C0602
Ang Claim
“Nilabag muli ang prinsipyo ng non-refoulement, sa pamamagitan ng pagpapaalis sa isang refugee pabalik sa Afghanistan, kung saan siya ay pinahirapan pagkatapos na subukang tumakas.”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
**Napatunayang mga Pangunahing Katotohanan:** Noong Agosto 2014, ang pamahalaan ng Australia sa ilalim ni Punong Ministro Tony Abbott at Ministro ng Imigrasyon na si Scott Morrison ay sapilitang pinaalis si Zainullah Naseri, isang Hazara asylum seeker mula sa Afghanistan, kaya siya ang unang Afghan Hazara na sapilitang ibinalik ng Australia [1].
**Core Facts Verified:**
In August 2014, the Australian government under Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison forcibly deported Zainullah Naseri, a Hazara asylum seeker from Afghanistan, making him the first Afghan Hazara to be forcibly returned by Australia [1].
Dumating si Naseri sa Australia sa pamamagitan ng bangka noong 2011 at tumagal ng halos tatlong taon sa detention at sa bridging visa bago tanggihan ang kanyang aplikasyon bilang refugee ng Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) noong Disyembre 2012 [2]. Naseri had arrived in Australia by boat in 2011 and spent nearly three years in detention and on a bridging visa before his refugee application was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) in December 2012 [2].
Sa loob ng ilang linggo pagkatapos ng kanyang deportasyon noong Agosto 26, 2014, si Naseri ay dinakip ng Taliban habang naglalakbay sa pangunahing highway mula Kabul papuntang kanyang distrito na Jaghori sa lalawigan ng Ghazni [1]. Within weeks of his deportation on August 26, 2014, Naseri was abducted by the Taliban while traveling on the main highway from Kabul to his home district of Jaghori in Ghazni province [1].
Pinigil ng Taliban ang kanyang sasakyan, nakita ang kanyang Australian driver's license at iPhone, at inakusahan siyang spy mula sa isang "infidel country" [3]. The Taliban stopped his vehicle, found his Australian driver's license and iPhone, and accused him of being a spy from an "infidel country" [3].
Ipinakulong siya ng dalawang araw, pinahirapan gamit ang basang mga bakal, at binantaan na pupugutan ng ulo maliban na lang kung magbabayad siya ng ransom na humigit-kumulang $300,000 [3]. He was held captive for two days, tortured with wet rods, and threatened with beheading unless he paid a ransom of approximately $300,000 [3].
Tumakas si Naseri sa pamamagitan ng pagbali sa kanyang mga tanikala gamit ang bato at pagtakas sa pamamagitan ng isang toilet pit [3]. Naseri escaped by breaking his chains with a rock and fleeing through a toilet pit [3].
Inamin ng pamahalaan ng Australia ang insidente at sinabi ni Ministro ng Imigrasyon na si Scott Morrison na inutusan niya na "magsagawa ng angkop na imbestigasyon" [1]. The Australian government acknowledged the incident and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison stated he had instructed "appropriate investigations be made" [1].
Gayunpaman, inilarawan din ni Morrison ang pagdukot bilang "opportunistic" sa halip na may kaugnayan sa pag-uusig, sinabing ito ay "hindi samakatwid may kaugnayan sa takot na pag-uusig na magdudulot sana ng obligasyon sa proteksyon" [4]. However, Morrison also characterized the kidnapping as "opportunistic" rather than persecution-related, stating it was "not therefore related to a fear of persecution that would have otherwise given rise to a protection obligation" [4].
Nawawalang Konteksto
**Mahalagang Kontekstong Hindi Isinama ng Claim:** **1.
**Critical Context Omitted by the Claim:**
**1.
Ang RRT Assessment ay Ginawa noong 2012, Hindi ng Pamahalaang Coalition:** Ang pagtukoy ng Refugee Review Tribunal na ligtas ang Jaghori para kay Naseri ay ginawa noong Disyembre 2012, sa panahon ng pamahalaang Gillard Labor [2]. The RRT Assessment Was Made in 2012, Not by the Coalition Government:**
The Refugee Review Tribunal's determination that Jaghori was safe for Naseri was made in December 2012, during the Gillard Labor government's tenure [2].
