Tragic: Australia's High Court Just Ruled Offshore Detention Legal

The High Court today struck down a challenge on behalf of 267 asylum seekers who were brought to Australia for medical treatment, and were fighting their return to Nauru.

The group was challenging of the legality of being held in indefinite detention, a situation that is now so institutionalised in Australia that even reports of ongoing sexual assault of children can't move it. But more on that later.

This particular case hinged on whether or not the Australian Government had, as the plaintiff claimed, "funded, authorised, procured and effectively controlled" the detention of a Bangladeshi woman on the island nation of Nauru.

This morning the court reported back, deciding the government had acted within the law—a law that had been changed very quickly before the case was heard.

The judgment refers to section 198AHA, which is a part that was added to the migration act in June 2015. The addendum, which can be read here, was given retroactive powers and was designed to close the legal loopholes that had given a clear path to this exact High Court challenge.

It's like if a politician was charged with murder, and then after the charge had been filed he quickly changed the law so murder was legal and always had been legal, and then showed up in court and was all like "What law did I break? Murder is legal, look it up." That's a very glib analogy for what happened, but it still manages to be 100 percent exactly what happened.

This retroactive addendum was voted for in June 2015 by the Coalition, with support from crossbenchers Nick Xenophon, John Madigan, Bob Day, and of course, the Labor party. Labor, the party that is—in theory if not in practice—the opposition.

For the record, the bill was opposed by the Greens, Jacqui Lambie, David Leyonhjelm, Ricky Muir, Dio Wang, and Glenn Lazarus.

Based on the court's summary, it is clear that this section 198AHA was the key to this case being thrown out. And that is itself key to understanding where you should be directing your anger.

The High Court's job was not to rule on the morality of locking up adults, children, and infants. It was to rule on whether the action itself was lawful, and whether or not it conflicted with the Constitution. The morality of laws and how we enact them is the domain of our politicians. And just in case that thought hasn't depressed you enough: Peter Dutton.

Peter Dutton, immigration minister and man staring at you on the train, this week hinted that he may not actually send a five-year-old boy back to Nauru—the place where the boy was allegedly raped, and where his alleged rapist still resides. Referring to the testimony of paediatrician Dr Karen Zwi who described the boy's mental health problems and instances of self-harm (and in speaking out, herself risked jail), Dutton said this: "We take all of that into consideration." Dutton's reaction is very, very important.

The government has changed the rules that it plays by, and only the government can change them back. And given that the repeated reports of men, women, children, and infants being sexually assaulted by other refugees as well as by the guards entrusted with their well-being, given that these reports have not shaken the resolve of elected ministers such as Peter Dutton, or the rest of the cabinet, or even the opposition, means that we're really not talking about a downhill battle here.

Change will not happen without overwhelming and consistent pressure. So if you're sickened by all of this here's what you can do:

• Write to your local member. You might not think it makes a difference, but it does. Do not be abusive. Be polite, be clear and calm. Let them know what you feel, why you feel it, and what steps you believe they should take to amend the policy.

• Take part in a protest. Protests are already scheduled for Thursday February 4 in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Perth, and on Friday 5 February in Brisbane and Darwin. Show up, add your number to the crowd, make a catchy sign. Again, nothing offensive or derogatory. Writing something abusive might make you feel good for a few minutes, but it'll ultimately have the opposite effect to the one you're hoping for.

• Take to social media. Yes slacktivisim is a thing, and it's very easy to mock people who click share or retweet on an article and then go back to bingeing on House of Cards. But you know what? It's better than not sharing or retweeting. It's very easy to discover your friends and family have fallen out of step with current events, and maybe there's someone in your feed who hasn't seen the story about that five-year-old. Maybe seeing that story will change a mind.

Follow Lee on Twitter.