Why we need to talk about the Tamil asylum seeker boat

Since the public was first made aware of the  153 Tamil asylum seekers who were on a leaky boat off the coast of Christmas Island, the Australian Government has refused to provide further information about the fate of the boat. Today however, more troubling reports are emerging about the fate of the Tamil boat, and the Australian Government is remaining silent.

“We are experiencing huge waves and very bad conditions”, came the call from a man on board the boat. “We are very afraid and at threat. We have only three litres of water left. We can only manage for today, and tomorrow we will have nothing to drink.”

There were 37 children on board, two were sick with vomiting, fevers and headaches.

Since Saturday little more has been made known about the fate of the boat and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has continued to treat the Australian public with contempt. He refused to comment on the situation, as “no boats have arrived”, explaining that the government’s policy is that it does not comment on on-water activities in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders. “I am advised that I have no such report to provide to you today”.

But last night new and disturbing reports emerged that the silent boat has been handed over to the Sri Lankan military.

Has Australia committed a deliberate breach of the Refugee Convention?

By failing to allow people to lodge their claim for asylum and sending them back to a country where they may face persecution, Australia could be stepping over a line – breaking international law and the Refugee Convention.

The Refugee Council of Australia has released a statement saying, “As a Refugee Convention signatory, Australia has a clear obligation not to send asylum seekers back to danger without giving them a chance to put their case for refugee protection.”

In international law there is a term called non-refoulement, which forbids the return of a person to a country where they are at risk of persecution.

And Tamil people in Sri Lanka are at risk! In fact, according to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance, Sri Lanka is ranked second for unexplained disappearances of civilians, second only to Iraq.

Returning a group of people at risk of persecution, demonstrates an outright and blatant disrespect for international law by the Australian Government.

What’s more, it is a clear indication of the true objectives and interests of the Abbott Government. If ‘saving lives at sea’ was the ultimate objective of Operation Sovereign Borders, then wouldn’t that concern extend to the lives beyond the threat of drowning at sea. Nauru and Manus Island OPCs act as deterrents to boarding a boat to Australia, but the Government maintains the argument that Offshore Processing is a necessary deterrent to ensure no one takes a risky boat journey to Australia.  But how does sending people back to a place where they could be imprisoned, tortured and even killed pertain to the objectives of saving lives at sea’? Just as rescuing a person from shark infested waters by placing them in a jungle with leopards is not a safeguard against death, just a removal from a certain kind of death, rescuing people from the ocean and returning them to their former place of persecution does little to protect their lives.

It does however protect our borders. And at the end of the day, that is what is important.

This latest chapter in the ongoing Morrison vs. Asylum Seekers war is perhaps the darkest. If these reports are confirmed to be true, what has happened will open Australia up to international criticism, as the country that has blatantly ignored the international obligations of the Refugee Convention.

 

One Too Many – World Refugee Day

This morning I went to the World Refugee Day breakfast hosted by the UNHCR. The theme of World Refugee Day is:

“One family torn apart by war is one family too many”.

It’s a clean sentence. Simplistic, consisting of 11 words and it rolls off the tongue easily.

But think about its implication. What if that hypothetical ‘one family’ were my family or yours? It certainly would be one family too many. If my brother was killed by a suicide bomber, or my mum went missing, a suspected kidnapping because of her political affiliation, the reality of the theme would be anything but a compilation of marketing words.

There is an important question we should be asking the decision makers of Australia so vehemently dehumanise asylum seekers for political advantage:

“If you had to flee your country, how would you like the rest of the world to treat you?”

Instead of harping on about the threat to our borders, or the deaths at sea, it’s time, as a nation, we step back and adopt a new perspective. Asylum seekers are human beings just like us. The only difference is, they were unlucky enough to be born into a precarious situation. Forces outside of their control – famine, war and global climate change – push people out of their homes and into a world where empathy is quickly overwhelmed by power.

Today, Australia sent troops back to Iraq. They also plan to send rejected asylum seekers back there.

