A very interesting post reflecting on everyday ways in which men’s patriarchal entitlement impacts women, and some simple ways for men to help reduce this unwanted day-to-day mpact.
A number of friends and colleagues around the world ask me why Australia is being such a collective shit when it comes to refugees. Note, I adopt the word refugee instead of asylum-seekers as the latter has, since John Howard was Prime Minister and first made the issue an election-deciding one, become largely pejorative.
And even in the wake of international condemnation, clear denial of international law, and the umbrage of many thinking Australians, the government continues on its merry brown-shirted way to demonise refugees as if they did something wrong.
They did not.
Being a refugee is not illegal; just incredibly sad and desperately unfortunate.
Seeking asylum is a RIGHT, guaranteed to all people. It is a fundamental human right. And that means it is INALIENABLE …. unless you seek asylum in Australia.
Well, not being able to understand why Australians are allowing the government to treat refugees so appallingly and illegally, I decided to see if anyone knew where the majority of Australians were on the issue.
The Conversation had a look at this. In 2012 the wrote about research commissioned to ask this question. A question was asked: “Do you think the (then) Federal Labor Government is too tough or too soft on asylum seekers or is it taking the right approach?” 12% answered “too tough”, 11% chose “right approach”, while 60% indicated “too soft”.
Unfortunately, these are the sorts of attitudes that support the current government’s policies of turning the boats around and incarcerating refugees.
If you dislike the current policies, then sadly these figures suggest we are in a considerable majority, and at thus at a considerable loss.
How does one turn a government policy around when the majority of voters – bringing into specific relief the problem with lowest common denominator approaches to policy-making – want it to happen? How does one overturn a perceived mandate built on such palpably badly-founded and ill-conceived (and illegal – did I say that?) foundations?
Read the full article here for more: https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-australian-public-really-think-about-asylum-seekers-8522
Having heard countless ignoramuses (ignorami?) defend the refoulement of refugees on the grounds that ‘turning the boats around’ means more boats will not come, I can say after spending numerous years on the front-line witnessing first-hand such policies, without question, there is absolutely no deterrent effect in Australia’s current approach to boat people.
Quite simply, the situation of the refugees is worse than anything that could happen to them in Australia, or at the hands of Australians.
96% of boat people coming to Australia are GENUINE refugees.
And nothing can deter a genuine refugee.
Read this article from The Conversation for more: https://theconversation.com/theres-no-evidence-that-asylum-seeker-deterrence-policy-works-8367
Agree entirely; a very good blog post capturing the outrage that SHOULD be felt by all Australians at our refugee policy.
A large portion of what I spend my time doing overseas is engaging with abuses of human rights and their practical implications- or working to ensure that peoples’ basic rights are met, either through direct action, or advocacy. Coming home to my family in Australia, I have the privilege of knowing they will never face the sorts of rights deprivations that many of the displaced people I habitually work with do.
With that in mind, it makes Australia’s decision yesterday to excise its mainland from the migration zone all the more shocking.
The migration zone, simply put, is the geographical boundary within which an incoming asylum-seeker can legally lodge an appeal for asylum. Under normal circumstances, an asylum-seeker can set foot anywhere on Australian sovereign territory and, from that point, appeal to the government to recognize his or her claim for refugee status under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating…
View original post 2,834 more words