Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
The basic right to fight and kick and scream to find refuge
|
With the 260 Tamil refugees refusing to leave their boat in Western Java and threatening to set fire to it, the asylum-seeker issue is the only game in town. Every day that Kevin Rudd delays taking a clear stand on the issue — one that talks back to the fear-mongering in the spirit of a common humanity, while affirming a country’s right to manage the process — is a day that gives the Liberals a reprieve, with or without Malcolm Turnbull. For the moment Rudd is sticking to the carefully-crafted line of the 07 election — compassion for refugees, contempt for ‘people smugglers’ as human scum. True in many cases, not in all — some of the “people smugglers” are the same sort of people who got Jews out of Europe in the 40s. Switzerland was the obvious destination, and turned a blind, or at least cloudy, eye to border-crossings — until 1944, when it announced that “our little lifeboat is full.” But whatever the truth of it, Rudd’s line is now too cute by half — it worked only when the boat-borne arrivals were diminished, and people were so desperate to get rid of Howard that they were happy not to think about the issue. Could Rudd and his leadership circle steer hard-right and risk the wrath not only of party rank-and-file, but the increasing unease of people such as John Faulkner and Peter Garrett? Undoubtedly he could try. The message would be old nationalist populism — possibly with a healthy dose of this new patriotism we hear so much about. “Enough is enough” we may be told. The government has been generous but now stern measures must be taken, and those who oppose them are an elite who prefer abstract rights and cant about humanity to Aussies’ real best interests. But once started on, there’s no way to stop that process. Kevin Andrews, the bourgeois Borgia, is already talking about an “illegal entrant visa” a sort of new-fangled “temporary protection visa” with the added advantage of defining the holder as a criminal by the very act of having the visa. You have to be a traditional Catholic, with a thorough-going knowledge of Dante’s Inferno, to calibrate a petty Kafkaesque torment like that. And you have to be a most un-Christlike Christian — or a “cultural Catholic” as I believe they’re called these days — to believe that one can disregard the “when I was homeless you took me in” provision, whenever the visitors have brown skin. As noted yesterday, you can’t out-scum the Liberal Party of Australia in a bastard contest. The issue is proving to be yet another occasion on which Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership is being undermined — simply because his party are falling over themselves to get to a microphone and dehumanise refugees. For the Liberals however, the issue may not prove unambiguously useful in the quest for a message, at the current moment. Why? Because what’s coming up are by-elections in two of the most socially liberal blue-ribbon seats in the country, Higgins and Bradfield. Bradfield is of course safe, and to be uncontested by Labor — which is the ideal occasion for a high-profile person of high public reputation to stand as a “liberal independent”, on a platform of sending a message to the party that “this sh-t has to stop”. In a more blue-ribbon mode of expression. With the luxury of a Liberal hold, a whole range of people unwilling to vote for the Greens would then be liberated to cast a protest vote against their party. In Higgins, the situation is even more tasty delicious. Higgins was one of the few seats to swing to Labor in 2004, a product of Mark Latham courting the “doctors’ wives” votes, and losing everyone else’s. The fact that it’s in range with a 7% swing required is a product of that shift. With the loss of a sitting member, the general swing against the Libs in the opinion polls, and a channeling of disgust with what the party of one or two former Higgins representatives has become. Whether the campaign preferenced Labor, or offered a split preference would depend on how Labor behaves over the next few weeks. Who could we get to do such a Barns-storming? I wonder. Quite aside from being a pulpit from which to bully Labor, such a campaign would punish the Liberals for any trip back to the dark side. The issue is the fault-line on which the contemporary Liberal party is going to creak in strain — a split between city members faced with demographic and cultural change that has filled their seats with prosperous but socially liberal people, and country seats they have taken over from the National (ne Country) Party, where feeling is often running in the other direction. Beyond any fun and games in marginal seats, it will be interesting to see what response this recurrence of the issue will prompt in various places — from church groups who should be out loud and early on the matter. From Jewish community peak bodies, to remind us what happened to the last group of people turned back in boats. From Labor for Refugees, which should be raising hell in the branches and embarrassing the hell out of the government. And especially from the second and third-generation Australians who are here because their parents and grandparents were “queue-jumpers” — those who bribed their way out of DP camp in 1946, pushed their way onto a crowded boat, pulled strings to get a visa and exit out of the Eastern Bloc. Who, gasp, even paid people smugglers to get here. The basic right to fight and kick and scream to find refuge has to be affirmed. The right to seek asylum under such conditions has to be affirmed not as an aberrant example of the process, but as its essential and normal condition of being exercised. There are no queues for them. There are no excuses for us. |
|
|
17 Comments
Right on comrade!!!
Another good piece today Guy
This week has seen the return (by both parties) of the uglies and their ‘illegal immigrants’ cry. Thanks for a great article reminding us all we should be out fighting them again.
It seems that our politicians prefer to lead from behind. - leadership appears to be a quaint notion to them, conscience too. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is all the go, you have to be pragmatic - votes are at stake here.
It’s a miracle! Australia made me cry tears of vomit again!
You must keep writing like this Guy not just for Crikey but more widely. As you say so many of Australia’s valued citizens might not be alive today if their parents had not fought tooth and nail and done all manner of desperate things to survive and to save themselves and their children. In desperate situations like that legality and queues have no meaning at all and as you say that will to survive and fight for life must be affirmed and understood and valued. It is a sign of great courage and will to live against all the odds and should be valued and applauded not denigrated or treated with suspicion. Listening to some members of the Liberal party makes me cringe because they reveal in what they say and how they say it that they have no capacity as human beings to understand the plight of all those who do desperate things to reach our shores seeking refuge . I expect Australia to welcome and respect those who risk their lives in this way. The least that we can do is to give refuge first then assess and clarify their status later.
As for Mr Rudd, given his strength in the polls he has no excuse except to lead with humanity and conscience and not to sink to the lows of the Liberal party. People smugglers can only thrive because there is need for them.
Pheww - here we go. Guy, the commentators above clearly love your work. I like your style, but not your distortions and certainly not your politics.
First, there is simply no comparison between the people smugglers of WW2 like Boenhoffer (whose name I hope I’ve spelled correctly and to whom you’ve previously referred) and the bastards who currently lie to the desperate and then cram them onto dangerous boats for a rough passage to an uncertain future in exchange for extortionate amounts of money. It’s a competely false analogy used to gain traction for your argument and it does you no credit.
Second (and I’m not a Christian, and I think it both false and exclusive to regard Australia as a Christian country) but you seem to see the onus of reception as particularly confined to the so-called “Christian” countries and call upon “Christian” values in your demand that they offer succour and welcome. Now the most affluent country on the planet is Saudi Arabia, a strictly, even punitively, Muslim nation. Why do the Saudis, in your eyes, have no onus of reception for their brother Muslims from Pakistan? Why do you not expect that the Hindu Tamils find refuge in India? Welcome is not an onus that lies solely with the “Christian” west, especially when the majority of the refugees are from backgrounds other than Christian.
I was going to offer a third point, but think I’ve probably thrown enough grenades with just two. I’ll save it, and watch for your reply.
In closing I would say that if a person is sufficiently desperate to get into a leaky boat to get to Australia and is prepared to have a decent go when they get here, then welcome to my country. But we’re not the only rich, selfish nation on the planet just because we are nominally part of “the west.” Look beyond your loathing.
Best,
GS
It is not only a ‘two-by-election timing for the anti-refugee hysteria. It is a double dissolution possibility. As I mentioned in my another comment, Australia accepts ten times more other migrants every year from many parts of the globe.
Apart from Switzerland, Austria has a 200 year tradition of handling refugees. An inland, small country in the middle of Europe, now a member of Union (no passports or visa needed), has not somehow developed a ‘border protection’ fantasy.
Gary Stowe,
No analogy between people smugglers of WWII and the current ones?. Well, WWII smugglers were usually private citizens risking their lives. Many of them earned quite a good money, though. But when you read some war literature you may find some similarities. Many Jewish people lost their jewelry and heaps of money to people’s smugglers and ‘other bastards’. Many were successfully smuggled to Palestine and other countries. Many failed to survive.
