All right. The government has decided that if you try to claim asylum via a boat journey, you're not getting in. You'll end up living in Papua New Guinea, at best. The government has decided that this will stop the boats, and the government is telling us that this is necessary to save lives, because the most pressing need is to stop people drowning at sea. The government is clear that this has nothing to do with pandering to xenophobia, nothing to do with a lowest common denominator grab for votes, nothing to do with embracing the politics of fear. It is about saving lives. The government has a responsibility to stop people taking risky sea voyages, and so they've put in place a plan to stop them.
Very well. They can own that then.
Personally I never thought drownings at sea were the fault of the government. I never thought that any government in Australia had ever "lured" people onto leaky boats. I thought it was ridiculous to suppose that simply by maintaining the possibility that people with a legitimate claim to asylum could find assistance and refuge and a better life in Australia, our leaders were somehow tricking those silly foreigners into believing their journey across the sea would be safe. I thought that I was in no position to judge whether refugees from war-torn lands were right to risk their lives to improve their circumstances. I thought that asylum seekers were neither halfwitted morons unable to figure out the dangers of a sea journey in a rickety boat, nor mindless puppets reacting only to the string-pulling of Australia's government - pull this string, they come, pull that string, they stay. I thought that in a world of refugees, we cannot prevent people taking terrible risks to escape terrible situations: all we can do is our little bit to assist those who come to us seeking assistance. I thought it is not our place to lecture those who've seen terrors we can't fathom on whether the chance of death at sea is worth taking if it means getting away from those terrors, or if it means avoiding decades eking out a fearful, hopeless existence in a refugee camp, or if it means giving their children the chance of a future containing possibilities. I thought the government does not bear responsibilities for the tragedies caused by the sick and sorry state of the world - only the tragedies resulting from the treatment it metes out to those who beg it for help. I thought that accepting desperate people into our country and allowing them to become Australians was the noblest thing that our government does, and that the ones who came by boat were no more or less deserving than those arriving by other means.
I thought all these things.
The government thinks differently.
Well, fine.
But they should know, they can own that now.
I never believed the government bore responsibility for deaths at sea, but that's a responsibility they've taken on. Both major parties have stood up to willingly declare that the blood of asylum seekers who drown is on the hands of the Australian government.
Let them own it.
The PNG plan is said to be the way to prevent these drownings. The Opposition has their own tow-back, TPV plan, that they say will prevent these drownings. If this is the way they wish it to be, if this is the priority they wish to adopt, if this is the function they see as proper for the Australian government, then this is the standard by which they will be judged.
Because if Labor puts the PNG plan in place, or if the Coalition implements their own Howard redux policy, they'll have achieved their goal. They'll have done what they claim is necessary to stop deaths at sea.
And that means every death at sea from that point on is on them.
And we've got to hold them to this. If asylum seekers drown on their way to Australia, after the government declares that drownings are its responsibility and its policy the proper reaction to them, then with each death our politicians will stand judged as murderers - not by our judgment, but by their own. And it'll be up to us to remind them of that.
It's on you now, noble leaders. You want responsibility for their deaths, you got it. We'll hold you responsible, and see if you are so eager to hang yourselves when you've got no excuses.
Showing posts with label refugees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label refugees. Show all posts
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Business Of Cruelty
"Since off shore processing began in August last year, 15,543 people have arrived in 259 boats. Seven hundred are on Manus or Nauru and the cost is heading into the billions."
"I want to die. I don't want to live more, because we don't have anything to do here. Your questions doesn't have answer, your fate is not clear, what will happen to you?"
"You see many guys here do suicide or hurt themselves, just because they don't want to harm the others. They just harm themselves because of bad situation, or because they show - they want to show their feelings"
"By last November there'd been reports of mass hunger strikes and at least eight attempted suicides. And a 35 year old Iranian man, near death after a 50 day hunger strike, had to be evacuated to Australia"
"There are temperatures in the 40s and humidity around 100 per cent. Heavy rain, no air conditioning and ah, insufferably hot. Um muddy tracks, um and when it rained a faecal smell of inadequately you know drained sewage effluent."
"There are now thirty children in the Manus camp. Most have been there more than four months"
"Journalists, cameras, and even photos are banned from the Manus camp"
"the minister's refusal to front up for an interview for this story with no reason given, other than we could turn up for one of his doorstops if we liked"
None of this is news, not really. Four Corners this week was really letting us in on the secret we all knew - that Australia's government is now in the business of cruelty. And this isn't a partisan thing. It's not Labor versus Liberal. The business of cruelty is a thriving joint venture in which both major parties are enthusiastically involved.
This business is allowed because these brave servants of the public interest which we elect have successfully entrenched the Big Lie that the government's responsibility lies with preventing desperate people in other countries from deciding how best to improve their lives, rather than with taking care of the desperate people that find themselves in this country. The government has decided its jurisdiction extends all around the world when it comes to deterrence, but doesn't even include its own territory when it comes to caring.