Nagtapos ang RRT sa puntong iyon na "mayroong ruta mula Kabul patungong Jaghori na ligtas, walang totoong panganib na makararanas ang aplikante ng malaking pinsala" [3]. The RRT concluded at that time that "there is a route from Kabul to Jaghori that is secure, there is not a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm" [3].
Ang pamahalaang Coalition ay kumilos batay sa pre-existing na pagtukoy na ito nang ideport nila si Naseri noong Agosto 2014. **2. The Coalition government acted on this pre-existing determination when they deported Naseri in August 2014.
**2.
Ang Security Assessment ay Hindi Na-update noong Agosto 2014:** Ang security assessment na ginamit para ideport si Naseri ay batay sa impormasyon na kasalukuyan noong Oktubre 2012, halos dalawang taon bago ang kanyang aktwal na deportasyon [2]. The Security Assessment Was Outdated by August 2014:**
The security assessment used to deport Naseri was based on information current in October 2012, nearly two years prior to his actual deportation [2].
Sa Agosto 2014, ang sitwasyon ng seguridad sa Afghanistan ay lubhang lumala: - Umatras na ang mga foreign troop mula sa Afghanistan - Ang Taliban ay "massive advances sa buong bansa" [2] - Ang kalsada sa pagitan ng Kabul at Jaghori ay naging mas mapanganib - Isang linggo pagkatapos ng pagdukot kay Naseri, ang Australian-Afghan citizen na si Sayed Habib Musawi ay pinatay ng Taliban sa parehong stretch ng kalsada [2] **3. By August 2014, the security situation in Afghanistan had deteriorated significantly:
- Foreign troops had withdrawn from Afghanistan
- The Taliban had made "massive advances across the country" [2]
- The road between Kabul and Jaghori had become increasingly dangerous
- Just a week after Naseri's capture, Australian-Afghan citizen Sayed Habib Musawi was killed by the Taliban on the same stretch of road [2]
**3.
Mga Sumunod na RRT Determinations ay Nakita ang Afghanistan na Hindi Ligtas:** Ang mga refugee determination na ginawa pagkatapos ng kaso ni Naseri ay nakita na "napakapanganib para sa mga Hazara na bumalik sa Afghanistan, lalo na sa paglalakbay sa kalsada mula Kabul" [2]. Subsequent RRT Determinations Found Afghanistan Unsafe:**
Refugee determinations made after Naseri's case found that "it was too dangerous for Hazaras to return to Afghanistan, particularly travelling the road from Kabul" [2].
Inamin ng RRT sa paglaon na "lumala ang seguridad sa Ghazni (lalawigan) sa nakaraang anim na buwan" at ang Taliban at criminal elements ay target ang national highway [2]. **4. The RRT later acknowledged that "security in Ghazni (province) has deteriorated in the past six months" and that Taliban and criminal elements target the national highway [2].
**4.
Ang Afghan Embassy ay Tumutol sa Deportasyon:** Ang Afghan embassy sa Canberra ay hindi naglabas ng passport para kay Naseri, "sumasalungat sa kanyang sapilitang pag-alis mula sa Australia" [3]. The Afghan Embassy Opposed the Deportation:**
The Afghan embassy in Canberra did not issue a passport for Naseri, "disagreeing with his forced removal from Australia" [3].
Sa halip, ang pamahalaan ng Australia ay naglabas ng travel document na naglalaman lamang ng kanyang pangalan at larawan, nang walang kanyang pirma [3]. **5. "Muli" - Dating Non-Refoulement Concern:** Sinabi ng claim na "nilabag muli ng Coalition ang prinsipyo ng non-refoulement." Tinutukoy nito ang mga naunang alalahanin tungkol sa pagsunod ng Australia sa mga obligasyon sa non-refoulement. Instead, the Australian government issued a travel document bearing only his name and photo, without his signature [3].
