Perhaps the adults are actually in Cambodia, because Australia’s supply seems to have run out!
Would somebody out there like to explain, with supporting evidence, why Australia deems it appropriate to dump vulnerable people on third world countries?
Manus Island hasn’t worked out so well (not like a raft of people didn’t warn it was a disaster in the making) so now, we are thinking Cambodia might be a better option. Are we so prissy we want to pretend Australia is some sort of first world Elysium? Why aren’t we asking Canada (for example) to help? Lots of land, first world country, low population – sounds awfully like Australia really so I suppose that’s a standby Elysium and therefore not an option either.
Who decided first world countries shouldn’t be tainted by the presence of refugees, when first world countries are the best resourced to cope? Heaven forbid, they might smell different! They might dress differently. Not that I’ve noticed too many of our politicians running around dressed according to the English sumptuary acts of 1463, so change does happen.
The English sumptuary acts of 1463 go into explicit detail about clothing items which were reserved for those below the king’s status, putting restrictions on coat length and shoe height. In this legislation, the intention was to prevent men from acting as if they were from a higher class by way of how they dressed. The laws specifically stated that a man was to dress within the status in which he was born.
Politicians have gone to great lengths to brainwash the public into believing asylum seekers are baddies and the politicians are the goodies. No, Labor, you don’t escape this one either. As Paula Matthewson said, “A plague on both your houses“.
One of the main mechanisms used to convince the public asylum seekers are baddies is to call them illegals. Yet this is not correct. While their mode of entry may lack legality, the people are NOT illegals.
Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use “illegal” when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees.
Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that “asylum seekers are not illegal under international law”.
“By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal,” Professor McAdam said.
Abbott reinforced this by saying how bad the asylum seekers’ behaviour was. Think very carefully, dear reader. If you were incarcerated for no other reason than exercising your rights under law to seek asylum and were then told you were stuck in limbo for ever, what would you do? As we now know, it appears the behaviour was not as originally depicted by the government and the poor people were given the wrong or at the very least confusing information about their possible futures. Would you not protest? I know I damn well would! Any regular reader of this website knows I would. If you take away people’s freedom for no justifiable reason, do you really expect them to say “thank you” like meek little lambs? These people are NOT meek – they fought to get to freedom, just as any of those politicians would.
I heard a caller on the radio this morning say “We don’t want these people here.” Who the hell is “we”? Speak for yourself, Mr Caller. Define “these people”: which people exactly are you referring to? At least he called them “people”, I suppose. This was on the radio show of one of the high profile supporters from Light the Dark, but I recognise he can’t be held responsible for his callers’ opinions.
Abbott has said we should be grateful Morrison is not a wimp. Mr Abbott, I think you have your wires crossed. Let us review Morrison’s maiden speech in 2008, shall we? I’m not the first to do this and I doubt I’ll be the last.
From my faith I derive the values of loving-kindness, justice and righteousness, to act with compassion and kindness, acknowledging our common humanity and to consider the welfare of others; to fight for a fair go for everyone to fulfil their human potential and to remove whatever unjust obstacles stand in their way, including diminishing their personal responsibility for their own wellbeing; and to do what is right, to respect the rule of law, the sanctity of human life and the moral integrity of marriage and the family. We must recognise an unchanging and absolute standard of what is good and what is evil. Desmond Tutu put it this way:
… we expect Christians … to be those who stand up for the truth, to stand up for justice, to stand on the side of the poor and the hungry, the homeless and the naked, and when that happens, then Christians will be trustworthy believable witnesses.
These are my principles. My vision for Australia is for a nation that is strong, prosperous and generous: strong in our values and our freedoms, strong in our family and community life, strong in our sense of nationhood and in the institutions that protect and preserve our democracy; prosperous in our enterprise and the careful stewardship of our opportunities, our natural environment and our resources; and, above all, generous in spirit, to share our good fortune with others, both at home and overseas, out of compassion and a desire for justice.
If Morrison truly believes what he said in 2008, then he is a wimp because it seems he has been dissuaded from following his beliefs. A brave man stands up for his beliefs. Did not Jesus say “Suffer not the little children to come unto me”? Yet we send them to Manus Island/Nauru? I am convinced Jesus would not be impressed.
In a country that has always exhibited a fickle streak towards foreigners heading for its shores, Scott Morrison is especially well credentialled to speak on the subject of his shadow portfolio, immigration. The Liberal politician who has spent much of the past 18 months regurgitating the phrase ‘stop the boats’ was also the managing director of Tourism Australia, who asked the rest of the world: ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’
“Please come”, followed by “stay the hell away”.
Amidst the stuff up, the most the Labor party can do is ask Morrison to do a “please explain”. Bowen suppports the policy of offshore processing while condemning the management. Of course he does: Labor introduced it, this time around. Offshore processing is now clearly bi-partisan policy.
Back to Cambodia. Why on earth would we ask one of the poorest countries in the region to take asylum seekers? Is this not Manus Island by another name? Maybe a smidgen better, but by how much? Or like Malaysia? Darlene Ford is working against this idea: visit the Cambodia is NO solution Facebook page.
The UNHCR provides a summary of the South-East Asian working environment.
Australia is breaking not only international law, but our own domestic laws. There is no doubt we live in a very different world than we did in 1951 and 1958. This is not justification for inhumanity.
Related articles and reference materials not linked to above:
- Australia trafficks and abuses asylum seeker children (The Age)
- Malcolm Fraser: ‘we have lost our way’ (Malcolm Fraser interview, 2011)
- Scott Morrison needs to get into the fact-checking business (Michelle Grattan)
- Light the Dark vigils across Australia (Guardian)
- Manus Island and the horrors in Australia’s soul (IA)
- Liberal Party’s moderate voice goes silent (SMH)
- We live in a racist culture
- A little Australian history
- Christmas Island overloaded (Ombudsman’s Report)
- SomethingWonky (for lots of political links)
- How the big parties lost their way (Ian McPhee on New Matilda)
- Tara Moss reveals disturbing details of murder on Manus
- Manus Island – an insider’s report (by Tara Moss)
- Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts (Australian Parliament)
- Asher Wolf’s Exclusive re Manus
- Anonymous Lefty on Abbott
- The morality of Manus can no longer be avoided (The Drum)
- Dear Mr Morrison Part Two (bettsie.wordpress.com)
- The Secrecy (SMH)
- Migration Act 1958 – Section 36
- The Refugee Convention
23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’