Between the Covers :: Refugees by Jane McAdam & Fiona Chong

...what of the naysayers?!

The full title of this book is 'Refugess - Why Seeking Asylum is Legal and Australia's Policies are Not'. It's a title that admirably and not uncontroversially asserts a position. Never mind that this position, on the illegality of Australia's current asylum seeker policy, is based on international law, it was always going to stir debate if not controversy.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading 'Refugees'. The book comprehensively and systematically lays out the current state of the legal and ethical debate on this issue. Having read widely on the topic before I came to this publication, I was happy to learn new information and have themes clarified and elaborated on. This is one of the great strengths of Refugees.

As you might already have guessed I am broadly sympathetic to the arguments put forward in this book. I am definitely part of their audience. And that is where my concerns begin...

'Refugees' strikes me as perhaps teetering on becoming a limited success. I have no doubt that many people sympathetic to the plight of global asylum seekers will read it with gusto, nodding their heads at each page. These people are an important demographic of reader. But what of the naysayers?

In becoming a successful book I wonder if 'Refugees' will miss it's audience and consequently the opportunity to truly influence people. It strikes me that the readership McAdam and Chong are truly aiming for are people that take their political and social cues from the evening news and tabloid newspapers. When the phrase 'three word slogan' was bandied around at the last election it was lambasted as a base form of propagandising, but it was also an effective tool for communicating to a large portion of the Australian public. These are the people that 'Refugees' will struggle to reach.

This book needs a twitter account and a social media strategy. It wants to condense it's message and entice people between it's pages, lure you in with it's own hook, because as it stands the stark yellow cover may repel more than it attracts.

Personally I can't recommend 'Refugees - Why Seeking Asylum is Legal and Australia's Policies are Not' highly enough. I think all Australians should read it and clear themselves on the misunderstandings on who asylum seekers really are and what are our duties as a country.

But if you're reading this you probably already know all that...

Listen to my interview with Jane McAdam on 'Refugees' 

For the past twelve months I have been a producer and presenter on 'Final Draft', 2SER 107.3FM's flagship literature program. Between the Covers is my attempt to share some of this wonderful world of books and writing...

Join me on Twitter @rightzblock

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

Marginal or Vulnerable?

So Julia Gillard has hit town in Western Sydney...

The story, as I understand it, is the PM will address the concerns of some of the most vulnerable; families, single parents and low income earners, telling them her vision for the west. The other story, as I understand it, is the PM will be attempting to shore up support in eleven marginal seats. The price of failure is an election loss come September.

Nothing particularly sinister here, especially if you're in western Sydney and have the ear of a politician. Except that between Abbott and Gillard western Sydney must be feeling like the birthday kid that everyone wants to sit next to, just to get a bigger piece of cake!

'Battlegrounds' is what the yanks call it, we prefer terms like 'safe' and 'marginal'. But be they regional, inner city, battler, conservative and green, these are all voter groups whose votes are being courted or ignored in the lead up to the election. The politicians will talk; promising and politicking about why they are best, and expect us to listen.

So how does it feel to be a demographic more than a person?

I find it alienating and also a little confusing. I mean I feel strongly about human rights issues, rent and think infrastructure development around the country is important for all Australians. That barely begins to describe my opinions but buggered if I can find someone speaking to me.

Come election time I'll have to make a choice that may not address all the issues that concern me. Other people may find themselves making a choice over one issue that concerns them.

If you choose based on which party is addressing child payments and tax cuts maybe you're identifying with the 'families' demographic. But if you're voting on environmental action and the carbon tax, you're more of a 'green' demographic. Perhaps you're concerned about financial regulation and your investments from a 'conservative' demographic position. There are other positions though.

Consider those who don't get a vote...

Kids don't get a vote, hell even young adults don't have the chance to poll their opinions which sucks if you've left school and are working and paying taxes but not yet eighteen. This means that parents must give some consideration to their youngsters when they think about who to give their vote to. Childcare and education become issues long after school. Not to mention the health care system and welfare.

Foreign aid, development as well as asylum seekers takes in thousands of people who do not get to vote in our elections. As a globally engaged country Australia is committed to initiatives overseas as well. Holding a seat on the UN security council, more than ever we have an obligation to consider how we act on behalf of refugees, people in crisis and those in war torn nations.

One vote and then three more years. Whatever 'demographic' you ostensibly fall into that's not enough and there's so much more we can do. Don't wait to be a demographic the politicians need to win, demand their attention now.

The people in western Sydney didn't have to wait for the PM to visit. At any time they could write, email or tweet:*

The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
email: 'Contact your PM'
twitter: @JuliaGillard

Or perhaps the alternate PM:

The Hon Tony Abbott MHR
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House
RG 109
Canberra ACT 2600
email: 'Contact Tony'
twitter: @TonyAbbottMHR

Or even the balance of power in the Senate:

Christine Milne's Office
GPO Box 896
Hobart TAS 7001
email: 'Contact Christine Milne'
twitter: @senatormilne

Once every three years we vote to give them all a job. Let's not forget that the rest of the time we can hold them accountable for doing it.

