C0324
Klaim
“Sengaja menghancurkan persediaan air di pusat penahanan Pulau Manus, untuk memaksa pengungsi keluar dari kamp dan masuk ke lokasi alternatif yang belum selesai.”
Sumber Asli: Matthew Davis
Sumber Asli
✅ VERIFIKASI FAKTA
Klaim bahwa persediaan air dihancurkan di pusat penahanan Pulau Manus secara substansial didukung oleh bukti terdokumentasi.
The claim that water supplies were destroyed at the Manus Island detention centre is substantially supported by documented evidence.
Namun, karakterisasi niat dan konteks memerlukan nuansa. **Apa yang Terjadi:** Pada tanggal 31 Oktober 2017, ketika Pusat Pengolahan Regional (Regional Processing Centre/RPC) Manus secara resmi ditutup, layanan penting termasuk air dan listrik dimatikan [1]. However, the characterization of intent and context requires nuance.
**What Occurred:**
On 31 October 2017, as the Manus Regional Processing Centre (RPC) was formally closed, essential services including water and power were shut off [1].
Petugas Papua Nugini kemudian sengaja menghancurkan infrastruktur air dengan memecah keran pada tangki air dan menutup sumur-sumur [2]. PNG officials then deliberately destroyed water infrastructure by smashing taps on water tanks and filling in water wells [2].
Selain itu, pada pertengahan November 2017, pihak berwenang menghapus tangki penyimpanan air yang telah digunakan pengungsi untuk mengumpulkan air hujan [3]. Additionally, in mid-November 2017, authorities removed water storage tanks that refugees had been using to collect rainwater [3].
Pengungsi yang menolak untuk dipindahkan ditinggal tanpa akses air untuk periode yang lama — sekitar 379 pria yang tinggal di pusat tersebut selama 23 hari tanpa air, listrik, atau penyediaan makanan yang memadai [4]. **Konteks Penutupan:** Penutupan mengikuti keputusan Mahkamah Agung Papua Nugini pada April 2016 yang menyatakan bahwa penahanan pencari suaka di RPC Pulau Manus adalah ilegal dan tidak konstitusional [5]. Refugees who refused to relocate were left without access to water for extended periods—some 379 men remaining in the centre for 23 days without water, electricity, or adequate food provision [4].
**Context of Closure:**
The closure followed an April 2016 Papua New Guinea Supreme Court decision that found the detention of asylum seekers at Manus Island RPC was illegal and unconstitutional [5].
Pusat penahanan telah beroperasi sejak 2012 di bawah pengaturan pengolahan regional Australia-Papua Nugini. The detention centre had operated since 2012 under an Australia-PNG regional processing arrangement.
Pada April 2017, Pemerintah Australia mengumumkan fasilitas tersebut akan ditutup pada 31 Oktober 2017, dengan semua tahanan dipindahkan ke akomodasi alternatif [6]. **Fasilitas Alternatif:** Pengungsi diarahkan untuk pindah ke akomodasi "terbuka" alternatif di dekat Lorengau, termasuk Pusat Transit East Lorengau dan Rumah West Lorengau [7]. In April 2017, the Australian Government announced the facility would close by 31 October 2017, with all detainees transferred to alternative accommodation [6].
**The Alternative Facilities:**
Refugees were directed to move to alternative "open" accommodation near Lorengau, including the East Lorengau Transit Centre and West Lorengau House [7].
Namun, menurut pejabat PBB, lokasi ini "belum siap" untuk penghuni, masih dalam konstruksi, dan dirancang secara tidak memadai untuk menampung jumlah orang yang diharapkan [8]. However, according to UN officials, these sites were "not ready" for inhabitants, still under construction, and inadequately designed to accommodate the number of people expected [8].
Fasilitas-fasilitas ini kurang infrastruktur keamanan dasar seperti pagar dan menawarkan perlindungan yang jauh lebih sedikit daripada kompleks asli [9]. The facilities lacked basic security infrastructure like fences and offered far less protection than the original compound [9].
