Blame...

Let's get this out of the way from the outset: victims are never to blame for rape or sexual assault.

Yet prominent Australian broadcaster John Laws yesterday asked a woman who had been abused at age six "was it in any way your fault?" Laws goes on in the interview to question whether the woman was provocative during the nine years of abuse she suffered and whether or not she was attractive. Following criticism of the interview Laws stood by his comments, claiming he was "trying to keep it light".

A few days ago I wrote about men and feminism. I posited that for men to contribute they must first challenge their assumptions about equality, women and society and often stop talking; taking time to consider how these assumptions inform the conversation.

At a guess John Laws would not subscribe to my position on this. The self proclaimed 'King of Radio' speaks with full confidence that people are listening. To stop talking would be akin to death for him. His claim that he was keeping it light reveals his deep need to entertain, not challenge or inform. There is no place in his world for challenging assumptions.

This makes Laws a dangerous presence on the radio. Over fifty-four years of broadcasting he has garnered a huge audience, many who see no need to question what Laws says. Laws is the embodiment of oppressive, patriarchal discourse; an old, white guy talking without thinking, who is primarily interested in maintaining his own position.

How do we challenge such ingrained beliefs?

A fantastic picture I saw online recently depicts a girl holding a sign. It says "Why am I dressed like a slut? Why are you thinking like a rapist?" This is the crux of the matter. Too often we focus on the overt, the visual, the thing we can easily identify and that is the victim. We must instead delve into the thoughts, attitudes and beliefs of the attacker; reflect them back in his face.

When John Laws speaks to his sympathetic audience he has his beliefs reinforced. Let's hold a mirror up to his comments and ask what it means when a seventy-seven year old man thinks a six year old or a fifteen year old girl can be provocative?

_____________

There is a very real danger that this story could be overshadowed by other news events. Today's SMH has the story relegated to page #15. following eight pages of election coverage and three pages of advertisement.

You can help keep it on the news agenda, hold a mirror up to victim blaming and show Laws how disgusting his comments really are. Write to him at Radio 2SM and sign the petition demanding an apology started by 'Destroy the Joint'. Only by speaking out will we change the conversation.

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...

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...

Half the Sky

For those who skim, maybe only read my opening lines:

"go check out 'Half the Sky'!"

I'm not a film reviewer, but then technically 'Half the Sky' isn't really a film. It's a doco, or maybe it's advocacy, or maybe it's just a series of stories that you need to hear. My thanks to the people at Sutherland Amnesty International for putting on this film screening. They've opened up the door and since there's nothing I can bring to the tale maybe I can give you a reason to go watch it for yourself...

Half the Sky does not truck in complex ideas, it's message is simple; women represent half the planet's population but through systematic brutality, oppression, sexual violence and lack of education women of the world have been prevented from achieving their personal and social potential.

This sort of systemic oppression is staggering. It is staggering because against the backdrop of our modern western ideals this seems like the worst kind of Dickensian nightmare. It is staggering because these are crimes committed, not by distorted, Hollywood-esque villains, but by fathers, uncles and brothers. Mostly though, it is staggering because it makes no sense. In our world with all it's troubles, the combined might of an educated, empowered female population would be a beacon of hope.

The film does something really beautiful with it's combination of raw narrative at the source of the problem; the filmmakers go to Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Vietnam, combined with celebrity cameo just to keep you interested. George Clooney throws it out there in the intro that celebrities can use their celluloid power to make people take notice. Then throughout the film you get to watch Gabrielle Union, Meg Ryan and Eva Mendes confront and try to process impossible situations.

Our celebs are uncomfortable, they are awkward, they say comforting things to people who don't understand their language but how else is any sane person supposed to react when faced with the rape of children as young as two? Or the endemic poverty that affects generations of families and ensures that girls are never so welcome as a single son. These celebrities are used for their profile, because this is too important a message not to get out!

Half the Sky confronts worldwide brutality against women but it also shows us that this is not an insurmountable problem, though it does require action. The measures needed may even seem simple from our privileged perspective; education, freedom from violence and dignity. These things can not be taken for granted, they require that people get involved.

The beginning is education; at the film screening perhaps only 10% of the audience were guys. Yet as the film points out men own the majority of property, control the majority of wealth and hold the majority of political power in the world. Guys, we need to learn about the problem before we see a solution.

Beyond this we need to support organisations like Amnesty International, that are working with people on the ground. Support them financially, or perhaps politically by signing a petition about these issues. But also support women's rights internationally by sharing this with the people in your lives; Facebook them or Twitter, Google+ & LinkedIn them. Let your contacts know this matters to you, so that maybe with a little but of information it will matter to them...

____

The issues dealt with in the 'Half the Sky' film are not exclusive to developing countries. Violence against women is a huge issue in Australia and the hardest part for most people to face is that it's Aussie blokes that are doing the damage. No excuses here, it's a zero tolerance issue and it needs people to stand up and say it's not acceptable.

For people experiencing violence or other issues in their life you can always contact 'Lifeline' on 13 11 14 (or just call '000' in an emergency).

White Ribbon is an organisation campaigning to stop violence against women. I'd commend all the guys reading this to check them out and sign the pledge.

Recognition...

Yesterday I flew in to Sydney with that fantastic feeling of returning home after eight months. Now as any returning Australian, or visitor knows that feeling is significantly mitigated by the cramps and insomnia of more than thirty hours of flights and transfers. Trying to write last night I was overcome with langour and that strange displaced feeling of being somewhere both so familiar and a little foreign...

Catching up later on the news I'd missed that fantastic feeling returned while reading of the passage of the 'Act of Recognition' through the federal Parliament. The Act commits Parliament to working towards the inclusion and recognition of Australia's Indigenous people in the national constitution. It is significant that this process has begun just as it is shameful that it has taken so long.

See names are important and if that sounds familiar it's because in my last post I talked quite a bit about names; the way they can be used to convey power and status, or attempt to remove it by belittling someone. Names are the way we recognise who someone is and if we don't give them to ourselves someone else will find one for us. How much more difficult then to not have a name?

Indigenous Australians were recognised as citizens and given the vote in 1967; essentially acknowledging that them as members of Australian society. As important as this act was it reads more like a 'welcome to Australia' for a people whose existence on this continent predates European settlement by thousands of years. Compare this relationship with that of the Maori and the British in New Zealand.

The Treaty of Waitangi signed between the Crown and Maori leaders in 1840 began a collaborative, albeit uneven at times, relationship between indigenous New Zealanders and those who would wish to be their sovereigns. No such treaty exists in Australia and collaboration between indigenous leaders and the Federal Government seems bereft of direction. Indigenous Australians have been denied their identity just as surely as they were denied their lands. Colonial policies of integration threatened to wipe out language and cultures tracing thousands of years of history and this continues to happen when we denigrate these memories as 'black armband history'.

While traveling through Europe I was constantly amazed by the depth of history that permeates the land. I was also shocked that this jarred so starkly with my perception of Australian history. My shock was not because we are a 'young' country as is often repeated, but because we are old and this history is not well known. As former NSW senator Aden Ridgeway acknowledges in his recent editorial, constitutional recognition expand our national history from a few hundred years to many thousands of years. It enriches us as a nation and paves the way for a more complete understanding of our history; hopefully, one day I'll have kids who will grow up with a broader knowledge of all Australian people.

Constitutional recognition also offers us the opportunity to remove a stain from the constitution in the form of the so-called 'race powers'. Section 25 and section 51(xxvi) are provisions for both state and federal governments to make race specific laws. These do not exclusively refer to Indigenous Australians, but may do so. The implications of such provisions are frightening, even if they sit unused, and the presence of such provisions is a blot on the most powerful document of a supposedly multicultural country.

The Act of Recognition is only the beginning of the story. If nothing else it means that we can expect a referendum on constitutional change to occur after two years. The 1967 referendum on indigenous suffrage garnered overwhelming support and was passed. This should and must happen again, but it can't be guaranteed unless all Australians get behind it.

If you're reading this then you have some of the story; check out the guys at 'Recognise', from whom I got a lot of background information, and who offer you the opportunity to sign up for the cause of Recognition. Let's make this story our national story...

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...

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?

The Product?

If you're not paying for it then you're the product.

I keep hearing people talking about social media and the online world in these terms. Usually not very far into the conversation issues of privacy and access are also being mentioned and the argument can start to sound part civil rights issue and part conspiracy theory; that somehow the online illuminati are staging mass identity theft/profiling of us all.

I'm still not sure what to make of it all and so I dutifully ensure my privacy settings are set high and perhaps more importantly I self censor rigorously (which for some people might just mean not going near a computer whilst drunk!). Still though, I find it quite strange after searching on a whim for a flight somewhere that I soon find advertisements for holidays on my FB and other pages.

Am I savvy because I know this or a retard for not yet adequately getting around it and protecting my online life? I have no idea what the answer to that question is or even if it's the sort of question that can be answered at the moment. Whenever we use an app, whether to shop, search, poke, check in or any of the functions they offer, there is potential for data to be mined from us and sent back to the developer. What it might be used for is likely still being explored but I pause when I think someone could know what I'm thinking (from status updates and tweets), what I'm reading (from purchases) and where I go and when (check ins and the like). Thank goodness I don't live in a repressive state where that sort of information can get you in trouble.

