A rose by any other name would still be 'illegal' if it arrived by boat apparently

“But Rabbit, I wasn’t going to eat it. I was just going to taste it!”

Just like that… With a deft piece of linguistic sleight of hand Winnie the Pooh attempts to have his ‘hunny’ and eat it too, by muddling the meaning of a word we all thought was pretty clear. We’ve all done it though; smoking without ‘inhaling’, kissing without ‘cheating’. Words are so flexible these days, why not bend their meaning a little?

Semantics is becoming increasingly de rigueur in Australian politics too. Words, stripped of their everyday meanings are being teased into increasingly bizarre shapes to defend or justify the whims of po-faced pollies.

‘Entitlements’ has been all the rage for the last few weeks, as politicians attempt to tease out exactly when and where it’s appropriate to be campaigning; on the ski slopes, at a wedding, a triathlon? Now ‘Illegal’ has jumped out of the dictionary, with the government this week seeking to ‘clarify’ their position on asylum seekers arriving by boat.

George Orwell, a contemporary of A. A. Milne, was quite the critic of language such as that used by Winnie the Pooh above. Orwell believed in clarity of speech over language that sought to conceal or deny meaning. The author of works such as ‘Animal Farm’ (think Winnie the Pooh but fascist) and ‘1984’, his writing has left us a legacy of caution against institutional surveillance, doublespeak and control.

In considering Pooh’s vernacular use of ‘taste’ as a means to eat the forbidden ‘hunny’ Orwell would observe:

“... modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.”

To put it another way; Winnie the Pooh is lying, and passing it off as the truth.

What then of the government’s edict that must refer to seekers of asylum, arrival by boat as ‘illegal’?

Their position that asylum seeker boat arrivals are ‘illegal’ is entirely consistent with their statements in opposition. It’s a wonder anyone’s surprised, they’ve been singing this tune for a while. Yet consistency of use is a meagre standard for truth, ask anyone who’s tried to quit smoking about ‘the last one’.

The government’s use of ‘illegal’ relies on the use of the term in Article 31.1 Of the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the text of which states:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Have a think about this… It doesn’t say all asylum seeker boat arrivals are illegal, it’s basically saying that if you are illegal the government isn’t allowed to penalise you. Sure that controversial word ‘illegal’ is invoked, but that doesn’t accord it general application.

Critics of the government’s use of the term ‘illegal’ question which law refugee arrivals are supposedly breaking. Their point: that illegal means against the law. This is the common meaning of the word.

So far the government have not indicated which law is being broken.

So what though? It doesn’t change the fact that people are arriving. It doesn’t change the fact that they are being settled offshore. It doesn’t even change the fact that the bulk of these arrivals are found to be genuine refugees. So why are the government so worried about what word is being used?

The government are worried about the words because these words help shape the way the Australian public (that’s you!) think about asylum seekers arriving by boat.

The process is quick, sometimes even unconscious: nobody wants to lock up innocent people who have suffered poverty and starvation. That’s just cruel right?! But if someone is ‘illegal’ that must mean they are a criminal, and we lock up criminals

George Orwell was particularly suspicious of politicians use of language...

“Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

So let’s define our terms here, because clarity is extremely important. Next time an overweight bear tries to get you to believe he’s all innocent don’t trust him straight away. Listen, then look at his actions and ask what is really behind the words he’s using.

Shout, shout, let it all out*...

One vote every three years and then shake your head in disgust at the antics of government. This was and still is the model of participation for too many Australians.

Regular viewers will remember my last post, a discussion of Tony Abbott's interview on '60 minutes' detailing his regret over past, negative comments about gay people. I followed up this post with a copy of the email I sent Mr Abbott addressing this issue.

Yesterday I received a reply to my email.

My letter contained one simple challenge: for the Coalition to address it's policy on marriage equality. The reply I received from Tony Abbott was written "on his behalf", by whom I don't know. It did not address, or even mention the issue of marriage equality. What I received was thanks, twice, for taking the time to write. I also received a link to read 'Our Plan - Real Solutions for all Australians', which I gather is policy-lite in lieu of actually taking a real position on issues. Tony's response is not the worst offender though.

I'm really not having much luck engaging with politicians lately. Two letters to former Immigration Minister Chris Bowen on asylum seekers; unanswered. One to Brendan O'Connor when he took the Immigration job; unanswered. One letter to the Immigration Minister Pretend Scott Morrison over you know what; unanswered. Tanya Plibersek is currently my hero just for responding to emails, even when she doesn't address the issue.

Engaging with politicians is not an easy task it would seem. Many people I know, passionate people who care about the current state of Australia, express trepidation over writing a letter to a politician. Perhaps they worry they shouldn't bother them, or perhaps that they don't have the letter writing skill? Perhaps they fear their dissenting opinion will be viciously attacked as they see politicians attack each other daily on the news. Political discussion in this country seems in a deplorable state these days and it is alienating everyday Australians.

