Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Asylum at last from the sado-conservatives
|
You can be pretty sure that Labor has some good secret polling telling them that the phrase “locking up children” is now a negative, rather than a selling point, in Australian politics. In the House, and on Lateline over the past two days, foreign minister Stephen Smith hammered the Opposition with the accusation that they had “put children behind barbed wire”. Whether he would want to say that or not anyway is beside the point. He wouldn’t be saying it unless he was reasonably sure that there had been a shift in Australian public views. This seems to me an undoubtable sign that Labor has decided that an ultra-tough position on refugees is not an option. Hitherto, they’ve been playing a one-two strategy, with a bias on the one — the PM talking tough on people smugglers, while Immigration Minister Chris Evans gives the humanitarian line. The fact that the foreign minister is now taking over the good cop role is a sign that they are giving it something approaching an equal weighting. True, it’s a measure of how debased Australian politics became in the Tampa years that we can now be surprised that a government would confront its opponents with the fact that they imprisoned children, and score points from it. But as your correspondent noted here in 2008, and 2007, and 2006 and … people underestimate the politics of shame, because the emotion does not register in opinion polls. Cultures based on universalistic notions of care — whether religious or secular — cannot indefinitely sustain an attitude towards strangers and their children that manages to combine an indifference to their humanity, with a sadistic delight in their suffering. That was the Howard government’s unique achievement. That is what places it outside of the run of all previous Australian governments. That is what it will be remembered for in a half-century’s time. That is all it will be remembered for. Oh, and Iraq. The quinella. Does that mean that large sections of the public are willing to abandon their absurd notions of “queue jumpers” and “the fair go”, the ridiculous dance of not letting boats make mainland landfall? Of course not. But it does appear that the sado-conservative approach of the past is being put “beyond use” by Labor, and that the Liberals are in a bind when they spruik it. There was no inevitability about that. But Kevin Rudd decided to revive Labor politically by appeal to universal ethical notions, and that set him on a course which makes other, more particular notions out of consideration. Your correspondent, last week, and in 2008, 2007, 2006 and … noted that Rudd’s citing of the theologian/martyr/people-smuggler/assassin Dietrich Bonhoeffer set up certain ethical demands that would be difficult for a prime minister to live up to. The contrast between Bonhoeffer’s imperatives and the hard-line Kevin Rudd essayed last week has now come into full force. Chris Uhlmann raised it on Insiders last Sunday. Mick Epis notes it in Fairfax today. Tony Abbott raises it, though not for particularly honest purposes. Rudd’s use of the ethical, his construction of a “brutopia” was, among other things, a way of offering a section of the voting public a path out of the shame that lingered from the Tampa years — a shame that may coexist with fairly strict notions of border control. In that respect, I’m not sure m’esteemed colleague Jeff Sparrow is thinking with his front head on this issue. Yesterday he suggested that Rudd might provoke pro-refugee sentiment to create a revolt from the left, in order to quell it with yet more harsh measures from the centre. I think Stephen Smith’s recent shtick has decisively disproven this — an ethical discourse is coming directly from the inner cabinet. Any turnabout now would feed notions that the government is conflicted. There’s no way they would be doing what they’re doing now, if that was the strategy. I think the false division here is one between “idealism” and politics. That border is a hell of a lot more porous than ours. Western voters — having passed through decades of debate about the planet, the environment, the world, a collective fate etc — than ever before. They’re not necessarily more self-sacrificing. But every decade — and it is a decade since the Tampa — they are more collectively and globally oriented. A universalism is the default setting. It’s one of the reasons why arid old hacks like Paul Kelly are playing a pathetic game of catch-up, trying to guess which way the debate jumps — telling the Left they have “learnt nothing”, two days before the foreign minister gets up and says the sort of things that anti-mandatory detention demonstrations were saying in 2001. Could there be a backlash? Of course. Another coupla ships, a crisis like the Tampa’s entry into port, could inflame the wound afresh. But Labor has made the decision that it could never reap the whirlwind, even if it wanted to. Nevertheless m’esteemed colleague Sparrow raises many interesting points (which is more than can be said for Tim Soutphommasane, “a good man fallen among Fabians”, whose piece in the Australian is a perfect expression of the vacuousness of the new “progressive patriotism” — precisely nothing said in 800 words, no decisive argument between the competing claims of nationalism and universalism, which is a pretty goddam important thing for a progressive patriot to do, you would think. Herder is quoted. Spring comes. People marry and die. Pinkerton does not return.). The problem for Labor beyond this one-two strategy is the asymmetrical claims of rights, that Sparrow J lays bare. Counterposing the rights of individuals (which we have guaranteed with the treaties we’ve signed) to the “rights” of the state, cannot disguise the fact that the latter has imperatives not rights, and suggesting that it does is a way of neutralising the right to seek asylum. But that is where the debate lies at the moment — a position far in advance of the one we were in in 2001, which is where many of the pundits are still at. |
|
|
16 Comments
Hey Guy, what if Rudd is not playing for our benefit at all, but playing to an international audience. Not to the countries taking more refugees than us — there are only a few of those — but to the countries generating the refugees. They tend to take it as a slap in the face when rich countries declare their runaways to be persecuted in the process of taking them in.