Konteks yang Hilang
Klaim ini menyajikan gambaran lengkap tentang apa yang terjadi, tetapi konteks penting dihilangkan: 1. **Persyaratan Hukum:** Penutupan diwajibkan secara hukum oleh Mahkamah Agung Papua Nugini, bukan sekadar kebijakan diskresioner.
The claim presents a complete picture of what happened, but important context is omitted:
1. **Legal Requirement:** The closure was legally mandated by the PNG Supreme Court, not merely a discretionary policy decision.
Pengadilan telah memutuskan bahwa pusat penahanan itu sendiri tidak konstitusional dan ilegal menurut hukum Papua Nugini [10]. The court had ruled the detention centre itself unconstitutional and illegal under PNG law [10].
Pemerintah Australia, meskipun bertanggung jawab atas pengaturan kebijakan, secara teknis mematuhi perintah pengadilan negara asing. 2. **Agen Pemerintah Papua Nugini:** Meskipun penghancuran air melibatkan petugas Papua Nugini yang melaksanakan tindakan fisik, klaim ini dapat ditafsirkan sebagai mengaitkan semua tanggung jawab kepada Australia. The Australian Government, while responsible for the policy arrangement, was technically complying with a foreign nation's court order.
2. **PNG Government Agency:** While the water destruction involved PNG officials carrying out the physical actions, the claim could be interpreted as attributing all responsibility to Australia.
Namun, pihak berwenang Papua Nugini yang melaksanakan penghancuran dan penutupan [11]. However, PNG authorities executed the destruction and shutdown [11].
Ini mengemukakan pertanyaan tentang pembagian tanggung jawab antara pemerintah Australia dan Papua Nugini. 3. **Pemutusan Layanan vs Penghancuran Infrastruktur:** Terdapat perbedaan antara (a) mematikan pasokan air — pemadaman utilitas standar — dan (b) sengaja menghancurkan infrastruktur itu sendiri (memecah keran, menutup sumur). This raises questions about responsibility division between Australian and PNG governments.
3. **Service Cutoff vs.
Penghancuran tersebut tampaknya dimaksudkan untuk mencegah pengungsi mengakses air yang telah mereka amankan melalui pengumpulan air hujan [12]. Infrastructure Destruction:** A distinction exists between (a) cutting off water supply—a standard utility shutdown—and (b) deliberately destroying the infrastructure itself (smashing taps, filling wells).
Ini menunjukkan strategi pemaksaan yang sengaja di luar sekadar penghentian layanan. 4. **Posisi Pemerintah yang Dinyatakan tentang Tanggung Jawab:** Setelah penutupan, pejabat Australia menyatakan bahwa tanggung jawab hukum Australia untuk kesejahteraan pengungsi berakhir dengan penutupan fasilitas, dengan Papua Nugini menjadi sepenuhnya bertanggung jawab atas siapa pun yang tinggal di tanah Papua Nugini [13]. The destruction appears to have been intended to prevent refugees from accessing water they had already secured through rainwater collection [12].
Namun, posisi ini kontroversial mengingat peran Australia dalam membangun dan mengelola pengaturan penahanan. 5. **Kondisi Fasilitas Alternatif:** Referensi klaim tentang "lokasi alternatif yang belum selesai" akurat namun dijelaskan dengan terlalu ringan. This suggests a deliberate coercion strategy beyond simple service termination.
4. **Stated Government Position on Responsibility:** Following closure, Australian officials stated that Australia's legal responsibility for refugee welfare ended with the facility's closure, with PNG becoming fully responsible for anyone remaining on PNG soil [13].
Tidak hanya fasilitas yang tidak lengkap, tetapi keamanan tidak memadai, layanan medis tidak cukup, dan ada insiden kekerasan yang terdokumentasi serta perampokan oleh warga Papua Nugini terhadap pengungsi [14]. However, this position was controversial given Australia's role in establishing and managing the detention arrangement.
5. **Conditions of Alternative Facilities:** The claim's reference to "unfinished alternative sites" is accurate but understated.
Penilaian Kredibilitas Sumber
**Sumber Asli - The New Daily:** The New Daily adalah situs berita Australia dengan posisi editorial kiri-tengah, didirikan pada 2012.
**Original Source - The New Daily:**
The New Daily is an Australian news website with center-left editorial positioning, founded in 2012.