**5. "Again" - Prior Non-Refoulement Concern:**
The claim states the Coalition "violated the principle of non-refoulement again." This references earlier concerns about Australia's compliance with non-refoulement obligations.
Ang Australia ay paulit-ulit na sinaway ng UN at mga organisasyon ng karapatang pantao para sa mga patakaran na nagbabanta sa paglabag sa non-refoulement, kabilang ang offshore processing arrangements sa Nauru at Papua New Guinea [5]. Australia has been repeatedly criticized by the UN and human rights organizations for policies that risk violating non-refoulement, including offshore processing arrangements with Nauru and Papua New Guinea [5].
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
**The Saturday Paper (Orihinal na Pinagkukunan):** Ang The Saturday Paper ay isang independyenteng lingguhang pahayagan sa Australia na inilathala ng Schwartz Media.
**The Saturday Paper (Original Source):**
The Saturday Paper is an independent Australian weekly newspaper published by Schwartz Media.
Ito ay pangkalahatang itinuturing bilang isang kalidad na outlet ng journalism na may reputasyon para sa malalim na pag-uulat sa patakaran ng refugee, integridad ng pamahalaan, at mga isyu sa lipunan [3]. It is generally regarded as a quality journalism outlet with a reputation for in-depth reporting on refugee policy, government integrity, and social issues [3].
Ang tiyak na artikulo ay isinulat ni Abdul Karim Hekmat, isang mamamahayag na pagkatapos ay naging finalist para sa 2018 Walkley Freelance Journalist of the Year [3]. The specific article was written by Abdul Karim Hekmat, a journalist who was later a finalist for the 2018 Walkley Freelance Journalist of the Year [3].
Ang The Saturday Paper ay may center-left na editorial stance at kritikal sa parehong pangunahing partido sa patakaran ng refugee, bagama't ito ay pangkalahatan na mas aligned sa mga progresibong pananaw. The Saturday Paper has a center-left editorial stance and has been critical of both major parties on refugee policy, though it is generally more aligned with progressive viewpoints.
Ang artikulo ay tila factually accurate batay sa pagpapatotoo mula sa maraming mainstream sources (The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC) [1][2][4]. **Assessment:** Kredibel, ngunit may perspektiba na nagdiriin sa mga alalahanin sa karapatang pantao at individual suffering sa ibabaw ng government policy rationale. The article appears factually accurate based on corroboration from multiple mainstream sources (The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC) [1][2][4].
**Assessment:** Credible, but with a perspective that emphasizes human rights concerns and individual suffering over government policy rationale.
⚖️
Paghahambing sa Labor
**Ginawa ba ni Labor ang katulad na bagay?** **Oo - Parehong partido ang nagdeport ng mga nabigong asylum seeker papuntang Afghanistan:** Ang mga pamahalaang Rudd at Gillard Labor (2007-2013) ay nagdeport din ng mga nabigong asylum seeker, bagama't ang tiyak na bilang ng mga deportasyon papuntang Afghanistan sa kanilang panunungkulan ay mas kaunting dokumentado sa mga pampublikong pinagkukunan.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
**Yes - Both parties have deported failed asylum seekers to Afghanistan:**
The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) also deported failed asylum seekers, though the specific scale of deportations to Afghanistan during their tenure is less documented in public sources.
Ang kritikal na punto ay **ang refugee determination na humantong sa deportasyon ni Naseri ay ginawa ng RRT noong Disyembre 2012, sa panahon ng pamahalaang Gillard Labor** [2][3]. The critical point is that **the refugee determination that led to Naseri's deportation was made by the RRT in December 2012, during the Gillard Labor government** [2][3].
Parehong pangunahing partido ng Australia ang nagpanatili ng mga patakaran ng pagdeport ng mga nabigong asylum seeker na naubos na ang lahat ng legal na paraan. Both major Australian parties have maintained policies of deporting failed asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal avenues.
