For a political animal I write little on political affairs. In large part that can be attributed to the sour taste political discourse has left me with. I hate to be cynical, but find it hard not to be in these very calculating days. It's a cop-out, but it's enough that I have to live with it - and so, by and large, I choose not to write about it, and even consider it if at all possible.
That's not possible. I may be disenchanted but I'm no less idealistic. I continue to read the newspapers cover to cover, continue to dip my toe into more intelligent political discussion, continue, as ever, to hold strong opinions. And I continue to think deeply about all that happens around me. If I write less then it is often because I am taking time to process the variety of inputs; to formulate end of day my own opinion on events rather than accepting the pre-digested perspectives on offer from tabloids and popular media commentators.
This is important to me. Though I incline in one direction I don't want to be defined by that. I take each issue on its merits and run it through the experience and knowledge and undeniable bias I have accumulated. I aim to be rational and objective, and achieve some measure of that. I am not immune to the personal, but that's what makes us human. Overall I think I have a set of pretty well-balanced opinions that are unique to me: they are mine, and not the words of others.
Still, with the modern propensity to labels I am said to be part of the left-wing intelligentsia. I belong to the vocal minority - apparently - that holds humanistic values to be precious, whether they apply to people, social policy, the environment, etc. It's a vague, amorphous school of thought that reluctantly and with some reservations I accede to. Mea culpa.
I am not shoulder to shoulder though. I believe in general, but disagree often on nuance and emphasis, and occasionally on fundamental principles. It's because I think for myself and have not accepted the primacy of official dogma.
This is preamble to a slightly adjusted perspective on the asylum seeker question here in Oz. Like my comrades I have been vocal in decrying the injustice and mistreatment of these poor souls seeking a better life in Australia. As a general view I have always held to a vaguely Christian premise that the strong should help the weak. The determination of these people arriving in rickety boats not long from sinking has always impressed me. If they are so desperate to risk the life of their families then how bad must life have been where they came from?
Countering this has been a number of fatuous arguments trotted out by the government of the day - Howard mainly, but taken up by the weak Labor government since. Their mantra has been protecting our borders, as if we were subject to invasion by thousands of undesirable foreigners, and "we'll choose who comes to our country". It's been a blatantly political line not far short of being racist which, skilfully played, has resonated with much of the Australian electorate. I believe it's called dog whistling, which has become a staple of Australian politics since.
This has been the excuse to pack these unwanted immigrants into detention camps where they may fester for years waiting to be processed. This is in fact what prompts my post today.
Recently at the detention centre at Villawood, in Sydney, a number of these asylum seekers revolted against the system. They set things alight and a bunch of them clambered onto the roof refusing to eat until they gained asylum. One can imagine the desperation that led to this, but it has been a public relations disaster for the detainees. And it made me think further.
I was surprised to find that I too frowned upon these actions. I dismissed the small voices of public service minions speaking against the detainees as being irrelevant. I had no doubt that the detainees had perfectly reasonable complaints against the system, which is an abomination. Yet in the pit of my stomach where you live it felt somehow wrong.
There is much more than justice and mercy to be considered when looking upon this situation. It is too simple, too formulaic, to view it through such a narrow perspective. As I well understand it is easy to use angry and emotive terms when describing the events and the causes leading to them. Many are justified. But it is not anger or emotion that will resolve the impasse we have lived with for many years. And the situation is much more complex than that.
The one really good argument against taking in asylum seekers was the 'queue jumpers' label oft-used by the government. If we let in these people, they claimed, then others who have legitimately applied to enter the country will be denied. The other argument, again with some sense to it, that is if we accept illegal immigration then we validate the illegality, we encourage the mercenary interests of people smugglers, and run the risk of being inundated. We need to oppose if only to be seen to oppose.
Then there is the complexity which comes in the shape of culture. There is much to admire in such determined people. With such qualities they would likely be vital and industrious citizens. It is other aspects which are more troubling. When some detainees sewed their lips shut in protest against government policy it is was horrifying. When they did it to some of their own children it was barbaric. While we accept diversity, that behaviour is foreign to our culture, as it should be. Is this what we want?
Ultimately it is our culture to which if granted they will enter. We welcome the diversity of views and vibrancy of their customs, which have made Australia a greater place. I don't ask for complete assimilation, but there must be some understanding of the culture they have entered, and respect for what they have been given.
Government policy is clumsy and often inhumanely enacted. The immigration process seems bureaucratic to almost Kafka-esque proportions. We can do much better. Yet we are a democratic country. We will give shelter - even if it is not as friendly or openly granted as the likes of me would like. People come to us because we have what they don't have at home. I think that's what I felt in my stomach as I saw these detainees set alight their quarters. Hello I thought, I understand your frustration, but at least you are safe here, protected by law and likely to find a future. We may be clumsy, but, notwithstanding government rhetoric, are not without decency. It is our culture to take you in, to give you the opportunity to thrive in safety and without persecution. We are good people. Hard as it may be, meet us half way, understand and appreciate the promise of what we have to offer you.
We do have to find a better way, and have to divorce the question of asylum seekers from political rhetoric.That conversation needs to be changed and some common-sense introduced. Australia gets a fraction of the illegal immigrants Europe gets, and the 5-7,000 annually aren't really a lot. Certainly not an invasion as the likes of Tony Abbott and other low-lives like to portray it.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I often wonder why the Australian government does not set up processing centres abroad, in the hotspots of Asia. Everyone then can be legal, no queue is jumped, and the need for people smugglers eliminated. Do foreign governments object? I would have thought it would work to their benefit.