In my last post I was wondering out loud about the potential for mobile applications and social media to change our thinking about parts and peoples we don't know or understand that well. Consider the African continent where smartphone penetration is closing in on 20% or one in five people. It's higher in Northern and Southern Africa and pretty low in Central Africa. This compares with almost 40% in Australia.

(here's a nice site for some stats http://www.mikekujawski.ca/2012/05/30/finally-some-2012-statistics-for-the-african-mobile-phone-market/)

This can have amazing impacts as was shown throughout the Arab Spring uprisings but it also brings up questions about the rights of people acquiring smartphones and the information they share. An external company may have incentives to develop and offer free software and applications for people in this developing market, which they can then transition into a data mining, money spinning operation (Facebook I'm looking at you). On the other hand there are great initiatives like Apps4Africa (http://apps4africa.org/) that encourage local developers to target problems and needs at a local level.

I did a quick Google search using the terms 'ethics of app development' and I got very little. All the top hits were for people wanting to write an ethics application for a research project or associated endeavor.  Curious, I did another search, this time with the search terms 'ethics of software development'. This time I got a lot more success which was comforting, at least people are thinking in the general area. The thing was that of the top hits I saw the most recent was from 2009, a little early for the current app revolution. Now this was an admittedly tiny search, using only narrow terms but I was really hoping for a little more thinking out there about the potential benefits and harms of our mobile, online life and how to address them.

The way I see it is the information economy is growing at a huge rate and this is largely driven by mobile internet usage. This usage is in turn driven by the development and use of apps on people's mobile phones. As this development occurs our thinking in turn must keep pace with the changing nature of content development and sharing. This is predominately going to require innovative thinking about the way to deal with all the incidental content development that happens when we're not thinking about it (location services and the like). Information shared by people online is intimately connected to their identity, their livelihood and sometimes their safety. The key to addressing the issue is probably as always education, but of what nature and how? 

...

I proofread this before I posted and got a little worried that I sounded a bit doom and gloom about spreading technology, which I'm really not. My thoughts tend towards wondering about future scenarios and I often play the devil's advocate. Anyway, here's another article I read while researching this that discusses the amazing potential and achievements mobile access can have in a development information economy... http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/africa/mobile-phones-change-africa/index.html

The right to free speech?

What are you reading this on?

There are more than a billion people on Facebook. I read that on my tablet the other day. I was flicking through some blogs and posts on Flipboard and there it was in the middle of an article about online trends.

Psy’s hit a billion too on Youtube I gather, while Obama won his first presidential election on social media and the Arab Spring owes some of it’s success to Twitter. The fact that everything from Facebook to Twitter allows you to check-in now makes me think that most of these people are watching, talking and organising from mobile devices. Huge numbers of people doing amazing things from their pockets and backpacks.

I tend to write this blog on my laptop but I don’t mind drafting on my phone; so far I lack the patience to type long paragraphs on such a small keyboard. I worry though that people are tuning out after the first 140 characters. Which brings me back to my original question of what are you reading this on, or perhaps more important to think about is whether would you be reading, writing and responding to any of this new media if it weren’t for your device. I don’t think it’s an impossible scenario that in the future the western world will consider access to an online device as a basic right; denial being akin to denying someone their right to speak freely.

We like to think of the online world and social media as being an egalitarian playground where participation has more to do with your cachet in wit and wisdom than your bankroll or influence. This forgets however one very important, very expensive initial entry criteria… our devices.

When I think about the potential for social media to connect, rally and influence I cannot help but wonder what we are missing out on from those who just don’t have access. How would Instagramming our amazing meal photos be understood if people starving in refugee camps could reply with images of their meagre repast? If social media tools like FB and Twitter could play such a powerful role in the Middle East and America, what role might they play in other regions of political or social unrest less able to get online and organise.

Free speech is an ideal much touted but even in places where people can express themselves freely they are not always guaranteed an audience. The mobile-online world allows live content development and publishing as well as access to a huge audience always on the lookout for new things. Think about a cause or charity you believe, maybe donate to. Their webpage probably has a ‘like’ symbol as well as a little blue/white bird and an orange RSS logo all ready for you to click on. They are networked and ready to harness the huge numbers available online to their cause; making a difference through people. If you cannot afford to get on social media though you are essentially stuck in the nineteenth century, waiting for some benevolent colonial to notice and take pity on your plight.

Mobile connectivity has provided so much to the world, shallow as it may seem at times. It is important to remember though that this opportunity is not completely democratic, not free for all. Consider this next time you peruse the voices on Twitter and the channels on Youtube; listen critically to who is talking but question also whose voices are missing. Remember this also when you tweet your own voice what an amazing privilege it is just to have the chance to be heard. 

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/