Happy New Year...
In Sydney, in a suburb called Villawood there is a detention center. Inside Villawood detention center is a young Sri Lankan woman named Ranjini. Ranjini and her two children are refugees in Australia. In May of this year Ranjini's protection visa was revoked and she and her children were remanded to Villawood detention center. Ranjini's protection visa was revoked because ASIO gave her a negative security assessment. This does not mean she is a terrorist, in fact no one is quite sure what this means as the records relating to her assessment are not publicly available. For now it means Ranjini is stuck; unable to return home (she's a refugee remember) and unable to live in the community. Oh and Ranjini is pregnant, she will likely give birth in the detention center with little hope that she or her child will have the freedom to enjoy the life we all look forward to in 2013.
This story highlights a couple of grave issues: Firstly that a child in Australia can be born into imprisonment with little hope of freedom. Secondly that individuals assessed as refugees but with negative ASIO security risk assessments face indefinite detention with no recourse available to them at present. Not to cast too dramatic a light on this but consider that we are talking about indefinite detention, without charge that includes children, secret records and a so far implacable government bureaucracy.
I find this whole situation deeply disturbing. There is a definite lack of respect for principles of human rights and transparency at work here, the absence of which casts the department responsible in a most despotic light. We are told there is a negative security assessment but there is no opportunity for scrutiny of these claims. In effect Ranjini is being denied the right to defend herself against claims that she is equally being denied access to. Further even if we were to presume her guilt of the unknown charges that does not address the situation of her children, aged 6 & 9, being imprisoned with her. Further still it does not approach the situation her pregnancy and the impending birth of a new, completely innocent child. Ranjini's husband is still living in the community presenting at least one option for the family.
This case highlights in a most dramatic fashion the issues surrounding the detention of people arriving in Australia as asylum seekers. The government claims issues of border security necessitates detention however can we consider this claim to hold when children and unborn babies and under lock and key. Don't take my word for it, consider the issues for yourself. As Australia moves towards a federal election in 2013 this issue can illuminate for us the sort of society we want to live in; it may not affect our productivity or improve our material comforts but it could change our view of freedom and what we allow in a democratic society.
If you're interested to learn more about Ranjini and this unfolding story I'd suggest checking out the site 'Letters for Ranjini' where you can leave a not of support or explore the current news: http://lettersforranjini.com/
Monday 31 December 2012
Friday 28 December 2012
Help or Prevention?
This is about a news report I read just before Xmas. Like so many things before a big holiday it got a little lost in the mix but I didn't want to just leave it because it was a few days old. There are important issues raised by this story that I think are worth considering and they mustn't get lost in the news cycle...
The story concerns allegations that Australia's Federal Police are collaborating with Pakistan's intelligence services to profile and identify people likely to flee the country, thereby stopping them before they leave. Amnesty International has condemned the Australian governments actions as "questionable and sordid", but you can read the full report here:
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-12-20/australia-helping-pakistan-stop-hazara-asylum-seekers-from-leaving-report/1064234
There's a lot of rhetoric in Australia about stemming the flow of asylum seekers and breaking the business model of people smugglers. Politicians wax lyrical about stopping the boats and ending deaths at sea. The upshot of this talk is to paint a picture of individuals illegally entering the country by collaborating with dubious criminals. By preventing individuals from taking 'dangerous' boat journeys, the story goes, the Australian government is helping them; saving them from almost inevitable death at sea. What this picture ignores is the circumstance that led to an individual fleeing and the reason they are seeking asylum, often from their own government.
The rhetoric of Australia's asylum seeker policy is one of 'help', whereas the reality exemplified in the above report is one of prevention. Targeting potential refugees at the source and stopping them before they flee the Australian government does nothing to address the issues that lead people to flee their homes and countries. This strategy may stem the growth of the numbers of refugees globally but it does not prevent individuals from being ethnically targeted and persecuted by majority powers in their country.
Why would Australia promote a policy more geared towards preventing refugee arrivals than helping them? Australia's obligations as a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of refugees mean that it must act to help refugees arriving on it's shores. However this issue over more than a decade has developed to become a veritable political albatross, with no ruling party willing to make the hard calls that our obligations demand. The upshot of this is rather than act to truly help refugees, a stance both morally and legally correct, the powers that be act to prevent arrivals thereby leaving them with no one to help.