We've accepted that and other Big Lies, such as the one that tells us that our leaders are striving to represent the acme of compassion, with these policies designed to ensure that when refugees die, they have the decency to do it far away from us, in foreign camps, or on boats heading anywhere but here. Designed to ensure that the world is in no doubt that if, when you've got nowhere else to turn, you turn to Australia, you will be imprisoned, and isolated, and brutalised, and driven right over the brink of madness by a government determined, at any cost, to make itself monstrous enough that people stuck in the worst places on earth would rather stay put than risk coming here.
The hellholes created by our fearless leaders are not unfortunate unintended consequences of sensible policy: they are the entire point of the policy. They are not locking up children by accident. They are not causing people to hurt themselves, starve themselves, and kill themselves in spite of their best intentions. This is exactly what the policy is supposed to achieve. The government is deliberately causing suffering, because they have decided that causing suffering is the best way to achieve their aims.
Because their aims are to avoid criticism, to avoid protest, to avoid electoral punishment, from that great mass of Australians who become outraged whenever they sense that the government is being too kind to people who didn't have the good sense to be born into first-world privilege. Their aims are to neutralise "excessive humanity" as an electoral negative.
So please, when we discuss politics; when we thrash out the respective merits of the different parties; when we laud the prime minister's unwillingness to be lectured on misogyny by that man; when we proclaim one side's virtue over the other's:
Never forget that no matter how much better one side is than the other, both sides are in the business of cruelty. The lesser of two evils remains evil, and its evil is deliberate, ongoing, and vicious.
This government, this prime minister, this Labor Party is engaged in wilful and knowing savagery against its fellow human beings. This Opposition protests this savagery only inasmuch as it is insufficiently savage.
In the unlikely event that any members of either government or opposition end up reading this, please know, you are reprehensible. If you sleep at night, it speaks only to the humanity that you jettisoned long ago. If you can look at your own deeds without being blinded by burning tears of shame, you are lost, and so are we who have somehow allowed you putrid beasts to rule over us.
May you all go to Hell.
"I want to die. I don't want to live more, because we don't have anything to do here. Your questions doesn't have answer, your fate is not clear, what will happen to you?"
"You see many guys here do suicide or hurt themselves, just because they don't want to harm the others. They just harm themselves because of bad situation, or because they show - they want to show their feelings"
"By last November there'd been reports of mass hunger strikes and at least eight attempted suicides. And a 35 year old Iranian man, near death after a 50 day hunger strike, had to be evacuated to Australia"
"There are temperatures in the 40s and humidity around 100 per cent. Heavy rain, no air conditioning and ah, insufferably hot. Um muddy tracks, um and when it rained a faecal smell of inadequately you know drained sewage effluent."
"There are now thirty children in the Manus camp. Most have been there more than four months"
"Journalists, cameras, and even photos are banned from the Manus camp"
"the minister's refusal to front up for an interview for this story with no reason given, other than we could turn up for one of his doorstops if we liked"
None of this is news, not really. Four Corners this week was really letting us in on the secret we all knew - that Australia's government is now in the business of cruelty. And this isn't a partisan thing. It's not Labor versus Liberal. The business of cruelty is a thriving joint venture in which both major parties are enthusiastically involved.
This business is allowed because these brave servants of the public interest which we elect have successfully entrenched the Big Lie that the government's responsibility lies with preventing desperate people in other countries from deciding how best to improve their lives, rather than with taking care of the desperate people that find themselves in this country. The government has decided its jurisdiction extends all around the world when it comes to deterrence, but doesn't even include its own territory when it comes to caring.
We've accepted that and other Big Lies, such as the one that tells us that our leaders are striving to represent the acme of compassion, with these policies designed to ensure that when refugees die, they have the decency to do it far away from us, in foreign camps, or on boats heading anywhere but here. Designed to ensure that the world is in no doubt that if, when you've got nowhere else to turn, you turn to Australia, you will be imprisoned, and isolated, and brutalised, and driven right over the brink of madness by a government determined, at any cost, to make itself monstrous enough that people stuck in the worst places on earth would rather stay put than risk coming here.
The hellholes created by our fearless leaders are not unfortunate unintended consequences of sensible policy: they are the entire point of the policy. They are not locking up children by accident. They are not causing people to hurt themselves, starve themselves, and kill themselves in spite of their best intentions. This is exactly what the policy is supposed to achieve. The government is deliberately causing suffering, because they have decided that causing suffering is the best way to achieve their aims.
Because their aims are to avoid criticism, to avoid protest, to avoid electoral punishment, from that great mass of Australians who become outraged whenever they sense that the government is being too kind to people who didn't have the good sense to be born into first-world privilege. Their aims are to neutralise "excessive humanity" as an electoral negative.
So please, when we discuss politics; when we thrash out the respective merits of the different parties; when we laud the prime minister's unwillingness to be lectured on misogyny by that man; when we proclaim one side's virtue over the other's:
Never forget that no matter how much better one side is than the other, both sides are in the business of cruelty. The lesser of two evils remains evil, and its evil is deliberate, ongoing, and vicious.
This government, this prime minister, this Labor Party is engaged in wilful and knowing savagery against its fellow human beings. This Opposition protests this savagery only inasmuch as it is insufficiently savage.
In the unlikely event that any members of either government or opposition end up reading this, please know, you are reprehensible. If you sleep at night, it speaks only to the humanity that you jettisoned long ago. If you can look at your own deeds without being blinded by burning tears of shame, you are lost, and so are we who have somehow allowed you putrid beasts to rule over us.