_________

*All contact details were taken from the relevant pollies website and twitter pages. Apologies if they are not correct but good on you for trying to get in touch to try them out!

The right to work

The Coalition immigration spokesperson Scott Morrison's comments cast an unwelcome light on the lives of asylum seekers living in the Australian community. He sought to create fear and paint all asylum seekers as criminals. They're not, but that doesn't mean their lives were easy before Morrison opened his mouth.

Last year the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship brought in changes that mean asylum seekers arriving by boat who move into the community on bridging visas will not have the right to work, possibly for up to five years! I've never been unemployed myself but I have known people who describe boredom and later stress at waking up each morning and not knowing what to do with themselves.

Australian society puts a high premium on working. Go to a bbq with friends and invariably you will be asked how work is going. If it's a new friend they'll ask what you do (for work), or if you've been out of touch for a while they'll want to know what you're up to now. Eight or more hours a day for five days a week our identities are solely defined by our jobs. Hell I've even heard friends competing over who spends the longest overtime at work!

The 'dole bludger' is the natural foil to the hard working Aussie. If we love a hard worker, then we hate someone who does nothing and accepts benefits. Unemployment benefits are set low to encourage job seeking; where relative poverty fails, social stigma takes over.

Why then a policy that entrenches unemployment and forces asylum seekers to rely on welfare?

The effects of long-term unemployment are documented as including social isolation, poverty and loss of skills. Psychological effects described by the American Psychological Association include depression, anxiety and poor self-esteem. These effects are not limited to the unemployed person but impact on families and the community in which they live.

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre works to provide aid to asylum seekers as they apply for refugee status in Australia. They report that in 2011-12, 90.8% of asylum seekers were granted permanent protection visas. If the current system had been in place for these asylum seekers they would have entered the community with depleted skills and likely suffering adverse psychological effects.

By denying asylum seekers the right to work the Australian government will achieve little more than entrenching poverty and mental illness amongst thousands of people.

There is no evidence to suggest asylum seekers are 'taking jobs' from other people. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports current unemployment figures of 5.4%. Now economists generally describe figures of around 5% as 'full employment'. That means that asylum seekers enter a job market that can support them, heck even needs them. More importantly they are often filling low skill jobs that most Australians don't want.

Allowing asylum seekers to work also makes good economic sense for those opponents of welfare. Giving a person a job not only gives them purpose, it also gives them an income that they spend in the wider community. No dole bludging here, just productive, contributing members of society.

You can support the right to work of asylum seekers in the community. Read the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre's 'Right to Work Mythbuster' fact sheet then check out their petition. Sign it and take action if you agree that the right to work is important for all people's lives and our community.

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

Our 'problematic' use of language

There is a conspiracy of misinformation at work in our daily lives. We are all guilty of this sometimes and we all fall victim when the truth is obscured from our sight. Misinformation occurs when the truth is glossed over with convenient catch-phrases, half truths or blatant omissions. Our politician's use these techniques to cloud their political reality and we suffer a lack of transparency about the society we live in. Those who suffer most however are those with the least ability to speak out and consequently to be heard.

I read an article in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald reporting Department of Immigration communiques describing suicidal and self-harming asylum seekers as 'Problematic'. The report goes on to detail other instances of obfuscation such as 'voluntary starvation'. This gem of a phrase details asylum seekers efforts to protest their conditions. Presumably by emphasizing the 'voluntary' aspect of the protest mitigates any blame for those responsible for the conditions being protested.

Every year people throughout the world flee their homes and their homelands because of civil war, internal strife and ethnic differences. When these people flee they travel, sometimes great distances to seek safe haven in countries and claim asylum under international law. They have the right to make this claim and be assessed in a timely manner. One of the countries that extends this right is Australia.

Within Australia the arrival of asylum seekers is not greeted with general approbation, you might say we can be hostile. I think one of the reasons is the way we talk about, and consequently understand who these people are...

Let's start with the names we give to asylum seekers; the one I found frequently repeated in the article above is 'client'. The term 'client' is used by both politicians and those working in detention centers. It sounds rather benign, perhaps even safe to the average reader who is frequently a client of various services. The term 'client' connotes someone who is accessing a service, and straight away we have fallen into the widespread use of doublespeak that distracts clear thought. For asylum seekers and refugees are not 'clients' accessing 'services' they are people fleeing violence and persecution in their homelands. All the name 'client' does is desensitize us when the government tries out the phrase 'access denied'.

George Orwell claimed the purpose of such political speech and writing was "the defense of the indefensible". He felt that some truths were "too brutal for most people to face"*, but more importantly that these truths couldn't be spoken by politicians who wanted to keep their jobs. Hence the use of fancy terms until asylum seekers and refugees become better known in popular vernacular as 'boat people' and 'queue jumpers'. The use of pejorative terms makes it much easier for everyone to look away when people are being locked up, or towed back out to sea on leaky boats.