There are three things wrong with this.

One – if we want to stop the global movement of desperate people seeking asylum, we need to stop war. Before sending armed troops, we must consider peaceful diplomacy, a concept conspicuously missing from the current international Iraqi media coverage.

Two – if we are going to so rapidly deploy troops to Iraq to mitigate the threat of a terrorist war, then where are the troops in DRC, Central Africa, South Sudan and Syria? Aren’t all of these places facing the same fearful reality? What does Iraq have that these countries do not? (Yes that is dripping in hypothetical sarcasm).

And finally – if Iraq is dangerous enough to permit the deployment of military, risking the lives of men and women, whilst expat workers are rapidly being evacuated, how is it safe enough to return ‘failed’ asylum seekers? Non-refoulement (a principle of international law) forbids the return of a person to a place where they are at risk of persecution.

I was brought up believing in justice and that the means should never justify the end. As Australians isn’t it time we wake up to ourselves and decide that our moral compass must be realigned?

No one is asking for a better life for themselves. They are asking for a better life for their children. Wouldn’t you do the same?

Dedicated to Leo Seemanpillai, the young Sri Lankan asylum seeker who died after setting himself on fire, and to his family, who were denied visas to attend their sons funeral.

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?

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’.

The Seeker of Asylum – Published Work

An exert from an article  for Enhance Magazine published in 2012. 

It was a small, half broken boat that bought Ajmal* to the shores of Australia. The leaky boat flirted with death, as the ferocious ocean carried the tiny vessel and 80 or so desperate souls further from their nightmares and closer to their dreams.

“We spent, maybe, 5 or 6 days in the sea. You lose count. But every minute we were expecting a drama because of the sea,” says Ajmal, “it was about 50 per cent chance that I didn’t expect to get here”.

Sitting in a small, dimly lit room, asylum seeker Ajmal describes his journey from Afghanistan to Australia. Leaving his wife and young family in Afghanistan, he risked his life in order to find safety and security. He planned to eventually bring them over, where they could be raised in freedom and opportunity away from the terrors of Afghanistan. The journey took six months, including the life-threatening week at sea. That was three years ago. Since his arrival, Ajmal has remained locked up in a detention centre, while the Australian government processes his application for refugee status.

Ajmal’s story represents the plight of so many other desperate men, women and children fleeing their home land, seeking asylum and placing their hope for a better life in the Lucky Country. Only 2 per cent of the world’s asylum seekers arrive in Australia each year. We have 0.21 per cent of the global share of refugees, ranking us 79th in comparison to our wealth (GDP) per capita.

If you are surprised by those statistics and expected them to be a lot higher, you’re most likely among friends.

Many of us barely understand the difference between an asylum seeker and refugee and the media is quite rash in telling us our borders are being flooded by ‘boat people’, illegal immigrants and queue jumpers.

Perhaps you oscillate between a compassionate heart, moved to love these strangers, yet your fears hold you back; What if they’re from a terrorist group? Aren’t they all going to come if we allow a few in? If Australia can’t deal with its own issues such as homelessness or indigenous issues, how can we help these foreigners?

Here’s the thing; these people aren’t illegal. Nor are they queue jumpers. Seeking asylum from persecution is recognized internationally under the UN Refugee Convention, to which Australia is a signatory. Even arriving without documentation (sometimes it’s too dangerous in their country of origin to access their documents) is completely within their rights if their fears are well-founded. And as for queue jumping, there is no queue to join when you are fleeing persecution with your life in danger. In Malaysia, waiting for resettlement is like winning the Lotto. Statistically, it will take 150 years. I’d probably get on a boat too.

A very small margin of people seeking asylum come via boat. Australia’s borders are among the most secure in the world. The majority of these people are arriving by plane, not boat. And plane arrivals typically have a 40 per cent success rate, 85-90 per cent of those arriving by boat are granted asylum.

The concept of a refugee is quite a foreign concept to many Australians. It is not a choice. It is about life or death. They have to flee for their life. That is the foreign thing about it.