RSS FeedThe Inhumanity of Refugee Detention Camps in the West
What makes this ruling is significant is that a high court is here recognising that the detention camps in which refugees are held in the West can themselves be inhumane to the point of that sending people to them would be illegal. This is of particular relevance for analyses of Australia’s detention camps, which arguably some of the worst worldwide; the abuses are such that they’re driving more and more of the refugees to suicide and hunger strikes (some by sewing their mouths shut).
Human rights court slams EU asylum policy as inhumane
In a landmark ruling the European Court for Human Rights has criticized the EU’s asylum policy. It said forcing refugees to apply for asylum in the country of their entry into the EU was inhumane.
The European Court for Human Rights on Friday ruled illegal the deportation of an asylum seeker from Belgium to Greece.
The Afghan national first entered the European Union in Greece but then traveled to Belgium to apply for asylum there. Under current EU regulations, asylum applications must be processed in the country of entry into the 27-nation bloc.
Yet the judges at Europe’s top human rights court said that the appalling conditions in Greek refugee camps were inhumane and humiliating – and most importantly that Belgium was aware of those conditions but still sent the Afghan back.
The court ruling could mean that the European Union will have to rethink its entire asylum policy.
“This is a historic moment for the protection of Human Rights,” Marei Pelzer of rights group ProAsyl told Deutsche Welle.
“The ruling will have fundamental consequences in so far as the EU can not simply pretend that the situation with regards to asylum seekers is the same in all EU member states. And it’s crucial that refugees should not be forced to stay in Greece just because Greece happens to be the country where most of them arrive.”
Almost 90 percent of all illegal border crossings into the EU take place via Greece. The country has repeatedly come under fire for appalling living conditions in its refugee camps.
Human rights groups have long been calling for a more coherent EU policy that would make all member countries responsible for asylum cases in the same way.
Appalling conditions in Greece
The circumstances and procedures that refugees are exposed to in Greece are the worst in Europe, according to a recent report on asylum seekers by rights group Amnesty International.
The European Commission has also already proposed a reform to the current regulation in an effort to take some of the pressure off countries such as Greece, Italy and Malta, which see the main influx of refugees from outside the EU.
Germany has so far rejected the Commission’s proposals for reform yet rights groups hope that the Strasbourg ruling will have Berlin rethink its position. But Reinhard Grindel, member of parliament for Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats insists the solution to the problem in Greece has to be fixed by Athens rather than by watering down EU regulations.
“All EU member states guarantee the international human rights standards,” he told Deutsche Welle. “We do have one problem case, and that’s Greece. However, what this means is not that we have to change EU rules but rather that Athens has to get its house in order.”
“For Germany a change to the current EU regulations would be a catastrophe,” he warned. “It would mean a flood of asylum seekers coming to Germany. And that’s something that everyone who now calls for changes of EU rules has to realize.”
And yet, to a certain extent, Germany has already changed its position. Berlin earlier this week announced that for one year it would stop sending back any refugees to Greece, because of what Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere described as “appalling conditions” for refugees there.
Britain, Iceland, Norway and Sweden have also stopped sending refugees back to Greece.
Australian Securities Regulators In Policy Quandary
First posted on Commercial Law international on July 1, 2009.
The question that faces Australian securities regulators is what to do about two or more Chinese state owned enterprises together owing substantial shareholdings in an Australian company?
At first blush it would appear that this is a case of China take over fear, however there is much more to the story than this. Indeed, there is a legal/regulatory story here as well. Now I am not trying to say there is or isn’t a China phobia here, it is a given that all nations have their own xenophobic tendency, however I cannot speak on this as I know very little about Australia and what I do know comes from watching Rugby, Crocodile Dundee and Steve Irwin (may he rest in peace). Moreover, while I am not versed in Australian law, I believe that my legal training and experience thus far permits me an insightful comment or two.
This question has come to the fore because of the increased interest of Chinese companies in Australia´s mineral wealth – this is in fact a global trend and not one peculiar to Australia – just take a look at the recent attempt by Chinalco to increase its stake in Rio Tinto to see my point.
In Australia it isn’t that two or more state entities is per say barred from investing in the same company, as the law currently is, not at all. Then what is the problem, you might ask? The issues here are the concepts of associated entities and substantial shareholdings.
You see in Australia, under their securities regime, two or more entities that are associated – related in some way, namely through ownership and control – that combined own more than 5% of a listed company must declare a substantial shareholding. However, due to a lack of clarity in the law and the absence of a clear policy position the question remains open if two or more Chinese state owned companies would be considered associated and required to declare a substantial shareholding?