Meskipun melaporkan berita yang sah, media ini memiliki perspektif editorial yang menguntungkan posisi progresif/Pro-Buruh. While it reports on legitimate news stories, the outlet has editorial perspectives that favor progressive/Labor-aligned positions.
Artikel yang dimaksud tampaknya melaporkan peristiwa yang terdokumentasi yang dikonfirmasi oleh organisasi berita internasional utama dan kelompok hak asasi manusia, menunjukkan inti faktual dapat diandalkan, meskipun pembingkaian dan penekanan mungkin mencerminkan perspektif editorial [15]. **Hierarki Kredibilitas Hasil Pencarian:** Bukti untuk penghancuran air dan pematian layanan berasal dari berbagai sumber kredibel: - **CNN dan Al Jazeera:** Laporan berita internasional arus utama tentang akun di lokasi [16] - **Pejabat PBB:** Pernyataan langsung tentang kondisi fasilitas alternatif [17] - **Organisasi Hak Asasi Manusia:** Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, dan Refugee Council of Australia yang mendokumentasikan peristiwa [18] - **Sumber Akademis:** Riset yang berafiliasi dengan universitas yang menganalisis proses penutupan [19] The article in question appears to be reporting on documented events that are corroborated by major international news organizations and human rights groups, suggesting the factual core is reliable, though framing and emphasis may reflect editorial perspective [15].
**Search Results Credibility Hierarchy:**
The evidence for water destruction and services shutdown comes from multiple credible sources:
- **CNN and Al Jazeera:** Mainstream international news reporting on-site accounts [16]
- **UN Officials:** Direct statements about condition of alternative facilities [17]
- **Human Rights Organizations:** Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Refugee Council of Australia documenting the events [18]
- **Academic Sources:** University-affiliated research analyzing the closure process [19]
⚖️
Perbandingan Labor
**Apakah Buruh memulai penahanan lepas pantai?** Buruh sebenarnya memulai kebijakan penahanan lepas pantai.
**Did Labor initiate offshore detention?**
Labor actually initiated the offshore detention policy.
Pada Agustus 2012, Pemerintahan Buruh di bawah Perdana Menteri Julia Gillard mengumumkan pengaturan kembali pencari suaka yang dicegat di laut ke Nauru dan Pulau Manus, menghidupkan kembali "Solusi Pasifik" dari era Howard [20]. In August 2012, the Labor Government under Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the resumption of transferring asylum seekers intercepted at sea to Nauru and Manus Island, reviving the "Pacific Solution" from the Howard era [20].
Ini adalah pergeseran kebijakan yang signifikan oleh Buruh sebagai respons terhadap peningkatan kedatangan perahu. **Apakah Buruh juga menggunakan kondisi keras sebagai pencegahan?** Pada Juli 2013, Buruh mengumumkan perubahan kebijakan lebih lanjut: pencari suaka yang tiba setelah 19 Juli 2013 akan dipindahkan lepas pantai dan, jika ditemukan berhak atas perlindungan pengungsi, akan dilarang secara permanen untuk menetap di Australia — kebijakan pencegahan yang keras [21]. This was a significant policy shift by Labor in response to increasing boat arrivals.
**Did Labor also use harsh conditions as deterrent?**
In July 2013, Labor announced a further policy change: asylum seekers arriving after 19 July 2013 would be transferred offshore and, if found to be owed refugee protection, would be permanently banned from settlement in Australia—a harsh deterrent policy [21].
Ini mungkin bahkan lebih ketat daripada kebijakan Koalisi, karena secara permanen mengecualikan orang yang ditentukan sebagai pengungsi dari pemukiman kembali di Australia. **Bagaimana kebijakan Koalisi berbeda?** Ketika Koalisi mengambil alih kantor pada September 2013, mereka melanjutkan dan memperluas pengolahan lepas pantai. This was arguably even more stringent than Coalition policies, as it permanently excluded people determined to be refugees from resettlement in Australia.
**How did Coalition policies differ?**
When the Coalition took office in September 2013, they continued and expanded offshore processing.