May you all go to Hell.
Friday, February 17, 2012
An Article Which You Will Not Find In The Daily Telegraph
not by Gemma Jones
WASHING machines, microwave ovens, DVDs and plasma TVs are among a 60-item welcome gift pack for asylum seekers offered rent-free homes in the community due to their lack of anywhere else to go. The revelation is yet another indication of Australia's fundamental decency and has led to claims that the federal government is "kind".
To fulfil a promise to move an influx of families out of detention, the Gillard Government is now fitting out each home with up to $10,000 worth of furnishings and electronics in order that the asylum seekers may have a basic level of comfort and something akin to a decent quality of life as they wait to find out whether they'll be allowed to continue their lives in a free country or be returned to the terrible hardship they came from.
They are given food hampers upon arrival at rented homes where they wait for their claims to be processed - this is due to the biological fact that human beings require food in order to sustain life.
The revelation comes as border protection authorities reveal they have intercepted two more boats carrying asylum seekers overnight, five boats in the past week - testament to just how great a nation Australia is, that so many people wish to make a home here - and middle - and high-income families find themselves so comfortably well-off that their greatest concerns are cuts to private health rebates and the impact of the carbon tax.
Everything from beds, fridges, mattresses and lounges to an alarm clock radio, clothes hangers and containers for biscuits are being bought in a "household goods formation package" that contains more than 60 items, which should allow the asylum seekers, during their temporary stay in this emergency accommodation, to live their lives free of unnecessary hardship and in the manner which Australians, residents of the "lucky country", generally take for granted. In particular, the beds will allow them to sleep somewhere other than the floor, the fridges will allow them to not eat rotting food, the mattresses will mean the beds actually function as beds, the clock radios will allow them to tell the time and listen to music, the clothes hangers will allow them to hang up their clothes, and the biscuit containers will give them a place to store biscuits should they be fortunate enough to acquire any. Community groups describe these arrangements as "the least we could do, really".
It includes a television at a minimum size of 53cm, which is a small size for a television and will permit the asylum seekers to enjoy the fairly basic privilege of watching TV. "Of course the houses have TVs in them," said a department spokesperson. "That's just a no-brainer."
An average family of five is eligible for $7100 worth of goods, while larger families of more than nine people can be provided with up to $9850 in furnishings, the Opposition has revealed after Senate estimates this week which showed just how remarkably cheaply the government is able to provide for people in need.
Special consideration is given to providing computers, internet access, mobile phones, bikes, skateboards, rollerblades, iPods, games consoles and sewing machines, a fact lauded by both sides of politics as a wonderful demonstration of our society's capacity for compassion and willingness to lend a helping hand.
There are 97 homes being rented in Sydney suburbs - and funded by taxpayers - at an average cost of $416 a week with families arriving to a hamper of bread, butter, milk, eggs, other "essentials" and cleaning products, as would be expected for anyone expected to live under these circumstances having come from the Third World with few possessions, and being forbidden to seek employment. (Ed. - remove quote marks around "essentials" before publication: there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to be there)
Families with a baby - which can be quite expensive and for whom basic levels of care are non-negotiable given they are innocent infants with no ability to care for themselves or choice in where they are taken - can access a $750 pack of basic supplies. Phone and electricity connections are also paid for, obviously, because this is Australia.
The assistance is on top of free doctors' visits, dental care, pharmaceuticals, education and payments of up to $433.25 a fortnight to sustain asylum seekers unable to work. These elements are included mainly in order to prevent asylum seekers dying, giving their children a decent chance at a good life, and to make sure they are not treated any differently to those who via pure chance were born here.
Opposition Immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the revelations would delight families who considered themselves incredibly lucky to have nothing worse in their lives than struggling with cost of living rises.
"The cost of Labor's protection of vulnerable people is a source of pride for every Australian family lucky enough to not only be allowed to live in this wonderful country, but to also have the privilege of being able to provide, through their tax dollars, a little bit of succour and dignity to those less fortunate. What a great society we have built, that while so many around the world have real problems, Australian families are able to debate the carbon tax and private health insurance rebate, secure in the knowledge these are the worst things that will happen to them," Mr Morrison said.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the government was being responsible in providing asylum seekers with basic provisions while their claims were being assessed.
"We have a duty of care to provide essential items such as cleaning supplies, furniture and bedding, and baby items such as prams, for vulnerable asylum seekers in community detention," a spokesman said, to polite applause from the assembled press who wondered why there was a need to state this rather obvious fact out loud.
"People do not keep the goods, they remain in a house when a family moves out and are used by the next people who move in. These people are not allowed to work," the spokesman added, causing the press to hurriedly rewrite a number of stories that could have inadvertently misled their readers on these significant points, especially in regard to the costs involved and the asylum seekers' lack of options.
Asylum seekers late last year were asking for housing, visas and internet access when they arrived, in what experts described as "a fairly obvious development".
For more than five years the Red Cross has been contracted to provide the packages, but the numbers of people in community housing has exploded since Mr Bowen pledged in October 2010 to move most children out of detention, leading to widespread compassion and decency breaking out across the country.