Ang pangunahing pagkakaiba sa diskarte ng Coalition ay karaniwang mas mahigpit na refugee assessment criteria at mas mataas na rate ng deportasyon, ngunit ang pundamental na kasanayan ng pagbabalik ng mga nabigong asylum seeker ay pareho sa parehong partido. **Ang mga paglabag sa non-refoulement ay hindi natatangi sa Coalition:** Ang mga patakaran sa refugee ng Australia sa ilalim ng parehong Labor at Coalition governments ay paulit-ulit na sinaway ng mga internasyonal na katawan ng karapatang pantao para sa mga potensyal na paglabag sa non-refoulement. The principle difference in the Coalition's approach was generally more restrictive refugee assessment criteria and higher deportation rates, but the fundamental practice of returning failed asylum seekers was consistent across both parties.
**Non-refoulement violations are not unique to the Coalition:**
Australia's refugee policies under both Labor and Coalition governments have been repeatedly criticized by international human rights bodies for potential non-refoulement violations.
Ang offshore processing regime, na sinimulan ng pamahalaang Rudd Labor at ipinagpatuloy sa ilalim ng Coalition, ay inilarawan bilang "isa sa mga pinaka-extreme na pamamaraan ng externalization" na lumalabag sa mga prinsipyo ng non-refoulement [5]. The offshore processing regime, initiated by the Rudd Labor government and continued under the Coalition, has been described as "one of the most extreme methods of externalization" that violates non-refoulement principles [5].
Noong Nobyembre 2024, ang lehislasyon ng pamahalaang Labor ay inilarawan ng mga tagapagtaguyod ng refugee bilang "isang madilim na araw sa ating kasaysayan" na maglalagay sa libo-libong panganib, na may mga alalahanin na hinimok tungkol sa pagsunod sa mga obligasyon sa non-refoulement [6]. In November 2024, Labor government legislation was described by refugee advocates as "a dark day in our history" that would put thousands at risk, with concerns raised about compliance with non-refoulement obligations [6].
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
**Ang Buong Kwento:** **Posisyon ng Pamahalaan:** Ipinagtanggol ni Ministro ng Imigrasyon na si Scott Morrison ang deportasyon, sinabing "inaasahan na aalis ang mga taong naubos na ang lahat ng mga natitirang paraan upang manatili sa Australia at walang legal na batayan upang manatili" [3].
**The Full Story:**
**Government Position:**
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison defended the deportation, stating that "people who have exhausted all outstanding avenues to remain in Australia and have no lawful basis to remain are expected to depart" [3].
Inilarawan niya ang pagdukot ng Taliban bilang "opportunistic" sa halip na may kaugnayan sa pag-uusig [4]. He characterized the Taliban abduction as "opportunistic" rather than persecution-related [4].
Nanatili ang pamahalaan na ang Australia "ay hindi nag-aalis ng mga tao sa kanilang bansa ng pinagmulan kung ito ay hindi magkakatugma sa mga obligasyon sa proteksyon ng Australia" [4]. The government maintained that Australia "does not remove people to their country of origin where it would be inconsistent with Australia's protection obligations" [4].
Ang deportasyon ay batay sa isang pormal na RRT determination na ginawa sa panahon ng nakaraang pamahalaan, na nakita na ligtas ang home district ni Naseri na Jaghori. The deportation was based on a formal RRT determination made during the previous government, which found that Naseri's home district of Jaghori was safe.