Namun, Koalisi tidak memulai kerangka penahanan lepas pantai — Buruh yang melakukannya. However, the Coalition did not initiate the offshore detention framework—Labor did.
Tambahan utama Koalisi adalah menguatkan pesan ("hentikan perahu") dan mempertahankan larangan pemukiman bagi mereka yang tiba lepas pantai, tetapi mereka mewarisi struktur kebijakan dasar dari Buruh [22]. **Temuan Kunci:** Kebijakan penahanan lepas pantai dimulai di bawah Buruh (2012), dipercepat oleh Buruh (Juli 2013), dan kemudian dilaksanakan/dilanjutkan oleh Koalisi (2013-2022). The Coalition's primary addition was hardening the messaging ("stop the boats") and maintaining the ban on settlement for those arriving offshore, but they inherited the basic policy structure from Labor [22].
**Key Finding:** Offshore detention policy originated under Labor (2012), was accelerated by Labor (July 2013), and then implemented/continued by the Coalition (2013-2022).
Pendekatan pencegahan keras menggunakan kondisi yang buruk hadir di bawah kedua pemerintahan, meskipun pesan publik Koalisi lebih menekankan pencegahan secara eksplisit [23]. The harsh deterrent approach using poor conditions was present under both governments, though the Coalition's public messaging emphasized deterrence more explicitly [23].
🌐
Perspektif Seimbang
**Kritik dan Kekhawatiran Hak Asasi Manusia:** Kritikus berpendapat — dan bukti terdokumentasi mendukung — bahwa menghancurkan persediaan air merupakan bentuk pemaksaan yang disengaja dan berpotensi melanggar prinsip kemanusiaan dan hak asasi manusia [24].
**Criticisms and Human Rights Concerns:**
Critics argue—and documented evidence supports—that destroying water supplies constituted a deliberate form of coercion and potentially violated humanitarian and human rights principles [24].
Penghancuran infrastruktur pengumpulan air hujan, khususnya, tampaknya dirancang untuk membuat kondisi tidak dapat dipertahankan, memaksa pengungsi keluar dari pusat dan ke fasilitas alternatif yang tidak memadai. The destruction of rainwater collection infrastructure, in particular, appears to have been designed to make conditions untenable, forcing refugees out of the centre and into inadequate alternative facilities.
Strategi pemaksaan ini dikritik secara ekstensif oleh organisasi hak asasi manusia sebagai tidak manusiawi [25]. This coercive strategy was criticized extensively by human rights organizations as inhumane [25].
Periode 23 hari tanpa air, makanan, atau listrik bagi pria yang belum pergi secara sukarela mewakili apa yang dicirikan penyelidik sebagai krisis kemanusiaan [26]. The resulting 23-day period without water, food, or electricity for men who had not voluntarily left represented what investigators characterized as a humanitarian crisis [26].
Laporan mendokumentasikan bahwa beberapa pengungsi dipaksa menyimpan air di tempat sampah dan bahwa donasi makanan dan air oleh warga lokal yang simpatik dihancurkan oleh polisi [27]. **Pembenaran Pemerintah dan Konteks:** Posisi Pemerintah Australia adalah bahwa penutupan diwajibkan secara hukum oleh perintah pengadilan Papua Nugini, dan bahwa tanggung jawab hukum Australia berakhir dengan penutupan fasilitas, dengan Papua Nugini mengambil tanggung jawab [28]. Reports documented that some refugees were forced to store water in garbage bins and that donations of food and water by sympathetic locals were destroyed by police [27].
**Government Justification and Context:**
The Australian Government's position was that the closure was legally required by Papua New Guinea's court order, and that Australia's legal responsibility ended with facility closure, with PNG assuming responsibility [28].
Tanggal penutupan diumumkan secara publik dengan baik sebelumnya (pengumuman April 2017 untuk penutupan Oktober 2017), memberikan tahanan bulan-bulan untuk bersiap untuk pemindahan [29]. The closure date was publicly announced well in advance (April 2017 announcement for October 2017 closure), giving detainees months to prepare for relocation [29].