The use of this sort of doublespeak is not limited to simply classifying a group of people. Half truths and loose terminology is used in describing all aspects of Australia's immigration detention program. In a short survey of Sydney Morning Herald articles dealing with asylum seekers for the month of February I found politicians and government officials quoted on the following:

• accommodation found wanting by United Nations officials was described by the Department of Immigration as "in line with living standards for local PNG residents"                                       (no description of how these local residents live was provided)
• in response to claims that children in detention were legitimate refugees the government maintained it was "prudent" to conduct its own checks
• in responding to reports of hunger strikes, suicide attempts and cutting with razors by asylum seekers, the Department of Immigration described a "significant decrease in self harm incidents" (no baseline or comparison data is offered)

The picture the government is attempting to create is one where they are working toward a solution to a 'problem' and making some progress. What this picture ignores is the significant harm, both physical and psychological, that occurs while inadequate action is taken. Oh and if you think the alternative is better, the opposition repeatedly promise that the government is too soft and that they would 'tow the boats back'.

I am not stating absolutely that all asylum seekers arriving by boat are mistreated and deserve more from Australia. I think many are. What I am telling you is that it is difficult to get a true impression of their treatment through the media.

Before making up your own mind on this issue, or any issue in the upcoming election, it is imperative that we all examine the evidence we are offered and demand more if it is inadequate.** Tomorrow the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will move amendments to the Migration Act that would allow media into offshore detention centers. Such scrutiny should at least provide some context for the message we've already received on asylum seeker's conditions.

It is important to support these efforts towards transparency and to question anyone who attempts to hide the truth. We are the keepers of our democracy so best we keep these politicians, our public servants, accountable...

______

* George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946)

** Orwell himself was wary of being guilty of "the very faults I am protesting against". If you find me so guilty, or have any other fault with my arguments please drop me a line. This is not the sort of discussion that ever ends, or where we ever stop learning... 

Can we be friends?

Yesterday a comment popped up on my Facebook feed, about a photo I'd shared. The photo was an image from the guys at Letters for Ranjini about the recent reports of children self-harming in Australian detention centers. Now if you're a regular here you'll notice that I've written about Ranjini before, maybe even a few times. Suffice to say I feel strongly on the issue of children in immigration detention.

Now the comment I received on the photo was of the typical 'go back to where you came from' mantra. It came from a so-called 'Facebook friend'; you know the type, you click accept even though you haven't seen them in ten years. This guy had obviously not looked into the story and was reacting purely on pre-conceived ideas. 

What the hell can you do or say when faced with ignorance like that? 

I wrote a reply (I felt I was being quite restrained) suggesting my 'friend' look into the issue before making judgements and reminding him we are talking about vulnerable children. In my gut though I just wanted to hit 'delete friend' and be done with him.

In the end I decided to wait a couple of hours just in case he replied to my comment. I wanted the chance to engage with this guys ideas, maybe offer a more compassionate perspective to his hardline stance. That's when I started thinking...

My reaction to his comment was in it's own way just as narrow and pointless as his dismissal of the photo. Here I was ready to censor this guy out of my life just because I found his views abhorrent. Effectively I wanted to deny him his right to free speech (at least in dialogue with me) and send him packing.

The whole point of getting online and sharing views is that we are engaging in a community of ideas. Not all these ideas will be pleasant or well thought out, and guaranteed you won't agree with them all. My reaction is one I think we all feel occasionally; to ignore unpleasant comments, ideas & opinions in favour of those we agree with. We have to fight this impulse...

Engaging only with simpatico peers doesn't foster action, or advance progressive ideas. We can end up participating in a little club of self congratulation, forgetting any opposition exists. Free speech means freedom for all speakers and as uncomfortable as it may be, challenging negative views is the only way to contribute to change.

I plan to remember this and hopefully it will change my relationships both online and out in the world...

Who's really to blame?

It's never nice to feel guilt, or have to take responsibility. Instinct tells us this, so from childhood it's always the cat or the wind that broke the vase. We shift the blame but avoidance only anesthetizes us to the pain of guilt it doesn't solve anything.

Heaven help you then if you're a celebrity these days; 'a', 'b', 'c' even the 'd' grade celebs have more cameras pointed at them than a British high-street. So when Chrissie Swan snuck a cigarette the other day she was happy snapped by an obliging paparazzo. The really story wasn't Swan or the cigarette, it was her pregnant body that apparently belongs to the world at large to probe, prod and criticise.

Smoking while pregnant is bad (just in case you weren't aware). A quick Google search or even a vox pop of those around you reveals shocked indignation and horror scenarios. Swan wasn't ignorant of this, and we learned as much when she was all but forced to make a public mea culpa on her battle to bag the fag.

What did the public hope to gain by taking to Twitter to shame Chrissie Swan? If helping her was the aim, then the vitriol seems counter productive. Perhaps this was a public awareness campaign against smoking; but then why did it had to wait for a celebrity to get caught in the act? I think Chrissie Swan has been made into the cat that broke the vase, taking the hit for all our little health indiscretions. We need these celebrity mistakes, they're the 'bad influence' that we blame when our own willpower gets weak.

It's not just weak willed people that need to shift the blame though. Three weeks ago I wrote about Jonathan Moylan, the stock crashing, hoaxer living in the bush. Moylan's protest against the proliferation of new mines in Australia exposed (yet again) vulnerabilities in the Australian Stock Exchange. Basically a bunch of people reacted to an unverified news report and sold their shares at a loss. Now instead of blaming the media insiders that allowed the report without verifying it, or even the individuals that panic traded their shares, Moylan is being held solely culpable.

