Tag Archives: fear

Ascend

Ascend

IMG_0412.JPG

The halfway point as we ascend Kasprovy Wierch in the Tatra Mountains, in southern Poland. I hate heights, but I really wanted to experience both the cable car and the mountain, so I did, it was fabulous and well worth the journey up. The view was spectacular and the feeling was one of exhilaration. Passion trumps fear every time.

3 Comments

Filed under Country, nature

Seeking Asylum (Part 4) How Many Come?

The way the Australian media report on refugees or asylum seekers is either by overstatement or the opposite, silence. But then you would only have to look at who owns the media to work that out, as Australian media is (with the exception of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and SBS) privately owned with bias towards the ownership (which is to be expected). However, you would think that journalism might actually be journalism and question government and anti-refugee rhetoric. There is precious little reporting in the mainstream commercial media that challenges the lies and myths surrounding those seeking asylum.

According to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (2012 data) “23,000 persons per day leave their homes and seek protection elsewhere – more than the total number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia in a year.” http://www.asrc.org.au

According to the UNHCR: 

As at December 2012 there were 45.2 million people displaced. of which there were 15.4 million refugees, of which there were 10.5 million (with 4.9 million Palestinians under UNRWA mandate) refugees in 2012. Of that number 1,638,500 were being hosted by Pakistan, 868,200 hosted by Iran, 589,700 hosted by Germany, 564,900 hosted by Kenya, 476,500 hosted by Syria, and 376,400 by Ethiopia.

Developing countries  hosted over 80% of the world’s refugees (compared to 70% ten years ago).

Pakistan hosted the highest number of refugees compared to its national economy – 552 refugees per 1 USD of GDP. Ethiopia was second (303), Kenya third (301), South Sudan fourth (209). Germany was the first developed country on the ranking placing it 31st, with 15 refugees per 1 USD of GDP. Australia hosted 0.7 refugees per USD of GDP ranking it 77th in the world!

Australia’s World Ranking by:

  • Total number of asylum claims 20th.
  • Compared to our population size (per capita) 29th
  • By hosting 77th
  • Compared to our national wealth GDP (PPP) per capita 52nd

Australia’s Ranking of 44 Industrialised Countries (2012):

  • by total number of asylum claims 12th
  • compared to our population size (per capita) 16th
  • compared to our national wealth GDP (PPP) per capita 14th

Note: PPP is purchasing power parity.

By asylum applications received in 2012:

  • Asylum applications received in 2012 out of a global total of 2 million applications globally was 29,610. Australia’s share – 1.47%; Australia’s ranking 20th.
  • Asylum seekers recognised as refugees in 2012 globally 1.3 million. Australia’s recognition 8,367. Australia’s share – 0.61%; Australia’s ranking 28th.

For further statistical resource see:

http://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends/2012-GlobalTrends-annex-tables.zip

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-int.php

Although New Zealand (pop. 4.3 million; Australia 22.2 million) only takes small numbers of asylum seekers under the quota system (750 per annum – plus/minus 10%) and although in 2011/2012 there were 364 extra claims from others who arrived in New Zealand by various means, only 115 were validated, it is the way they handle it. For a small nation they have a very healthy attitude to reception, processing, and the integration of asylum seekers. It certainly puts Australia’s attitude and policy(s) in a poor light despite population difference.

So, whether we look at our ranking within the industrialised nations, or globally across all nations, or wether we look at per capita (thus in relative context) Australia is woeful at taking in refugees.

A correlative is migration (another sticking point in Australian politics). A recent article at blogs.worldbank.org “Can I get the bill, please? Are immigrants a burden or net contributors to the public purse?” by Jean christophe Dumont and Thomas Liebig asks a number of questions about migration. One significant question is “the current doxa about the fiscal impact of migration is indeed that immigrants contribute less in taxes than they receive in benefits …” It is an expectation an unfounded attitude but not a reality. the converse is also true as the article explores the question as to whether immigrants are a fiscal panacea, and they are not. However, the authors contend that immigrants are neither a burden nor a panacea, but rather that “immigrants have a positive net direct fiscal position in most countries …” in other words, they are not a drain on any society.

The official immigration impact on OECD countries, including Australia is negligible when considered over a period of fifty years of migration study, to the point that the fiscal impact is “close to zero, rarely exceeding 0.5% of GDP …”

The subject of asylum seekers also raises the doxa of negative fiscal impact but that is also not true. In Australia refugees cannot access Centrelink, do not get public housing, rarely are able to get transitional housing, a limited number are able to get the Red Cross Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (which is 89% of the New Start Scheme) for a short period of time. Refugees face higher rates of homelessness than other groups in Australia. Until a visa is granted they cannot access Medicare. They receive less than what it costs to pay rent and buy food let alone pay up-front for medical and dental costs.

There are many other myths surrounding asylum seekers. We need detention centres: well between 1948 – 1992 we successfully resettled 452,000 refugees, all processed directly within the community. There were no detention centres then and we more than coped. We must protect our borders: we do and have always done so, refugees by boat have always been checked and scrutinised no one is at risk in Australia from a boat arrival in spite of the government or media rhetoric (manufactured moral panic?)!

So, we are not being overrun, or flooded by refugees. We are not at risk. We take the least of many of our fellow industrialised nations. We are way behind developing nations in accepting refugees. They are neither a major drain on our economy nor a panacea (using the immigration ideal which is not radically different) as they have limited access to welfare or assistance.

So I’m wondering what the problem is?