Fasilitas alternatif, meskipun tidak lengkap dan tidak memadai, dimaksudkan sebagai akomodasi "terbuka" di mana penghuni dapat bergerak bebas di masyarakat — status yang secara teori lebih baik daripada penahanan terkunci, bahkan jika implementasi praktis gagal memenuhi harapan [30]. The alternative facilities, while incomplete and inadequate, were intended as "open" accommodation where residents could move freely in the community—a status that was theoretically preferable to locked detention, even if practical implementation fell short [30].
Pemerintah juga berpendapat bahwa penahanan tanpa batas tidak berkelanjutan dan bahwa penutupan diperlukan untuk mematuhi putusan pengadilan Papua Nugini. **Penilaian Maksud:** Istilah "sengaja dihancurkan" akurat dalam pengertian sempit — keran sengaja dipecah dan sumur diisi, yang merupakan tindakan disengaja. The government also argued that indefinite detention was unsustainable and that closure was necessary to comply with the PNG court ruling.
**Assessment of Intent:**
The term "deliberately destroyed" is accurate in a narrow sense—taps were intentionally smashed and wells filled, which were deliberate acts.
Namun, apakah ini merupakan strategi sengaja khususnya "untuk memaksa pengungsi ke lokasi yang belum selesai" versus pematihan fasilitas rutin dengan metode keras adalah masalah penafsiran. However, whether this constitutes a deliberate strategy specifically "to force refugees into unfinished sites" versus a routine facility shutdown with harsh methods is a matter of interpretation.
Bukti menunjukkan penghancuran air merupakan bagian dari strategi pemaksaan sistematis untuk mengosongkan fasilitas, karena pembatasan pada makanan dan obat-obatan terjadi secara bersamaan [31]. Evidence suggests the water destruction was part of a systematic coercion strategy to empty the facility, as restrictions on food and medications occurred simultaneously [31].
Dalam pengertian sempit itu, karakterisasi maksud yang disengaja tampaknya dibenarkan. **Konteks Komparatif:** Kedua pemerintahan Buruh dan Koalisi menggunakan penahanan lepas pantai dengan kondisi yang buruk sebagai kebijakan pencegahan. In that narrow sense, the characterization of deliberate intent appears justified.
**Comparative Context:**
Both Labor and Coalition governments used offshore detention with harsh conditions as a deterrent policy.
Buruh memulai kebijakan dengan pesan pencegahan yang keras dan larangan pemukiman permanen. Labor initiated the policy with tough deterrent messaging and permanent settlement bans.
Koalisi melanjutkan dan menekankan pesan pencegahan. The Coalition continued and emphasized the deterrence messaging.
Kedua pemerintahan tidak menyediakan kondisi yang cukup manusiawi di fasilitas. Neither government provided adequately humane conditions at the facilities.
Namun, penutupan 2017 khusus ini terjadi di bawah manajemen Koalisi dan melibatkan metode yang terdokumentasi khususnya keras oleh banyak pengamat independen [32]. The specific 2017 closure, however, occurred under Coalition management and involved particularly harsh methods documented by multiple independent observers [32].
SEBAGIAN BENAR
7.0
/ 10
Inti faktual dari klaim ini akurat: persediaan air sengaja dihancurkan di pusat penahanan Pulau Manus, dan ini terjadi ketika fasilitas sedang ditutup dengan pengungsi dipindahkan ke lokasi alternatif [33].
The factual core of the claim is accurate: water supplies were deliberately destroyed at Manus Island detention centre, and this occurred as the facility was being closed with refugees being transferred to alternative sites [33].
Penghancuran air merupakan bagian dari strategi pemaksaan yang terdokumentasi untuk menekan pengungsi yang tersisa untuk pindah [34]. The water destruction was part of a documented coercion strategy to pressure remaining refugees to relocate [34].