This issue is more complicated than my cursory description suggests. What is not more complicated though is the distinction between truly helping and just preventing. It may be comfortable to hide behind claims of saving lives at sea, but that does not address the fact that these people still face possible death at home if they do not receive asylum. It may look better on paper if individuals never flee, as in the story on Pakistan, but just because these people are not official refugees does not mean they will not suffer persecution.
We need to consider what we want from our government on this issue. Politically expedient results are not enough when they come at the cost of human rights. Australians must demand it's government act to truly help asylum seekers, not just prevent their arrival, and they must do it now.
The story concerns allegations that Australia's Federal Police are collaborating with Pakistan's intelligence services to profile and identify people likely to flee the country, thereby stopping them before they leave. Amnesty International has condemned the Australian governments actions as "questionable and sordid", but you can read the full report here:
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-12-20/australia-helping-pakistan-stop-hazara-asylum-seekers-from-leaving-report/1064234
There's a lot of rhetoric in Australia about stemming the flow of asylum seekers and breaking the business model of people smugglers. Politicians wax lyrical about stopping the boats and ending deaths at sea. The upshot of this talk is to paint a picture of individuals illegally entering the country by collaborating with dubious criminals. By preventing individuals from taking 'dangerous' boat journeys, the story goes, the Australian government is helping them; saving them from almost inevitable death at sea. What this picture ignores is the circumstance that led to an individual fleeing and the reason they are seeking asylum, often from their own government.
The rhetoric of Australia's asylum seeker policy is one of 'help', whereas the reality exemplified in the above report is one of prevention. Targeting potential refugees at the source and stopping them before they flee the Australian government does nothing to address the issues that lead people to flee their homes and countries. This strategy may stem the growth of the numbers of refugees globally but it does not prevent individuals from being ethnically targeted and persecuted by majority powers in their country.
Why would Australia promote a policy more geared towards preventing refugee arrivals than helping them? Australia's obligations as a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of refugees mean that it must act to help refugees arriving on it's shores. However this issue over more than a decade has developed to become a veritable political albatross, with no ruling party willing to make the hard calls that our obligations demand. The upshot of this is rather than act to truly help refugees, a stance both morally and legally correct, the powers that be act to prevent arrivals thereby leaving them with no one to help.
This issue is more complicated than my cursory description suggests. What is not more complicated though is the distinction between truly helping and just preventing. It may be comfortable to hide behind claims of saving lives at sea, but that does not address the fact that these people still face possible death at home if they do not receive asylum. It may look better on paper if individuals never flee, as in the story on Pakistan, but just because these people are not official refugees does not mean they will not suffer persecution.
We need to consider what we want from our government on this issue. Politically expedient results are not enough when they come at the cost of human rights. Australians must demand it's government act to truly help asylum seekers, not just prevent their arrival, and they must do it now.
Wednesday 26 December 2012
Do they know it's Xmas?
My intention was that this be the Xmas edition of my blog. I had it all planned out to be writing on Xmas eve and then when that didn't happen because of last minute planning, shopping and cooking I promised myself I'd hide away for an hour on Xmas day and write. Now both days have come and gone, Boxing day too just about and I've only just found the time to sit and put finger to keypad. Xmas is wonderful like that; all the family, love, giving, (eating and drinking) that you are barely able to find the time to scratch yourself let alone get too contemplative over much else.
I'm not at home in Sydney this year, nor have I seen home for many a month. Fortunately though I have a group of amazing people to spend Xmas with. We're all in London and while it's not a white Xmas you could possibly drown in Hyde Park if you got unlucky. Not everyone away from home this time of year has it quite so good though.