Ang pamahalaan ay sumunod sa itinatag na proseso ng batas, bagama't batay sa hindi na-update na mga security assessment. **Mga Puna at Mga Alalahanin:** Ang mga organisasyon ng karapatang pantao at mga tagapagtaguyod ng refugee ay nagtaas ng mga lehitimong alalahanin: - Ang deportasyon ay nangyari batay sa isang 2012 assessment nang ang mga kondisyon ng seguridad ay lubhang lumala na noong 2014 [2] - Ang mga Hazara ay nakakaranas ng partikular na pag-uusig sa Afghanistan dahil sa kanilang etnisidad at relihiyon [2] - Sinabi ng Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission na ang pagbabalik ng mga refugee sa puntong ito ay "sumasalungat sa kanilang [Australian] sariling batas na hindi magdeport ng mga refugee kung saan sila nahaharap sa panganib" [3] - Ang insidente ay nangyari sa loob ng ilang linggo ng deportasyon, na nagmumungkahing ang security assessment ay flawed **Kontekstong Komparatibo:** Parehong pangunahing partido ng Australia ang nagdeport ng mga nabigong asylum seeker papuntang Afghanistan at iba pang mga bansa. The government was following established legal process, albeit based on outdated security assessments.
**Criticisms and Concerns:**
Human rights organizations and refugee advocates raised legitimate concerns:
- The deportation occurred based on a 2012 assessment when security conditions had significantly deteriorated by 2014 [2]
- Hazaras face particular persecution in Afghanistan due to their ethnicity and religion [2]
- The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission stated that returning refugees at this time "contradicts their [Australian] own law not to deport refugees where they face danger" [3]
- The incident occurred within weeks of deportation, suggesting the security assessment was flawed
**Comparative Context:**
Both major Australian parties have deported failed asylum seekers to Afghanistan and other countries.
Ang kaso ni Naseri ay naging prominenteng dahil sa agarang at dramatikong mga kahihinatnan (pagpapahirap ng Taliban), ngunit ang mga katulad na deportasyon ay nangyari sa ilalim ng mga pamahalaang Labor din. The Naseri case became prominent due to the immediate and dramatic consequences (torture by Taliban), but similar deportations occurred under Labor governments as well.
Ang patakaran sa refugee ng Australia sa pangkalahatan - sa parehong partido - ay sinaway ng internasyonal para sa mga alalahanin sa non-refoulement, lalo na tungkol sa offshore processing. **Ang "muli" sa claim:** Sinabi ng claim na ito ay isang paulit-ulit na paglabag sa non-refoulement. Australia's refugee policy generally - across both parties - has been criticized internationally for non-refoulement concerns, particularly regarding offshore processing.
**The "again" in the claim:**
The claim asserts this was a repeat violation of non-refoulement.
Ang Australia ay naharap sa patuloy na pagpuna para sa: - Mga offshore processing arrangement (Nauru, PNG) - sinimulan ng Labor, ipinagpatuloy ng Coalition - Mga pagbabalik ng mga nabigong asylum seeker sa mga bansa na may mga alalahanin sa seguridad - Mga patakaran na sinasabi ng mga organisasyon ng karapatang pantao na lumilikha ng "refoulement-like" na mga sitwasyon kahit na hindi teknikal na direktang nagbabalik ng mga indibidwal sa pag-uusig **Mahalagang konteksto:** Ang deportasyon na ito ay **hindi natatangi sa Coalition** - ito ay batay sa isang Labor-era RRT determination, at parehong partido ang nagpanatili ng mga patakaran ng pagdeport ng mga nabigong asylum seeker. Australia has faced ongoing criticism for:
- Offshore processing arrangements (Nauru, PNG) - initiated by Labor, continued by Coalition
- Returns of failed asylum seekers to countries with security concerns
- Policies that human rights organizations argue create "refoulement-like" situations even when not technically returning individuals directly to persecution
**Key context:** This deportation was **not unique to the Coalition** - it was based on a Labor-era RRT determination, and both parties have maintained policies of deporting failed asylum seekers.
Ang tiyak na kinalabasan (pagpapahirap) ay hindi karaniwang malupit at nagdala ng makabuluhang atensyon sa kaso. The specific outcome (torture) was unusually severe and brought the case significant attention.