The securities regulators face several related sub-problems and they must approach this issue with some degree of sensitively to the political nature of dealing with entities belong to another state. With that in mind regulators have to be cognizant of the fact that they are not dealing with subsidiaries here but foreign state owed companies; state ownership is not equal in all these enterprises; state control is not equal in all these enterprises; and these enterprises while having the same state owner might indeed be fierce competitors with opposing interests.
I do not envy the regulators their task but it will be interesting to watch what if any policy position is developed or if the law is changed to address this issue.
Strange B&E May Signal Growing Practice Area
Police are chasing a man in Cairns, Australia for breaking and entering into a store and stealing their toys. He’s suspected of several break-ins at a s similar store in the city.
But these stores aren’t for kids. They are adult sex shops, and the product he has been stealing are inflatable dolls. After using the toys from the store the suspect disposed of them in the alley.
The owner of the store, who declined to provide his full name, said,
He has been taking the dolls out the back and blowing them up and using the dolls and leaving them in the alley. It is totally bizarre. It is a real concern that someone like that is out on the street.
Police do have several clues they are following that distinguishes the suspect:
- He seems to have a crush on a particular model, “Jungle Jane”
- His preferred method of entry is to squeeze through tight holes
- Despite always cleaning up after himself, the suspect has left unspecified samples of DNA on the dolls
As strange as the story may sound, there is a vinyl lining in it for lawyers worried about how the economy is going to affect their work prospects.
Robert J. Ambrogi claims the adult entertainment industry continues to make a buck even in the worst of times.
He notes a recent conference, in Las Vegas of course, that included a panel on adult entertainment law, which overlaps with areas of obscenity and free speech, zoning, labor law and record-keeping.
Even more interesting was that the media reported there were more lawyers in the audience than on the stage.
According to Ambrogi,
Lawyers, it appears, can make a decent living from indecency, even in a recession.
Updates
They caught him.
Aussie Man Charged with Drunk Driving… in a Wheelchair
Police in northern Queensland have charged a 64-year-old man with drunk driving after he was caught sleeping at the controls of his motorized wheelchair on a four-lane highway.
Other motorists on the highway had to swerve to avoid hitting the man.
After being awakened from his slumber, the police smelled alcohol on the man’s breath. He blew over 0.30 on a breath test, which is more than six times the legal limit.
The man told police that he was on his way to a friend’s house in Trinity Beach, which was 14 km from where he was found. Most of the route was to be along the highway.
The AP quoted regional traffic inspector Bob Waters as saying:
“The vehicles that we normally hear about with drink driving are the family car, the truck, the motorbike … [b]ut there are also other classes of vehicles that are subject to drink-driving laws,” including horses, bicycles, and motorized wheelchairs.
That’s fine for Australia, but what about Canadian Law?
This type of case has actually been litigated in many other jurisdictions, including Ontario.
Under the Criminal Code, which sets out the various drunk driving offences, a “motor vehicle” is defined as:
“a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment.” (Criminal Code, s. 2)
Certainly this definition would seem to cover motorized wheelchairs, which are typically propelled by an electric motor.
Indeed, in 2004, Peel Regional Police pulled over a wheelchair-bound man who was drunkenly swerving from curb to curb on a major street. The operator of the wheelchair, one Mr. Shanahan, was subsequently charged with “driving over 80″ under s. 253 of the Criminal Code.
In R. v. Shanahan (No. 2), 2007 ONCJ 242 (CanLII), Mr. Shanahan submitted that the inclusion of motorized wheelchairs within the Criminal Code‘s definition of “motor vehicle” violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Counsel for Mr. Shanahan argued (at para. 12) that:
A person who is confined to a motorized wheelchair cannot get drunk in their home because this would be a violation of s. 253 of the Criminal Code. They cannot travel on a public sidewalk because they would be breaking the law. They have no mobility when they are drunk because they cannot be in care and control of their motorized wheelchair. To the extent that s. 253 of the Criminal Code prevents people in motorized wheelchairs from getting drunk in situations where otherwise able bodied persons can become intoxicated, these provisions discriminate against disabled persons who use a motorized wheelchair as a means of mobility. Hence, disabled persons do not enjoy equal protection of the law.
This rather novel argument was rejected outright by judge Wake (at para. 20):
it must be remembered that the essence of s. 15’s purpose is the protection of a person’s dignity… it is difficult to understand how that purpose can be advanced by permitting a person on a motorized personal mobility device to consume alcohol to the extent that his ability to drive is impaired. The argument in favour of striking down s. 253 seems to be that the dignity of a disabled person can only be sustained if he is afforded the right to behave with a lack of dignity. In my view s. 15 of the Charter should not be used to support the result of such inverted reasoning.
Nice try, Mr. Shanahan.