Christmas has got me thinking of the thousands forced to flee their homes in Syria and over the border to Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq to name a few countries that have opened up their borders. When they fled it was summer but now being winter they are hoping not for a white Xmas, but for some relief from the deadly cold that threatens them. Christmas also has me thinking of the asylum seekers who have fled places such as Syria and taken an arduous journey to countries like Australia. This Xmas they may have very few options as they face an uncertain future at the hands of political policies that inadequately recognise their rights to claim asylum. While many refugees in Australia may now find themselves released into the community while they await their claims being assessed, they have little recourse to work or other means of sustaining themselves, let alone any Xmas cheer.
I'm always amazed at the wonder of Xmas. How it seems to have a broad secular appeal. How it tugs at our collective heartstrings and (with the exception of crowded shopping centers) makes us better and more generous. However Xmas is not immune to the cultural myopia we frequently suffer when it comes to human rights. Inequality and oppression don't disappear at Xmas. War doesn't cease to ravage the world and hunger and cold bite just as hard. The only thing that seems to change for a day or two is our capacity to generously accept others. Lets start this Xmas and extend it through to 2013...
If you feel moved to do something about people forced from their homes around the world, here are some places to look and maybe give a little:
Save the Children
https://secure.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.8452721/k.A1FC/Without_You/apps/ka/sd/donor.asp
Amnesty International
http://www.amnesty.org/en/how-you-can-help
Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/
I'm not at home in Sydney this year, nor have I seen home for many a month. Fortunately though I have a group of amazing people to spend Xmas with. We're all in London and while it's not a white Xmas you could possibly drown in Hyde Park if you got unlucky. Not everyone away from home this time of year has it quite so good though.
Christmas has got me thinking of the thousands forced to flee their homes in Syria and over the border to Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq to name a few countries that have opened up their borders. When they fled it was summer but now being winter they are hoping not for a white Xmas, but for some relief from the deadly cold that threatens them. Christmas also has me thinking of the asylum seekers who have fled places such as Syria and taken an arduous journey to countries like Australia. This Xmas they may have very few options as they face an uncertain future at the hands of political policies that inadequately recognise their rights to claim asylum. While many refugees in Australia may now find themselves released into the community while they await their claims being assessed, they have little recourse to work or other means of sustaining themselves, let alone any Xmas cheer.
I'm always amazed at the wonder of Xmas. How it seems to have a broad secular appeal. How it tugs at our collective heartstrings and (with the exception of crowded shopping centers) makes us better and more generous. However Xmas is not immune to the cultural myopia we frequently suffer when it comes to human rights. Inequality and oppression don't disappear at Xmas. War doesn't cease to ravage the world and hunger and cold bite just as hard. The only thing that seems to change for a day or two is our capacity to generously accept others. Lets start this Xmas and extend it through to 2013...
If you feel moved to do something about people forced from their homes around the world, here are some places to look and maybe give a little:
Save the Children
https://secure.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.8452721/k.A1FC/Without_You/apps/ka/sd/donor.asp
Amnesty International
http://www.amnesty.org/en/how-you-can-help
Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/
Friday 21 December 2012
Crossing Borders...
Yesterday we flew into London from Istanbul. At the Passport check desk we were held up for quite some time answering numerous questions about our trip; how we were funding it, our jobs at home and what our intentions were for visiting London. Because most of our planning has been on the fly we haven't booked our next plans yet and we only know the date we leave for home. This is apparently a very bad idea, according the official we spoke to, and she kept referring to it as 'traveling undocumented'.
This culminated in our being given a 'special' entry stamp and advice to carry copies of flights, trains, buses, hotels etc (apparently copies on your smart phone are no good). No harm done of course, but the whole process got me thinking about the philosophy that underpins a countries visa, entry and immigration policy and drives the sort of interrogation we received.
No other country we've visited gave us the third degree about our visit. Crossing borders in Eastern Europe, meeting officials who looked like they'd been on duty since the Iron Curtain was up, no one questioned that we were travelers just looking to check out the country. In London though...
What I came up with was somewhat paradoxical; countries with the most wealth, trade and opportunities are going to be extremely protective of people entering and trying to work while those with less developed economies are presuming people are not coming for work. I say paradoxical because I would imagine that the larger, more developed economies have a greater capacity to absorb and utilise new workers. Furthermore that these new workers would likely go on (if allowed) to be tax payers, consumers and spenders, thereby increasing the size of the economy.