When we shift responsibility we create the illusion that the world's problems might never exist but for the 'bogeyman' being blamed. Private, public and political we have 'bogeymen' surrounding us; disempowering us as we become increasing reliant on a saviour to purge our demons.

We have developed a culture of scapegoating to avoid taking personal responsibility for our actions, as if blame somehow mitigates the damage. This is disturbing at the level of the individual because it perpetuates the cycle; blame fast food and you don't have to look at your personal habits or diet, blame the addictive nature of the pokies and you don't have to consider what drove you to them in the first place. Blame and scapegoating passes responsibility, but there is no one waiting to pick it up.

At the institutional level this culture of 'blame and run' hurts more than just individuals as the moral torpor marginalizes those who stand outside the majority. This is never worse than in the area of political compromise. The most common scenario seems to be a distorted Catch-22, as the humanitarian treatment of asylum seekers becomes equated with soft border protection, and refugees become the scapegoats. Or the question of equal marriage rights for gay people is made synonymous with a disintegration of values and gay men and women are the scapegoats.

The woes of the world have successfully been transferred. There's no need confess or face the truth and this is really bad for us, because the focus is on the problem not on the solution. As we move toward an election this year will we also be interested in blame?

Listen to your local candidates as they campaign for your vote; are they telling you what the other guy is doing wrong, or what they plan to do right? When they tell you someone is to blame they are playing a negative political game and want you to believe that eliminating the problem is the same as a solution. But locking up asylum seekers does not stop more arriving because it does address why they seek refuge in the first place. Preventing gay people from marrying does not strengthen family ties it just prevents good people from making them. Demonizing a tax does not mean there are no meaningful ways for the polis to address climate change.

We must therefore move to address change with a view to judging our flaws meaningfully, not shifting them onto somebody else...

1000 words...

Not everyone reads blogs, newspapers, or even that little ticker tape at the bottom of the TV. Hell given the option of 140 characters some people throw their hands up in the air and tweet a picture instead!

Messages and the medium in which they are communicated have become wide and varied in the years since Marshall McLuahn assured us the two are related. But with so many competing messages and all the bright flashing lights, what's a person have to do to get noticed?!

...

This morning, feeling more than a little ironic, I decided to visit a musee exposition on street art. It was a no-brainer with all that talent blown inside by the winter winds, I could take the time to contemplate deeply stenciled truths out of the winter cold. I love walking down any random street and suddenly being confronted with something thought provoking, original, not merely plain brick...

Banksy was in there, as was Shepard Fairy (the 'Obama Hope' guy), Space Invader, as well as a bunch I didn't know so well but had seen around. Their images confronted and challenged consumerism, political indifference, privacy and state observation, even as they braved the fate of all ephemera. Issues both personal and global were theirs, just as their canvas was both private and public.

Around the same time I read of the Australian Greens releasing pictures drawn by young children in detention on Manus island. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young wanted the Australian government to see how it's immigration policies were robbing children of their childhood but some commentators on Twitter felt that the pictures were a form of propaganda or emotional blackmail. What is the truth when images cut so deep?

In Triple J's Hottest 100 for 2012 a song called 'Same Love' by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis came in at #15. It's a cool song, even if you're not the biggest fan of hip-hop. Basically it confronts the prejudices people unconsciously reinforce about gay people, to a beat. Now the Hottest 100's a big deal. More than a million people vote every year for these songs and they voted in a protest against the marriage discrimination against gay people.

We know this stuff! We stream the tunes and view the Youtube clips; we decry the graf on our fence but wear the pithy t-shirt. Every time it pisses someone off it means they are taking notice and questioning what's going on. It's definitely better than a Maccas opening on your block and their billboards blocking the skyline.

"Formal slavery has long been abolished, but a de facto mental slavery has replaced it" so says Noam Chomsky in his recent book Power Systems. When we ignore a challenging image but accept an advertisement; this is our enslavement. When we tune out to pop, but turn off a protest song; this is our enslavement.

Outside the gallery someone had reworked some discarded furniture...

As Australia goes to an election in 2013 we must think about these messages, but we must also make our own. With so many mediums through which we might be heard we have to go out and occupy that mental space. I don't know what your message might be but it's important that you get it our there for other people to hear it. While you're there take a moment and listen to what other people are saying...

We have infinite opportunities to engage each other, with as many distractions telling us to spend, consume and ignore. I say listen when it resonates with you but don't stop there. Tweet, like, spray, blog, post, comment or do whatever gets you heard and engage. "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery..."

Make Election 2013 about human rights...

It is hard to see how the forthcoming election could offer any positive news for Ranjini and baby Paari.

Elections do not turn on personal stories and certainly not the personal stories of individuals who are not voting members of the country in question. Industrial relations, taxes and economic direction all sound like familiar policy platforms for parties. The fate of vulnerable individuals who are members of a foreign state do not sway our decision; but should they?