I personally believe that it has a lot to do with the development of the nation and our beliefs about the ‘other’ the foreigner. With the reaction to the Chinese on the Victorian goldfields (1851), the fear of a Russian invasion (1885), the framing of the constitution to deliberately exclude non-whites and restrict non-english speaking peoples (Section 51, sub-sections 26 – 30), the treatment of German people during World War One, the riot in Kalgoorlie in 1934 against Italian migrants, the Imperial attitude to race and culture, all of these and more are contributing factors to an anxiety about the foreigner in Australia today.

I believe that the current fear is, as a direct result of ignorance, a fear of Islamic people, beliefs and culture (White Australia Policy again). Which is not dissimilar to how people reacted to the Chinese and the Germans and Italians in the past.

In addition, it has become popular in political circles to utilise this anxiety for political gain, so that people have become politicised and therefore dehumanised. There is a worrying connection with the insights of Georgio Agamben in his work ‘Homo Sacer’  and earlier, Hannah Arendt’s ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ which demonstrate how easy it is to create scapegoats, and to dehumanise and demonise a race or culture for political gain.

We are not overrun, we are not inundated, we would not be financially burdened in the extreme (especially if we used an integration process rather than a detention process – which is costing us dearly), so it must be (irrational) fear.

Only this past week, the U.N. has reprimanded Australia for reneging on its U.N. treaty obligations in regard to 46 refugees. We have descended from a nation of foreigners (excepting the indigenous Aboriginal peoples),risen to a nation that welcomed some foreigners after both World Wars, and then plummeted to a nation that resists foreigners. We have lost sight of our responsibilities as a nation on the world scene. We have lost our compassion in regard to asylum seekers. We are surely hypocritical to be sitting on the U.N. Security Council, sitting making decisions that affect other nations, sitting in judgement of other nations as we seek to reinforce U.N. treaties and conventions!

It is entirely possible to change this. Education about asylum seekers at all levels from school to parliament would help to restore a positive understanding of their plight and our responsibility to them, and the possibility of  their positive participation in our nation. To deconstruct the myths and distortions would help to re-humanise those who come to our shores by whatever means.

We need a new way forward on asylum seekers and refugees, one that will see them as people with inalienable rights, but also to see them as future Australians.

See:

epress.anu.edu.au/cw/mobile_devices/ch13s05.html  (chapter on the ‘White Australia Policy)

http://www.dictionaryofsydney.org  (reference to fear Russian  ship visiting Sydney)

“In Fear of Security: Australia’s Invasion Anxiety” Dr. Anthony Burke 2001

“U.N. castigates Australia for treatment of 46 refugees” Reuters, Geneva 22.8.2013

http://www.immigration.govt.nz  (refugee fact sheet)

Hannah Arendt ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich  1973

Georgio Agamben ‘Homo Sacer’ Stanford University Press, 1998

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Love or Fear?

There are a number of posters and quote book style comments available on the net that go like this: “if you feel compelled to defend your faith it can’t really be that strong.”

At one level an apologetic in theology or philosophy is necessary in juggling between truth claims for clarity of discussion, but at another level there is a blind even fundamentalist and closed defence that negatively compares and contrasts. Eventually this ends in denying the very faith we claim.

Yesterday Ed Husic became the first Australian Commonwealth MP to be sworn in using the Qu’ran. There has been, predictably (and sadly), some negative response. Of course the mainstream media used inflammatory and sensational headlines to push interest in the story (news creating news), the most common and obvious abuse was to claim there had been a public backlash. Another and more serious failing is the media references to Husic receiving ‘racist’ comments and backlash. You simply cannot respond to a religious issue with racism. To oppose a religious stance is not to be racist. Racism, by clear definition is discrimination based on ethnic grounds, and especially where a religion is global and not located in tribe or family group, there is no grounds to connect religion as a racial issue.

Further comment came that to allow the use of the Qu’ran was un-Australian! Firstly, we were founded in a time when colonial nations still adhered strongly to a Christian ethos, but in recent decades we have not constituted being a ‘Christian nation.’ Secondly, you only have to check the ABS stats, and the U. N. data to know that we cannot define Australia as Christian. So if we aren’t a Christian nation, what are we whining about? Who is needing to defend the use of the Bible and why?

Furthermore, if Husic is Muslim wouldn’t it be far more real, far more authentic to swear (if one must do any such thing in the first place) on the Qu’ran in which he trusts and believes, rather than the Bible, which would be false and inauthentic? Or at worst, we might be tempted to turn and say, well he swore on the Bible, but he didn’t mean it because he is a Muslim!

But all this shows up something else. If we can agree to put aside every notion of religious fundamentalism (because all faiths suffer from it) and both the perceived and real threat posed to all, we can begin to see that angry and negative responses to Husic stem from a lack of understanding, a paucity of knowledge about Islam and especially the Qu’ran. And lack of knowledge can arrive at misinformation, or worse, fear.

A more mindful approach would be to dialogue, to seek understanding, to build working relationships with all peoples. It might be time to visit the possibility of strengthening the curriculum re culture and values through comparative religion so that ignorance and fear might be transformed for the positive good. We do live in a multi-cultural society (irrespective of the arguments to the contrary, which are more to do with policy debates than grass roots reality) and we must address living together as such.

St. Francis showed the way when he attempted to negotiate peace between the Crusaders and the opposing Muslim army in 1219. And this builds on what Jesus also showed in living the call to love one another. In other faith traditions there are similar calls to love, harmony, hospitality, and non-harming. Even better is the outstanding example of the Muslim rule in Iberia from 711 in the north to 1480 in Granada and the south where the three Abrahamic faiths coexisted well together (would make a great model for today). It can be done.

Is our faith (whichever faith that be) strong enough not to need negative, fearful defence (thereby constituting an ironic denial of what or who we believe)?

The question is whether to enthrone fear in our hearts or love?!

Paul

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized