Human Rights and Refugee Protest against Immigration Detention: Refugees' Struggles for Recognition as Human (original) (raw)
When detainees go on hunger strike or riot or occupy the roofs of detention centres, their actions are usually narrated by governments keen to discredit them and their actions as criminal and manipulative and evidence of their barbarity and difference. A secondary, counter-narration is provided by detainee supporters who explain the actions as evidence of detainees' distress and deteriorating mental health. The voices of the actors themselves, people held in detention and taking protest action, are rarely heard in depth. Drawing on in-depth interviews with refugees formerly held in Australian immigration detention centres, and the works of Hannah Arendt, this article argues that the experience of immigration detention is fundamentally dehumanizing and that while detainee protest was aimed at attaining certain material outcomes, it also served important existential functions. The fact of protest was a rejection of a powerless state, a way for detained refugees to experience their own agency and, with it, restoration of some of the " essential characteristics of human life " and a means to use their reduction to " bare humanity " as a basis for insisting upon a place in the polis.
Related papers
Honours Thesis - 2014. For the first time in the post-World War 2 era, the number of refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced people worldwide has exceeded 50 million people. The Australian government’s harsh immigration laws which regulate asylum seeker boat arrivals result in their indefinite detention beyond the territorial and legal boundaries of the state. A situation arises in which fundamental human rights are suspended and human dignity is threatened. Drawing upon the political thought of Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault, this thesis examines different modes of power and the relationship between sovereignty, rights, and outsiders. These developments are applied to the present situation of the Australian asylum detention regime. It will be shown how and why human rights are afforded only when aligned with the national interests of a sovereign state. Detainees in Australian immigration respond to the plight of being cast beyond the pale of the law in resisting state power through violent acts of self-harm. The emancipatory possibilities from power through embodied resistance are analysed through the underexplored first person, experiential perspective. Self-harm-as-resistance for politically and legally excluded detainees is revealed to be severely circumscribed by the lack of a truly public realm. Consequently, their reinstatement as rights-bearing individuals is left hanging in the balance.
The Routledge History of Human Rights, 2019
This essay draws on personal stories, examples from the authors’ Canadian legal practice, national and international policy and legal case studies, and political sociology to argue that immigration detention inevitably and unjustifiably produces grave human rights infringements. Detention lacks an official definition, and is here understood as a country’s incarceration of asylum seekers and other migrants in the effort to resolve discrepancies in their immigration statuses. The essay focuses on detention’s unlawful and harmful uses and abuses, including the American “zero tolerance” policy and its instrumentalization as a “deterrence” mechanism. By situating the reader in the real-world ramifications of detention policies in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and select European jurisdictions, the essay illustrates how irregular immigration status can erode even non-derogable or supposedly fundamental human rights, including the rights to liberty and to the security of the person.
This research project examines the conditions in Australian immigration detention centres and the processing of asylum claims. Previous research has highlighted that Australian’s immigration policies and practices pertaining to asylum seekers are in breach of numerous international human rights conventions, and that mandatory immigration detention has extremely detrimental effects on mental health and well-being. However, there has not yet been an analysis of whether the Government is upholding it’s own objectives for the management of immigration detention centres and the processing of asylum claims. This qualitative research project is positioned in this gap in the existing literature by focusing on the Government’s internal accountability for these issues. This was achieved by a comparative analysis of objectives identified from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s 2013-14 annual report, with the experiences of asylum seekers derived from a set of the Ombudsman’s immigration detention review reports. The findings focused on length in detention, immigration case progression, access to services, mental health and well-being and timely resettlement or removal. The outcomes of which determined that the Department has not achieved their objectives. This research has made an important contribution to the relevant research landscape by addressing this gap in the existing literature. However, the nature of this desktop Honours thesis created certain limitations that could be overcome by a larger scale project with the scope gather first hand data to further address the Australian Government’s accountability for their treatment of asylum seekers.
Disrupting State Spaces: Asylum Seekers in Australia’s Offshore Detention Centres
Social Sciences
The Australian government has spent over a billion dollars a year on managing offshore detention (Budget 2018–2019). Central to this offshore management was the transference and mandatory detention of asylum seekers in facilities that sit outside Australia’s national sovereignty, in particular on Manus Island (Papua New Guinea) and Nauru. As a state-sanctioned spatial aberration meant to deter asylum seekers arriving by boat, offshore detention has resulted in a raft of legal and policy actions that are reshaping the modern state-centric understanding of the national space. It has raised questions of sovereignty, of moral, ethical and legal obligations, of national security and humanitarian responsibilities, and of nationalism and belonging. Using a sample of Twitter users on Manus during the closure of the Manus Island detention centre in October–November 2017, this paper examines how asylum seekers and refugees have negotiated and defined the offshore detention space and how throu...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.