I like organisations such as GetUp! Australia for the service they provide making both issues and action accessible to everyday Australians. GetUp! describe themselves as "an independent, grass-roots community advocacy organisation which aims to build a more progressive Australia". They run campaigns to promote awareness, fundraise and take action on a range of community issues. Current campaigns include marriage equality, saving the Tarkine and asylum seeker rights.

GetUp! are also frequently criticised over issues such as being extreme, lacking transparency and for trying to 'subvert' the democratic process. As an organisation that is relatively new on the national scene** these are all criticisms that GetUp! have and will continue to address as part of their fight for the inclusion of everyday Australian's views.

What all these criticisms seem to miss though is the philosophy of participation that GetUp! fosters. By harnessing social media and digital culture tools GetUp! effectively engages their member base in a way political parties do not. Most fundamentally they offer an access point to issues by providing information. They then provide a means to take action thropugh their online petitions. Action is scalable though and people wishing to be more involved may write their own letters, donate financially to a campaign or even volunteer their time with GetUp! Finally GetUp! puts control of campaigns into the hands of it's members through CommunityRun, where members can setup and run campaigns important to their own area.

GetUp! is not the only organisation engaging people in accessible, online campaigning. I recently signed a petition run by the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia aimed at saving digital community radio broadcasts. Greenpeace is also running an online campaign aimed at introducing a 10c refundable deposit scheme on a similar online model. Without a social media based strategy I might never had heard of these issues!

Social media engagement may not be the perfect model for activism. It should never replace more traditional models such a letter writing, peaceful protest and debate. But social media activism is a model that facilitates participation by huge numbers of people. Such participation has potential to grow beyond any one group into an engaged population.

So next time you write, if politicians refuse to respond to letters or address issues, remember we just have to ask more questions, make more noise...

"What started as a whisper, slowly turned into a scream..."

Ben Harper

___________

* The post title is of course a reference to Tears for Fears' song 'Shout!' - who says the eighties have nothing to offer!
** GetUp! was founded and became active in 2005
*** I've included links to contact details of the MPs I've mentioned. Check them out and drop them a line about issues you care about.

More 'problematic' use of language...

I'm guessing Scott Morrison hasn't read my last post 'Our Problematic Use of Language'!

The Coalition immigration spokesperson has issued a media release reiterating the false claim that asylum seekers are 'illegal', using the pejorative term 'boat arrival' in favour of 'asylum seeker', calling for a suspension of community release bridging visas and calling for the institution of 'behaviour protocols' for asylum seekers. Morrison's media release was made in response to the news that charges of indecent assault had been made against a Sri Lankan man who is currently seeking asylum in Australia.

Reading through the media release I was immediately struck by the tone of condemnation and the presumption of criminality Morrison is willing to heap on all asylum seekers. In calling for police and community notification, 'behaviour protocols', mandatory reporting and the protection of 'vulnerable' populations the Coalition's policy deliberately invokes the language surrounding the release from imprisonment of dangerous criminals and pedophiles. The implication we are supposed to draw from this is that all asylum seekers are in fact amongst the worst class of criminal and therefore not wanted in our communities. Using this language is the worst kind of political manipulation and must be rejected by an informed community.

Morrison's central conceit is in lumping all asylum seekers in the same 'boat' and condemning them for an as yet unproven crime. He attempts to strengthen this notion of guilt by prefacing his argument with the lie that seeking asylum is somehow 'illegal'.

Let's be absolutely clear, only one man has been charged with any crime not an entire group of ethnically and culturally diverse people that we conveniently lump together based on their claim for asylum. This one man may be guilty of a crime, then again he may not. In Australia we have a Criminal Law and a court system set up to decide these matters. There is no need for a separate set of 'behaviour protocols' with 'clear negative sanctions' to manage this case. Such a set of de-facto laws would be nothing more than racist provisions of the type we are currently trying to stamp out.*

Interestingly while Scott Morrison seeks to have all asylum seekers treated as criminals he makes no mention of how government and Coalition policy confines these people to a bureaucratic limbo that intensifies negative psychological outcomes. In a week that has also seen discussion of asylum seekers in detention attempting self-harm and suicide, Morrison offers no comment on the crimes being perpetrated under a system his party would like to see toughened.

Scott Morrison's media release is a cynical attempt to take advantage of a tragic event and should be seen as such by all Australian's. A young woman has suffered through a horrific event and the matter should be dealt with by the legal system not a kangaroo court established by the Coalition to enforce 'behaviour protocols'. That the young man charged is an asylum seeker does not make him guilty, nor does it mean all asylum seekers are criminals.

This whole episode is an abuse by Morrison of his public profile and a tawdry manipulation of language to tell lies that serve his political ends.

__________

* See my post on the issue of Indigenous Recognition in the Australian Constitution and the racist provisions of Section 25 and Section 51(xxvi)
** Just a quick shout out; the amazing graphic above, talking about the misconceptions about asylum seekers and refugees is from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre