Australia does not rule out handing over human rights lawyer to Indonesia

[danieldemol]

‘Australia has refused to rule out handing over a well-respected human rights lawyer, who specialises in West Papuan matters, to Indonesian authorities.

Veronica Koman is being threatened with an Interpol red notice, which is due to be issued Wednesday, if she doesn’t turn herself in to an Indonesian embassy in Australia.

The human rights lawyer, in hiding in Australia, is being pursued by Indonesia for disseminating evidence of security forces carrying out violence in the troubled provinces of Papua and West Papua.’

Read more here:
Australia does not rule out handing over human rights lawyer to Indonesia

 

[Augustus]

Headline could also read "Australia refuses journalist's request to publicly prejudge a case":

When asked if the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would take action on such a request, a spokesperson said it could not comment on the matter:

"INTERPOL’s Constitution prohibits progressing matters of a Political, Religious, Military or Racial nature," the statement said.

"Each enquiry is considered and assessed on its merits and the information available."

 

[stvdv]

New Headline could also read "Australia refuses journalist's request to publicly prejudge a case":

Headline could also read "Australia contemplates to send some human food for Indonesian interogation snakes"

That happens sometimes when certain governments use certain methods which are violating "International Human Rights".

I did read the part that Indonesian Government uses snakes to get "confessions" out of people?

26-year-old West Papuan independence advocate, Sam Lokon, died on Monday in the Papuan capital, Jayapura.

It followed months of imprisonment in an Indonesian jail where it’s alleged he was beaten and tortured with a snake.

But I think/hope Australia gives International Human Rights a chance to fight this by giving their headline

 

[HonestJoe]

That happens sometimes when certain governments use certain methods which are violating "International Human Rights".

Two wrongs don't make a right and prejudice is still wrong even if it turns out to be in favour of what happens to be the correct judgement.

 

[stvdv]

Two wrongs don't make a right and prejudice is still wrong even if it turns out to be in favour of what happens to be the correct judgement.

I don't send a child to a child rapist when I know the child might be raped.

Sometimes seemingly "wrong" turns out to be "right". Surprise. Who is the "Right Judge" to determine what is really "wrong"?

 

[danieldemol]

Headline could also read "Australia refuses journalist's request to publicly prejudge a case":

When asked if the Australian Federal Police (AFP) would take action on such a request, a spokesperson said it could not comment on the matter:

"INTERPOL’s Constitution prohibits progressing matters of a Political, Religious, Military or Racial nature," the statement said.

"Each enquiry is considered and assessed on its merits and the information available."

I don’t think they need to prejudge the case.

They could say, “if found guilty by Interpol she will serve her term in Australia to ensure human rights are upheld to Australian standards” thereby refusing to hand her over for torture without making a prejudgment.

 

[HonestJoe]

Sometimes seemingly "wrong" turns out to be "right". Surprise. Who is the "Right Judge" to determine what is really "wrong"?

We’re talking about prejudice so nobody is determining the rights and wrongs, that’s the problem. A random official, who doesn’t necessarily have all the background understanding of the details of the case or the status of the country in question, is being door stopped and expected to give a definitive ruling off the top of their head. That official had no right and no ability to make such a decision even if they wanted to so it would be wrong regardless of what answer they ended up giving. As it happens, the statement actually went as far as to state that they wouldn’t act on an Interpol Red Notice if they felt it was politically motivated, which is as far as they could legitimately say at this point.

The correct legal process is for the independent judiciary to take account of all the relevant evidence and reach a rational conclusion based up on it and that applies to both the question of whether there is sufficient reason to extradite an individual and the question of whether a particular country is appropriate to extradite people to. Given that no formal request has even been submitted yet, let alone any associated evidence, nobody is in a position to make either of those judgements yet.

 

[stvdv]

Headline could also read "Australia contemplates to send some human food for Indonesian interogation snakes"

That happens sometimes when certain governments use certain methods which are violating "International Human Rights".

I did read the part that Indonesian Government uses snakes to get "confessions" out of people?

Two wrongs don't make a right and prejudice is still wrong even if it turns out to be in favour of what happens to be the correct judgement.

I don't send a child to a child rapist when I know the child might be raped.

Sometimes seemingly "wrong" turns out to be "right". Surprise. Who is the "Right Judge" to determine what is really "wrong"?

We’re talking about prejudice so nobody is determining the rights and wrongs, that’s the problem. A random official, who doesn’t necessarily have all the background understanding of the details of the case or the status of the country in question, is being door stopped and expected to give a definitive ruling off the top of their head. That official had no right and no ability to make such a decision even if they wanted to so it would be wrong regardless of what answer they ended up giving. As it happens, the statement actually went as far as to state that they wouldn’t act on an Interpol Red Notice if they felt it was politically motivated, which is as far as they could legitimately say at this point.

The correct legal process is for the independent judiciary to take account of all the relevant evidence and reach a rational conclusion based up on it and that applies to both the question of whether there is sufficient reason to extradite an individual and the question of whether a particular country is appropriate to extradite people to. Given that no formal request has even been submitted yet, let alone any associated evidence, nobody is in a position to make either of those judgements yet.

Lot of text

Still makes no sense as a reply to what I said

 

[HonestJoe]

Lot of text

Still makes no sense as a reply to what I said

Just because you don’t understand doesn’t necessarily mean it makes no sense.

I can try to put it in simpler terms; Nobody is saying it would be right for Australia to extradite this person to Indonesia. We are saying that it would be wrong for a random spokesperson for the Federal Police to make the decision on their own, especially before any formal request has even been made.

 

[Augustus]

I don’t think they need to prejudge the case.

They could say, “if found guilty by Interpol she will serve her term in Australia to ensure human rights are upheld to Australian standards” thereby refusing to hand her over for torture without making a prejudgment.

Interpol don't try people, they facilitate international police cooperation.

Indonesia and Australia have an extradition treaty so stating she won't be extradited is prejudging a potential extradition case.

Someone gave the standard procedural response to a journalist's question, spinning it as 'refuses to rule out', rather than 'follows accepted legal norms' is a bit clickbaity.