Is this then why countries like Australia, the United States and the UK have tight border controls and asylum seekers and refugees must make dangerous attempts to illegally enter; because of some fear that they will be a drain rather than a contribution to the country? That they will steal jobs and take welfare payments and beg on the streets?
Such assumptions feel to me like they are made from a fairly oversimplified, ignorant and dehumanizing basis. People who end up with the label 'refugee' or 'asylum seeker' are not all the same. Before they were forced to leave their homes and their countries they were members of a society. I can imagine that many were highly qualified, gainfully employed people, others maybe not so much. Doctors and lawyers but also clerks, waiters, students and people who work the checkout. Given the opportunity they would all likely continue to utilise their skills, learn new ones or contribute in some way to the new home they find themselves in. To presume they would be a drain ignores our very human need to be part of a society that accepts us and to feel that we are a valuable member of that society.
Myself, I'm not seeking refuge or even work in the UK and I'll probably never have to flee my home in Australia because of persecution. My experience is not that of a refugee but it emerges from the same philosophy that international borders must be 'protected' from undesirable people. My musings are over what constitutes whether a person is desirable or not.
My discussion here has been more emotive than substantive. I've not particularly considered the hard figures of cross border movements and economic costs and I will continue to look into these factors. I hope though that I've raised some ideas that question who the often faceless refugees around the world are, as well as who they might one day become if we allow them to into our communities.
This culminated in our being given a 'special' entry stamp and advice to carry copies of flights, trains, buses, hotels etc (apparently copies on your smart phone are no good). No harm done of course, but the whole process got me thinking about the philosophy that underpins a countries visa, entry and immigration policy and drives the sort of interrogation we received.
No other country we've visited gave us the third degree about our visit. Crossing borders in Eastern Europe, meeting officials who looked like they'd been on duty since the Iron Curtain was up, no one questioned that we were travelers just looking to check out the country. In London though...
What I came up with was somewhat paradoxical; countries with the most wealth, trade and opportunities are going to be extremely protective of people entering and trying to work while those with less developed economies are presuming people are not coming for work. I say paradoxical because I would imagine that the larger, more developed economies have a greater capacity to absorb and utilise new workers. Furthermore that these new workers would likely go on (if allowed) to be tax payers, consumers and spenders, thereby increasing the size of the economy.
Is this then why countries like Australia, the United States and the UK have tight border controls and asylum seekers and refugees must make dangerous attempts to illegally enter; because of some fear that they will be a drain rather than a contribution to the country? That they will steal jobs and take welfare payments and beg on the streets?
Such assumptions feel to me like they are made from a fairly oversimplified, ignorant and dehumanizing basis. People who end up with the label 'refugee' or 'asylum seeker' are not all the same. Before they were forced to leave their homes and their countries they were members of a society. I can imagine that many were highly qualified, gainfully employed people, others maybe not so much. Doctors and lawyers but also clerks, waiters, students and people who work the checkout. Given the opportunity they would all likely continue to utilise their skills, learn new ones or contribute in some way to the new home they find themselves in. To presume they would be a drain ignores our very human need to be part of a society that accepts us and to feel that we are a valuable member of that society.
Myself, I'm not seeking refuge or even work in the UK and I'll probably never have to flee my home in Australia because of persecution. My experience is not that of a refugee but it emerges from the same philosophy that international borders must be 'protected' from undesirable people. My musings are over what constitutes whether a person is desirable or not.
My discussion here has been more emotive than substantive. I've not particularly considered the hard figures of cross border movements and economic costs and I will continue to look into these factors. I hope though that I've raised some ideas that question who the often faceless refugees around the world are, as well as who they might one day become if we allow them to into our communities.
Wednesday 19 December 2012
At what cost?
The Australian government plans to divert funds from foreign aid programs to help pay for the influx of asylum seekers arriving on it's shores. Justification for the move has been stated along the lines of it being aid for the same people just in different locations.
What the move really sounds like is a bit of budgetary sleight of hand that allows the government to meet the (most basic) needs of asylum seekers arriving in Australian waters whilst still claiming to be meeting 'aid' targets. We've all done something similar to meet our own personal budgets. so like the government will find out we know that rather than helping both areas it just shortchanges everyone.