The Coalition have promised to entrench indefinite detention or refugees if elected by reinforcing the power of ASIO. This would roll back a review introduced by the Labor government last October. At present Ranjini languishes in Villawood detention center with her newborn child and two other children. Is this to be their lives if they are afforded no recourse to a decision they are not even privy too?

Asylum seekers arriving by boat are a political football, tossed around ad-nauseam throughout election campaigns for the last decade. The result is that any party seen as soft on 'boat arrivals' garners a complementary title of being soft on all leadership matters. Respected Fairfax political correspondent Peter Hartcher discussed this recently, citing a formulation by former PM Kevin Rudd on the primacy of national security. National security is frequently conflated with border security & boat arrivals in the public consciousness, with the result being the demonizing of legitimate refugees.

Refugees are rarely a popular topic. During an election they either fall into the black hole of border security arguments or fade away in importance as Australia discusses domestic concerns and the economy.

Don't believe me? Before the 2010 election Human Rights Watch, an independent, international organisation committed to defending human rights sent the following letter to the leaders of Australia's political parties. It reads just as relevant today; indicating just how little has changed in the areas of refugee and asylum seekers rights.

So why should we consider Ranjini & Paari and the many others in immigration detention awaiting a decision?

Australia is a developed, modern economy that loves to brag about how well we're doing by comparison to the rest of the world. We have also taken a seat on the United Nations security council giving us a platform for global leadership. Even without these considerations I would argue we have a responsibility to assist those most vulnerable in our society, given our current international standing it is imperative that we take a positive leadership stance on Human Rights.

Increasing the national profile of this debate and making it an election issue is something that will only happen if we demand it. Politicians are public servants and never more so than when they are trying to garner your vote to stay in office. Find your local member and write to them sharing your thoughts on the matter. Let them know that you care about human rights as much as, if not more than, the budget surplus or a national highway or whatever they are currently campaigning on.

Your words and your vote set the agenda...  

Election 2013

So, we're going to the polls...

September 14th is the date I hear and most of the country is all a'twitter and the rest are on Facebook. We knew it was coming this year but now we have a time frame and we know that there are going to be almost eight months of campaigning to win our hearts and minds in the lead up. What this means is anyone's guess but we can assume a certain level of vitriol between the main players.

A shrewd observer on Twitter asked not long after the announcement how we could tell the difference between campaigning now and the political rhetoric we've been made to suffer the last few years? Personality and personal attacks have become the bread and butter of Australian politics. I can't remember exactly when we moved towards an American, presidential style tete-a-tete, but I do know that Labour vs. Liberal feels more like Julia vs.Tony at the moment.

The presidential campaigning started straight out of the blocks as Tony Abbott framed the whole campaign as being based around trust. His comments of course refer to Julia Gillards backdown on statements made about the implementation of a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme. The issue of trust was later compounded by Labour's brazen statements about a budget surplus.

So Abbott says don't trust Gillard, coz she lies. Gillard says don't trust Abbott, coz he won't to commit to anything (lie or truth). They both make points in their own twisted ways but neither really mentions too much about their vision for the country beyond 2013 (except for the bit where we all go to hell if the other gets voted in).

Forgive me for thinking that policies and issues might be the important thing here. I believe there are plenty of things to be talking about in Australia in 2013...

What about our deplorable human rights record for compulsory, indefinite detention of asylum seeker arrivals? There's the state of our welfare safety net for the most vulnerable Australians and as the Sydney Mardi Gras enters it's 35th year we still have huge steps to take for gay rights and equality.

These are fringe issue to many Australians who are more concerned with making ends meet and providing for their families. Maybe the election could say something about the national broadband network; a resource for extending services and information to all of Australia. Or healthcare and education which affects us beyond the standard three year cycle. Everyone has their passion and everyone should participate in election 2013 with all the information to go on.

These are the issues that are important to me. There are many more that make up the larger picture of Australian politics this year and into the future. I'd like to explore them as we approach September and try to create some small perspective on what this election is all about. Please write me the things that matter to you, that you would like to see discussed in the lead up and heading into the future of our country...

An inclusive national identity?

Australians are fiercely proud of their national identity. Call us British or (shock, horror!) American and you'll likely be greeted with a confrontational:

"Maaate! C'mon!" 

When not stridently defending our national identity, we Australians are likely to be found just as passionately arguing over what said identity entails. This is never more prevalent than on, or around our national holiday when the beer, beaches and backyard cricket give way to more somber reflections. So it was in the aftermath of this Australia Day that I found myself reading the reflections of our deputy prime minister the Hon. Wayne Swann M.P. as he attempted to evoke our national character through an editorial piece for the Fairfax Media.

The article makes a case for the continued debate about an Australian republic. It does this by way of discussing the unique character of our Australian identity, distinct from the English, imperial settlers of the continent. Swann invokes the infamous 'Bodyline' series as model for our 'Australianess'; where a "democratic and egalitarian assertion of our national sovereignity" won out against tyranny. While many countries hearken back to periods of war and revolution to locate their defining moments of national character, for Australia the imagined battlefields are the sporting arenas our national teams so often dominate.

The 'Bodyline' series saw unorthodox tactics employed to gain a result for the English. Swann identifies these tactics as ruthless, imperialistic and against the spirit of the game. The implication is that England being the 'ruling' power felt they could bend and break established codes of behaviour to gain a favourable result for the team.

While arguments about the impact of the series will rage wherever there are cricket fans, in it we can see the origins of many a political tactic employed in modern Australia.

Spin and obfuscation; not of the bowling type, but the manipulation of words and perceptions. 'Bodyline' to the Australians was 'leg theory' to the English, not as sexy, but the Australian term was clearly adopted for maximum emotional clout. So it is in modern Australia that asylum seekers become 'queue jumpers', when their arrival is inconvenient; refugees become 'irregular maritime arrivals' when their legitimacy becomes inconvenient.

From our opponents we learned the assertion of power at the edges of legitimacy. Despite being unsafe and unsavoury, Bodyline fell within the broadest interpretation of the rules of cricket. Also legitimate, the Australian government feels, are our border control measures where we indefinitely detain people to ensure there is 'no advantage' to arriving by boat, or tow them back where no international convention protects their rights.

Bodyline may offer much by way of sporting history and tales of individual courage but it does not seem the best of models for political rule or national identity. Swann describes one element of the Bodyline series was the attempted assertion of imperial superiority. Against this our fledgling national identity could not stand down and heroes such as Woodfull, Oldfield and Bradman led us against this oppressive, restrictive regime. What this analysis fails to appreciate is the analogy between England's imposition of cultural hegemony on it's various, diverse, multicultural imperial subjects and contemporary Australia's attempts to impose a sense of Anglo-Australian identity over the much lauded but infrequently practiced multicultural tolerance.      

Further claims are made that Australian's are not a ruthless, whatever-it-takes people. This may ring true for the Bodyline series and it certainly accords with the image of the laid-back Australian. Such sanguine generosity may not resonate with Australian's Indigenous population, many of whom were ripped from their land and their people as Australia established it's modern identity without them. Nor would a refugee seeking assistance from Australia agree that our systems of acceptance are not ruthless. With legitimate refugees and children in immigration detention, it is hard to deny we do whatever it takes.

Swann's analysis works if you are arguing simply from an Australian/English dyad. This is admittedly his goal; to make the case for a republic. But in arguing for an Australian identity separate from England he presents a particularly exclusive, inward looking notion of who we are. Swann pays lip service to our Indigenous heritage but his argument turns on an Anglo identity that is Australian not English and certainly does not sound multicultural. A national identity that is not inclusive has no unifying force over it's population. Much in the same way a sense of identity that is too prescriptive will tend towards division as individuals struggle to locate their own personal self amidst a collection of stereotypical 'Australians'. 

Australia's national character and identity are not an issue resolved in a single article, a single conversation, perhaps not even by the severing of imperial ties with England. Minister Swann makes an admirable point about maintaining the republican debate but he crucially ignores the current state of our relationship with Indigenous Australians as well as those new Australians seeking our help. We need more from our politicians who should lead us in an open, inclusive conversation, one that appeals not just to inspirational moments in our past but to those of our future.

When I hear such conversations annually around Australia Day I wonder if perhaps discussing our evolving national identity is an integral part of that identity. What seems imperative to me is the acknowledgment of the shameful elements of our past and present as we forge an identity for the future.

Australia must identify that it was black before it ever was considered as white, and that we must see that heritage as ours. Constitutional acknowledgment of Indigenous Australians and a treaty would serve as an excellent beginning.

But Australia is no longer just indigenous and anglo. Identity also means accepting that 'the old country' is many places to many people, not just our old imperial master. Let's move towards an encompassing notion of identity for all. This will come at the cost of putting aside old rivalry for the promise of a peaceful tomorrow, nothing more than a greater peace throughout the world would require.

Most of all we need to talk, discuss, argue and agree because we continue to share this country and our division harms the future of our national identity. Even if this means debating who we are every year that is a conversation worth having, because that's a conversation we can all share in.

Representation?!

A tale of indifference from your elected representatives...

I've now written twice on the story of Ranjini and her brand new son Paari; locked up in Australian immigration detention during her pregnancy, then returned only days after Paari's birth. My plan is to continue writing in the hope that rallying support around this issue might see sense prevail and result in an outcome that sees a weeks old baby released from jail.

This outcome seems less and less likely when our elected representatives refuse to engage on the issue in a meaningful way, preferring to stonewall opposition to the official policy. I am not the only person writing on this issue, far from it. I first read about Ranjini's story through GetUp! and 'Letters for Ranjini'. Both of these organisations have been actively campaigning to see Ranjini and Paari allowed to reunite with their family. As a result of this campaigning a lot of letters have been written to a lot of local members requesting action.

Unfortunately the responses received by 'Letter's for Ranjini' were less than inspirational on the part of the government. While you might hope for a resounding success or fear an outright rejection, the replies from Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson reflect the worst of bureaucratic obfuscation designed to do nothing more than placate the reader. Both letters read as virtual carbon copies of each other. They are clearly form letters designed to deflect community concern over the issue of what they like to call 'irregular maritime arrivals' (asylum seekers in the regular parlance). These replies refer to Ranjini's case only in the final paragraph and speak nothing of addressing the urgent concern of having a newborn child locked up.