TOTOO
7.0
sa 10
Ang claim na ang pamahalaang Coalition ay lumabag sa prinsipyo ng non-refoulement sa pamamagitan ng pagdeport ng isang refugee na pagkatapos ay pinahirapan ay factually accurate - si Zainullah Naseri ay naideport noong Agosto 2014 at pinahirapan ng Taliban sa loob ng ilang linggo.
The claim that the Coalition government violated the principle of non-refoulement by deporting a refugee who was subsequently tortured is factually accurate - Zainullah Naseri was deported in August 2014 and was tortured by the Taliban within weeks.
Ang paglalarawan nito bilang isang "paglabag sa non-refoulement" ay sinusuportahan ng mga organisasyon ng karapatang pantao at ng mga pangyayari sa kaso. The characterization of this as a "violation of non-refoulement" is supported by human rights organizations and the circumstances of the case.
Gayunpaman, ang claim ay hindi naglahad ng kritikal na konteksto: (1) Ang deportasyon ay batay sa Refugee Review Tribunal determination na ginawa noong Disyembre 2012 sa panahon ng pamahalaang Gillard Labor, hindi ng Coalition; (2) Ang "muli" ay technically accurate tungkol sa mga patuloy na alalahanin sa non-refoulement ng Australia, ngunit ang mga alalahing ito ay nalalapat sa parehong pangunahing partido, hindi lang sa Coalition; (3) Parehong mga pamahalaang Labor at Coalition ang nagdeport ng mga nabigong asylum seeker at naharap sa pagpuna para sa mga potensyal na paglabag sa non-refoulement. However, the claim omits critical context: (1) The deportation was based on a Refugee Review Tribunal determination made in December 2012 during the Gillard Labor government, not by the Coalition; (2) The claim of "again" is technically accurate regarding Australia's ongoing non-refoulement concerns, but these concerns apply to both major parties, not just the Coalition; (3) Both Labor and Coalition governments have deported failed asylum seekers and faced criticism for potential non-refoulement violations.
Ang pagpapahirap kay Naseri ay kumakatawan sa pagkabigo ng proseso ng asylum assessment at ng hindi na-update na impormasyon sa seguridad, sa halip na isang natatanging diskarte ng patakaran ng Coalition. The torture of Naseri represents a failure of the asylum assessment process and outdated security information, rather than a uniquely Coalition policy approach.
Ang insidente ay sumasalamin sa mga sistemikong isyu sa sistema ng refugee determination ng Australia na sumasaklaw sa maraming pamahalaan. The incident reflects systemic issues in Australia's refugee determination system that span multiple governments.
Huling Iskor
7.0
SA 10
TOTOO
Ang claim na ang pamahalaang Coalition ay lumabag sa prinsipyo ng non-refoulement sa pamamagitan ng pagdeport ng isang refugee na pagkatapos ay pinahirapan ay factually accurate - si Zainullah Naseri ay naideport noong Agosto 2014 at pinahirapan ng Taliban sa loob ng ilang linggo.
The claim that the Coalition government violated the principle of non-refoulement by deporting a refugee who was subsequently tortured is factually accurate - Zainullah Naseri was deported in August 2014 and was tortured by the Taliban within weeks.
Ang paglalarawan nito bilang isang "paglabag sa non-refoulement" ay sinusuportahan ng mga organisasyon ng karapatang pantao at ng mga pangyayari sa kaso. The characterization of this as a "violation of non-refoulement" is supported by human rights organizations and the circumstances of the case.
