Cambodia agrees to resettle Australia’s refugees

Australia is shirking its responsibility to protect refugees, again. This time, Cambodia, one of Asia’s poorest countries, is in the process of signing an agreement to resettle Australian-bound asylum seekers.

In a move that has been condemned by activist and human rights groups, it is expected that Cambodia will offer permanent resettlement to people seeking asylum from war and persecution. Details of the agreement are yet to be released, but late Tuesday night the Secretary of State, Ouch Borith confirmed the agreement, stating that his government would “do the work according to international standards”.

So what is so wrong with this agreement? Isn’t it good that desperate people who are seeking safety will finally have access to the constantly evasive legal protection?

The thing with refugee resettlement, is that countries that offer resettlement are required to provide education and labour opportunities, not simply safety. As Phil Robertson, deputy director Human Rights Watch in Asia says, Cambodia’s “capacity to take care of asylum seekers or refugees is low”.

The kingdom of Cambodia is still recovering from its own history of civil war and violence.  It was only a few decades ago that scores of people fled the nation as it was consumed in brutal violence, genocide and war crimes under the Khmer Rouge regime. With one of the worst human rights records in the region the nation is still recovering. Many Cambodians live in abject poverty, surviving hand to mouth while children and women are vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking. Australia is consistent donor to the nation, providing more than $244.5 million in aid over the past three years.

Human rights lawyer, David Manne told ABC radio that “there are real concerns about people’s safety [in Cambodia]. Beyond that, there are indeed other obligations that Australia has committed to at the international community in relation to refugees”, including a commitment not to move refugees around the world to precarious situations where their safety could not be guaranteed.

The Human Development Index in 2013 ranks Cambodia at 138 out of 187 countries. And guess where Australia sits? Second. In case you didn’t get that, I’ll repeat. Second. Meanwhile the two other countries Australia has shirked its responsibility of protecting asylum seekers to, Papua New Guinea and Nauru, sit at 156 and 164 respectively.

Considering asylum seekers are currently living without basic human rights in Australian run offshore processing centres in the aforementioned Nauru and PNG, perhaps the Cambodia agreement is a positive step forward for those who are found to be refugees.

But the answer to these issues should not come down to an either or.

Australia has an obligation, not just to humanity, but to an international convention it helped to draft, to provide protection for people fleeing war and persecution.

I have worked with people who have come to Australia by boat, both those living in Australia and those in the offshore centres. Not one of these people I have met took a boat journey because they wanted better economic opportunities. They came because they cannot live in their homeland. They feared for their lives. That journey across the ocean on a small boat is not a choice. They are aware of the very real reality of death and those who do make it, often begin to grow grey hair, a physical sign of the internal stress they experienced during the week long journey. But rather than Australia recognising the bravery and acknowledging our commitments of the convention, they are treated to a hostile reception and tossed between political policies like a pig-skin on a football field.

Phil Robertson describes the Cambodia agreement as “absolutely shameful and [deserving of] public condemnation across the region, from Phnom Pen to Canberra and by the UNHCR”.

Only time will tell what the response to this agreement will be, but if history is any indicator, it will somehow slip through legislation, just as the Offshore Solution did in 2012.

All of these policies serve one explicit (political) purpose; to stop people dying at sea. The means should never justify the end, particularly when we are discussing the lives of the most vulnerable people in the world and a nation still developing.

We can do better Australia, can’t we?

What is our love of fast fashion costing us? Hint: Don’t look in your wallet.

Published: http://www.mamamia.com.au/style/clean-cut-fashion-week/

Australia is a little Fashion-occupied at the moment. With the opening of H&M and the Mercedes Benz Fashion Week Australia in full swing, news feeds on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram seem saturated with updates and #MBFWA.

But today, something a little different took place at Carriage Works. Clean Cut showcased a movement in fashion that is picking up momentum and driving change.

Sustainable fashion.

Exhibiting the best designers, with strong ethical production, and stunning aesthetics, Clean Cut is connecting Australia with a global movement away from Fast Fashion and towards a more sustainable future.

So what exactly is Fast Fashion?

It is to shopping is what the burger and fries combo deal at Maccas is to restaurant dining. Instead of purchasing timeless, well made pieces, consumers are opting for cheaper and low quality items.

The problem is, while the price tag might only say $49.95, this is rarely an accurate reflection of the true cost of the garment. There are hidden environmental and social costs that no one is talking about, because no one can see them. They are hidden behind glossy marketing campaigns, in the back of developing nations.

Remember the Rana Plaza disaster last year where 1,200 garment workers were tragically killed when it collapsed? They were making clothes for UK brands such as Mango and Primark. And if you’ve shopped in any of these stores, you will know, there is nothing slow about the rate in which new styles are added to the floor.

Here in Australia it is astounding how rapidly stock is turned over in stores. Instead of having four seasons of fashion there are over 400 new items each month in Witchery, while Topshop releases a staggering 300 styles a week. Fast Fashion giant Zara has a short 13 day turn around between design conception and being placed on coat hanger in a store. Just 13 days.

With these kinds of demands, and retailers competing to be the cheapest and quickest, all the pressure is placed at the end of the supply chain. Men, women and children, who are earning very little, if anything at all, work long days, cutting, sewing and dyeing. And meanwhile the products they are using, from the cotton to the dyes are full of harmful chemicals and pesticides, are infecting them and our environment.

So what can we do about it? Glad you asked.

As consumers, we have a lot of power. It’s called our money, and where we choose to spend it. Here are a few top tips for doing your bit for humanity and the environment when we shop.

1. Choose carefully: Buy one well-made piece each month, instead of several items. Instead of purchasing several cheap jackets that stay in fashion for as long as Beyonce has the same hair style, invest in a beautiful coat that will last you all season.

2. Recycle: Don’t throw out your old clothes. Pop them in a charity bin instead. They’ll either end up clothing someone who can’t afford to shop, or they’ll go into an op-shop that will raise money for it’s charity work. Win/win!

3. Buy ethical, fair trade and organic: There are so many labels around now that offer this option. Check out some of the labels that were featured to at Clean Cut: Kowtow, Desert Designs, Rachael Cassar, Lalesso, The Social Studio, Bhalot and Indigo Bazaar.

4. Research: Ethical Clothing Australia provides a comprehensive list of who’s doing what so you can make more informed consumer choices.

And finally, enjoy that sense of altruism mixed with delight when you purchase something that is helping keep the planet beautiful and it’s people happy.

Why did the #nomakeupselfie go so viral?

In the last few days my Facebook news feed has been filling up with photos of friends taking #nomakeupselfie to #beatcancer. The accidental campaign that started a week ago has gone viral, and as a result $3 million has been raised for a Cancer Research UK charity.

So why has this campaign gone viral? I dare say it wasn’t the fact that people were desperate to donate to something or that they were passionate about cancer research. It’s a wonderful outcome, which is being applauded by the CRUK and anyone with a vested interest in cancer research.

But I can’t make the link between posting a selfie sans make up to cancer. And does it not perhaps trivialises the very painful and all too real experience of the hideous illness? If you’re suffering from cancer, a #nomakeupselfie it isn’t a glamorous, soft light experience.  Although the campaign has done no harm, and it’s great to see people jumping on board to support a good cause, perhaps the success is not driven by the cause, but rather because it taps into a social media recipe for success. Self-glorification, validation and altruism.

“To support cancer research, here is a selfie of my with #nomakeup”.

Are we not posting this photo in the hopes that friends will comment with phrases like; “Natural beauty!” or “You don’t need make-up babe!”  We are wanting the Likes to hit a person high, and for personal validation to flood in. Is it narcissism blanketed by social good?

This morning I had coffee with a mentor and fellow activist. We discussed the apathy that is so prevalent in our society – indigenous children are still being stolen from their mothers, Australia is perpetrating human rights abuses on asylum seekers, atrocities unimaginable are taking place in the Congo – and yet for the most part, action from the people is minor and in some cases non-existent.