Namun, klaim ini menyederhanakan dengan: 1. **Atribusi:** Penghancuran fisik dilakukan oleh petugas Papua Nugini, bukan petugas Australia secara langsung, meskipun Australia bertanggung jawab atas kebijakan dan keputusan penutupan [35] 2. **Konteks Hukum:** Penutupan diwajibkan secara hukum oleh Mahkamah Agung Papua Nugini, bukan sekadar pilihan kebijakan Australia yang diskresioner [36] 3. **Status Lokasi Alternatif:** Deskripsi "yang belum selesai" akurat namun agak menjelaskan terlalu ringan tentang kekurangan serius (kurangnya keamanan, layanan medis tidak mencukupi, kekerakan terdokumentasi dari warga lokal) [37] 4. **Konteks Kebijakan yang Lebih Luas:** Pendekatan pemaksaan ini tidak unik bagi Koalisi — Buruh memulai penahanan lepas pantai dan menggunakan strategi pencegah yang sama kerasnya [38] Klaim ini benar secara faktual dalam asersinya inti namun tidak lengkap dalam konteks. However, the claim oversimplifies by:
1. **Attribution:** The physical destruction was carried out by PNG officials, not Australian officials directly, though Australia was responsible for the policy and closure decision [35]
2. **Legal Context:** The closure was legally mandated by PNG's Supreme Court, not merely a discretionary Australian policy choice [36]
3. **Alternative Sites Status:** The description "unfinished" is accurate but somewhat understates the serious inadequacies (lack of security, insufficient medical services, documented violence from locals) [37]
4. **Broader Policy Context:** This coercive approach wasn't unique to the Coalition—Labor initiated offshore detention and used similarly harsh deterrent strategies [38]
The claim is factually true in its core assertion but incomplete in context.
Pernyataan yang sepenuhnya akurat akan mengakui bahwa ini adalah kebijakan penutupan yang diperintahkan pengadilan yang dilaksanakan dengan metode keras oleh petugas Papua Nugini di bawah arahan kebijakan Australia, dan bahwa kedua partai besar mengejar penahanan lepas pantai dengan pendekatan pencegahan. A fully accurate statement would acknowledge it was court-ordered closure policy implemented with harsh methods by PNG officials under Australian policy direction, and that both major parties pursued offshore detention with deterrent approaches.
Skor Akhir
7.0
/ 10
SEBAGIAN BENAR
Inti faktual dari klaim ini akurat: persediaan air sengaja dihancurkan di pusat penahanan Pulau Manus, dan ini terjadi ketika fasilitas sedang ditutup dengan pengungsi dipindahkan ke lokasi alternatif [33].
The factual core of the claim is accurate: water supplies were deliberately destroyed at Manus Island detention centre, and this occurred as the facility was being closed with refugees being transferred to alternative sites [33].
Penghancuran air merupakan bagian dari strategi pemaksaan yang terdokumentasi untuk menekan pengungsi yang tersisa untuk pindah [34]. The water destruction was part of a documented coercion strategy to pressure remaining refugees to relocate [34].
Namun, klaim ini menyederhanakan dengan: 1. **Atribusi:** Penghancuran fisik dilakukan oleh petugas Papua Nugini, bukan petugas Australia secara langsung, meskipun Australia bertanggung jawab atas kebijakan dan keputusan penutupan [35] 2. **Konteks Hukum:** Penutupan diwajibkan secara hukum oleh Mahkamah Agung Papua Nugini, bukan sekadar pilihan kebijakan Australia yang diskresioner [36] 3. **Status Lokasi Alternatif:** Deskripsi "yang belum selesai" akurat namun agak menjelaskan terlalu ringan tentang kekurangan serius (kurangnya keamanan, layanan medis tidak mencukupi, kekerakan terdokumentasi dari warga lokal) [37] 4. **Konteks Kebijakan yang Lebih Luas:** Pendekatan pemaksaan ini tidak unik bagi Koalisi — Buruh memulai penahanan lepas pantai dan menggunakan strategi pencegah yang sama kerasnya [38] Klaim ini benar secara faktual dalam asersinya inti namun tidak lengkap dalam konteks. However, the claim oversimplifies by:
1. **Attribution:** The physical destruction was carried out by PNG officials, not Australian officials directly, though Australia was responsible for the policy and closure decision [35]
2. **Legal Context:** The closure was legally mandated by PNG's Supreme Court, not merely a discretionary Australian policy choice [36]
3. **Alternative Sites Status:** The description "unfinished" is accurate but somewhat understates the serious inadequacies (lack of security, insufficient medical services, documented violence from locals) [37]
4. **Broader Policy Context:** This coercive approach wasn't unique to the Coalition—Labor initiated offshore detention and used similarly harsh deterrent strategies [38]
The claim is factually true in its core assertion but incomplete in context.
