Is this discrimination for men?

Question

Refugees

In Australian immigration policy a distinction is regularly made between women and children (often treated erroneously as equivalent to "family groups") and single men. The details are subject to current debate and recently failed legislation (August 2006) in the Australian Parliament. But for example in one recent case, the Minister for Immigration, Senator Amanda Vanstone, determined as follows concerning Papuan asylum seekers: "The single men on the boat would be sent to an immigration detention centre, but families would not be split up and would be housed in facilities in the community".[12] The discriminatory treatment of single women (routinely assumed to be members of some family) and single men evident in such a practice is rarely examined in the Australian media

ive read this in wikipedia, opinion?

Answer 1

it's not discrimination for men, it's discrimination against men.

Answer 2

Yep, just as discriminatory as it is to send single men over seas and not single women (the U.S. draft).

Answer 3

My personal opinion is that men, children, unattractive women should be deported immediately.

Australia should only allow attractive heterosexual women between the ages of 18-35 to enter the country ... not just on humanitarian grounds but also in immigration in general.

Answer 4

You will have noticed in that article that women too, would have been discriminated against. Generally, refugees are able to provide documentation detailing family members. If they don't have documentation, standard procedure calls for rigourous interviews where this information is obtained. (Particularly post Cornelia Rowe debacle.)

Since the sinking of SIEV X, and the "Pacific Solution" coined by the PM at the time, John Howard, this debate started as a result of a review of the appalling conditions of detention centres, reported to Immigration officials. The review found that children of asylum seekers were experiencing severe trauma whilst in detention. Essentially, they are locked in a prison for indefinite periods of time. This measure came into effect because the media took wind of the conditions, and PM Howard was facing an election during this period.

It wouldn't have looked terribly good for Howards upcoming election, after the Tampa crisis, the sinking of SIEV X, The Children Overboard scandal and rising interest rates. For a PM whose main platform during an election was "family," he had no choice than to have discussions tabled that families in detention should not be separated.

And why should they be separated?

I don't think you can really use THIS as an argument that men are being discriminated against.

It is about children. Not women. Not men. Children.

The article that you're citing off Wiki is in fact incorrect.

Additionally, you might also like to note that Amanda Vanstone hasn't been Minister from Immigration for 9 months, along with the Howard government who were tossed during the last election. PM Rudd is currently undergoing a review of  detention centres, both offshore, and in Australia, as well as Immigration law.

Answer 5

Well obviously if they discriminate against men in that way, that of course just means that women shouldn't be voting or taking high paying jobs, or have any political influence-- in exchange for their enjoying the right to being excused along with children.

Answer 6

If it happens to both single men and women, it's not s*x discrimination, it's marital status discrimination.

Answer 7

They should still ahv to go through immigration - I can understand not splitting them up, but to by pass it?