It's all my fault. The result of the election on the weekend - mea culpa. I told everyone to vote Green, and they did, and now we're stuck with no majority government.
Okay, so maybe not quite. I've thought of many a thing to say about the outcome of the weekend, but they are mostly summed up by this post by Ben Pobjie.
Please, please, PLEASE go read it. It saves me a whole lot of time and energy, neither of which I have a lot of at the moment.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Why I'm voting Greens (and you should too)
Disclosure: I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the Australian Greens, or any affiliated state party. This blog is written based on my own beliefs and understanding of politics and The Greens policies.
Secret ballot be damned - I'm voting Greens on Saturday. Greens in the Lower House and Greens in the Senate.
There are many reasons for this.
The Upper House (the Senate)
In a bicameral system (such as Australia has), the Senate is the Upper House of Parliament, and the Constitution confers upon it specific powers and responsibilities. It is through the Senate that legislation must be passed before it can be assented to by the Governor General. The key purpose of the Senate is to ensure that legislation is rigorously tested before it is passed.
I personally believe that it is important that a non-major party holds the balance of power in the Senate. I think it is hugely important that the major parties are not simply allowed to run their idea of 'good legislation' through Parliament with little to no resistance. I think it is important that legislation is rigorously tested and that a (relatively) objective moral standard is applied.
I believe in what the Greens stand for, and I believe that (whoever wins), the Greens policies will ensure that whatever legislation is passed will look more like what I believe is important for Australia than the policies of the current Government, and the Opposition. I discuss this further below.
Votes for the Upper and Lower Houses are cast upon different ballot papers. Senators are elected on a state basis, rather than an electorate basis (as in the Lower House). For this reason, there are many, many candidates on the Senate ballot paper. This year in Queensland, there are 60 candidates to be voted for.
(Side Topic - Preferential Voting)
As you probably already know, voting is preferential, and you can vote above the line or below the line on Senate ballot papers. If you vote above the line, you simply mark '1' in the box next to the Party that has your primary vote, and your preferences are determined by that party. To find out where the preferences are going, this ABC guideline is very helpful.
Alternatively, you can number all 60 number of boxes below the line in order of preference. This seems HUGELY daunting, I know, given the number of candidates. However, Below The Line has made it easy for you. Enter your state, check the preferential listing, and if you're not happy - customise it. Once you're happy with the preferences, you can print it out and take it along to the polling booth and copy it out! If you make a mistake, go back and ask for another ballot - if you cross out numbers your vote will be invalid. Make your vote count!!
The Lower House (The House of Representatives)
This is the house that gets everyone's attention. It is from the House of Representatives that the Prime Minister comes, and most of Cabinet. This is the one you know from Question Time where the leaders of the parties are slinging insults at one another and everyone is laughing in the background. This is the one where the majority of seats have to be won in order for a party to be declared the victor of the election.
A lot of people say that if you don't vote for one of the major parties in the Lower House it is a waste of a vote. To them I say: "DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT?"
Sure, if you cast your vote for Labor or Liberal, you are effectively voting for either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott and can go about your daily life believing that you elected or kept out one or other that you either wanted or didn't want. So that's fine.
But if you really want to make a difference, you need to vote in the best candidate in your electorate, and forget about who is going to be Prime Minister.
Similar to my views on the Upper House, now more than ever I think the lower house needs a balance of power. This election campaign has made it blatantly obvious that the major parties are more interested in keeping votes than in making actual advances in policy.
In the areas of climate change, human rights (for example gay marriage and indigenous issues), mental health, foreign aid, immigration and refugees, people are asking for change. And none of this conservative 'stop the boats' crap, but real change that makes a difference to peoples lives. And both major parties are too afraid of losing votes to make any real concession on these.
The Greens policies, (which can be found here) tackle these issues head on, and as far as policy statements go, are close to my heart. In respect of the above canvassed issues, the Greens state the following goals:
Climate Change & Energy
Secret ballot be damned - I'm voting Greens on Saturday. Greens in the Lower House and Greens in the Senate.
There are many reasons for this.
The Upper House (the Senate)
In a bicameral system (such as Australia has), the Senate is the Upper House of Parliament, and the Constitution confers upon it specific powers and responsibilities. It is through the Senate that legislation must be passed before it can be assented to by the Governor General. The key purpose of the Senate is to ensure that legislation is rigorously tested before it is passed.
I personally believe that it is important that a non-major party holds the balance of power in the Senate. I think it is hugely important that the major parties are not simply allowed to run their idea of 'good legislation' through Parliament with little to no resistance. I think it is important that legislation is rigorously tested and that a (relatively) objective moral standard is applied.
I believe in what the Greens stand for, and I believe that (whoever wins), the Greens policies will ensure that whatever legislation is passed will look more like what I believe is important for Australia than the policies of the current Government, and the Opposition. I discuss this further below.
Votes for the Upper and Lower Houses are cast upon different ballot papers. Senators are elected on a state basis, rather than an electorate basis (as in the Lower House). For this reason, there are many, many candidates on the Senate ballot paper. This year in Queensland, there are 60 candidates to be voted for.
(Side Topic - Preferential Voting)
As you probably already know, voting is preferential, and you can vote above the line or below the line on Senate ballot papers. If you vote above the line, you simply mark '1' in the box next to the Party that has your primary vote, and your preferences are determined by that party. To find out where the preferences are going, this ABC guideline is very helpful.
