Defeated in a cruel game

Waleed Aly

In Kafka’s Australia, chilling bureaucratic violence against asylum seekers breaks them down slowly.

SO THIS is what ”no advantage” looks like. We have barely started sending asylum seekers to Nauru and already there has been an attempted suicide. By hanging, according to the psychiatrist who reported it. The end result was that three more asylum seekers opted to return home rather than face our immigration system.

That brings the tally of voluntary returns to about 40 – 40 people who decided the situation was so grim, so hopeless that they were better off returning to the place they were fleeing.

There’s something chilling about the government citing these as ”steps forward”, but that’s the logic of deterrence. It means we have to take the misery that produces asylum seekers, then raise it. And since we can’t simply inflict direct violence on detainees, we have to do it in more subtle ways, namely by destroying their sense of hope. That’s why people are attempting suicide so quickly, because we’re telling them they are going to Nauru to languish, not to be processed.

But it turns out that’s not all we are telling them. We are also telling them they should just give up. This week, ABC radio’s PM revealed that Immigration Department officials are rejecting some asylum seekers on the basis of an informal verbal interview. No application. No lawyer. No hearing. No process really. Just the uninformed, premature judgment of a bureaucrat trying to dispense with an irritant.

It’s the very definition of insidious. So insidious the department has even given it a euphemistic, bureaucratic name, ”screening out”, as though it’s a routine classification process. ”Any person who is screened out progresses towards removal from Australia,” a media release from the department says. Progresses. Like they’re getting somewhere. Sounds better than ”shunted back home without a hearing” or ”dumped in detention limbo”, which is what it actually means.

The idea is so brazen: to trade on the ignorance and powerlessness of asylum seekers. It’s not that asylum seekers lose their rights. They don’t. At least in theory they retain the right to apply for refugee status. They have the right to a lawyer. But if you are ”screened out”, you are not told this. If you happen to know it, and have the inordinate confidence to call an immigration official’s bluff, good for you. If not, your rights are pretty much rhetorical. ”If anyone in immigration detention requests access to a lawyer, we facilitate that request,” the department says. You just have to assert rights you don’t know you have.

Welcome to Kafka’s Australia, where rights are guaranteed, but preferably forgotten. So we maintain that we respect due process and human rights, even if it’s clear we don’t always like them very much. We have been doing this for ages. ”Screening out” has been around for the best part of a decade; long enough for the department to call it a ”long-standing policy over successive governments”.

And if you believe the lawyers who work in this area, it’s part of a number of bureaucratic practices designed to prevent asylum seekers accessing the few rights they have.

You can’t ban asylum seekers from having access to lawyers, but you can insist they fill out a specific form if they want one, and then refuse to give them the form. You can limit the time lawyers have with their clients to make their work impossible. And if they manage to apply, you can delay the process by using translators who speak the wrong language, or who belong to rival ethnic groups. It’s like the dictation test of the White Australia period, which could be in Swahili if the immigration official wanted you to fail.

What explains this bureaucratic violence? Telling asylum seekers their claim is rejected without a hearing doesn’t ”send a message to people smugglers” or ”break the people smugglers’ business model”. Obstructing access to a lawyer doesn’t deter people from getting on boats. It just breaks them slowly. These are not policies that have been debated in Parliament and have clearly articulated purposes. They don’t need to be. They arise by osmosis.

Reflecting on the infamous Abu Ghraib prison scandal, Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo observed that such things become possible when the perpetrators feel anonymous, when they don’t have a sense of personal responsibility for their actions, and have tacit approval from authority figures. And the obvious differences between Nauru and Abu Ghraib aside, isn’t that what’s happening here?

This is a culture of belligerence, trickling down from the political leadership. Again, just like White Australia. It’s a culture that sees the sneaky denial of rights as a virtue. A culture that sheds tears for those who die at sea trying to get here, but barely blinks when people are killed after being sent home. A culture that watches a detainee attempt suicide, and dozens of people give up on the idea of asylum, and then chalks it up as a win.

Waleed Aly writes fortnightly. He hosts Drive on ABC Radio National and is a lecturer in politics at Monash University.


8 thoughts on “Defeated in a cruel game

  1. Australia loves ratifiying human rights conventions and then throwing them in the bin and the MSM are only too happy to conspire with them to do so.

    Rebecca Barrett on ABC news tonight claimed that we don’t have to tell asylum seekers there rights, that is wrong. ARticle 16 (!) of the convention guarantees equal rights under the law and access to courts and this cannot be altered or changed in any way.

  2. Yes,Wahleed is a rank hypocrite.

    preaching to Australia.

    When no muslim country would afford similar rights to foreigners who turned up on their shores.

    • So le’ts get this straight, grantsurbator, if you are a Muslim, and are involved in the local community, strongly involved in creating links between the No-Muslim and Muslim community which has already seen results (We don’t see the sort of riots you see in Sydney in Melbourne), contributes to the Glboal terorrism research centre to help prevent any further terrorist actions, and be involved in the Australian communtiy in the most easily identifiable way, by being a proud supporter of his local football team (Even if it is Richmond)…..if you’re a Muslim he’ll still hate you.

      Granti s a member of the APP, a party which has supported child killers, Nazis, been a platform for views such as the extermination of all those with disabilities, even Children, and that those who disagree with the view of the party should be expelled, removed from power, or, if need be, executed. He considers these people to be more Australian, than Walled Aly.

      Let’s be fair and honest here, Grant. Your entire moral velief is: “Whatever you do with your life, it doesn’t matter unless you hate brown skinned people with me” A Muslim could save you multiple times from fires, give you personally a million dollars, and you would still hate him, right? Whereas, an APP member could rape a baby and you’d still be supporting his election campaign.

      I worry about any organisation that believes: “If someone from our group does it, it’s good, if anyone else does it, it’s evil”-it’s the sort of laws we see in Burma.

      By the way Grant, what exactly have you done with your life to make you more important to ustralia than Waleed Aly? I’ve asked this question in a range of forms previously, but you never seem to answer. Maybe it’s because you’ve done nothing and hate yourself, but criticise absolutely everyone who has done things with their lives to make yourself feel better. But who knows? Maybe you’re a super hero in your spare time.

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s