|
It smells of racism! |
|
|||
|
Jill Singer - Herald Sun
Therefore, it seems that no matter how passionately, logically or eloquently anyone might ever manage to mount a case against Mr. Howard's actions, they are doomed to failure. But then again we all have different ideas of failure. And in my book, fearing to speak your mind because it goes against popular opinion constitutes one of the most serious kinds of failure - a failure of courage. Back at the start of this crisis, Mr. Howard was acting within international law when he requested the Tampa take its cargo of asylum seekers to Indonesia because the ship was outside Australian waters. But crucially his first duty was to consult Indonesia before doing so and he didn't. He has recently stressed the importance of better relations with Indonesia, then treat them with contempt. Little wonder that Indonesia reacted as it did and is now fighting to save face. Then, once the embattled captain of the Tampa sailed into Australian waters, Mr. Howard again acted imprudently by not allowing him to dock at Christmas Island harbour. It is clear his decision to mobilise our defence forces into taking control of the Tampa puts him on very shaky legal ground. How else can we explain his sudden bid to introduce retrospective legislation allowing authorities to tow unauthorised vessels out of Australian waters? Obviously he is worried his actions were unlawful. Australia is not alone in confronting the dilemma of how best to deal with asylum seekers, but some of the prevailing attitudes toward these people bear further scrutiny. Their refugee "status" is usually the first doubt raised about them. But is leaving them adrift at sea really the best way of determining whether they fit our category of genuine refugee? Or is it the case that we would rather not know - and not knowing means not having to care? Even some commentators who predict some 75% of these people would probably be "genuine" refugees still support turning them away on the ground it costs money to work out who should stay and who should go. When our fellow human beings are in crisis should our first thought really be how much it might cost to help them? Three years ago when two foreign sailors struck trouble in our waters, five large aircrafts, two navy ships and a helicopter were mobilised to help. The two separate rescues of Thierry Dubois and Tony Bullimore cost us $10 million. We helped these people though they brought their trouble on themselves and even though it would have been much cheaper to air-drop them a sanger and pack of Band-aids. Clearly, we are attaching different values to different lives. Two white yachtsmen are worth more than 460 Pakistanis, Afghanis and Iraqis. Sure, Dubois and Bullimore didn't enter our waters with the intention of staying. But I still suspect the real issue in the Tampa crisis is latent racism. Already, one commentator has tried to link the issue to perceived problems associated with Asian immigration. It reminds me of the problems my dad's family faced after leaving Germany. Dad was born on a ship just as it entered Australian waters. The family were made most welcome here until trouble struck in the form of World War II. Neighbours turned on them, stones and vicious comments were thrown. Go home! I just thank God he was allowed to stay and is today free to call Australia home.
|
|