Further reading would help you to understand that Saudi Arabia is not the most affluent country on the planet and is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention.
Australia is a Christian country, as our Queen is the Head of Church and apparently, no Catholic can be a Queen or a king of Australia.
Great article Guy, and spot on. I remember cheering on the last “Boat People” in the 1970’s, escaping Vietnam, and I am cheering on the latest ones just as hard. If they can make it here from a war zone or from under a heavily oppressed regime, check they are not known criminals (real, dangerous ones) and give them a visa for as long as they might need it.
Treat these people as humans. Treat them as you would expect to be treated. Fairly and with compassion.
Hello Rena.
I’m prepared to accept your assertion of people smugglers doing it for the money in WW2, though I’ve not read of them. It doesn’t make the practice admirable, courageous or acceptable, as Guy seemed to be suggesting.
Sorry, but your assertion that Saudi Arabia is not the most affluent country on the planet is based on what? If you look at averaged per capita income, or levels of obesity for example, it’s way out there. The fact that it’s oppressive, religous patriarchy distorts those two basic measurements in favour of a privileged, relative minority does not alter the maths that are applied to any other nation.
Best,
GS
Isn’t a character played by Humphrey Bogart in a cinema classic ‘Casablanca’ a people smuggler?
Hey Science, saw you on tv tonight. This is your Bonhoeffer (you f*cking worm).
Gary,
Some people seem to know about the WWII and the Holocaust only from Hollywood films.
The ‘practice’ of smuggling people goes back to biblical times. So does the exodus.
And I do agree with Guy and Hiroya Sugita that the definition of a ‘people’s smuggler’ is pretty vague. Any migration lawyer/agent may be accused of helping people to make into Australia. Mr. Ruddock would be the first one to explain why he granted 200 refugee visas to active soldiers. Mr. Hawke allowed to stay permanently in Australia all Chinese students in Australia although NONE of them had anything to do with the Tiennamen Square.
And, no I have not investigated obesity level in Saudi Arabia. And you must be the only person who tries to explain that an oppressive, religious patriarchy can secure a very high ‘averaged per capita income’ and …obesity.
Cheers
Dear Guy
Has there been any studies on the results of Mr Frasers open shores policy of the Vietnam era? I would think they would have been positive but have not seen any articles or reflections?
If the pollies are against immigration because we cannot handle it then why are they paying baby bonuses for us to boost the population?
Kevin57
thank you Bullmores,I think)
Talking liberal, acting very Liberal
What has he actually done since 07. Not just said or proposed but actually done.
Not supposed to be an unhappy face but a colon : Followed by an open brackets(
Heathdon, the raised immigration quotas during the Rudd term show that immigration is in favour as an economic stimulus. That means we like people who bring over lots of money (like those coast resort towns that survive solely on retiree influx), and we also like education and skills paid for by foreign taxpayers because in spite of our wealth we’re no longer up to the task of educating our own.
Unfortunately, few boat people have a shoe full of diamonds, and although many of them are skilled, the government likes to have control over specific skill selection rather than taking them as they come.
Apparently, being enterprising enough to undertake a tough and dangerous sea voyage rather than wait in refugee camps in the hope someone might do something doesn’t count as an asset.
Daer James
I believe we are no longer up to educating our own as we have made gettibg a tertiary education depend upon how much money you can get as opposed to your intelligence.
“Apparently, being enterprising enough to undertake a tough and dangerous sea voyage rather than wait in refugee camps in the hope someone might do something doesn’t count as an asset.”
When competing with people experienced and qualified then it isn’t an asset that should get you employed.
I think the only time I agreed with John Singleton was when he said “if somebody wants to risk their life to get here. I will employ them.”
I cannot understand how a country that is trying to improve our population through baby bonuses and the like can get into such a fit over how many thousand refugees?
I do not believe that skill attainment should come into it when considering refugees I wouldn’t leave it up to government officials to decide the value of a person.