"They are basic supplies, we are not talking about luxury," Red Cross spokesman Michael Raper said, an assertion backed up by every piece of evidence so far uncovered by anyone anywhere.
Suburban mum Rhonda Bailey, 44, a married mother of three with a mortgage, said, "Isn't it great that these people who've had such a hard time may be able to enjoy all the advantages that allowed me to build my comfortable life? And it's even better that we are not only wealthy enough, but kind, decent and humanitarian enough, to offer them a little bit of comfort and respite while they wait to find out what happens to them. It's just fantastic that we live in a country where those who come here in search of a better life, no matter who they are, will be treated with dignity and respect, and we don't have to deprive them of the basics out of penny-pinching or just plain prejudice.
"It makes you proud to be an Australian, doesn't it?"
WASHING machines, microwave ovens, DVDs and plasma TVs are among a 60-item welcome gift pack for asylum seekers offered rent-free homes in the community due to their lack of anywhere else to go. The revelation is yet another indication of Australia's fundamental decency and has led to claims that the federal government is "kind".
To fulfil a promise to move an influx of families out of detention, the Gillard Government is now fitting out each home with up to $10,000 worth of furnishings and electronics in order that the asylum seekers may have a basic level of comfort and something akin to a decent quality of life as they wait to find out whether they'll be allowed to continue their lives in a free country or be returned to the terrible hardship they came from.
They are given food hampers upon arrival at rented homes where they wait for their claims to be processed - this is due to the biological fact that human beings require food in order to sustain life.
The revelation comes as border protection authorities reveal they have intercepted two more boats carrying asylum seekers overnight, five boats in the past week - testament to just how great a nation Australia is, that so many people wish to make a home here - and middle - and high-income families find themselves so comfortably well-off that their greatest concerns are cuts to private health rebates and the impact of the carbon tax.
Everything from beds, fridges, mattresses and lounges to an alarm clock radio, clothes hangers and containers for biscuits are being bought in a "household goods formation package" that contains more than 60 items, which should allow the asylum seekers, during their temporary stay in this emergency accommodation, to live their lives free of unnecessary hardship and in the manner which Australians, residents of the "lucky country", generally take for granted. In particular, the beds will allow them to sleep somewhere other than the floor, the fridges will allow them to not eat rotting food, the mattresses will mean the beds actually function as beds, the clock radios will allow them to tell the time and listen to music, the clothes hangers will allow them to hang up their clothes, and the biscuit containers will give them a place to store biscuits should they be fortunate enough to acquire any. Community groups describe these arrangements as "the least we could do, really".
It includes a television at a minimum size of 53cm, which is a small size for a television and will permit the asylum seekers to enjoy the fairly basic privilege of watching TV. "Of course the houses have TVs in them," said a department spokesperson. "That's just a no-brainer."
An average family of five is eligible for $7100 worth of goods, while larger families of more than nine people can be provided with up to $9850 in furnishings, the Opposition has revealed after Senate estimates this week which showed just how remarkably cheaply the government is able to provide for people in need.
Special consideration is given to providing computers, internet access, mobile phones, bikes, skateboards, rollerblades, iPods, games consoles and sewing machines, a fact lauded by both sides of politics as a wonderful demonstration of our society's capacity for compassion and willingness to lend a helping hand.
There are 97 homes being rented in Sydney suburbs - and funded by taxpayers - at an average cost of $416 a week with families arriving to a hamper of bread, butter, milk, eggs, other "essentials" and cleaning products, as would be expected for anyone expected to live under these circumstances having come from the Third World with few possessions, and being forbidden to seek employment. (Ed. - remove quote marks around "essentials" before publication: there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to be there)
Families with a baby - which can be quite expensive and for whom basic levels of care are non-negotiable given they are innocent infants with no ability to care for themselves or choice in where they are taken - can access a $750 pack of basic supplies. Phone and electricity connections are also paid for, obviously, because this is Australia.
The assistance is on top of free doctors' visits, dental care, pharmaceuticals, education and payments of up to $433.25 a fortnight to sustain asylum seekers unable to work. These elements are included mainly in order to prevent asylum seekers dying, giving their children a decent chance at a good life, and to make sure they are not treated any differently to those who via pure chance were born here.
Opposition Immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the revelations would delight families who considered themselves incredibly lucky to have nothing worse in their lives than struggling with cost of living rises.
"The cost of Labor's protection of vulnerable people is a source of pride for every Australian family lucky enough to not only be allowed to live in this wonderful country, but to also have the privilege of being able to provide, through their tax dollars, a little bit of succour and dignity to those less fortunate. What a great society we have built, that while so many around the world have real problems, Australian families are able to debate the carbon tax and private health insurance rebate, secure in the knowledge these are the worst things that will happen to them," Mr Morrison said.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the government was being responsible in providing asylum seekers with basic provisions while their claims were being assessed.
"We have a duty of care to provide essential items such as cleaning supplies, furniture and bedding, and baby items such as prams, for vulnerable asylum seekers in community detention," a spokesman said, to polite applause from the assembled press who wondered why there was a need to state this rather obvious fact out loud.
"People do not keep the goods, they remain in a house when a family moves out and are used by the next people who move in. These people are not allowed to work," the spokesman added, causing the press to hurriedly rewrite a number of stories that could have inadvertently misled their readers on these significant points, especially in regard to the costs involved and the asylum seekers' lack of options.
