Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as
he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers:

 (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being
lost;

 (b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in
distress, if informed of their  need of assistance, in so far as such action
may reasonably be expected of him;

The convention includes no reference regarding what should happen to rescued
survivors. For that you must consult the relevant case law. This reveals
that the ship's master should make his decision based on ensuring the safety
of his ship, passengers and crew, with consideration to practicality, the
owners wishes, advice of maritime authorities, etc. The wishes of the
survivors are some consideration, but far less weight than any other factor.

In the particular case of MV Tampa, I understand that it rescued the
survivors/refugees within a few hours sailing distance of the Indonesian
port of Merak and the ship's master sailed towards this port. Then, under
threats from some of the survivors he reverse track and sail for 40 hours
to Christmas island and sought to disembark the survivors there.

Now, the MV Tampa's master could face an inquiry from the ship's owners and
Norwegian authorities as to why he choose to travel to Christmas island wish
so many survivo when his ship had inadequate life boats and other safely
assets for such numbers, instead of the short distance to Merak. I imagine
that he argues that he was faced with a large number of agitated survivors
and  situation that his crew were not equipped to handle. Therefore, he
judged that with a fair weather, the least risky option was to placate the
survivors and travel to Christmas Island. Now, he would argue the transverse
his route back to Merak would be unsafe, despite that this sitaution was
compounded by his original decision.

It is likely that a maritime board of inquiry would conclude that the ship's
master was the one to make the decision at the time, at worse reprimand him
for reprimand him for taking the longer route. It is unlikely that any
charges of criminal negligence would be preferred or that any maritime court
would find sufficient evidence to maintain such a charge.

To conclude, it was this shaky legal situation on which the Australian
government embarked on this bizarre exercise that it has no way out. As for
charging the ship's master with unauthorised  entry of our territorial
waters or aiding the illegal entry of refugees, this may be sustained in an
Australian court, but at worst the shipping company and master would be
fined. It also entail arresting the ship's master , which would make a bad
situation worse. Regardless, the refugees would be landed and the government
would be stuck with processing them.

The Australian government might take civil action against the shipping
company for damages. Presumably the would seek damages against the
Australian government to. A case would take years and eventually be settled.
The refugees would still be landed. So what is the point!

This is not to say that there is not a solution to the matter, but will be a
political, not a legal solution.

[...snipped for brevity...]

[...snipped for brevity...]

If so why do so many want to come?

Why don't they just stay in the countries where they will not be abused? LOL

___________________________________

"Reasons last step is the recognition that there is an infinite number of
things that go beyond it"---Blaise Pascal.

http://www.ankerberg.com/The-Gospel-of-Jesus-Christ.html

That bit you quoted is JUST talking about the obligation to assist,
NOT what happens after the assistance has been provided.

In fact you have now said the exact opposite.

AND the shipping company's fanciful bullshit about the vessel not
being licensed to carry that many passengers is just that when they
could have gone to Merik, a MUCH shorter distance from the rescue.

The reality is that that fool decided that he could rock up at Xmas Island
and monster the Australian authoritys into taking those illegal immigrants.
He discovered that it aint quite that simple and that he'd get the same
response as he would have got if he had carried them on to Singapore,
which was the port he was headed for before the rescue.

So he and the shipping line gets to wear the consequences of that stupidity.

And your original claim that 'under law he has complete
discretion where he goes' is just plain wrong.

So the ship's owners get to wear the consequences of the choice
they made, to allow the captain to proceed to Xmas Island.

He discovered that he was wrong. His problem.

He had nothing of the sort.

He did indeed have a legal obligation to assist those individuals
when their ship was sinking, but the law says nothing like what
you claim on 'complete discretion where he goes'.

In fact any country is welcome to refuse entry to a ship that
goes out of its way to deliver those rescued to somewhere
other than the closest suitable port or its normal destination.

In spades with what was clearly an attempt at illegal entry to Australia.

Its done that very effectively indeed.

"Jodie And Geoff" <jodiemurp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b9032b7@news.iprimus.com.au...

<Quote>
From: Mike Godwin <mnemo...@eff.org>
Subject: Godwin's Law

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 13:39:39 -0500 (EST)

Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
</Quote>

The information on Gibraltar is totally wrong in places on that
website.  

For current official unemployment figures see

http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi

They are pretty low, and in any community there are some for whom
work is not an option.  

Ah such a scholarly rebuttal

Pity that UNHCR disagrees

see http://www.unhcr.ch/statist/2000provisional/main.htm

Table 2 - Figures at end of Year 2000

Country     Number of refugees     Population
Aus            82,458                             19.5 Million
Nor            52,102                               4.5 milion

But it seems either you misquoted your own figures or your "5 times" claim was
indeed an exaggeration, Keith.

Incidentally, I had an interesting read of some of those stats. From the way
the UNHCR presents them, it is difficult to distinguish between countries that
have lots of refugees because they generate them, and those who have lots
because they receive them, but it seems Australia is ranked 9th in the world
for receiving refugees (per capita). The most extraordinary one is Sweden,
where about one person in 55 is a refugee.

The list goes something like:
Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Norway,
Austria, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Finland,
UK, France, US, Belgium, Luxembourg,