Abso-bloody-lutely Guy, lest we forget.
What will we do with the refugee’s from beachfront properties and canal estates, if even the most modest effects of climate change are felt?
What shape will that bail out take, and will it involve offshore processing?
Oz has some pretty bad karma, so who knows.
Dear James McDonald I’m not sure if you meant to, but you make these desperate and terrified individuals and families, sound like errant school kids by calling them runaways. There but for the grace of god go I.
Stephen: yes, what I meant was, that’s how a lot of their original governments like to depict them. Errant children telling nasty stories about daddy.
Guy,
Sorry, although a reflex anti conservative and oft derided “lefty”, I cannot agree with your defense for “asylum seekers” and derision for those who do not support them.
The basic premise that those persons who can afford boat passages can freely take residence in Australia is ridiculous. If such access was allowed our immigration policy would become chaotic. There would also be very significant social and economic ramifications
The constant refrain that these people are usually determined to be genuine refugees is also ridiculous, as virtually no factual investigations of individual claims are undertaken in countries of origin. As the government is therefore completely incapable of disproving claims of persecution etc refugee status cannot be denied. I have confirmed this situation with a senior officer of DIMA.
In terms of compassion etc, my consience is clear, and I’m confident the three poor Asian families that I have already sponsored into Australia would attest to that.
However, in relation to “boat people”, to me they are just que jumpers and prospective illegal immigrants.
Would you agree that most Australian agree with that opinion?
Sincerely
If any of the Australian governments treated the issue of refugees in humanitarian terms seriously they would address:
-the actions of the very governments which do produce refugees, Australian included. We help to bomb some countries to death and then we punish the very victims of the bombings, usually civilians.
-the actions of the very governments which produce people smugglers. We, in the global village or a dodgy city, do believe in a supply-demand type of economy and we usually do not take high moral ground on the issues of drug or weapons smuggling. We would eagerly support demonstrations against unfairly elections in - Iran; the similiar demonstrations in Afghanistan or Sri Lanka are unheard of.
- European countries are planning to discuss human rights issues with the Sinhalese government. Our enlightened Opposition is blaming the Government for tolerating peoples’ smugglers.
- The infamous Pacific solution did not help our international image. But we expect other countries to have ‘international image’ proper. The Indonesian band aid ‘solution’ is just as stupid. Indonesian troops are not in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Perhaps we should try to stop weapon smuggling to Sri Lanka?
- Focussing solely on people’s smuggling (not smugglers) clearly shows that Rudd government is not serious about the issue at all.
Refugees are again a political ping-pong and subject to both international and domestic factions’ election strategies.
Agree with your analysis and the general view a new government is another country.
It was last Wednesday or so, about a week gone now, when I spat the dummy on a crikey string about this topic along the lines of “Hey Science saw you on the tv last night. This is your Bonhoeffer (you f****** worm).”
I think in good taste it was removed as I tried to find it again without luck to see how the comments skewed after that. Fair enough. It was immoderate.
But it was quite calculated wrath. I knew the humanising of Brinda editorial choice by the Big Media was a pivot for them, for the country, and for Rudd’s reputation, and thought what the hell, Science deserves it right between the chops - metaphorically speaking.