Asylum seekers late last year were asking for housing, visas and internet access when they arrived, in what experts described as "a fairly obvious development".
For more than five years the Red Cross has been contracted to provide the packages, but the numbers of people in community housing has exploded since Mr Bowen pledged in October 2010 to move most children out of detention, leading to widespread compassion and decency breaking out across the country.
"They are basic supplies, we are not talking about luxury," Red Cross spokesman Michael Raper said, an assertion backed up by every piece of evidence so far uncovered by anyone anywhere.
Suburban mum Rhonda Bailey, 44, a married mother of three with a mortgage, said, "Isn't it great that these people who've had such a hard time may be able to enjoy all the advantages that allowed me to build my comfortable life? And it's even better that we are not only wealthy enough, but kind, decent and humanitarian enough, to offer them a little bit of comfort and respite while they wait to find out what happens to them. It's just fantastic that we live in a country where those who come here in search of a better life, no matter who they are, will be treated with dignity and respect, and we don't have to deprive them of the basics out of penny-pinching or just plain prejudice.
"It makes you proud to be an Australian, doesn't it?"
Monday, October 17, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
If You're Not Part of the Problem
What is the correct attitude to take in response to those shocking images on Four Corners which we all totally watched and didn’t shut our eyes and hum loudly during? As always, the issue is complicated and yet simple, as long as one pays attention to the subtle cues being given to us by our social, political and ethical superiors in the media and entertainment industries.
First of all, is it acceptable that we allow our cattle to be sent overseas to have their eyes gouged out and their tails broken and shins kicked and things? It certainly is NOT! These cows are AUSTRALIAN. They are OUR COWS. What sort of Australians would we be if we let Australian cows be tortured? It would be, and I realise this is a label not be thrown about lightly, “un-Australian”! Completely and utterly un-Australian. Not Australian at all. If anything, it would be, like, Mexican or Chinese maybe. Is that the country we want our cows to grow up in? Or in the case of veal, not grow up in?
No, we cannot let our cows be treated in this manner. Let the Indonesians source their beef from other, less egalitarian and matey places. Let them torture foreign cows, cows without a grounding in Judeo-Christian ethics.
On the other hand, what right do we have to complain about bad slaughtering practices given what goes on in our OWN abattoirs? No right at all, obviously. We happily butcher countless sentient beings for our own pleasure and then have the audacity to complain when confronted with the inevitable consequences of our desire to treat our fellow intelligent beings as commodities? What vicious scum we are.
So, one story, two sides: on the one hand, we have the moral high ground here, but on the other hand, we are inherently evil. It’s this duality that makes our lives so exciting, of course, but let’s delve deeper. What is the real issue here, as laid out by intelligent letter writers and tweets everywhere?
Asylum seekers.
That’s right: asylum seekers. As has been pointed out by good-hearted people and also journalists, it is fairly hypocritical of anyone to squeal about cattle being sent overseas to be mistreated when they remain silent about asylum seekers being shipped off to Malaysia where everyone gets caned and the toilets are disgusting. How can we possibly think our consciences are clear just because we ban live exports, while we are also willing to treat desperate human beings as “cattle”, apart from the killing and eating bit, although who knows with the way those Malaysians play up, am I right?
So we have two very pressing issues here, both involving sending things to other countries. The first issue: how can we make sure that decent Australian cows are not mistreated while still enjoying the rich, juicy flavour of a good burger without feeling guilty or getting paint thrown on us? The second: how can we make sure that grubby queue-jumpers are not denied their human rights to the extent that Sarah Hanson-Young notices and starts nagging us?
Well, there are a number of possible solutions, and no doubt Julia Gillard will be sitting down with industry and working through the issues in accordance with the government’s official Sitting Down and Working Through Things policy. This is because it is important to get the balance right, and as Agriculture Minister Joe “Rawhide” Ludwig has explained, the priority is to ensure supply chain assurances in order to safeguard animal welfare outcomes while maximising the potential for optimal paradigmatic visualisations leading to the enumeration of multiple recursive principles of axiomatic fulfilment which should guarantee the creation of multiple inherent redundancies in the cause of obviating the necessity of further peak discussions regarding the consideration of dis-endorsing our diplomatic self-actualisation. So that’s what we’ve got to get right before anything else.
The first possible solution is to end both live exports, and sending asylum seekers to Malaysia. This is a stupid solution not worthy of a moment’s consideration for reasons that are blindingly obvious to anyone but the most feeble-brained of imbeciles. Which I assume you are not, so I won’t insult you by explaining.
The second possible solution is to INCREASE both live exports and sending asylum seekers to Malaysia. I’m not quite sure exactly how this will solve the problem, but I suppose eventually we won’t have any cows or refugees left, which will give us a lot more space to stretch out in and grow a few vegetables which are healthier than both beef AND Afghans.
The third possible solution is to pre-torture our cows here at home, so the Indonesians won’t have to. We could get the asylum seekers to do it for you. Two birds, one stone.
