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

Responses...

Several explosions occurred in the American city of Boston yesterday. Reports indicate three people have died and more than a hundred injured.

After searching more than a dozen news sites from around the world that is all I can say with confidence about the event that is being called the 'Boston Bombing'.

Some sources report two explosions, others speculate a third in a library nearby. Most report three deaths from the explosions, though one reports a dozen killed. All agree there are many people injured but some describe amputated limbs and 'pools of blood'. With so much confusion regarding the basic facts of this terrible event it is unlikely the full truth will be known for many days.

Yet many people are quick, even eager to apportion blame.

The New York Post appears to be leading this trend, identifying a suspect who may not even exist. The ephemeral suspect was identified only by racial and religious traits, do I even need to repeat them? The origins of this report seem to stem from reports that the Boston police are questioning a man being treated for injuries at a local hospital. I would be willing to speculate that Boston police are questioning many people who were at the scene of the explosions.

It is important for law enforcement officials to make inquiries, develop theories and investigate these theories to ultimately apprehend the perpetrator of a crime. This is their job and there are systems in place to ensure it is done fairly and hopefully in an unbiased way. The rest of us engage in speculation and (conspiracy) theorizing out of some sort of macabre need to connect with the tragedy that is unfolding. Often this connection involves pushing a racist, nationalist or sexist agenda not warranted by the facts.

Twitter comes alive during an event of this magnitude. Amidst the stream of citizen reportage their is always an undercurrent of those pushing their own prejudiced agenda.

Policymic writer Elizabeth Plank, tweeting as @feministabulous compiled as list of the top ten most racist tweets to come out of the Boston events: the tweets listed include pejorative statements about muslims, arab peoples, gay people and even Barack Obama. Were it not for the seriousness of the events in Boston these tenuous links would almost be amusing.

Meanwhile filmmaker Michael Moore spruiked his own agenda. Tweets he released after the event imply conservative, right wing involvement including that of the American Tea Party movement.

Seemingly fanning the flames of anti-muslim sentiment the head of an extremist Jordanian Muslim Salafi group is reported by the Washington Post as saying he was happy and drawing the comparison that American blood is no more precious than Muslim blood spilled in conflicts.

To what end these personal attacks that often barely reach beyond local networks?

Certainly they do nothing to enhance the reportage of the actual event. To the contrary they spawn their own cottage industry that I'm going to dub 'crazy shit you're glad someone else said'. Nor do they assist those investigating the events. This may be a little less clear to these arm chair commentators. Perhaps they hope that by digitally screaming 'kill all {insert stereotype here}' from the cyber rooftops they are somehow making the streets safer. All I see is an inflaming of fear and hatred.

I doubt anyone knows the correct response to a tragic event such as that unfolding in Boston. Our American-voyeurism seems to demand some sort of response but why?

@adilray tweeted after the events - "Thoughts with families of 2 dead in bomb blasts in Boston, 8 in Afghanistan, 1 in Pakistan and 31 in Iraq today. Global terror. Sad times."

This is the truth of the matter: explosions kill people throughout the world daily. Today we're paying attention only because it's America. Watch if you want to, mourn, offer condolences but don't speculate. Or if you must, shut up about it...

What was said...

Not a bad week, last week.

Radio 2SM broadcast an interview* between Dr Cathy Kezelman, an expert on adult survivors of child sexual abuse and John Laws. The interview was in response to weeks of activism, yet it felt like it all came together rather quickly.

Briefly...

Back in March Laws hosted an interview with 'Carole' during which he questioned whether she was provocative and possibly to blame for the abuse she suffered between the ages of six and sixteen. Laws glib tone and questioning spoke of the dominant discourse where perpetrators are provoked and victims blamed for the crimes committed against them.

As the furor over the interview threatened to disappear within the twenty-four hour news cycle, online activist groups 'Destroy The Joint' and 'GetUp!' initiated a campaign and petition to demand an apology and education for Laws and his misogynist views. Laws refused to personally accept the petition. He also deferred a request for airtime that would present expert opinion on the issue of sexual abuse.

A slew of incredulous Sydneysiders, your humble blogger included emailed Laws petitioning for the interview. Last Monday I received a reply; his producer assented to scheduling the interview. A flurry of emailing and phone calls between myself, 'Destroy the Joint' and Laws producer saw the interview finally happen.**

So what was said, and what does it all mean?

Really it depends on who you ask: 'GetUp!' emailed victory to it's members citing "John Laws and 2SM have made commendable strides towards ensuring another victim blaming incident won't happen on it's airwaves again". 'Destroy the Joint' offered congratulations to it's members focussing on Laws' humility in acknowledging that "he now knew a lot more about child abuse than he had previously".

Clearly many followers were not pleased with the outcome though. 'Destroy the Joints' Facebook page was divided between celebration and frustration, with one 'Destroyer' maintaining that "he should still lose his job".

And what do I think?

Listening to the interview live I was immediately struck by the way Laws distanced himself from the fallout of the initial interview. Yet when Dr Kezelman was given the chance to speak Laws was polite and engaging. He was receptive to the points made and acknowledged he had something to learn. I felt more could have been discussed but then I'm not typical of Laws audience and nothing is achieved if they start tuning out over the content.

Mine is a very equivocal endorsement of Laws response after the strident opposition I offered to his initial attitude. See I don't believe the world is perfect and that means people need the chance to change.

You win very few supporters by constantly berating the opposition. Laws speaks to a broad audience, though his view is often narrow, that was part of the reason his initial comments were so objectionable. His interview with Dr Kezelman may not have been a call to arms, to combat abuse. However it did reach more people than my writing perhaps ever will. Most importantly it challenged listeners to look at the issue of abuse and victim blaming in a different way. Small changes, but in a large audience these things add up.

So is the campaign over?

Well, no. In the week since the interview I've heard of friends and colleagues making sexist, pejorative comments. I've seen the double standard of male/female expectations play out professionally and socially. The dominant discourse does not shut up so easily.

But I've also talked to people about it. Sometimes they listen, other times not, but I've always left the conversation such that we could take it up another day. Because one thing I know for certain is that you will never change a discourse if you stop talking...

________________________

* You can podcast the show and interview here: http://www.2smsupernetwork.com/podcasts.html just look out for the episode from the 10/4/2013

** Check out the trail of correspondence on my earlier post - 'Opportunities Missed...'