Amnesty International has spoken against the move (http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/30762/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=wallpost&utm_campaign=refugees) citing amongst it's reasons that the plan just won't work. The moves may in fact be counter productive as they entrench poverty and reliance on aid for those being received in Australia. Continuing a punitive detention policy also continues the likelihood of adverse mental health issues for those stuck in refugee limbo and overseas it removes vital aid that could contribute to stability in countries that people are presently fleeing.
So what is the cost here?
The government is attempting to implement a zero sum equation; what's given to asylum seekers balances that taken from aid. However in this scenario 'aid' and 'asylum seekers' sound more like commodities than people. Because they are people though the trade will never be zero sum; people just don't work like that.
Let's think about this using my best pseudo-economical babble:
At the moment everything is costing money and nothing is making money. Locking people up or supporting them in the community costs (rent assistance, food, healthcare); no argument there. Plus the uncertainty of waiting on an asylum assessment indefinitely leads to harmful mental health outcomes that must be paid for in the future by increased reliance on health services; more costs. Removing aid potentially destabilizes regions that would have received it leading to more people fleeing and seeking asylum; see above costs, but increased.
Now think about a less punitive, more welcoming, though initially more costly strategy. Forget about this 'no advantage' policy and expedite the claims of those seeking asylum in Australia. This eliminates the cost of detaining and housing; great, we're already cutting costs! This also mitigates the potential damage of mental health issues caused by indefinite detention. Once these freshly assessed people are able to join the community they will become that beacon of our free-market society; consumers! Maybe not straight away and certainly not at the expense of Australian jobs, if that's what you're worried about. Remember many asylum seekers will have limited English language skills initially and they're qualifications at home won't be immediately recognised; they're hardly coming for your job. What they will more likely do is seek and take less desirable jobs that are hard to fill.* Once they're working, they will also start spending at a gain to the economy of one happy, grateful consumer.
I've oversimplified these points a bit and I haven't even touched on the moral and ethical arguments for accepting asylum seekers. What I hope is that I've exposed how ludicrous some of the goverments attempts at rationalizing it's behaviour are. Both the human cost and the economic cost need not be as high as they are...
* I owe a few of these ideas from my reading of Philippe Legrain's Immigrants: your country needs them, (2007), Princeton University Press
What the move really sounds like is a bit of budgetary sleight of hand that allows the government to meet the (most basic) needs of asylum seekers arriving in Australian waters whilst still claiming to be meeting 'aid' targets. We've all done something similar to meet our own personal budgets. so like the government will find out we know that rather than helping both areas it just shortchanges everyone.
Amnesty International has spoken against the move (http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/30762/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=wallpost&utm_campaign=refugees) citing amongst it's reasons that the plan just won't work. The moves may in fact be counter productive as they entrench poverty and reliance on aid for those being received in Australia. Continuing a punitive detention policy also continues the likelihood of adverse mental health issues for those stuck in refugee limbo and overseas it removes vital aid that could contribute to stability in countries that people are presently fleeing.
So what is the cost here?
The government is attempting to implement a zero sum equation; what's given to asylum seekers balances that taken from aid. However in this scenario 'aid' and 'asylum seekers' sound more like commodities than people. Because they are people though the trade will never be zero sum; people just don't work like that.
Let's think about this using my best pseudo-economical babble:
At the moment everything is costing money and nothing is making money. Locking people up or supporting them in the community costs (rent assistance, food, healthcare); no argument there. Plus the uncertainty of waiting on an asylum assessment indefinitely leads to harmful mental health outcomes that must be paid for in the future by increased reliance on health services; more costs. Removing aid potentially destabilizes regions that would have received it leading to more people fleeing and seeking asylum; see above costs, but increased.