And I still hold to the medium to long term real politik: If you exercise authority to defend the weak, no matter how unpopular, the relative strong in the audience take note psychologically that if ever they are unlucky enough to become that weak party, they will have a friend to defend them. In that sense social harmony is reinforced. But it takes courage to exercise that existing authority too and maybe we are seeing some of that steel in elements of the ALP. Like Gillard start of question time yesterday. Certainly a profound vaulting beyond the Oakes interview 2 days before. (And she had the character to look ashamed live on tv there too which this viewer took heart from.)
Harold Redmond
Have you ever heard about the Migration Act?
Using of the worn out cliches like ‘queue jumpers’, ‘illegal migrants’ and ‘well-to-do better life-seekers’, ad nauseam , gives the impression that you do not know much about visa processing system in Australia.
Boat people cannot possibly become ‘illegal migrants’ a very contradictory term, by the way, because they are under strict control and usually locked up until their visa processing has been finalised. If not successful, they get deported.
At any time in Australia, we have a huge army of visa overstayers or people who arrived on false documentation; many of them remain permanently albeit illegally in Australia for years. And they are not ‘boat people’. Thus, the argument of ‘border protection’ in relation to refugees does not stand. As far as many ‘non-refugee’ arrivals are concerned our borders are really porous.
You may seek some advice from a senior officer of DIAC (DIMA does not exist).
The Oakes gobsmacking moment for Deputy PM Gillard last Sunday 18th October 2009 can be viewed here, helpfully (!) provided by something called Australian Conservative, not on Today 9 website as best I can see:
http://australianconservative.com/main-site/2009/10/gotcha-deputy-pm/
The point within that video extract where Gillard gapes, gobsmacked, and perhaps reveals an inner sense of conscience, is at 1 min 42 seconds.
Arguably far more encouraging that she indicates shame?
Indeed in yesterday’s question time a male voice was heard at Turnbull ‘you are better than that Malcolm’. There sure does seem to be a struggle for the soul of federal parliament at play at the moment. Whereas under Howard as drawn by Moir it was all one eyed.
The moment is actually at 1 min 36 seconds at the reference awaiting moderation.
Nice piece Guy - especially the first paragraphs
Good analysis drains anger and promotes objective action.
Dear Harold Redmond
We’ve been through all this at great length, all the myths you repeat such as “queue jumpers”, “illegal immigrants”, and “not genuine refugees”, have been so busted, so many times, and even in the tabloids, that if you don’t already get it you are one of those people who are beyond reasoning with. I don’t know about “most Australians”, but yes there are a significant number of wilfully ignorant intransigents in the community who, for some reason that still escapes me, think that a few thousand extra refugees are some sort of crisis. Busting your myths again and again appears to be a waste of time.
Just one thing though. You say, “The basic premise that those persons who can afford boat passages can freely take residence in Australia is ridiculous. If such access was allowed our immigration policy would become chaotic.”
Mate you forgot to ask your DIMA contact whether it was already chaotic. My DIMA contact (who is not a senior officer like yours, but is a junior officer who actually knows what’s going on) tells me the systems are such an utter shambles that they are “just waiting for the next Cornelia Rau”.
The number of vanished tourists and fraudulent student visa holders utterly dwarfs the small problem of boat people. In fact if the boat people weren’t so politically controversial, they would not have a big impact on DIMAs resources. DIMA would just do what it does … about as well as it does anything: sort them, question them, separate the sheep from the small number of wolves and opportunists, and deport those who don’t pass muster.
Introduce mandatory detention, and it starts to be a real headache. Introduce the Pacific Solution and now the Indonesia Solution, and you’re talking diplomatic chaos, legal chaos, gargantuan expense (but on the Foreign Affairs budget, not Immigration any more). DIMA then has to do its investigations remotely. And in the end over 90 per cent of the boat people satisfy the standards set by the UN convention we are party to, so we end up letting them stay anyway.
‘Cultures based on universalistic notions of care — whether religious or secular — cannot indefinitely sustain an attitude towards strangers and their children that manages to combine an indifference to their humanity, with a sadistic delight in their suffering.
‘That was the Howard government’s unique achievement. That is what places it outside of the run of all previous Australian governments. That is what it will be remembered for in a half-century’s time. That is all it will be remembered for.
‘Oh, and Iraq. The quinella. ‘
Right on Guy. Oh and we’ve bought your book.
Hi Guy, when Paul Kelly talked about competing “rights”, I think he was sorta, kinda, alluding to the Hobbsian tension between the rights of any one person and the rights of those who, left to their own device, would trample that person as well as each other. This lends itself to the view that there are only so many rights to go round and they have to be shared between all the … right-holders I suppose, who are admitted into this pool of limited rights. So for example if you let all the riff-raff join the Melbourne Racing Club, the old-time members might have to give up their rights to have their coats taken at the door and to pay their tab later.
None of which in fact has any relevance whatsoever to the current debate — which is as you said “a position far in advance of the one we were in in 2001, which is where many of the pundits are still at.”
The argument depends either on the boat people being a swarm of large numbers that will congest our space and force us to adjust our lifestyle, or dangerous people representing a threat to our safety. As I mention above, the numbers are piddling compared to all the other immigration numbers we’re dealing with, both legal and illegal.
And neither side in parliament is accusing the boat people of being terrorists this time. (Not counting the former Minister for Stray Human Disposal, who causes even his own people to cross themselves and suddenly remember they have an engagement). For those who missed it, we did that one to death in 2001.
There’s one more “right”: “We will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come.” (Did I get that right? It’s a national motto, I know it by heart even without wanting to.) As you say, states have imperatives (collective requirements to survive and prosper) and obligations (to protect the rights of its citizens, visitors, and in the UN age, other populations that it undertakes to assist); not rights.
But there’s a psychological wish for the gatekeepers to retain a sense of control. It just … feels good. Ask the marketing folks at Apple — you give the customers a choice of colour, and they’ll feel much more comfortable parting with their money. Australians might have no clue how to choose new club members — they might never have contemplated the difference between refugees who spend years starving in a refugee camp waiting for someone to do something, refugees who bribe camp officials to arrange a UNHCR visit, and refugees who take a chance on the dangerous midnight express — but they like to be able to exercise that choice anyway. It’s the sense of control they crave, in what’s seen as an out-of-control world.
All this assumes that you’re right and some sort of philosophical debate is going on within the Labor government. I haven’t yet disposed of my other theory above (I mean, I’d hoped to test it on better minds than mine, but I’m getting the sort of silence reserved for madmen) that Rudd never had any illusions about winning Australian redneck votes by hardening against refugees, but having shored up his domestic support is willing to lose a sliver of approval in the process of buttering up some UN members who have turned their citizens into refugees. It won’t impress the western countries very much, but that’s what the pre-Copenhagen CPRS is for.
Wednesday night’s Hungry Beast (with The 7PM Project, well on the way to becoming Gen Nought’s primary news source, as Jon Stewart’s Daily Show) explained the asylum/refugee/queue/immigrant schemmozzle accurately, succinctly, clearly and without mealy mouthed equivocation, notwithstandings, as-I’m-advised pollspeek.
I have had just about enough of Guy Rundle’s line on asylum seekers who buy rides in boats to Australia.
I personally would take the whole load of those bright articulate “Alex” types from Sri Lanka — - English speaking, cricket playing — and there might be a decent spinner amongst them. I am sure they would put our indolent lower orders to shame in the hard work stakes in a short time if they didn’t find our welfare system more attractive. And I am impressed that any Tamil Sri Lankan can raise $10,000 for a smuggler boat ride to Australia. Just the sort of initiative needed in a new Australian.
There is just a small issue of the other 200 million refugees who don’t have a razoo, rotting in UN camps in first refuge countries. Given that our refugee intake is finite, the $10,000 Tamil boat rider is likely taking the place of one of those poor losers who can’t rake up the cash to make the voyage.
So the morality of the Rundle position is that Guy would accept those who help themselves, and his public policy would turn a blind eye to the inequity of the desperate with cash getting into Australia while the desperate without cash meekly wait years in the rotten UN queue.
Great spirit of egalitarianism Ken. So do you still have your Communist Party card?