Fourth, we could feed the cows TO the asylum seekers. Or the asylum seekers to the cows. Though this runs the risk of promulgating the dreaded “Mad Refugee Disease”. Possibly we could just put them all in a pen and let them fight it out.
But the fifth solution is the one that solves the problem elegantly and permanently while playing to the Gillard government’s strength: SYNTHESIS.
What we do is, we keep the cows here, and treat them well, with high-quality fodder, hygienic and spacious living quarters, and regular full-body massages. This way the cows will be happy and their meat will be especially tender. But we don’t actually eat them, instead we live with them as equals. Or possibly not exactly equals. We’d probably live with them like they’re our children, or really fat people from a third-world country. About that status.
Then, instead of sending COWS to Indonesia, we send the asylum seekers there, and film THEM being abused in abattoirs. Then we win a Logie for it. Then we bring them back here, and milk them. Then we make cheese. Which we feed to the cows, who by now will have evolved into highly intelligent beings able to address the crippling skills shortage in the mining industry. Then we send the asylum seekers back to Indonesia, and have a bit of a giggle. Then we take 4000 genuine refugees from Malaysia, and assign each one a number, which will correspond to the cow who will be their new master. Having dressed each refugee in a nice clean morning suit, we text the cows and ask them to drop round for drinks and…
OK, this is getting a little complex I admit. Perhaps we should all just calm down a bit and remember that, no matter what happens to the cows, or the asylum seekers, the important thing to remember is that we really, really CARE. And in the end, isn’t that the most important thing? They can punch our cows, and they can flout our immigration laws, but they can never take away our feeling of moral superiority.
And I guess feeling superior to the rest of the world is the most satisfying solution of all.
First of all, is it acceptable that we allow our cattle to be sent overseas to have their eyes gouged out and their tails broken and shins kicked and things? It certainly is NOT! These cows are AUSTRALIAN. They are OUR COWS. What sort of Australians would we be if we let Australian cows be tortured? It would be, and I realise this is a label not be thrown about lightly, “un-Australian”! Completely and utterly un-Australian. Not Australian at all. If anything, it would be, like, Mexican or Chinese maybe. Is that the country we want our cows to grow up in? Or in the case of veal, not grow up in?
No, we cannot let our cows be treated in this manner. Let the Indonesians source their beef from other, less egalitarian and matey places. Let them torture foreign cows, cows without a grounding in Judeo-Christian ethics.
On the other hand, what right do we have to complain about bad slaughtering practices given what goes on in our OWN abattoirs? No right at all, obviously. We happily butcher countless sentient beings for our own pleasure and then have the audacity to complain when confronted with the inevitable consequences of our desire to treat our fellow intelligent beings as commodities? What vicious scum we are.
So, one story, two sides: on the one hand, we have the moral high ground here, but on the other hand, we are inherently evil. It’s this duality that makes our lives so exciting, of course, but let’s delve deeper. What is the real issue here, as laid out by intelligent letter writers and tweets everywhere?
Asylum seekers.
That’s right: asylum seekers. As has been pointed out by good-hearted people and also journalists, it is fairly hypocritical of anyone to squeal about cattle being sent overseas to be mistreated when they remain silent about asylum seekers being shipped off to Malaysia where everyone gets caned and the toilets are disgusting. How can we possibly think our consciences are clear just because we ban live exports, while we are also willing to treat desperate human beings as “cattle”, apart from the killing and eating bit, although who knows with the way those Malaysians play up, am I right?
So we have two very pressing issues here, both involving sending things to other countries. The first issue: how can we make sure that decent Australian cows are not mistreated while still enjoying the rich, juicy flavour of a good burger without feeling guilty or getting paint thrown on us? The second: how can we make sure that grubby queue-jumpers are not denied their human rights to the extent that Sarah Hanson-Young notices and starts nagging us?
Well, there are a number of possible solutions, and no doubt Julia Gillard will be sitting down with industry and working through the issues in accordance with the government’s official Sitting Down and Working Through Things policy. This is because it is important to get the balance right, and as Agriculture Minister Joe “Rawhide” Ludwig has explained, the priority is to ensure supply chain assurances in order to safeguard animal welfare outcomes while maximising the potential for optimal paradigmatic visualisations leading to the enumeration of multiple recursive principles of axiomatic fulfilment which should guarantee the creation of multiple inherent redundancies in the cause of obviating the necessity of further peak discussions regarding the consideration of dis-endorsing our diplomatic self-actualisation. So that’s what we’ve got to get right before anything else.
The first possible solution is to end both live exports, and sending asylum seekers to Malaysia. This is a stupid solution not worthy of a moment’s consideration for reasons that are blindingly obvious to anyone but the most feeble-brained of imbeciles. Which I assume you are not, so I won’t insult you by explaining.
The second possible solution is to INCREASE both live exports and sending asylum seekers to Malaysia. I’m not quite sure exactly how this will solve the problem, but I suppose eventually we won’t have any cows or refugees left, which will give us a lot more space to stretch out in and grow a few vegetables which are healthier than both beef AND Afghans.
The third possible solution is to pre-torture our cows here at home, so the Indonesians won’t have to. We could get the asylum seekers to do it for you. Two birds, one stone.
