Champions of Change: Australia’s Hysteria


Posted by: Jane Hodge

Posted date: April 13, 2013

Top image by JH, ‘The Immigration Process’, as part of the Refugee Art Project – www.therefugeeartproject.com

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recently released its latest report on the number of asylum applications lodged in the 44 industrialised countries that provide statistics to the UNHCR. The 2012 report, recorded the second highest number of applications worldwide this decade with 479,300 asylum applications lodged – a global increase of 12.5%. The High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, noted that asylum claims lodged in industrialised countries were only a drop in the ocean compared to the levels of displacement experienced closer to the regions of conflict:

In most cases people seeking refuge from conflict choose to remain in countries neighbouring their own in hope of being able to return home (an example is Syria, where the figure of 24,800 Syrian asylum claims in industrialised countries compares to more than 1,100,000 registered Syrian refugees currently in neighbouring countries).

Although Australia experienced a rise in asylum applications, the total number of applications registered in Australia in 2012 was a modest 15,800 compared with the 355,500 claims received in Europe and the 103,900 received in North America. As information and research from Australia’s commonwealth parliamentary library shows, since 1999–2001, when Australia last experienced a surge in boat arrivals during the Howard Government, irregular maritime arrivals (IMA’s) lodging asylum claims have consisted primarily of people from Afghanistan followed by Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka. However, Australia has not shouldered a significant amount of asylum flows from these countries—much higher numbers of asylum seekers from these countries have gone to the UK and other destination countries. In fact, as Guterres notes, none of the industrialised countries, Australia included, shoulder a significant amount of asylum seekers compared to the developing countries neighbouring most of the world’s conflict zones. The vast majority of asylum seekers are hosted in countries such as Pakistan, so the burden of assisting the world’s asylum seekers and refugees actually falls to some of the world’s poorest countries.

So what does this tell us about Australia’s hysteria around receiving 3% of the industrialised worlds asylum applications? (3% take note, is the amount of applications lodged, not the amount of visas granted). What this tells us is that other industrialised countries, and many more poor developing countries, take many more asylum seekers than we do in Australia, and that they deal with the situation much better. Take Sweden for example, who accepts nearly 3 times the number of asylum seekers per year than we do in Australia. In Sweden asylum seekers are welcomed, are assigned their own case worker and lawyer, are allowed freedom of movement and work rights, are allowed to live with friends or family, and are provided financial support and a housing allowance, all whilst their claims are processed in a maximum of 3 months. Sweden, it seems recognizes asylum seekers for what they are; everyday humans like you and I fleeing persecution.

What can we take from news reports like Gemma’s Jones’s Daily Telegraph with front page headlines screaming “Asylum Handouts: Julia’s Boats Baby Bonus”? Firstly that they are blatantly disingenuous. Gemma’s article refers to only one woman who was offered childcare help, and who subsequently rejected the offer. Secondly, it would be inhumane to think that someone held in an Australian facility for no legal reason is denied much needed health care.

What can we discern from the fact that Australia does not indefinitely detain convicted terrorists who ASIO has found planned acts of violence in Australia, but it does detain indefinitely asylum seekers who have not committed any act but “based on a predictive judgement that they might pose a security risk” ASIO has given them an adverse assessment? In this case ASIO itself has not stated that this treatment is required, it is our Government who has made this decision.

What these examples demonstrate is that the hysteria surrounding asylum seekers in Australia is unjustified. In Australia we are not being ‘flooded’ or ‘overun’ by asylum seekers, and the fact that other countries can deal with much larger numbers when Australia is struggling, is our politicians fault, not the fault of asylum seekers. What these examples highlight is that this current hysteria is being manufactured by our media and our politicians – who in ‘othering’ and dehumanising asylum seekers are able to poise them as a ‘threat’ to Australia’s sovereignty which they can appear to be ‘defeating’. What the last couple of months of community processing have demonstrated, is that it is possible for asylum seekers to live in the community without their neighbours being the least bit perturbed. It seems the real threats in this debate are Australian constituents who are both xenophobic and gullible enough to buy into the hype.

Source

Politics and the Bogot

The bogots are passionate about their politics, while understanding very little about the political process of the country in which they live.

Take the national icons for example.

Bogans

Bogots overwhelmingly  love the flag. It adorns their houses, their cars, their shoulders, bums and boobs. It provides much material for lurid tattoos. It decorates them at a range of public occasions from Big Day Out to the footie to the next anticipated punch-up with lefties greenies Muslims “unStrayans”.

Kudelka cartoon

We breathlessly await the flag franger so every bogot banana can be proud and protected.. Something like this effect for whenever the bogot feels one coming on. Matter of fact, the bogot has one now.

Flag franger

Bogots are quite adamant that the Anzacs fought under the current Australian flag in WWI. Sadly for them, the Anzacs did not. They fought under the Union Jack, the flag of Britain and its Empire.

Likewise the bogot is convinced that Australia’s Constitution, a document which most of them have not read, contains a provision for “free speech”. Again, it does not.

Now Mark [name removed] is very concerned about the direction Straya is heading.

We were not aware that curtains had political parties. Maybe Mark is confused because he read something about Curtin, one of Australia’s greatest Prime Ministers. Or maybe he is worried about Daylight Saving. Thankfully he is not going to run anyone out of town about it. We are all breathing easier at TAB.

Nevertheless his mate Gary, a laundry expert, is in no doubt about what he wants done with the curtains.

Joel Rickard desperately wants an election. He may have even been watching events unfold in the Middle East, where people have taken to the streets to get rid of their governments. Or maybe not – the bogots don’t like the Middle East.

Joel Rickard

Sadly, Joel is yet another who is ignorant of the Constitution. There are only a few very specific circumstances in which the Governor-General is empowered to call an election, and none of them exist at the moment, even with a minority government. Even with a “petetition” (sic)

Fortunately, Antony Green, probably Australia’s foremost expert on election matters, has answers.

Nathan Smith, Newcastle’s own Pathetic Party stalwart (yes, there is one) is on about they. We assumed he meant the overwhelming majority of the Australian people who do not subscribe to the politics of the APP and parties like it, but apparently not. He is talking about asylum seekers.

Nathan Smith

So according to Nathan the two or three thousand boat arrivals who come here each year and who cannot vote until they have achieved permanent residency and citizenship (a process which can take several years) apparently have the power to hugely influence elections. Someone better tell the major political parties, especially Labor. Maybe they’ll change their asylum seeker policy.

Pete Barry is keen on defending Straya by re-introducing national service, a policy which frankly has failed to receive much support from the electorate in the past . Perhaps it will be more attractive with some “flexability” (sic) which sounds like our soldiers might be doing some stretching exercises.  We were hoping Pete might elaborate, but unfortunately he then got distracted by the serious question of leadership.

We have noticed that the bogots love the concept of leadership, being the dedicated sheep-like followers they are. And Pete Barry is in no doubt as to who should run Straya – failed serial political candidate Pauline Hanson is his pick for PM.

Pauline for PM

It is hard to know how Pete came to that conclusion, since Hanson was rejected as a political candidate in turn by the Liberal Party, then her own party. Then again impulsive brain-farts based on no evidence whatsoever  have long characterised bogot thinking.

Now here’s Julie Coleman, Facebook’s own version of Crownies  Tracey Samuels.

Fortunately “Tracey Samuels” is a fictitious character. Unfortunately Julie Coleman is not.

From her own personal high moral Everest Julie ceaselessly patrols the Internet stabbing her cyber-digit at those of whom she disapproves. Of course, they all lie to the left of Julie politically. Most of the country does.

Julie Coleman

We think she was talking about TAB. We would quite happily accept donations but unfortunately we do not for all sorts of sound legal reasons.

We know that religion can be a good cash cow, but we have better things to do with our weekends.

Now here’s a Batty who is quite sure it knows what TAB is.

Psychobat

Err…never heard of “social alliance” (sic). Please explain…