Alternatively, you can number all 60 number of boxes below the line in order of preference. This seems HUGELY daunting, I know, given the number of candidates. However, Below The Line has made it easy for you. Enter your state, check the preferential listing, and if you're not happy - customise it. Once you're happy with the preferences, you can print it out and take it along to the polling booth and copy it out! If you make a mistake, go back and ask for another ballot - if you cross out numbers your vote will be invalid. Make your vote count!!
The Lower House (The House of Representatives)
This is the house that gets everyone's attention. It is from the House of Representatives that the Prime Minister comes, and most of Cabinet. This is the one you know from Question Time where the leaders of the parties are slinging insults at one another and everyone is laughing in the background. This is the one where the majority of seats have to be won in order for a party to be declared the victor of the election.
A lot of people say that if you don't vote for one of the major parties in the Lower House it is a waste of a vote. To them I say: "DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT?"
Sure, if you cast your vote for Labor or Liberal, you are effectively voting for either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott and can go about your daily life believing that you elected or kept out one or other that you either wanted or didn't want. So that's fine.
But if you really want to make a difference, you need to vote in the best candidate in your electorate, and forget about who is going to be Prime Minister.
Similar to my views on the Upper House, now more than ever I think the lower house needs a balance of power. This election campaign has made it blatantly obvious that the major parties are more interested in keeping votes than in making actual advances in policy.
In the areas of climate change, human rights (for example gay marriage and indigenous issues), mental health, foreign aid, immigration and refugees, people are asking for change. And none of this conservative 'stop the boats' crap, but real change that makes a difference to peoples lives. And both major parties are too afraid of losing votes to make any real concession on these.
The Greens policies, (which can be found here) tackle these issues head on, and as far as policy statements go, are close to my heart. In respect of the above canvassed issues, the Greens state the following goals:
Climate Change & Energy
- 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (based on 1990 levels)
- development of sustainable and renewable energy sources - 30% renewable energy as source energy by 2020
- create a role for Minister for Climate Change
- 'polluter pays' system.
Human Rights & Care for People
- Adopt Australia's human rights obligations into domestic law
- Fully fund the Australian Human Rights Commission
- Reform 'counter terrorism' legislation to fall in line with international human rights law standards
- Reform Australia's Migration Regulations, especially with regard to freedom from arbitrary detention, protection of the family unit, and other United Nations guidelines
- Marriage for all
- Equal right to parent
- Identity recognition for people who identify as intersexed.
- increased funding for services and education for the prevention and early detection of mental illness.
Those of you who know me will understand why these issues are dear to my heart - but there are so many more policies on the Greens website that resonate with me. I really and truly encourage you to check it out - if you click the title of this post, it will take you straight to the Greens policies page. If you want to know more about a specific topic, click on that topic above to be taken straight to that page.
As for being a waste of a vote, this post at An Onymous Lefty beautifully outlines why a vote for the Greens is not a wasted vote. Basically, he explains that if you vote green and preference Labor, it's a signal to Labor that they need to represent progressive views or risk losing seats to the Greens.
Sure, it might not mean that your candidate gets in at this election, but it does mean that the more votes the Greens get, the more the other parties need to sit up and take notice of the Greens policies.
I think Labor will get in this election - not because I think that they have the better policies or have fought a better campaign, but just because I think that people aren't stupid enough to vote Tony Abbott in. The Liberal Party still haven't got their shit together from the leadership spills of the last 18 months, where I think Labor really got back on its feet after Kevin got the chop.
But I want them to get in knowing that they've lost a whole chunk of voters by playing it safe and not actually getting into the issues. Ultimately, that's why I'm voting Greens. Because:
a) The Greens have policies that I can really get on board with; and
b) I want to stick it to the major parties.
Why don't you stick it to them as well?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Refugees
A few weeks back, my mum sent me a fowarded email about the benefits that refugees receive from the Australian government. It went a little something like this:
It makes me angry that lies like this can be spread, simply because people are ignorant of the truth, and don't do any fact checking of their own.
Even if I wasn't studying human rights (with a particular focus on refugees), I would have been mortified by this email. I know that it simply is not true. But I was particularly incensed by the fact that there is absolutely no basis in fact for any of this. At the time, I didn't have the time to go and find the statistics for myself, but whilst discussing it with my mother on the weekend, I tried to inform her of some of the truth. I don't think I did very well.
However, today Kochie (from Sunrise), posted a brilliant blog post about this very issue, busting the myth and doing some excellent education in the meantime.
As a way of trying to spread a bit of the education myself, I replied to everyone who I knew had received the fowarded email with the following:
If you've received that email, and maybe passed it on, please give consideration to sending an email similar to mine above to educate people about refugee issues so that all Australians know the truth, and aren't simply acting (and voting) out of the fearmongering that such emails cause.
The Australian Government does it again...
Australian Government Refugee Allowances vs.Aust Pensioners
It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a Single Refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580. 00 in Social Assistance, so a total of $2,470.00 per month.. Family of 4 can receive $9,880.00 per month or yearly $118,685. A single Australian pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Australia for40 to 50 years, receives only a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and GuaranteedIncome Supplement. (Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!)
*Let's send this to all Australians so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we are forced to submit to theGovernment in taxes.
* KEEP Forwarding to every Australian to expose what our elected politicians are doing to the over-taxed Australians
It makes me angry that lies like this can be spread, simply because people are ignorant of the truth, and don't do any fact checking of their own.
Even if I wasn't studying human rights (with a particular focus on refugees), I would have been mortified by this email. I know that it simply is not true. But I was particularly incensed by the fact that there is absolutely no basis in fact for any of this. At the time, I didn't have the time to go and find the statistics for myself, but whilst discussing it with my mother on the weekend, I tried to inform her of some of the truth. I don't think I did very well.