My mentor grew up during a time when everyone was fighting for something; from Free Mandela campaigns to anti-war marches, people were passionate and used their voice and feet to make a stand for something.

Today a ‘Like’ or a ‘Retweet’ is a sign of solidarity and appeases our moral conscience. An army of Armchair Activists. Comfortably aware and happy to parade our social concern on the internet, so long as it doesn’t require too much of us.

Something happened a couple of years ago that I believe changed the way we advocate. The Kony 2012 Doco went viral, igniting a fire. All over the world people heard about atrocities that were happening during our life time to young children. Perhaps the worst atrocities in our modern day history. The campaign primarily targeted students who believed that their actions, voice and solidarity could be crucial in ending this war. They shared the link and ordered ‘action packs’. They educated themselves and talked about it with their friends. It made international news and the documentary made its way from Youtube to primetime commercial TV. But just as quickly, the criticisms flew in. Within a week we had learnt about a situation so horrific we had to respond, and just as quickly told it was all a sham; a complex situation many could not understand, let alone activate a change.

And poof. Just like that, those who had believed that they could make difference and that their voice was important, were now being told that their actions were trivial in light of Africa’s longest running war.

It is easier not to care and even easier not to take action. Caring is complicated. Action is uncomfortable. Much easier to take a photo of myself and hashtag a reason.

Codes of Conduct & Free Speech

Over the weekend it was revealed that new guidelines from the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet threaten employees with discipline if they are “critical or highly critical of the department, the minister or the Prime Minister” on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Pinterest, Flickr, blogs or any other social media outlet. This includes posts made in a personal capacity and even those made anonymously and public servants are also urged to dob in colleagues they might recongnise.

If it wasn’t so terrifying it would sound incredibly elementary, wouldn’t it? It reminds me of a punitive teacher controlling the science lab.

But the fact is it is both terrifying and hypocritical.

In a speech at the Institute of Public Affairs in 2012, Abbott said:

“There is no case, none, to limit debate about the performance of national leaders. The more powerful people are, the more important the presumption must be that less powerful people should be able to say exactly what they think of them”.

Well it seems he has a different tune now that he is that ‘more powerful person’.

These new codes of conduct seem contrary and in opposition to the current war on freedom of speech; namely the repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Introduced in 1994 as a “safety net for racial harmony”, it makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate someone based on their racial or ethnic origins.

Senator Brandis says that the problem with the law is that it deals with racial vilification in “the wrong way” by “political censorship”. He then goes on to say, “People have a right to be bigots, you know”.

Prime Minister Abbott chimed in saying, it was “in the nature of free speech that sometimes some people will not like it”. But in his case, he can threaten people whose free speech he does not like. Which brings me to my point.

Although free speech is believed to be a basic democratic virtue, this should not remove the fact that not everyone in society has an equal footing in order to assert that free speech. Those with an obvious platform (typically white males) will have the same freedom of expression as the Sri Lankan asylum seeker, which in theory looks and sounds perfectly egalitarian. But what freedom of expression does aSri Lankan asylum seeker for example, have when he is living in squalor in Western Sydney, barely able to offering a morning greeting let alone defend himself against racial vilification by politicians and journalists alike?

Waleed Aly writes a compelling piece where he describes it as; “the whitest piece of proposed legislation I’ve seen during my lifetime”. I urge you to read this to understand the full impact of the legislative changes.

So between improving freedoms to express opinions that hurt and degrade minority groups and silencing public servants from having political opinion, I am sure I am not the only one in a head spin about what the Abbott Government is actually standing for. Progressive Egalitarian Freedom of Speech or Totalitarian rule of law protecting the public image of the Government?

But one thing is clear; Tony Abbott understands the power of words to create worlds and to destroy individuals. Silence is a powerful alley to the very thing we may in fact be in objection to.

I was always taught as a kid to use my words to ‘say nice things’. Perhaps as an adult, saying nice things should now expand to include ‘speak out against not nice things’.