villawood detention centre in Sydney. She told friends and advocates she feared being sent back to Nauru. “I cannot go back to where this happened to me; I cannot go to where I was raped. What happened to me there [in Nauru] is what caused me to run away from Somalia. What happened to me in Somalia is what happened to me there [in Nauru],” Abyan said.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/16/australia-secretly-flies-pregnant-asylum-seeker-back-to-nauru-before-hearing[/url]

That's pretty low.

[quote]to fly her back towards Nauru and the detention centre where she was raped.[/quote] Australia with it backward ass asylum policies I bet.

Absolutely fucking awful

God damn it aus

Seriously, what the fuck?

[quote] Abyan had a medical appointment scheduled on Thursday, which she declined to attend, sources have told the Guardian. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection is understood to have taken her non-attendance as refusing to have the termination. However, advocates assisting Abyan say this is not true. They say she was only asking for more time to decide, and had asked repeatedly to see a counsellor, a request the Guardian understands, was not granted. [/quote] Take the article with a pinch of salt, they brought her in for an Abortion, which she asked for and then didn't turn up to it. The government then flew her back after that.

[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;48914988]Take the article with a pinch of salt, they brought her in for an Abortion, which she asked for and then didn't turn up to it. The government then flew her back after that.[/QUOTE] Basically this, It's a massive grey area and I see both sides of the story. 'Oh hey I want an abortion take me to Australia' and once they're there 'Oh man I don't know about this can I just stay here instead?'

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;48914994]Basically this, It's a massive grey area and I see both sides of the story. 'Oh hey I want an abortion take me to Australia' and once they're there 'Oh man I don't know about this can I just stay here instead?'[/QUOTE] Exactly, she is not Australian nor a legal citizen of Aus, Australia had no obligation to help her. She reached out to them for help, and the government took a big risk agreeing, then for whatever reason she turned it down.

[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;48914988]Take the article with a pinch of salt, they brought her in for an Abortion, which she asked for and then didn't turn up to it. The government then flew her back after that.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]“Our client has not decided to refuse a termination and you have completely misunderstood or misconstrued her position which is as set out in my letter ... of 14 October 2015,” he wrote. “Our client has the right to counselling before a termination and to understand the procedure, that is all we have been seeking and to represent her position as a refusal is disingenuous and cruel.” In the letter, Newhouse requested he be allowed to speak to his client – as afforded by Australian law and the 1951 Refugees Convention – before she was removed. He was not allowed to speak with her. Hearing that Abyan was being moved, her lawyers sought an injunction against her removal in the federal court before Justice Jacqueline Gleeson. But in court, they were told that Abyan was already out of the country, and had been flown by chartered jet to the Solomon Islands capital, Honiara. The government was planning to return her to Nauru on Friday night.[/QUOTE] She was seeking counselling and an explanation before the procedure, which she should have had the rights to but was denied. For such an invasive and important procedure I'd say it's pretty understandable to want that. Her lawyer was then denied the right to speak to his client before they sent her off. Plus theres the fact it's really scummy to send a woman back to the detention centre where she was raped and nothing was done about it. It's a massive failing of our asylum seeker policies.

I have to wonder why? Firstly. Why did it happen in the first place? Secondly. Why did they suddenly change their mind. It seems a little strange.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;48915048]She was seeking counselling and an explanation before the procedure, which she should have had the rights to but was denied. For such an invasive and important procedure I'd say it's pretty understandable to want that. Her lawyer was then denied the right to speak to his client before they sent her off. Plus theres the fact it's really scummy to send a woman back to the detention centre where she was raped and nothing was done about it. It's a massive failing of our asylum seeker policies.[/QUOTE] Previously, asylum seekers that needed medical attention would be sent to Aus facilities but a change to that policy in July meant they would be sent to Pacific International Hospital in PNG. This was done to stop people coming to Aus for help and then demanding they stay. Below quote is from - [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/12/somali-refugee-raped-on-nauru-brought-to-australia-for-pregnancy-termination[/url] [quote=Other Article] The policy change was designed to prevent people from taking the opportunity of being on Australian soil to launch legal action to prevent their return to offshore detention. The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, declined to comment specifically on the Somali woman’s case but said on Friday “if people require medical assistance, they will receive it. Whether it is on Nauru or in Australia, they will receive it.” “But I have been very clear also about the fact that people aren’t going to settle in Australia if they have sought to come by boat. People – at the appropriate time – will return back to Nauru, that is the government’s policy. [/quote] As we do not know 100% what caused her to be sent back, it is speculation. But, with the change in policy, it was not Aus legal obligation to help her. It was after public outcry that they did. I completely agree that it is fucking messed up that she got sent back to the place she was raped.

[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;48915179]This was done to stop people coming to Aus for help and then demanding they stay.[/QUOTE] Doubt it was intentional on your part, and you might not even be talking about this case specifically, but I find the word "demand" to be an interesting choice here. I'm only replying because it's far from the first time I've seen it used to describe asylum seekers' dispositions. Here is a pregnant woman trying to escape from the immigrant detention center where her violent rapist still prowls, a detention center [URL="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/06/whistleblowers-reveal-conditions-inside-detention-centres"]that has come under fire for having absolutely appalling conditions[/URL], and the word we choose to describe her pleading to come to or stay in Australia instead of remaining in that hellhole is "demand." That word [I]really[/I] undersells the seriousness of her situation. It seems dismissive and accusatory. It paints her, and the tens of thousands of other refugees living in similar conditions across the globe, as greedy ingrates who ought to stop being so selfish as to plead for the foundation of peace, comfort, and safety they need to start their lives again. I could just be overanalyzing this, I admit, but when I hear the word "demand," the image that comes to mind is a kid in a toy store stomping his feet, not a battered woman or exhausted refugee pleading for safety and respect for their humanity.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48915287]Doubt it was intentional on your part, and you might not even be talking about this case specifically, but I find the word "demand" to be an interesting choice here. I'm only replying because it's far from the first time I've seen it used to describe asylum seekers' dispositions. Here is a pregnant woman trying to escape from the immigrant detention center where her violent rapist still prowls, a detention center [URL="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/06/whistleblowers-reveal-conditions-inside-detention-centres"]that has come under fire for having absolutely appalling conditions[/URL], and the word we choose to describe her pleading to come to or stay in Australia instead of remaining in that hellhole is "demand." That word [I]really[/I] undersells the seriousness of her situation. It seems dismissive and accusatory, painting her, and the tens of thousands of other refugees living in similar conditions across the globe, as greedy ingrates who ought to stop being so selfish as to plead for the foundation of peace, comfort, and safety they need to start their lives again. I could just be overanalyzing this, I admit, but when I hear the word "demand," the image that comes to mind is a kid in a toy store stomping his feet, not a battered woman or exhausted refugee pleading for protection and peace.[/QUOTE] Sorry, my bad phrasing. The article that mentions the change in policy said that it was done because Asylum Seekers would request medical treatment in Aus then once there, would push for legal action to stay permanently. Obviously there are genuine reasons people will want medical attention, but like all groups on this planet, there are liars and cheats amongst them. I was not saying that she faked/lied to get it, that 'demand' was aimed at the people that caused the policy to change.

Nah, like I said, I'm not calling you out specifically. In all honesty, I'm probably being nitpicky. It's just a word I see used often in these conditions, and it's become a peeve of mine! Like "thug" being used more often with young black men than with white men in the media. Subtle, targeted repetition of words with negative connotations can have an impact on public consciousness. If refugees are [I]demanding[/I] asylum instead of pleading for it, then it makes them sound unreasonable. If young black men who commit crimes are [I]thugs[/I], while young white men are [I]troubled[/I], it implies a predisposition towards thuggery from black people that white people don't share. Shit like that, you dig? Language is a bitch. One wrong word can influence the perceived meaning of the entire statement.

I completely see what you're saying, and understand dawg!.