Pernyataan yang sepenuhnya akurat akan mengakui bahwa ini adalah kebijakan penutupan yang diperintahkan pengadilan yang dilaksanakan dengan metode keras oleh petugas Papua Nugini di bawah arahan kebijakan Australia, dan bahwa kedua partai besar mengejar penahanan lepas pantai dengan pendekatan pencegahan. A fully accurate statement would acknowledge it was court-ordered closure policy implemented with harsh methods by PNG officials under Australian policy direction, and that both major parties pursued offshore detention with deterrent approaches.
📚 SUMBER DAN KUTIPAN (17)
-
1
Manus Island water supplies destroyed refugees removed
The Australian and Papua New Guinean authorities must ensure that a tense standoff with refugees on Manus Island does not descend into violence by security forces.
Amnesty International -
2
PNG officials destroyed water tanks and wells Manus Island 2017
Security forces storm former Australian detention camp to remove hundreds of refugees refusing for weeks to leave.
Al Jazeera -
3
Water Storage Tanks Destroyed and Removed From Manus Island Detention Centre
News Yahoo
Original link no longer available -
4
23 days without water electricity food Manus Island
This joint report, in partnership with Amnesty International, tells the story of the men who have been sent by Australia to Manus Island, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and what has happened to them after they were forcibly removed from the 'regional processing centre' on Manus Island one year ago.
Refugee Council of Australia -
5
April 2016 PNG Supreme Court ruling Manus Island unconstitutional detention illegal
Wikipedia -
6
Australian Government April 2017 announcement closure October 31 2017
Tandfonline
-
7
Alternative accommodation East Lorengau Transit Centre West Lorengau House
Asylum Insight
-
8
UN officials alternative facilities not ready under construction inadequate
Over 600 migrants are still at the camp and a humanitarian crisis has developed
TIME -
9
PNG officials executed water destruction and closure operations
More than 300 asylum seekers and refugees who had refused to leave a recently closed detention center in Papua New Guinea have been removed from the facility, according to police.
CNN -
10
Refugees using rainwater collection destroyed to prevent water access
Reports indicate that officers are beating refugees and breaking their possessions.
PEDESTRIAN.TV -
11
The New Daily editorial positioning center-left perspective
Latest news headlines locally from Australia and the World. Get breaking news, politics, finance, entertainment, lifestyle, sport, weather and more .
Thenewdaily Com -
12
Human Rights Watch Amnesty International Refugee Council documentation
Since October 31, hundreds of men have barricaded themselves in an abandoned complex on a naval base where security forces have previously shot at and attacked them. These men are not in a war zone. They are refugees and asylum seekers trapped on remote Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. They are there because of Australia’s harsh refugee policies.
Human Rights Watch -
13PDF
Labor Government August 2012 Gillard resumption offshore detention Nauru Manus Island
Kaldorcentre Unsw Edu • PDF Document -
14
Labor July 2013 asylum seekers permanent settlement ban offshore arrivals
Human Rights Law Centre -
15
Coalition continuation offshore detention Labor inherited policy 2013
What is offshore processing? Why does Australia have an offshore processing policy? How has offshore processing caused harm?
Refugee Council of Australia -
16
Labor deterrence messaging offshore detention 2012-2013
Asyluminsight
Original link no longer available -
17
Humanitarian crisis inhumane conditions criticism
The Australian government has abandoned hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers.
Amnesty International
Metodologi Skala Penilaian
1-3: SALAH
Secara faktual salah atau fabrikasi jahat.
4-6: SEBAGIAN
Ada kebenaran tetapi konteks hilang atau menyimpang.
7-9: SEBAGIAN BESAR BENAR
Masalah teknis kecil atau masalah redaksi.
10: AKURAT
Terverifikasi sempurna dan adil secara kontekstual.
Metodologi: Penilaian ditentukan melalui referensi silang catatan pemerintah resmi, organisasi pemeriksa fakta independen, dan dokumen sumber primer.