On their website 'Letter's for Ranjini' call these replies a complete disregard for democracy, but I would go a step further. These politicians attempt to use stock standard letters to placate their constituents because they have no regard for the intelligence and sincerity of collective community action. They feel they are safe within the 'democracy' because they sit in safe seats of regard Ranjini's story a fringe political issue.  

This is not an acceptable response from Australia's political representatives, no matter their political persuasion. Politicians govern at the will of the people and they must be reminded of the voices behind their power, that they may use it to some good end. Consider this and write to your local member; you can get most of them on Twitter if you don't have time for an email. Go to 'Letters For Ranjini's' - Facebook page and give them a 'like' so that they can continue this struggle. Most importantly though is to take back your voice and refuse to accept a stock reply from a politician; ask why, ask for more information and make them justify their position. Remember you gave them their job...  

________

More on Ranjini's story:

Here are some sites you might like to check out for more information about Ranjini's story and the issue of the detention of children in immigration detention facilities in Australia...

Rightzblock - Life Imprisonment? 

My first post detailing Ranjini's plight before Paari's birth.

Rightzblock - Followup to Ranjini's Story 

Detailing the shameful act of imprisoning Paari days after his birth.

Letters for Ranjini 

Campaigning for justice on behalf of Ranjini; write a letter of support!

Chilout 

Fantastic organisation campaigning on behalf of children in immigration detention.

Chris Bowen - Minister for Immigration 

Drop the minister a line; email, twitter or call to express your concerns 

over the issue of children being locked up! 

You can't do that!

So I was talking about civil disobedience wasn't I? 

It had been all over the newspapers in Australia that a young guy had faked a press release to make a statement about the environment. This in turn caused stocks in a mining company to dive. This guy broke the law and some politicians were calling for quite severe punishment, while others were situating him in a tradition of civil disobedience.

(check out my post @ http://rightzblock.blogspot.fr/2013/01/civil-disobedience.html)

This event was a dramatic, news-attention grabbing event which the Australian Greens Party situated in a long tradition of action and protest within the Australian community. These include environmental protests; most notoriously the Franklin River Dam protests in the eighties. Women's suffrage in Australia also benefitted enormously around the turn of the twentieth century from women willing to stand against an oppressive system.

Throughout October and November of last year there were numerous and long running hunger strikes in detention centers facilitated by Australia; these were supported by protests and marches on the mainland. Here we saw people defying official policies, occupying public spaces and making bold physical statements attempting to address the government policy on processing asylum seekers. Many of these people were already imprisoned in a detention center while others ran the risk of arrest which might lead to fines and or jail time.

If you want to talk about, read about or even just think about the notion of civil disobedience a few names generally come up; I'm thinking Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Aung San Suu Kyi. These are people that have stood up and made themselves heard because they saw injustice, even when it went against the law of the day. Their actions took many forms, some of which we might find quite benign in Australian society; things like occupying space that was reserved only for white people, or speaking out against the government that perpetuated injustice through it's laws and policies. 

In Australia you are generally allowed to speak your mind on any topic, expressing any viewpoint; this includes the enlightened and the repugnant. Our laws respect the right of expression and we trust in the public to gather and filter information on which they will make their decisions. This is not always so throughout the world. Online activists and bloggers in Vietnam are currently serving lengthy sentences for posting so called 'subversive' material and in perhaps the most visible case worldwide members of the Russian band 'Pussy Riot' are serving time for an anti government film clip.

One name inseparable with civil disobedience is the America philosopher, writer and lakeside camper named Henry David Thoreau. In his essay 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' he lays out the framework, indeed the ethos for living a life of civil disobedience. He outlines the need to live a life ruled by conscience even if this contravenes the law of the day. Further he acknowledges where conscience and law disagree we have an obligation to disobey the law, even go to jail for it. Thoreau was protesting against America's slave trade and their was in Mexico but his principles stand for time immemorial. 

Laws are not always right or just. This can be clearly seen throughout history and we must trust in our conscience to show us where unjust laws exist today. Standing against an unjust law is not an easy or simple choice to make and history has also shown us that civil disobedience often comes at the cost of ones personal liberty.

So far I feel like I've made only a brief tour of civil disobedience, protest and the like and this is not the full story. PersonallyvI feel it's an important part of our lives as citizens and that this is demonstrated in the amazing achievements and liberties gained by people speaking out. 

What about the rest of you though: how far would you go, or maybe you feel this is all just wrong? This is a topic that involves every person, on every issue. Share your opinion here, or you can tweet me @rightzblock. Love to here from you...

Followup on Ranjini's story...

Hi all,

I've been diligently working on a follow-up to my last post about civil disobedience that I hope to post soon but I want to interrupt with an update on an earlier post. A little while back I wrote about the detention in Australia of a young, refugee named Ranjini (if you'd like to read it - http://rightzblock.blogspot.fr/2012/12/life-imprisonment.html).

Ranjini was pregnant and there has been a lot of work by a lot of people to help free her before the birth of her baby. Well on the 15th of January Ranjini gave birth to baby boy named Paartheepan or Paari. Unfortunately she had not been freed from immigration detention at the time and as I understand it she has now been returned to Villawood detention center.

