In recent days, and especially in the last 24 hours as pressure has mounted on the government to do much more to assist Syrian refugees, there have been calls within and outside Parliament to “prioritise” Syrian Christians.
To do so would be an act of religious bigotry and would play into the hands of Islamic State.
Should Australia take 10,000 Syrian refugees, or 50,000, or even more, we would still have to decide who comes here — millions of Syrians need assistance, far more than Australia could help. But to skew that selection process in favour of one group because of a perceived religious affinity would be a throwback to the kind of thinking that drove the White Australia Policy, an act of open and public bigotry at odds with our non-discriminatory immigration, social and economic policies.
It would also feed into the mindset that Islamic State uses to radicalise and recruit westerners to their ranks: that the West does nothing but bomb, kill and oppress Muslims, and that fighting the West and its proxies is the only legitimate response to that violence. Australia helping only Christian Syrians would reinforce that narrative.
Instead, in welcoming Syrian refugees no matter their religion, Australia would send a potent signal: that we are better than that. That unlike IS, which engages in the most barbaric sectarian violence even against other Muslims let alone other faiths, we are prepared to live our values of compassion, liberty and non-discrimination — not just talk about them.
Save this EOFY while you make a difference
Australia has spoken. We want more from the people in power and deserve a media that keeps them on their toes. And thank you, because it’s been made abundantly clear that at Crikey we’re on the right track.
We’ve pushed our journalism as far as we could go. And that’s only been possible with reader support. Thank you. And if you haven’t yet subscribed, this is your time to join tens of thousands of Crikey members to take the plunge.
Editor-in-chief
Leave a comment
Given that fit young males make up 75% (UN guestimate) of the euroflood, how about we take just women & children and thus allow the men to return to fight for their homeland?
“prioritise” Syrian Christians who didn’t get on boats seemed to be the angle.. we’ll snatch them off the battlefield apparently.. after we bomb them a bit..
J/B – perhaps it is a cunning Baldrick plan to improve conditions so much by bombing that nobody will be able to leave.
Corpses, dismembered or otherwise, are famously reluctant to move. Anywhere.
AR @ #1 – I agree. Seems as though these male asylum seekers flooding into Europe want someone else (western defence forces?) to fight and die for THEIR country.
Not on!
On the Christian only refugee question – I have heard many Syrians interviewed on the BBC World Service, who just want the fighting to stop so they can go home. However, it seems the Christians, and other minority groups, will never be accepted back into Syria to live in safety, no matter who wins the war.
On that basis, maybe there is a different argument to your ‘rac+st’ one? IMHO, ALL religious beliefs are held by those living in fantasy land, so from that standpoint it makes no difference to me who we take.
But we do need to take upwards of 20,000, preferably through the UNHCR.
Because
Sorry CML – what an absolute crock.
Like to see you “fight and die for your country” when you are stuck in an enclave and being attacked with airstrikes and barrel bombs. Assad still has a monopoly of air power – western air strikes are only striking IS, not Assad. Russian planes and pilots are now said to be on their way – which basically precludes attacks on Assad by the west. The latest Russian Buk SAM would knock a few of ours out of the sky – not sure anyone is too keen to fight the Russians in Syria.
Not much use grabbing your Kalashnikov when the problem is overwhelmingly superior air capabilities.
You’ve watched too many WW2 war movies mate – it’s a bit more complex than that