Fourth, we could feed the cows TO the asylum seekers. Or the asylum seekers to the cows. Though this runs the risk of promulgating the dreaded “Mad Refugee Disease”. Possibly we could just put them all in a pen and let them fight it out.
But the fifth solution is the one that solves the problem elegantly and permanently while playing to the Gillard government’s strength: SYNTHESIS.
What we do is, we keep the cows here, and treat them well, with high-quality fodder, hygienic and spacious living quarters, and regular full-body massages. This way the cows will be happy and their meat will be especially tender. But we don’t actually eat them, instead we live with them as equals. Or possibly not exactly equals. We’d probably live with them like they’re our children, or really fat people from a third-world country. About that status.
Then, instead of sending COWS to Indonesia, we send the asylum seekers there, and film THEM being abused in abattoirs. Then we win a Logie for it. Then we bring them back here, and milk them. Then we make cheese. Which we feed to the cows, who by now will have evolved into highly intelligent beings able to address the crippling skills shortage in the mining industry. Then we send the asylum seekers back to Indonesia, and have a bit of a giggle. Then we take 4000 genuine refugees from Malaysia, and assign each one a number, which will correspond to the cow who will be their new master. Having dressed each refugee in a nice clean morning suit, we text the cows and ask them to drop round for drinks and…
OK, this is getting a little complex I admit. Perhaps we should all just calm down a bit and remember that, no matter what happens to the cows, or the asylum seekers, the important thing to remember is that we really, really CARE. And in the end, isn’t that the most important thing? They can punch our cows, and they can flout our immigration laws, but they can never take away our feeling of moral superiority.
And I guess feeling superior to the rest of the world is the most satisfying solution of all.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
New Stuff
A new article by me at New Matilda, on the subject of that smashing young man The Honourable Scott Morrison MP.
And so forth.
Has there ever been a manlier party than the current Liberals? Has there ever been a party oozing with more testosterone, bursting with more machismo, thrusting itself through the political hurly-burly with more irrepressibly tumescent force than this proud collection of men, and in a way, women, who stand now trembling on the threshold of government, ready to seize the reins of this out-of-control mustang and canter triumphantly into a brighter future?
Has there?
And so forth.
Friday, July 9, 2010
We'll Only Have Ourselves To Blame
From the letters page of the Townsville Bulletin, a chilling warning that we would do well to heed, from Patriot Felix Scerri:
The government, clearly, has some very serious questions to answer:
1. Why do you keep letting in people who want to fundamentally change the basic make-up of Australian society?
2. When are you going to put up some impediments around our shores?
3. Why do you insist on making policy without any meaningful consultation with the Scerri family of Ingham?
Someday we will regret ignoring Felix's warning. Someday we will look back and realise: he knew it was an invasion, his family were unanimous on it, yet we were deaf, and now our basic make-up is changed and there's nothing we can do about it.
Don't say he didn't warn you.
Asylum seeking is 'stealthy invasion'
PRIME Minister Gillard wants Australians to freely express their true opinions regarding boat arriving asylum seekers without fear of the usual applied "labels" and I applaud her comments and sentiments and her apparent support of free speech. Simplifying things, I ’ll vote for anyone who will stop these people arriving, and secondly, send all past illegal boat arrivals back to their places of origin.
I feel that the majority of these people are not true asylum seekers. I believe that the real truth is somewhat more sinister and indeed dangerous.
Increasingly, I believe that these continuous boat arrivals are part of an ongoing and deliberate slow and silent invasion of our nation aimed primarily at fundamentally changing the basic make-up of Australian society to one where people of the Islamic faith are a major part.
Indeed around the world in recent years we have all seen the results in countries where a large infiltration of people of Islamic faith has been achieved, and Australia is heading down the same path, it would seem.
The ugly events surrounding the Cronulla riots some years ago show very clearly what we can expect from these asylum seekers of the Islamic faith once their numbers reach a certain threshold in the population.
While Islam is one of the world ’s great religions with aspects which I somewhat admire, sadly in the "real world" Islamic extremism has become associated with some unfortunate, violent and destructive realities, and with very good reason.
I was frankly shocked while watching the 7.3O Report on ABC TV the other night and Kerry O ’Brien detailed the large and accelerating numbers of "asylum seekers" who have easily reached Australian shores without any impediment at all in recent years.
As I watched with my family I asked them if these arrivals met the definition of an "invasion".
Everybody said 'yes'. I honestly hope that my fears are completely unfounded, however after very considerable thought on the subject, this is the only conclusion that I can come to. I think we should all be very concerned and worried.
FELIX SCERRI, Ingham.
The government, clearly, has some very serious questions to answer:
1. Why do you keep letting in people who want to fundamentally change the basic make-up of Australian society?
2. When are you going to put up some impediments around our shores?
3. Why do you insist on making policy without any meaningful consultation with the Scerri family of Ingham?
Someday we will regret ignoring Felix's warning. Someday we will look back and realise: he knew it was an invasion, his family were unanimous on it, yet we were deaf, and now our basic make-up is changed and there's nothing we can do about it.
Don't say he didn't warn you.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The Problem For Today
The Problem for Today is this:
Refugee Policy.
