In Australia, animals enjoy better rights than asylum-seekers

A few years ago, an asylum seeker sent a letter to the defunct Woomera Detention Centre about his experience. Here is a short extract:

Why are all these women and kids in a cage when I’ve been here for 13 months? What have we done? Where can we go to seek justice? To whom should we tell our story?

Aren’t we human beings? In Australia, animals have more rights! They are worth more than us.

In Australia, animals have more rights than asylum seekers. Australian law, in fact, requires animals to be treated with humaneness but allows humans to be treated as animals.

Let’s begin with animal rights. Australia has had animal protection legislation since 1837. Every state and territory now has an animal protection law.

In 2005, the federal government took an active part in developing the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy was designed to ensure that “animals under human influence or care are healthy and well fed, and that there are efforts made to improve their living conditions and their well-being.”

The strategy is used to explain its reasoning. It describes, “a sentient being is an animal that can feel pain and pleasure.” Sensitivity implies conscious awareness. It concludes with:

Welfare is important because of sensibility.

Compare this to the rights of asylum seekers in Australia. Australia treats asylum seekers and animals equally, but not on a practical basis. The government’s sole concern is to deter boat people from coming to Australia. It does not care about the consequences of a policy that would discourage those who risked their lives in order to reach Australia.

Asylum seekers who flee to Australia today face the dangers of drowning, indefinite detention, and even death.

Law enshrines disparity

The disparity between the two is even more apparent on a legal scale. It is a crime in Victoria to torture or terrorize an animal or to overload, crowd, or confine animals in a way that will cause them unreasonable pain or suffering.

In New South Wales, it is a crime to transport an animal with the intention of causing pain. It is also a crime to not provide food, water, shelter, or even adequate exercise to an animal under your care.

The penalties range from fines up to $100,000 to a maximum five-year prison term. The conviction rate is relatively high.

Australia sends asylum seekers overseas despite evidence of their suffering, despite allegations of cruelty. AAP/Xavier La Canna

Asylum seekers are not entitled to such protection. Recent years have seen hostile treatment towards boat people.

Most people arrive at Christmas Island in a state of distress. Most people arrive at Christmas Island after spending five to six days on a small boat in the open sea. They haven’t had enough food or water to drink, and they may have worn clothes that are soiled by their urine and feces.

They are not allowed to wash or change after disembarking before the initial interview with Immigration Department Officers. This humiliation is not justified.

Upon arrival, they are immediately searched. All medications and medical documents are confiscated. Tablets are removed from their blister packs and placed in a trash bin. Medical prosthetic devices, such as artificial limbs and dentures or hearing aids and spectacles, are taken away without being returned.

The system causes sickness and suffering.

In 2013, a group of doctors who were employed by International Medical and Health Services to work within the system sent a letter to their employer to protest the conditions. The letter was reported:

Numerous unsafe practices and gross deviations from medical standards generally accepted have caused significant harm to patients.

A doctor who worked on Christmas Island described a woman displaying extreme mental disturbances that lasted for several days. The medical consultation was conducted via an interpreter “attending” from Sydney, which made it more difficult to determine the cause.

The doctor finally discovered the problem. The patient’s clothing had been confiscated upon arrival. She was given new clothes but no underwear. Incontinent, she couldn’t walk without urine running down her legs. She was driven mad by the humiliation.

Incontinence pads are normally not available. The doctor found it difficult to arrange them. The department does not provide enough buffers, even after it was agreed to make them public. She has to keep asking for more every day.