Today I'd like to share with you a letter I wrote to my local federal member challenging her on this issue. If you're in reading this in Australia and you feel strongly about this issue I'd challenge you to write to your local member as well. It's easy to do; you'll find their email contact online. If you're not in Australia, perhaps you could get on Twitter and message our Prime Minister on @JuliaGillard. I believe that this is a serious issue, deserving of attention just as I believe that a strong, engaged group of people can make a difference when they raise their voices.

Here's the letter:

Dear Minister,

I have written to you in the past regarding the current government's policies on refugees and asylum seekers. I do not support policies of mandatory detention nor do I support punitive, 'no advantage' policies regarding the processing of boat arrivals. As I have mentioned in the past, it is well documented in the scientific literature that detention has negative physical and psychological consequences for those detained. All of these points I feel must be acted on by a government that is both signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Refugees and a member of the United Nations Security Council.

Today I write out of urgency and sadness on the impacts of these issues. On the 15th of January 2013 a young Sri Lankan woman named Ranjini gave birth to a baby boy in detention. As I understand it both Ranjini and her son have now been returned to Villawood detention center. My understanding of the case is that Ranjini has received a positive refugee assessment from the government but a negative security assessment from ASIO. She now faces indefinite detention without a right to appeal. That's means that the current government is presiding over an illogical, unjust system and the consequence is a newborn child, innocent of any crime is locked up.     

Ranjini's story is not the only tale of detention deserving of attention. It is however the most striking case of the impersonal, bureaucratic attitude both the government and the opposition take of refugee issues. This is not about statistics of numbers on boats; this is a child born in Australian that is deserving of the protections our society offers.  If you are not currently aware of groundswell of support for Ranjini I would recommend you check out the website 'letters for Ranjini' (http://lettersforranjini.com/) for some perspectives on the public's feelings on this issue.

I am a voter in the electorate of Sydney and I would ask you to respond as my local member. I also challenge you to raise this issue in all it's gravity with your colleagues. Ranjini's story raises very real questions about Australia's approach to human rights and justice. If we cannot as a society protect those most vulnerable and respect the rights of those unable to protect themselves we must be judged poorly in the eyes of the world.

More importantly though I would ask you to utilise what influence you have within your party and the government to help free Ranjini and her newborn son before untold harm is done to this new life.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Pople

 

Civil Disobedience...

Did you hear the one about the man in the tree who wiped millions off the mining companies stock?

It would be funny if it weren't true, and more so if the poor bloke weren't being dragged from pillory to post for an act that reflects more on the vulnerabilities of the Australian stock exchange and the gullibility and lack of rigor amongst financial reporters.

The short version is an anti-mining activist by the name of Jonathan Moylan released a statement under the guise of a major bank. In this statement he claimed that the bank had refused credit to a mining company because of concerns over their environmental record. This was in turn picked up by the media and in turn by segments of the share trading public. They proceeded to get rid of their stock and it dropped in value, until such time as trading was suspended. There's a lot of reporting going on around this topic but it seems from what I've read that Moylan was trying to create the impression that a major bank was speaking out against mining and environmental destruction. Oh and he did all this from a protest camp in a forest with indifferent wifi...

Let's look at this another way; Moylan who is a nobody, at least in the grand scheme of banks and mining companies realised he wasn't exactly going to make a big splash sitting in a tree blocking bulldozers (my interpretation). So he impersonates a somebody, or in this case a banking institution somebody and makes a statement that adheres to his environmental beliefs. He does this reasoning that Jonathon Moylan doesn't get much attention but maybe major bank will.

Problem is he's a little too clever. If he'd just stayed chained to a tree or whatever the hell he was doing it would all be fine and he'd only be pissing off some poor day worker trying to get the job done. Instead he ignited a stock run, got the politicians polarised and worst of all, dared to tamper with peoples money!

The leader of the Australian Greens, Christina Milne, declared Moylan's act a part of a great tradition of civil disobedience in Australia. Possibly she was having a slow day and worried that she hadn't suffered any recent vitriol as the leader of Australia's third party released an honest, unambiguous statement. The statement got both her and party comments that make unflattering references to mental illness. But she raises a good point about the presence and role of civil disobedience and protest within Australian society.

Protest generally seems to get negative publicity in Australia, or perhaps more correctly the protests that get the most attention are the ones that end in confrontation and violence. This is unfortunate and I don't intend to speculate on journalistic integrity in reporting these issues prominently or rogue activists turning peaceful protest violent. What I would like to raise is the philosophy of civil disobedience within a society and specifically what role it might fill in Australian society.

Myself, I think civil disobedience definitely has a place. At the core of it's philosophy is questioning and taking action against unjust laws. I don't think any society can claim to be free from the stink of such laws and it is not always the legislators who are motivated toward change.

This will be my taking off point and I will endeavour to explore further the role of civil disobedience in a modern society like Australia. In the mean time I will be having a think about some of the changes that we can see right now that came about as a result of people standing up: female suffrage, the Franklin River's conservation and the acknowledgement of indigenous people immediately spring to mind. Can we add further environmental protections and rights for refugees in the future?

Life Imprisonment?

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/