Now think about a less punitive, more welcoming, though initially more costly strategy. Forget about this 'no advantage' policy and expedite the claims of those seeking asylum in Australia. This eliminates the cost of detaining and housing; great, we're already cutting costs! This also mitigates the potential damage of mental health issues caused by indefinite detention. Once these freshly assessed people are able to join the community they will become that beacon of our free-market society; consumers! Maybe not straight away and certainly not at the expense of Australian jobs, if that's what you're worried about. Remember many asylum seekers will have limited English language skills initially and they're qualifications at home won't be immediately recognised; they're hardly coming for your job. What they will more likely do is seek and take less desirable jobs that are hard to fill.* Once they're working, they will also start spending at a gain to the economy of one happy, grateful consumer.
I've oversimplified these points a bit and I haven't even touched on the moral and ethical arguments for accepting asylum seekers. What I hope is that I've exposed how ludicrous some of the goverments attempts at rationalizing it's behaviour are. Both the human cost and the economic cost need not be as high as they are...
* I owe a few of these ideas from my reading of Philippe Legrain's Immigrants: your country needs them, (2007), Princeton University Press
Monday 17 December 2012
Social Power & Social Media
Does social media have the power to effect social change?
That's a question that's been bugging me and it's part of the reason I started writing on a public platform instead of just for myself. Just to clarify this is not a post directly related to refugees and human rights, more an attempt to pull back the curtain and see if all this talk might achieve something.
There's a lot of talk, hype, tweeting and bleeping pulsing through the airwaves as we speak. Much of it is a global traffic in photos of what people ate for lunch, but some of it is serious. Do the issues filter through the morass though and when they reach a target, what impact does it have?
We're brought up in democratic societies believing that we have an important role to play in the future. One vote, one voice that allows us to have a say in how the nation, even the world is governed. Increasingly though I feel a lot of cynicism abounds about how true that ideal is. Many people I know feel disillusioned, even disenfranchised by the constant bickering of politicians and the wild antics that occur in lieu of governance.
Personally I feel that blogging, tweeting, hell even posting on facebook offers an opportunity to engage people in topics and perhaps effect some change. From experience I've seen an organisation in Australia called GetUp! run highly successful social media campaigns that have engaged large numbers of the populace to write, tweet, make noise and influence public thought. I'm not sure if this definitive proof but I see a start.
The best part is social media is not driven by any inbuilt bias. You may offer the opinion that more twitter users lean politically left, but that's not stopping the righties from signing up for accounts. We can see democracy in action if want it.
My suspicion is that the answer lies in the future and we are creating it right now. The impact of social media will derive from the positive ends we turn it to. That doesn't mean no more viral videos of some falling on their arse, but maybe we'll also see more viral public interest campaigns. How many social media users in a constituency would it take to offer a majority on a topic? Tweet your local member and see.
Thanks for engaging...
That's a question that's been bugging me and it's part of the reason I started writing on a public platform instead of just for myself. Just to clarify this is not a post directly related to refugees and human rights, more an attempt to pull back the curtain and see if all this talk might achieve something.
There's a lot of talk, hype, tweeting and bleeping pulsing through the airwaves as we speak. Much of it is a global traffic in photos of what people ate for lunch, but some of it is serious. Do the issues filter through the morass though and when they reach a target, what impact does it have?
We're brought up in democratic societies believing that we have an important role to play in the future. One vote, one voice that allows us to have a say in how the nation, even the world is governed. Increasingly though I feel a lot of cynicism abounds about how true that ideal is. Many people I know feel disillusioned, even disenfranchised by the constant bickering of politicians and the wild antics that occur in lieu of governance.
Personally I feel that blogging, tweeting, hell even posting on facebook offers an opportunity to engage people in topics and perhaps effect some change. From experience I've seen an organisation in Australia called GetUp! run highly successful social media campaigns that have engaged large numbers of the populace to write, tweet, make noise and influence public thought. I'm not sure if this definitive proof but I see a start.
The best part is social media is not driven by any inbuilt bias. You may offer the opinion that more twitter users lean politically left, but that's not stopping the righties from signing up for accounts. We can see democracy in action if want it.
My suspicion is that the answer lies in the future and we are creating it right now. The impact of social media will derive from the positive ends we turn it to. That doesn't mean no more viral videos of some falling on their arse, but maybe we'll also see more viral public interest campaigns. How many social media users in a constituency would it take to offer a majority on a topic? Tweet your local member and see.
Thanks for engaging...
Sunday 16 December 2012
Refugee Numbers
My last post got me thinking about numbers. About the 140, 000 Syrian refugees in Turkey, about the 20, 000 people Australia allows as it's annual refugee intake. About how I didn't offer sources for those numbers and I certainly didn't put them in any sort of context.
The Syrian conflict I discovered is tragically much larger than I knew. Over half a million people are registered as refugees with 140, 000 of them in Turkey. There may be more, these are just the official figures registered with the UN. Check out more here: http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=300807
Regarding Australia's refugee intake it has recently been increased from 13, 750 up to 20, 000 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/government-announces-increase-in-humanitarian-intake/4217962), which represents a huge percentage increase (about 50% - Go Aussie!).
So that's the context; Australia still seems to be doing only a small proportion compared to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq however steps are being taken to do more. What about that 20, 000 though? I wanted to know a little bit more about it in terms of the world but also Australia. What I found out didn't exactly impress me though...
For a nice little overview I started here: http://static.moadoph.gov.au/ophgovau/media/images/apmc/docs/81-Refugees.pdf
I learned that like so much in the 20th century Australia's immigration policy was precipitated by the Second World War. Since that time Australia has accepted more than 700, 000 refugees. I worked out the average at (around) 11, 000 a year. So 20, 000 looks like a huge improvement and a positive movement by the government.
Twenty thousand refugees is the lot though. Onshore or offshore we don't intend to accept any more regardless of circumstance, and circumstance is everything when you consider displaced people who will risk death at sea and indefinite detention just to escape horrors we'll probably never know.
At the moment in Australia refugee boat arrivals are increasing. The political rhetoric seems to be that this is caused by failure on the part of... (insert your favourite pollies name here). There is little political discussion of global events precipitating this, nor of Australia's military presence in countries refugees are fleeing. Separating the onshore and offshore allowances in response to need does not seem to be on the table.
So finally I wanted to know a little more about the world. I know there's a civil war waging just to the south of where I am. There's displaced populations around the world, what does that mean for refugee movement and the number of people stuck without a country?
Apparently it's about as bad as we've ever seen it (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120617/un-world-refugee-population-skyrockets-2011-high), worldwide refugee figures are changing and they're going up. This means that the pressure on every able country in the world is increasing. It also means a fixed figure makes no sense, we should be flexible enough to respond to changing world events as they happen. It also means there will be more people desperate enough to get on a boat to save their lives. Worth considering...
The Syrian conflict I discovered is tragically much larger than I knew. Over half a million people are registered as refugees with 140, 000 of them in Turkey. There may be more, these are just the official figures registered with the UN. Check out more here: http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=300807
Regarding Australia's refugee intake it has recently been increased from 13, 750 up to 20, 000 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/government-announces-increase-in-humanitarian-intake/4217962), which represents a huge percentage increase (about 50% - Go Aussie!).
So that's the context; Australia still seems to be doing only a small proportion compared to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq however steps are being taken to do more. What about that 20, 000 though? I wanted to know a little bit more about it in terms of the world but also Australia. What I found out didn't exactly impress me though...
For a nice little overview I started here: http://static.moadoph.gov.au/ophgovau/media/images/apmc/docs/81-Refugees.pdf
I learned that like so much in the 20th century Australia's immigration policy was precipitated by the Second World War. Since that time Australia has accepted more than 700, 000 refugees. I worked out the average at (around) 11, 000 a year. So 20, 000 looks like a huge improvement and a positive movement by the government.
Twenty thousand refugees is the lot though. Onshore or offshore we don't intend to accept any more regardless of circumstance, and circumstance is everything when you consider displaced people who will risk death at sea and indefinite detention just to escape horrors we'll probably never know.
At the moment in Australia refugee boat arrivals are increasing. The political rhetoric seems to be that this is caused by failure on the part of... (insert your favourite pollies name here). There is little political discussion of global events precipitating this, nor of Australia's military presence in countries refugees are fleeing. Separating the onshore and offshore allowances in response to need does not seem to be on the table.
So finally I wanted to know a little more about the world. I know there's a civil war waging just to the south of where I am. There's displaced populations around the world, what does that mean for refugee movement and the number of people stuck without a country?
Apparently it's about as bad as we've ever seen it (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120617/un-world-refugee-population-skyrockets-2011-high), worldwide refugee figures are changing and they're going up. This means that the pressure on every able country in the world is increasing. It also means a fixed figure makes no sense, we should be flexible enough to respond to changing world events as they happen. It also means there will be more people desperate enough to get on a boat to save their lives. Worth considering...
Friday 14 December 2012
I happened into a cafe today and as I'd not had a decent flat white in too long I ordered and sat down on a pokey little stool in the corner. Alone I grabbed a magazine and flicked...
As I happen to be in Istanbul, I also happened to read an article about Turkey. There's a thing going on you see, in Syria, an outright tragedy if you ask me. Thousands of people are pouring over the border between Syria and Turkey. Somewhere in palaces, parliaments and offices people are making the decisions that have lead to this exodus but on the border the people are just running so that maybe in the future they'll be alive.
Refugees numbering close to 140, 000 people have already fled Syria and are seeking assistance from the Turkish government and Non-Government Organisations. This article was a week or so old though, the numbers may be higher.
Back home in Australia we are spared from wars on our borders. Refugees do make the attempt to travel to Australia though and many are fleeing wars. A lot of these people arrive by boat, but it's nowhere near 140, 000. Australia's official refugee intake is 20, 000 a year. It's just been raised but I'm not sure everyone's happy about that. By and large the media I read and the reactions of Australians that are canvased seems pretty hostile to refugee arrivals in Australia.
This is my first blog so I'm not going to attempt to answer any complex questions, better people than me are trying and still not getting there. Instead I thought I'd ask another complex question and maybe you'll all be kind enough to explore it with me.
Above I presented some strikingly disparate figures concerning two countries and refugees. Why does Australia's figure seem low compared to the current situation in Turkey? What makes Australian's hostile to refugee arrivals?
On the face of it you might argue necessity; the Turkish couldn't exactly say no to all those people queuing on their border could they? But Australia says no to people facing drowning on it's border. Critics of Australia's refugee policy mention racism, but that seems a little too simplistic as well.
There is a deeper issue here I feel. Something that goes to the very heart of what it means to be Australian and how that cultural identity will evolve in the years to come. I want to talk about this but first you'll have to allow me the time to explore and collect my thoughts...
As I happen to be in Istanbul, I also happened to read an article about Turkey. There's a thing going on you see, in Syria, an outright tragedy if you ask me. Thousands of people are pouring over the border between Syria and Turkey. Somewhere in palaces, parliaments and offices people are making the decisions that have lead to this exodus but on the border the people are just running so that maybe in the future they'll be alive.
Refugees numbering close to 140, 000 people have already fled Syria and are seeking assistance from the Turkish government and Non-Government Organisations. This article was a week or so old though, the numbers may be higher.
Back home in Australia we are spared from wars on our borders. Refugees do make the attempt to travel to Australia though and many are fleeing wars. A lot of these people arrive by boat, but it's nowhere near 140, 000. Australia's official refugee intake is 20, 000 a year. It's just been raised but I'm not sure everyone's happy about that. By and large the media I read and the reactions of Australians that are canvased seems pretty hostile to refugee arrivals in Australia.
This is my first blog so I'm not going to attempt to answer any complex questions, better people than me are trying and still not getting there. Instead I thought I'd ask another complex question and maybe you'll all be kind enough to explore it with me.
Above I presented some strikingly disparate figures concerning two countries and refugees. Why does Australia's figure seem low compared to the current situation in Turkey? What makes Australian's hostile to refugee arrivals?
On the face of it you might argue necessity; the Turkish couldn't exactly say no to all those people queuing on their border could they? But Australia says no to people facing drowning on it's border. Critics of Australia's refugee policy mention racism, but that seems a little too simplistic as well.
There is a deeper issue here I feel. Something that goes to the very heart of what it means to be Australian and how that cultural identity will evolve in the years to come. I want to talk about this but first you'll have to allow me the time to explore and collect my thoughts...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)