What is wrong with refugee policy? Well, here is the thing: a lot of debate circulates these days about whether the government's refugee policy has "failed". Fair enough? Of course. But when you're discussing whether something's failed, you must decide what exactly success would mean. And the thing about the refugee "debate" is this:
It has been entirely based on the premise that the purpose of refugee policy should be to stop people coming to Australia on boats.
This is why the debate goes like this:
"Has the government stopped boats coming? If not it has failed!"
"Wait, no! The boats come for other reasons! Therefore, it has not failed!"
You see? Government and Opposition argue over whether the policy has failed, but on both sides exists the tacit understanding that the reason we have a policy is to prevent boatpeople arriving.
But WHAT IF this was a false premise?
WHAT IF refugee policy, ideally, was not aimed at simply stopping boats?
WHAT IF refugee policy's success or failure could not be judged purely by numbers of boats coming to our country?
WHAT IF refugee policy, in fact, should have as its primary concern the protection and welfare of refugees?
WHAT IF the Australian government decided that it would calibrate its policy toward the end, not of stopping the boats, but of achieving the best outcome possible for the greatest number of desperate, dispossessed, and fearful people of the world?
WHAT IF every time the Opposition screamed, "THEY DIDN'T STOP THE BOATS! WE WILL STOP THE BOATS!" the government calmly replied:
"We are not primarily concerned with stopping the boats. Perhaps someday, when the number of boat arrivals comes anywhere near even remotely posing any kind of threat to sustainable population levels or our way of life, we might have to adjust this approach, but for now, we consider it far more important to bend all our efforts towards helping people who have suffered hardships and terror far beyond what most of us here in Australia could fathom. For now, we will do our utmost to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are identified, protected, and assisted with settling in the country that so many Australians have worked so hard to make attractive enough for people to give up all they have and risk their lives to reach. For now, we will work on educating the Australian population on actual facts, such as the tiny number of boatpeople who actually come here, the circumstances in which refugees find themselves overseas, and the total and indisputable legality of anyone claiming asylum on foreign shores. Should you, in Opposition, wish to pursue electoral success by appealing to the worst instincts of people, by spreading fear, racism and xenophobia via the propagation of lies and distortions of reality, go ahead. We believe most people are intelligent, decent and capable of rational thought, and we choose to appeal to these qualities in our attempts to remain in power. Do your worst; we will do our best."
What if that?
Haha, only kidding! As if!
Refugee Policy.
What is wrong with refugee policy? Well, here is the thing: a lot of debate circulates these days about whether the government's refugee policy has "failed". Fair enough? Of course. But when you're discussing whether something's failed, you must decide what exactly success would mean. And the thing about the refugee "debate" is this:
It has been entirely based on the premise that the purpose of refugee policy should be to stop people coming to Australia on boats.
This is why the debate goes like this:
"Has the government stopped boats coming? If not it has failed!"
"Wait, no! The boats come for other reasons! Therefore, it has not failed!"
You see? Government and Opposition argue over whether the policy has failed, but on both sides exists the tacit understanding that the reason we have a policy is to prevent boatpeople arriving.
But WHAT IF this was a false premise?
WHAT IF refugee policy, ideally, was not aimed at simply stopping boats?
WHAT IF refugee policy's success or failure could not be judged purely by numbers of boats coming to our country?
WHAT IF refugee policy, in fact, should have as its primary concern the protection and welfare of refugees?
WHAT IF the Australian government decided that it would calibrate its policy toward the end, not of stopping the boats, but of achieving the best outcome possible for the greatest number of desperate, dispossessed, and fearful people of the world?
WHAT IF every time the Opposition screamed, "THEY DIDN'T STOP THE BOATS! WE WILL STOP THE BOATS!" the government calmly replied:
"We are not primarily concerned with stopping the boats. Perhaps someday, when the number of boat arrivals comes anywhere near even remotely posing any kind of threat to sustainable population levels or our way of life, we might have to adjust this approach, but for now, we consider it far more important to bend all our efforts towards helping people who have suffered hardships and terror far beyond what most of us here in Australia could fathom. For now, we will do our utmost to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are identified, protected, and assisted with settling in the country that so many Australians have worked so hard to make attractive enough for people to give up all they have and risk their lives to reach. For now, we will work on educating the Australian population on actual facts, such as the tiny number of boatpeople who actually come here, the circumstances in which refugees find themselves overseas, and the total and indisputable legality of anyone claiming asylum on foreign shores. Should you, in Opposition, wish to pursue electoral success by appealing to the worst instincts of people, by spreading fear, racism and xenophobia via the propagation of lies and distortions of reality, go ahead. We believe most people are intelligent, decent and capable of rational thought, and we choose to appeal to these qualities in our attempts to remain in power. Do your worst; we will do our best."
What if that?
Haha, only kidding! As if!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Asylum Seekers: A User's Guide
Written by me.
Brown people - providing comedy fodder through their misery for over five hundred years!
Brown people - providing comedy fodder through their misery for over five hundred years!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
A Wise Man Once Said...
"Boat people scare easily, but they'll be back - and in greater numbers."
The Rudd government's failure to sustain the Obi Wan theory of border protection has cost us dearly - as I explain in my latest piece on newmatilda.
The Rudd government's failure to sustain the Obi Wan theory of border protection has cost us dearly - as I explain in my latest piece on newmatilda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)