Gayunpaman, ang claim ay hindi naglahad ng kritikal na konteksto: (1) Ang deportasyon ay batay sa Refugee Review Tribunal determination na ginawa noong Disyembre 2012 sa panahon ng pamahalaang Gillard Labor, hindi ng Coalition; (2) Ang "muli" ay technically accurate tungkol sa mga patuloy na alalahanin sa non-refoulement ng Australia, ngunit ang mga alalahing ito ay nalalapat sa parehong pangunahing partido, hindi lang sa Coalition; (3) Parehong mga pamahalaang Labor at Coalition ang nagdeport ng mga nabigong asylum seeker at naharap sa pagpuna para sa mga potensyal na paglabag sa non-refoulement. However, the claim omits critical context: (1) The deportation was based on a Refugee Review Tribunal determination made in December 2012 during the Gillard Labor government, not by the Coalition; (2) The claim of "again" is technically accurate regarding Australia's ongoing non-refoulement concerns, but these concerns apply to both major parties, not just the Coalition; (3) Both Labor and Coalition governments have deported failed asylum seekers and faced criticism for potential non-refoulement violations.
Ang pagpapahirap kay Naseri ay kumakatawan sa pagkabigo ng proseso ng asylum assessment at ng hindi na-update na impormasyon sa seguridad, sa halip na isang natatanging diskarte ng patakaran ng Coalition. The torture of Naseri represents a failure of the asylum assessment process and outdated security information, rather than a uniquely Coalition policy approach.
Ang insidente ay sumasalamin sa mga sistemikong isyu sa sistema ng refugee determination ng Australia na sumasaklaw sa maraming pamahalaan. The incident reflects systemic issues in Australia's refugee determination system that span multiple governments.
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (6)
-
1
Torture of deported Afghan Hazara asylum seeker to be investigated - The Guardian
Theguardian
-
2
Calls to halt deportation of asylum seekers to Afghanistan - ABC News
Refugee advocates are calling for a moratorium on the deportation of failed asylum seekers to Afghanistan as the Australian Government prepares to forcibly return a 20-year-old Hazara man to Kabul. The first man to be returned involuntarily to Afghanistan, Zainullah Naseri, has claimed he was abducted and tortured by the Taliban when he tried to make his way to his home district outside Kabul last month. Refugee groups have said eight other Hazara men have been re-detained in Australia and could soon be deported. "If we are really interested in the sanctity and protection of human lives, then we shouldn't be taking a risk with these peoples lives," Phil Glendenning from the Refugee Council of Australia said.
Abc Net -
3
Taliban tortures Abbott government deportee - The Saturday Paper
The first Hazara asylum seeker refouled by the federal government was taken by the Taliban inside a month.
The Saturday Paper -
4
Government to investigate torture claims of deported asylum seeker Zainullah Naseri - Sydney Morning Herald
The federal government is investigating claims that the first Afghan asylum seeker to be forcibly deported from Australia was held hostage and tortured by the Taliban within weeks of his return.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
5
Third Country Processing Regimes and the Violation of the Principle of Non-refoulement - Springer
This article investigates the violation of the principle of non-refoulement under Australia’s mandatory offshore processing regime, which has emerged as one of the most extreme methods of externalization. Through bilateral agreements with the governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, Australia has contracted out the processing of asylum applications to third party States in its entirety. This processing regime has been persistently condemned by the international community for human rights abuses and violation of the most fundamental principle of international refugee law, non-refoulement. The rapid proliferation of EU-wide externalization policies, some directly emulating the Australian model, is emblematic of an insidious trend forming on the horizon, aiming to push the global “migration crisis” out of EU borders. The Australian model which is being used as a blueprint for future offshore processing regimes by EU leaders will lead to a significant shift in the paradigm of migration control policies. Thus, it is crucial to examine the failings of the Australian model, particularly the violation of the principle of non-refoulement, through the exposure of asylum seekers to human rights abuses. The article starts out by mapping out Australia’s history of predicating draconian migration policies upon the notions of “state sovereignty” and the “migration as a threat.” This is followed by a theoretical study of the concepts of “state responsibility” and “violation of the principle of non-refoulement through human rights violations.” A single in-depth qualitative secondary analysis of published studies to date reveals the violation of the principle non-refoulement under the offshore regime.
SpringerLink -
6
'A dark day in our history': Refugee advocates warn Labor laws put thousands at risk - ABC News
The government proposal is expected to pass through parliament this week with the support of the Coalition.
Abc Net
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.