However, today Kochie (from Sunrise), posted a brilliant blog post about this very issue, busting the myth and doing some excellent education in the meantime.
As a way of trying to spread a bit of the education myself, I replied to everyone who I knew had received the fowarded email with the following:
Hi All,
Some of you know me, and some of you don't. My name is Erin, and I'm (my mother's) daughter. I'm a solicitor and I'm currently undertaking my Masters of Law in Human Rights, with a special interest in development, indigenous rights and refugees.
I wanted to bust the myth that this email was sending around.
Refugees do not receive more in benefits than Australians do. In fact, whilst on the books as an asylum seeker, their allowance (which is 89% of the Centrelink allowance) is paid by the Red Cross and they are, therefore, not supported by the government (financially). Once they are granted permanent residency (which is not an easy process), they are entitled to the same benefits as any other permanent resident of Australia, including people from South Africa, New Zealand or England who have been granted permanent residency.
There are many more statistics about all of this, but Kochie from Sunrise has compiled an excellent list of facts about the true state of affairs for refugees in Australia. It's not long, and I ask that you take a couple of minutes to read what he has to say and be informed about refugees in our country. He also links to a number of sites which provide more information.
Then, if you forwarded this email on to anyone, I ask that you send my email on to those people, so that they too may be informed about this genuine issue in Australian culture. Thank you so much for your time in reading this email.
Please be assured that I will not use your email any further after sending this one.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to email
me.
Thanks again.
Erin.
If you've received that email, and maybe passed it on, please give consideration to sending an email similar to mine above to educate people about refugee issues so that all Australians know the truth, and aren't simply acting (and voting) out of the fearmongering that such emails cause.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Freedom of Speech vs Common Decency...
I am a passionate advocate for freedom of speech. One of my favourite quotes of all time is by Voltaire: "I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
I believe that in a free and democratic society, free speech is fundamental and should be protected at all costs.
I'm also a Christian, and am passionate about people of (every) faith having the right to express their views and beliefs.
But something about this story just doesn't sit right with me.
I mean come on. This soldier's family is mourning. Believe what you like about the deaths of American soldiers being God's divine punishment for homosexuality (no kidding), is the funeral of one of those soldiers the right place to make your stand? Protesting behind the weeping family, picketing the graveyard? Is that really the message you want to present? Is it really even going to make a difference?
Those in authority are going to see the publicity stunt by this church and dismiss them as a bunch of religious whack-jobs with no respect for the dead or the mourning. It's not going to change the mind of a single power broker in Washington about whether or not soldiers are sent to war. I highly doubt it will prove the connection between homesexuality and wartime deaths either.
Free speech is all well and good. I don't deny these people their right to say what they believe. But pick your time and place, please. I wonder how they would feel if I rocked up at their son's funeral and told them that their son was dead because of God's punishment against them for, say, not following Islam. If I gathered a group of people together and stood behind them as they interred their beloved one, chanting hate-filled slogans and being disrespectful of their right to mourn their child.
To me, common decency dictates that even if you believe that someone dies as a result of something you consider wrong, their loved ones are still entitled to peacefully lay to rest that person. Hell, even Carl Williams' family and friends deserve that much. I find much of Carl Williams' life abhorrent, but I wouldn't rock up at his funeral and spit vitriol at his mourners. Is that just me, or is that a common decency that we all share?
I don't think that issues like this should be left up to the law. Because you know what, if it comes down to a reading of black letter law - that church group is entitled to say and do what they want all in the same of free speech.
But surely somehow, somewhere, sometime, someone has got to step in and say 'you know what? This isn't right. We may be entitled to do this, but that doesn't mean that we should. Let's find another way to get our message across, that doesn't cross all bounds of common decency'.
Of course, the litigation-friendly society that we have become doesn't see it that way anymore. If you are entitled to do something, if it is your right, then you should exercise that right regardless of the consequences, or so it appears to me. And so we see stories like this, where grieving families are slapped with costs orders for attempting to maintain some kind of civility at the funeral of their loved one.
Come on people. Really? Is this the best we can do?
I believe that in a free and democratic society, free speech is fundamental and should be protected at all costs.
I'm also a Christian, and am passionate about people of (every) faith having the right to express their views and beliefs.
But something about this story just doesn't sit right with me.
I mean come on. This soldier's family is mourning. Believe what you like about the deaths of American soldiers being God's divine punishment for homosexuality (no kidding), is the funeral of one of those soldiers the right place to make your stand? Protesting behind the weeping family, picketing the graveyard? Is that really the message you want to present? Is it really even going to make a difference?
Those in authority are going to see the publicity stunt by this church and dismiss them as a bunch of religious whack-jobs with no respect for the dead or the mourning. It's not going to change the mind of a single power broker in Washington about whether or not soldiers are sent to war. I highly doubt it will prove the connection between homesexuality and wartime deaths either.
Free speech is all well and good. I don't deny these people their right to say what they believe. But pick your time and place, please. I wonder how they would feel if I rocked up at their son's funeral and told them that their son was dead because of God's punishment against them for, say, not following Islam. If I gathered a group of people together and stood behind them as they interred their beloved one, chanting hate-filled slogans and being disrespectful of their right to mourn their child.
To me, common decency dictates that even if you believe that someone dies as a result of something you consider wrong, their loved ones are still entitled to peacefully lay to rest that person. Hell, even Carl Williams' family and friends deserve that much. I find much of Carl Williams' life abhorrent, but I wouldn't rock up at his funeral and spit vitriol at his mourners. Is that just me, or is that a common decency that we all share?
I don't think that issues like this should be left up to the law. Because you know what, if it comes down to a reading of black letter law - that church group is entitled to say and do what they want all in the same of free speech.
But surely somehow, somewhere, sometime, someone has got to step in and say 'you know what? This isn't right. We may be entitled to do this, but that doesn't mean that we should. Let's find another way to get our message across, that doesn't cross all bounds of common decency'.
Of course, the litigation-friendly society that we have become doesn't see it that way anymore. If you are entitled to do something, if it is your right, then you should exercise that right regardless of the consequences, or so it appears to me. And so we see stories like this, where grieving families are slapped with costs orders for attempting to maintain some kind of civility at the funeral of their loved one.
Come on people. Really? Is this the best we can do?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Stop Internet Censorship...
Last night I attended the #sicbne (Stop Internet Censorship Brisbane) meeting to get an idea about what was going on with this whole internet censorship thing that is being bandied about.
Truth be known, I didn't know all that much about it before the meeting. I knew that the bill had been introduced and that it had something to do with limiting access to illegal content online, but I didn't understand the depth of it prior to the meeting last night.
As I understand it, the government have introduced legislation which they say is designed to stop access to child pornography on the web. However, the design of the legislation is such that it prevents access to all content which has been 'refused classification'. In the main, this is made up of material that 'the government' deems 'inappropriate'. I don't have definite statistics on it, but my understanding is that approximately 18% of this is illegal content (such as child pornography), but the rest of it is material which has simply been refused classification, but is legal to view, possess and own in Australia. Examples are things such as Phillip Nietsche's 'Exit Australia' website which is designed to provide information about euthanasia. Also restricted are selected texts of an Islamic basis.
If this legislation is passed, Australia will be the first developed country to have such restricted access to the internet. Other examples of countries that have such restricted access are Iran and China. And we all know the reasons why the government want to control their access - to control their people.
An excellent point was made last night - sure, we like the Rudd Government okay, and they're probably doing it for the right thing. But allowing the legislation to cover all 'refused classification' content leaves the door open for some politician way down the line to use it to restrict our rights even further.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for cracking down on child pornography. The abuse of children is a subject dear to my heart, and one of the reasons I'm going back to study human rights.
And if the filter was able to only restrict access to these sites, then I would be all for it. But, the way I understand it (and remember, I'm just a dumb lawyer, not an internet genius), this is not possible. It's kind of an 'all or nothing' thing.
The way I see it, Australia is a free country. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to view and learn about and possess any information that it is legal for me to possess. My passion is in human rights, so as a result, I want to know everything there is to know about human rights. And it's my right as a citizen of this country to do so.
What happens if sometime down the track the government strikes up a deal with the (now non-existent) government of the Sudan, who compels the government to deem information about the Darfur massacres 'inappropriate' and refuse it classification? This is clearly information that I am entitled to, and necessary for me to be able to do my job properly.
Sure, some of the information that has been refused classification is not in the mainstream interest. But then, neither is the nitty gritty of the abrogation of human rights. I know lots of people interested in it, and sure, people aren't against it, but the majority of people in this country do not spend their spare time researching it on the internet.
This is not a debate about child pornography. This is a debate about our rights - our rights as citizens of this country to be allowed access to all information that it is legal for us to possess. This is a debate about who gets to determine what is 'appropriate' content for us to view. Kevin Rudd? Stephen Conroy? Any number of those other politicians who tell us that they have our best interests at heart?
I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in them telling me what is 'appropriate' for me to view. I am an adult of sound mind - it is up to me to determine what is appropriate for me to view. When I have children, it will be my responsibility to determine what is appropriate for my children to view. It is not the government's job to tell me what is appropriate for me or my children to view - they have enough power already.
Can you imagine a world where you watch the news and there is nothing on there about the war going on on your border? Where during that day you witnessed a violent protest involving thousands of people, but are unable to access any information about that protest, because it is deemed 'inappropriate'? Can you imagine a world where your children don't learn about the nitty gritty of the way the world works, because the government has decided that it would rather your children grow up in a fantasy world where the government makes no mistakes than allow them access to information that gives them the power to make informed choices?
I can. It's called China.
That's where this legislation leads us. Do you want to go?
Truth be known, I didn't know all that much about it before the meeting. I knew that the bill had been introduced and that it had something to do with limiting access to illegal content online, but I didn't understand the depth of it prior to the meeting last night.
As I understand it, the government have introduced legislation which they say is designed to stop access to child pornography on the web. However, the design of the legislation is such that it prevents access to all content which has been 'refused classification'. In the main, this is made up of material that 'the government' deems 'inappropriate'. I don't have definite statistics on it, but my understanding is that approximately 18% of this is illegal content (such as child pornography), but the rest of it is material which has simply been refused classification, but is legal to view, possess and own in Australia. Examples are things such as Phillip Nietsche's 'Exit Australia' website which is designed to provide information about euthanasia. Also restricted are selected texts of an Islamic basis.
If this legislation is passed, Australia will be the first developed country to have such restricted access to the internet. Other examples of countries that have such restricted access are Iran and China. And we all know the reasons why the government want to control their access - to control their people.
An excellent point was made last night - sure, we like the Rudd Government okay, and they're probably doing it for the right thing. But allowing the legislation to cover all 'refused classification' content leaves the door open for some politician way down the line to use it to restrict our rights even further.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for cracking down on child pornography. The abuse of children is a subject dear to my heart, and one of the reasons I'm going back to study human rights.
And if the filter was able to only restrict access to these sites, then I would be all for it. But, the way I understand it (and remember, I'm just a dumb lawyer, not an internet genius), this is not possible. It's kind of an 'all or nothing' thing.
The way I see it, Australia is a free country. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to view and learn about and possess any information that it is legal for me to possess. My passion is in human rights, so as a result, I want to know everything there is to know about human rights. And it's my right as a citizen of this country to do so.
What happens if sometime down the track the government strikes up a deal with the (now non-existent) government of the Sudan, who compels the government to deem information about the Darfur massacres 'inappropriate' and refuse it classification? This is clearly information that I am entitled to, and necessary for me to be able to do my job properly.
Sure, some of the information that has been refused classification is not in the mainstream interest. But then, neither is the nitty gritty of the abrogation of human rights. I know lots of people interested in it, and sure, people aren't against it, but the majority of people in this country do not spend their spare time researching it on the internet.
This is not a debate about child pornography. This is a debate about our rights - our rights as citizens of this country to be allowed access to all information that it is legal for us to possess. This is a debate about who gets to determine what is 'appropriate' content for us to view. Kevin Rudd? Stephen Conroy? Any number of those other politicians who tell us that they have our best interests at heart?
I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in them telling me what is 'appropriate' for me to view. I am an adult of sound mind - it is up to me to determine what is appropriate for me to view. When I have children, it will be my responsibility to determine what is appropriate for my children to view. It is not the government's job to tell me what is appropriate for me or my children to view - they have enough power already.
Can you imagine a world where you watch the news and there is nothing on there about the war going on on your border? Where during that day you witnessed a violent protest involving thousands of people, but are unable to access any information about that protest, because it is deemed 'inappropriate'? Can you imagine a world where your children don't learn about the nitty gritty of the way the world works, because the government has decided that it would rather your children grow up in a fantasy world where the government makes no mistakes than allow them access to information that gives them the power to make informed choices?
I can. It's called China.
That's where this legislation leads us. Do you want to go?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Response by Michael Johnson, MP
I was surprised today to receive a response from Federal Member for Ryan and Opposition Whip Michael Johnson MP to my email of 5 November 2009.
The contents of his letter are not surprising. As a member of the Liberal opposition party, Mr Johnson (or whoever wrote the letter) takes a party line stance against the Prime Minister and Labor government. I am, however, encouraged by his comments at the bottom.
I have today written the following response:
24 November 2009
Dear Michael
RE: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S POLICY ON REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS
Thank you for your letter of 21 November 2009. I was very pleased to receive a reply to my email of 6 November 2009, which raised my concern about the government’s stance on asylum seekers, particularly those who were aboard the Oceanic Viking at the time.
I found your letter educational, if somewhat propagandised. I certainly appreciate the Liberal Party’s view on the government’s approach to immigration and refugee issues, and I plan to take the issue up directly with the government’s representatives. Unfortunately, comments such as ‘As ever, Mr Rudd is all talk, no action’ do not compel me to the Liberal Party line and, if anything, detract from the (as I see it, worthy) arguments you make about of the softening of border protection laws encouraging people smuggling.
Of most interest to me, however, was your personal note that you believe that Australia should increase our formal refugee program from 13,000 to 50,000. This is precisely the kind of progress that is required for international human rights to prevail. I take this opportunity to challenge you to raise this as an issue with your colleagues, and build it into the political platform upon which you stand.
What needs to be addressed is the ideology of that (I hope) minority of people chanting words to the effect of ‘Go home – we’re full!’. I wonder how these people would feel if their family of 14, including elderly grandparents, aunts, uncles and children, were crammed into a one room apartment where they lived in fear of reprisals from insurgent leaders. Australia is, geographically, a huge country. Whilst most of the interior is uninhabitable, and the urban centres are begin to suffer from overpopulation, there are certainly ‘boundless plains to share’, as our national anthem espouses.
Mr Johnson, this is not an issue that only refugees and families of refugees care about. Every day Australians such as myself continually ask why our government refuses to share the privileges of ‘the lucky country’ with those less fortunate than ourselves. In your letter, you state ‘Labor’s policies are not tough or hardline. They are not fair or humane ... The Prime Minister must take responsibility for his failed policies and move immediately to end this debacle’.
You are correct. The government must immediately and radically alter the legislation in respect of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants to reflect the just and humane attitude of every day Australians. Those who seek entry to our shores by means other than the correct processes must be afforded every protection of the law, including conventions on human rights.
However, as an elected Member in Opposition, it is your obligation, your responsibility to challenge the government on these issues in order to catalyse the change that is necessary to grant freedom and opportunity to humanity.
Thank you again for taking the time to listen to my concerns.
Yours faithfully,
Monday, November 23, 2009
Politics and Sex Scandals - who gives a flying f***?
I have Google set as my homepage, and like any good interwebophile (is too a word!) I have it customised to my tastes. This includes a black and white backdrop (very sophisticated), clocks for around the worldand news headlines.
Apparently today's top story here in Australia is the so called 'sex scandal' of the Premier of South Australia.
Quick lesson in government for those non-Aussies out there: the Premier is the head of state for Australian states (eg. Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia). Whilst there are six territorial 'states', there are only six Premiers, because the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory are technically not 'states'.
Mike Rann, now Premier of South Australia (SA), has been accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman working as a waitress in Parliament House a year after he became Premier. He was not married at the time, although it appears that the woman, Michelle Chantelois, was. She accuses him of asking to kiss her, asking him for her measurements so that he could buy her underwear, and having sex on his desk.
Unsurprisingly, Premier Rann denies the allegations. He is now married and admits to a friendship with Ms Chantelois, and that his now wife knew about the friendship at the time. But he does not admit to any further relationship between himself and Ms Chantelois.
Again, unsurprisingly, Ms Chantelois has sold her story to the media. Two media outlets known for their 'hard hitting coverage' (read sensationalised BS) have paid for her story, which apparently today has hit news stands.
Each time I've opened up my browser today (which admittedly, is more than a few times), a new development in the saga has occurred. 'SA Premier to address allegations'. 'Rann arrives for meeting admist sex scandal'. Play by play, Premier Rann's day is being broadcast to me in one liners.
And each time I read a new headline, the same question crosses my mind:
Who gives a flying f***?
I understand that when you go into public office, your private life comes under scrutiny. The higher the office, the closer people look at you. The public will generally forgive you many things, because (generally) they understand that even politicians are human (or human-like spawn of the underworld). But they are held to a higher level of accountability and a higher standard of morality. And woe betide the politician that lies - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
But come on. Six years ago Mike Rann was a 50 year old divorcee. If the allegations are true - he met a woman who he liked, and he attempted to woo her. Sure, if she was married, and he knew she was married, it perhaps wasn't the best choice on his part. But he's only human.
How does this impact on his ability to do his job? So what if he shagged her in his office? If my sources are correct, this happens on a daily basis across the globe. Right now some high powered politician, businessman, lawyer, engineer, accountant or someone is shagging his/her wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/lover/mistress/toyboy on the desk. Rumours abounded in my school that it was happening between my principal and deputy principal regularly. Did it make my principal any less of a principal? No. Probably it made him a bit of a legend to the boys at school - the deputy was thought to be a bit of a hottie. But our school was still one of the most prestigious government schools in the state, maybe even country, and much of that success was attributed to the principal.
Ultimately - why should any of us care what happened between Mike Rann and Michelle Chantelois six years ago? If it impacted or continues to impact his ability to do his job, then yes, we should care. If he lied about it then or continues to lie about it now, then yes, we should care. But if it's just a bit of gossipmongering, why pander to it?
What would you say if a complete stranger came up to you, pointed to a random guy on the street and said 'Oh my gosh, you'll never believe this, but six years ago that guy had sex with me in his office'. I know what I'd say.
'Good for you love, but I don't give a flying f***.'
Nor should we all.
Apparently today's top story here in Australia is the so called 'sex scandal' of the Premier of South Australia.
Quick lesson in government for those non-Aussies out there: the Premier is the head of state for Australian states (eg. Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia). Whilst there are six territorial 'states', there are only six Premiers, because the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory are technically not 'states'.
Mike Rann, now Premier of South Australia (SA), has been accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman working as a waitress in Parliament House a year after he became Premier. He was not married at the time, although it appears that the woman, Michelle Chantelois, was. She accuses him of asking to kiss her, asking him for her measurements so that he could buy her underwear, and having sex on his desk.
Unsurprisingly, Premier Rann denies the allegations. He is now married and admits to a friendship with Ms Chantelois, and that his now wife knew about the friendship at the time. But he does not admit to any further relationship between himself and Ms Chantelois.
Again, unsurprisingly, Ms Chantelois has sold her story to the media. Two media outlets known for their 'hard hitting coverage' (read sensationalised BS) have paid for her story, which apparently today has hit news stands.
Each time I've opened up my browser today (which admittedly, is more than a few times), a new development in the saga has occurred. 'SA Premier to address allegations'. 'Rann arrives for meeting admist sex scandal'. Play by play, Premier Rann's day is being broadcast to me in one liners.
And each time I read a new headline, the same question crosses my mind:
Who gives a flying f***?
I understand that when you go into public office, your private life comes under scrutiny. The higher the office, the closer people look at you. The public will generally forgive you many things, because (generally) they understand that even politicians are human (or human-like spawn of the underworld). But they are held to a higher level of accountability and a higher standard of morality. And woe betide the politician that lies - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
But come on. Six years ago Mike Rann was a 50 year old divorcee. If the allegations are true - he met a woman who he liked, and he attempted to woo her. Sure, if she was married, and he knew she was married, it perhaps wasn't the best choice on his part. But he's only human.
How does this impact on his ability to do his job? So what if he shagged her in his office? If my sources are correct, this happens on a daily basis across the globe. Right now some high powered politician, businessman, lawyer, engineer, accountant or someone is shagging his/her wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/lover/mistress/toyboy on the desk. Rumours abounded in my school that it was happening between my principal and deputy principal regularly. Did it make my principal any less of a principal? No. Probably it made him a bit of a legend to the boys at school - the deputy was thought to be a bit of a hottie. But our school was still one of the most prestigious government schools in the state, maybe even country, and much of that success was attributed to the principal.
Ultimately - why should any of us care what happened between Mike Rann and Michelle Chantelois six years ago? If it impacted or continues to impact his ability to do his job, then yes, we should care. If he lied about it then or continues to lie about it now, then yes, we should care. But if it's just a bit of gossipmongering, why pander to it?
What would you say if a complete stranger came up to you, pointed to a random guy on the street and said 'Oh my gosh, you'll never believe this, but six years ago that guy had sex with me in his office'. I know what I'd say.
'Good for you love, but I don't give a flying f***.'
Nor should we all.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Oceanic Viking - My Letter to Federal Member, Michael Johnson
Dear Mr Johnson,
This is the first time I have ever canvassed a politician about an issue that I feel strongly about, so I apologise in advance for my lack of form.
I am a 28 year old lawyer living in The Gap. For four months early this year, I spent time in Kenya, working with a legal NGO advocating for women’s rights. My time in Kenya opened my eyes to the universality of the human spirit, and ignited in me a passion for human rights.
The purpose of this email is to communicate my dismay that the situation aboard the Oceanic Viking continues after 19 days of these asylum seekers being detained. Whilst I understand that the issue surrounding refugees, asylum seekers, and other immigration issues are complex and diverse, I am disappointed that the human rights of these people are being abrogated whilst politicians dally in making a decision.
Perhaps I do not truly understand the implications of allowing these people to be ‘processed’ (and what a demoralising, dehumanising term that is) on Australian soil, but I cannot help but ask the question ‘what is the harm?’ Surely the inconvenience of having these people swiftly moved to a more suitable holding facility is vastly outweighed by their rights as human beings?
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that every person has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries freedom from persecution. Article 9 states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. These two pivotal rights afforded to all people are being blatantly disregarded as those of us who enjoy complete and utter freedom from persecution watch – some, like me, in disgust that we can allow people to be treated thus, and others who jealously ‘protect’ those freedoms, denying the humanity in those who seek a better future on our shores.
During my time in Kenya I learned about an African philosophy called ‘Ubuntu’. You may be familiar with it – it is a philosophy talked about by Nelson Mandela, but most famously espoused by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He describes it thus:
Perhaps these people are not genuine asylum seekers, and perhaps they do not deserve admission to our beloved country, but they do deserve every human right that you and I are entitled to. They certainly do not deserve to have their human rights extinguished.
Mr Johnson, I urge you to take a stand on this issue in the spirit of Ubuntu. Denying the human rights of our brothers and sisters upon the Oceanic Viking not only communicates our selfish disloyalty to their humanity, but it dehumanises us as well.
Humbly yours,
Litte Miss Random
This is the first time I have ever canvassed a politician about an issue that I feel strongly about, so I apologise in advance for my lack of form.
I am a 28 year old lawyer living in The Gap. For four months early this year, I spent time in Kenya, working with a legal NGO advocating for women’s rights. My time in Kenya opened my eyes to the universality of the human spirit, and ignited in me a passion for human rights.
The purpose of this email is to communicate my dismay that the situation aboard the Oceanic Viking continues after 19 days of these asylum seekers being detained. Whilst I understand that the issue surrounding refugees, asylum seekers, and other immigration issues are complex and diverse, I am disappointed that the human rights of these people are being abrogated whilst politicians dally in making a decision.
Perhaps I do not truly understand the implications of allowing these people to be ‘processed’ (and what a demoralising, dehumanising term that is) on Australian soil, but I cannot help but ask the question ‘what is the harm?’ Surely the inconvenience of having these people swiftly moved to a more suitable holding facility is vastly outweighed by their rights as human beings?
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that every person has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries freedom from persecution. Article 9 states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. These two pivotal rights afforded to all people are being blatantly disregarded as those of us who enjoy complete and utter freedom from persecution watch – some, like me, in disgust that we can allow people to be treated thus, and others who jealously ‘protect’ those freedoms, denying the humanity in those who seek a better future on our shores.
During my time in Kenya I learned about an African philosophy called ‘Ubuntu’. You may be familiar with it – it is a philosophy talked about by Nelson Mandela, but most famously espoused by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He describes it thus:
“Ubuntu is the essence of being human. It speaks of the fact that my humanity is
caught up and is inextricably bound up in yours. I am human because I belong. It
speaks about wholeness, it speaks about compassion. A person with Ubuntu is open
and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that
others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes
from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when
others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed,
diminished when others are treated as if they were less than who they are. The
quality of Ubuntu gives people resilience, enabling them to survive and emerge
still human despite all efforts to dehumanize them.” (Tutu, Desmond
(1999). No Future Without Forgiveness. ISBN 0-385-49690-7.)
Perhaps these people are not genuine asylum seekers, and perhaps they do not deserve admission to our beloved country, but they do deserve every human right that you and I are entitled to. They certainly do not deserve to have their human rights extinguished.
Mr Johnson, I urge you to take a stand on this issue in the spirit of Ubuntu. Denying the human rights of our brothers and sisters upon the Oceanic Viking not only communicates our selfish disloyalty to their humanity, but it dehumanises us as well.
Humbly yours,
Litte Miss Random
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Kenya Clans 'Set for 2012 Riots'
I spent just over three months in Kenya earlier this year, living in local communities and volunteering in various ways. Still on the mouths and minds of Kenyans two years later was the 2007 post-election violence which saw the loss of over 1,300 lives and left tens of thousands of people homeless as members of the Kikuyu and Luo tribes fought over who was rightfully president of the country. As a result of this violence, the UN, in the form of Kofi Annan stepped in, created a power sharing agreement between Raila Odinga (Luo) and Mwai Kibake (Kikuyu) whereby both leaders 'run' the country.
The inciters of the violence today have still not been brought to justice. Efforts to form specialist judiciaries to try and sentence those found guilty of the violence, or inciting the violence have failed as various ministers and government officials (whose hands, I'm sure, are completely clean) deny it at every stage. The International Criminal Court has now been forced to step in, although I doubt that their effectiveness will cause change enough to prevent violence in 2012. (My biases will become clear through this blog, particularly in respect of the UN and other international bodies).
Whilst I was in Kenya, I had many a conversation with locals about the 2007 election and what followed. There was George, the local village 'boy', or unmarried man, (who proposed marriage to me) who told me that the only way that Kenya would overcome corruption was for a white person to come in and lead the country. But not a woman. No way.
There was Stephen, an NTV reporter who we met one night at a bar at a backpackers in Nairobi who told me that it was through the visits of 'beautiful foreigners like you' that Kenyans would be educated and eventually corruption would be eliminated. And his friend, a rich businessman, the likes of whom I had spent weeks learning to dislike as I learned more about how business practices take the food out of people's mouths in the rural areas. His opinion was that it was only commerce - export in particular, that would save Kenya.
But it was my good friend Johnson who really opened my eyes up to the possibilities of the dangerous situation that faces Kenya over the coming years, and particularly in the wake of the next election.
Johnson, a youth worker based in Kisumu, Western Kenya, was walking with me through town and pointed out the burned out shell of a building. 'That was one of the biggest supermarkets in Kisumu until the election violence'.
We later sat down and had a cold 'soda' at a local cafe and I asked him to talk to me about the situation. 'Guns are being imported. I have street boys coming up to tell me that there are older boys and men who are buying guns so that at the next election we are better able to protect ourselves. The ones who caused the violence, the corruption - they are not being brought to justice, no changes are being made. There will be war in 2012'.
I was flabbergasted - truly shocked. These friendly, gregarious, kind, loving people would turn on one another as a result of an election? My mind simply could not comprehend it - this is not the purpose of democracy.
The UN is only now standing up to acknowledge the 'ethnic arms race' and warning that that "a similar flare-up could occur after the 2012 vote unless Kenya strengthens its institutions and the perpetrators of the 2007 violence are punished."
Nothing about how this might be done. Nothing about a call to action for the rest of the world to ensure that it does not happen again.
The article goes onto say:
Kenya's deputy minister for internal security, Orwa Ojode, said he was aware of
the problem and had ordered the police to clamp down on the sales.
"We will definitely apprehend those who are behind the sale of illegal arms," he
said. He blamed the country's porous borders and its proximity to
unstable states like Somalia for the influx of guns.
This is typical Kenyan government baloney and a perfect example of the way in which the government can't see the past the end of its nose. Punishing the weapons dealers will only go so far. What needs to be done is the issues behind the violence stopped.
Johnson is one of those rare Africans who lives as much in the mzungu (white person) world as he does in the mofrica (black African) world. He sees Kenya with a global vision, with a sense of what it could be, but also understanding what it is. It made me more than a little afraid that someone with as much wisdom and insight as Johnson is predicting civil war for Kenya.
But these are the eyes that Kenyans need to see Kenya with. Not with eyes that can't see beyond tribal boundaries and flare up at the suggestion of denigration of their clan. And not with eyes that see only into the world and the way in which Kenya is not living up to the world standard.
But eyes that can see the possibility of greatness, but are realitic enough to acknowledge the steps it will take to get there.
I'm a mzungu who has lived for only the shortest period of time in the mofrica world, and even then, I was never truly part of African culture due to the colour of my skin. I have only the barest possibility of an idea of what will change the face of Kenya so that riots like in 2007, and like are being predicted for 2012 can be avoided.
Education.
Education of all Kenyans about human rights and what democracy should look like. Promoting an understanding that while tribal culture, boundaries and pride are and always will be important, Kenya will never get out of this cycle of corruption and violence until its people belong to Kenya first and their tribe second.
If you ask a Luo who was in the wrong at the election, he will say Kibake. If you ask a Kikuyu, he will say Raila. If you ask a Luo about the Kikuyu tribe he will say that they are arrogant and greedy. If you ask a Kikuyu about the Luo tribe, he will say that they make trouble and cause problems for everyone. If you ask either Kikuyu or Luo about the Maasai they will say that they are greedy sheisters, always looking for a way to make a profit.
Whilst these tribal prejudices are in place, Kenya cannot prosper. A Kikuyu president will always look after the Kikuyu. A Luo president will always look after the Luo. A Kiisi president will always look after the Kiisi. And so on. How can a country succeed like this?
It would be like President Barack Obama spending all of the country's money on Illinois, because that is his home town. Or Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia choosing Brisbane as the place to pour all our tax dollars into, because that's where he is from. It's not the way democracy works, and it would not be accepted in western society.
I talked with Johnson about how to create change, and explained to him the way in which I would go about causing change to happen in Australia, if I felt it needed to. I told him how I would go to my local member of parliament, I would go to the press and I would get as much support as I could to cause change. If I needed to protest, I would, and I would have no fear of reprisals against myself and my family.
Johnson explained that it doesn't work that way in Kenya. Firstly, you can't even get access to your local member of parliament. And if you do, they tell you to push off. And if you criticise the government, you are watched, and followed. And if you continue to make too much of a fuss, you disappear. If you protest - you will be shot.
I find it unthinkable. The purpose of democracy is that the power is in the people. And yet here is a 'democratic country' that holds its people to ransom by forcing them to pay taxes for which they get nothing. 90% of the population is starving. The Anti Corruption Commissioner gets $34,000 per month while the majority of rural Kenyans survive on $20 per week.
How is this democracy at work? How can the people seize and use their power when there is a very real risk they will lose their life as a result?
Education.
When the people realise, know, understand, feel that they are the power, the system will change. When the Kenyan children of today become the citizens of the world tomorrow, they will stand up and say ‘We do not accept corruption. We do not accept violence. We do not accept poverty.’
I fear for Kenya in 2012. I fear for my friends and my Kenyan family. And I fear for my adopted home.
Africa needs no more blood soaked soil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)