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.

It's not illegal to seek asylum.

The state of the asylum seeker debate in Australia continues in it's deplorable state. Too many people still languish in detention centers both on the Australian mainland and offshore. Recently a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers were sent home after facing 'enhanced screening' of their status.

One aspect of the debate that seems to be worsening is the misinformation and outright lies used by the federal opposition to bolster it's pseudo-policy on immigration.

Tony Abbott and members of the federal opposition continue in their use of the term 'illegal' to describe people seeking asylum from Australia. This despite Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that states:

"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

This how we count Tony - That's Better!

Australia is a signatory to the UDHR. Australia is also a party to the United Nations Refugee Convention. This guarantees an individuals rights to seek asylum. Any politicians statements to the contrary are a feeble attempt to manipulate the debate for political point scoring.

It is an irrefutable fact that there is a continued, increasing series of arrivals by boat of people seeking asylum. These people are the victims of the tumultuous global situation. That's a polite way of saying that throughout the world there is war, civil conflicts and the ethnic cleansing of minority groups. People fear these things. They fear the death and far worse they fear the savagery, the rape and the torture that are fast becoming the everyday staple of our evening news.

Our news is their lives.

Australia does not suffer from war. Though we know violence, it is nothing like the scale that other countries experience. If we are the destination of choice for refugees it is not because of any policy a government does or does not enact. It is because we appear safe. 

Abbott continues to proclaim the dangerous policy of turning back asylum seeker boats. This despite his own admission that the process would be dangerous for asylum seekers as well as Australian Defense Force personnel. A former defense force chief has even suggested turning back boats in international waters could constitute an act of piracy.

Does the public allow this rhetoric of 'toughness' because it believes the lie that seeking asylum is somehow illegal?

If so then it is the duty of all Australians to inform themselves on the issue. If you're reading this you've got the information in front of you - now do something with it.

Tell your friends. Call them out when they repeat the lies they've heard in the media. Best of all help correct the political opinion; because politicians only spout this nonsense because they think it's what we want to hear. If they thought there were votes in a more humanitarian refugee policy we'd be building integration centers not detention centers...

__________________

For further information about asylum seekers and their rights please check out the Refugee Council of Australia. You can also contact them on: admin@refugeecouncil.org.au.

If you'd like to take action on the issue of asylum seekers you can write a letter expressing your views. It's important that the government and opposition knows the views of it's constituents and knows that we won't stand for further lies. Contact:

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Brendan O'Connor

Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Scott Morrison

Bring them home...

I've talked often about the issue of asylum seekers in detention; the fact that many face an indefinite wait, the fact that children are imprisoned, the potential for harm, both physical and psychological. All of these are real dangers and as of today we know there will be little independent scrutiny to inform us if they occur.

The Australian Human Rights Commissioner has received legal advice that she has no jurisdiction to inspect and hear complaints from asylum seekers held on Nauru and Manus Island. The Fairfax press yesterday reported (http://bit.ly/166OLZF) advice from the Solicitor General that prevents scrutiny and calls into question how human rights are to be safe-guarded.

This advice comes after the government received heavy criticism from the United Nations in December over conditions in offshore processing camps (http://bit.ly/166SwOS). At the time the Minister for Immigration described conditions as 'adequate', whatever that means in real terms. He also claimed the government would continue to work with the Nauru government to improve conditions.

In light of the current legal advice it seems that further work will not be subject to any independent scrutiny. Presumably this dooms all facilities to remain at the government's standard of 'adequate'.

When the government proposed offshore processing of asylum seekers they maintained that Human Rights would be respected. This reassurances came against a backdrop of concerns over infrastructure and safety. The 'Malaysia solution' was dropped because they were not signatory to the UN refugee convention. Now the Australia government seeks to work without probity to a standard of their own devising.

Past claims by the government that offshore processing was a humane and workable solution cannot be maintained if their is no mechanism to assess conditions. Allowing the Australian Human Rights Commissioner jurisdiction over sites in Nauru and Manus island is the start of that process. If the government cannot do this then the only solution is to institute onshore processing and settle all current asylum seekers on the Australian mainland.
__________

Apologies: Just a quick mention that this was my first post entirely composed and posted on my phone. I hope it reads smoothly; I don't seem to have the same ability to embed links and review drafts. Fingers crossed you enjoy it and I will update the post when I get back from camping...