While I suspect few here would like to admit it, did any of you guys see last week’s Big Brother on Sunday night? Where the evicted contestant, Merlin, came onto the stage with black gaffer tape over his mouth and a sign saying “Free th(e) refugees!”

I can’t decide if he has put the plight of asylum seekers forward, or done damage to their cause.

It was certainly interesting viewing seeing the slick Big Brother production machine put to the test. Watching it I’m thinking, “Wow - what are they going to do now, what if he continues to keep silent?”

For anyone who missed it, there was booing and cheering from the audience. And it is probably understandable how those their who paid money to see a particular show could be disappointed on having their expectations shattered.

But what courage Merlin must have had to stick to his plan and stand by his convictions to raise national attention to an important issue. Bravo.

Welcome, Samantha!

I don’t watch BB and so didn’t see last week’s episode, but I did hear about and see snippits of it in the news.

[quote author="Samantha"]I can’t decide if he has put the plight of asylum seekers forward, or done damage to their cause.

In what ways could it have damaged their cause? Genuine question, I know it was raised in the media but am not sure of the reasoning! Personally, I admired him for being having the courage to do it. I don’t know if it was the best way, but it certainly got attention.

I was disappointed to read in the SMH later in the week someone writing that the target audience isn’t interested in political or social issues. I know some young people are interested in such things and I think it is important for us to know and think through what is going on in the world. Admittedly, the show is not a social or political discussion/debate forum, but it is supposed to be reality tv. What’s so unreal about someone expressing their opinion that it causes such chaos and publicity?!

And it is probably understandable how those their who paid money to see a particular show could be disappointed on having their expectations shattered.

Well, they probably saw the most interesting and controversial show for a long time. Which number is this series? Does anyone actually care? The viewers may have been disappointed, but I’ll bet that when it was on the news they were telling their friends that they were there when it all happened…

Han :)

Incidentally, I have been reading an excellent book about this issue recently. It’s called Borderline: Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, by Peter Mares. I haven’t finished it yet, but so far I have found it to be very well written, clear and well explained.

I would definitely recommend it to anyone with a view on Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum - it is worth reading and thinking about, regardless of what your view is.

I can’t express it as adequately as the cover can, so:

“A testament to the power of Australian journalism at its best” - Peter Craven, The Australian

“An extraordinary book.” - Jon Faine, ABC Radio Melbourne

“A finely reported book that contains much of interest and importance even for those who might nor agree with all of Mares’s opinions.” - Michael Duffy, in The Weekend Australian

“Passionate and thoroughly researched.” - Bob Birrell, Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University, in The Age

“The more we seek to deter asylum seekers and refugees through harsh treatment, the more Australia comes to resemble the repressive nations from which they flee.”

Over the past two years the arrival of ‘boat people’ on the Australian coast has reignited fears of a massive influx of refugees and asylum seekers. The response of the Australian government has helped to generate unease in the community, obscuring many of the real issues that arise when people seek sanctuary within Australia’s borders.

In this provocative book Peter Mares opens up the legal, moral and political questions posed by Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. He visits Woomera, site of Australia’s biggest and newest immigration detention centre, talks to refugees, their lawyers, detention centre staff and the Australian immigration minister, and reports in detail on cases which pose significant questions about the direction of Australian policy.

Drawing on a wide range of official and non-official sources Mares paints a compelling and disturbing picture of Australian policy in action. Borderline: Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers makes a major contribution to the debate on Australia’s approach to refugees.

Peter Mares is presenter of the regional current affairs program Asia-Pacific, broadcase on Radio Australia and Radio National. He has written for many publications, including The Australian’s Review of Books, the Financial Review, the Age and Eureka Street. In 1995 he won the NSW Law Society Golden Quill Award for Excellence in Legal Reporting for a story on Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers.

It was certainly a great publicity stunt for Merlin to use Big Brother to promote a cause he is clearly interested in.  Or was it Big Brother using Merlin to try to reverse falling ratings?  It’s too early to tell.

This is a person after all who, despite his apparent interest in the policies of the Commonealth government, hasn’t troubled to take out Australian citizenship and become eligible to vote.

An interesting perspective on this issue can be found in this blog:

Where does the slogan “free th refugees” actually get us?  Strictly speaking, there are no refugees in detention in Australia.

All of those in detention are people whose claims to refugee status have been rejected, but who have nonetheless refused to return to their country of origin.

What are we actually meant to do with such people?

Peter Mares’ book may be a useful contribution to the debate, but when he starts with the pre-supposition that it is the

response of the Australian government

rather than (say) the events to which the government was responding,

which have

helped to generate unease in the community

my weary and cynical senses detect yet another anti-Howard polemic.

This is a person after all who, despite his apparent interest in the policies of the Commonealth government, hasn’t troubled to take out Australian citizenship and become eligible to vote.

I heard that he claimed he and his family were refugees and that was one of the reasons he did what he did. The I read in the paper this week that they were in Australia (from Germany) on visas and then decided to stay on 7 years after their visas had expired… and that that was his definition of being a refugee

Anyone else read that?

my weary and cynical senses detect yet another anti-Howard polemic

You mean there is a general anti-Howard plomeic out there in the media and academia ;) Can’t imagine what would have given you that impression ;)

BTW here is that article I mentioned in my previous post Let’s face reality in our refugee dilemma by Miranda Devine. Gotta say I loved this line from it

Even Luck’s appearance on Rove Live was cause for mirth. His protest slogan was again altered, this time to read “Free J-Lo’s New Husband”

[quote author="Jason Poulos"]Is it accurate to state - from memory from the mid-1990’s - that the correct legal term is “illegal immigrant”. Illegal as they are not “refugees” until they have been assessed and accepted, or granted refugee status? This definition would be from the perspective of the Australian Govt - i.e. the receiving country. For people genuinely fleeing a country due to persecution, I wouldn’t think they would consider themselves “illegal immigrants”. “Asylum Seeker” seems a more neutral term than “illegal immigrant”.

No.  The right to seek asylum is a human right.  As such anyone who leaves their country of origin to apply for assylum in another country is an asylum seeker.  They have not broken the law, so they are not illegal immigrants.  If they are granted asylum, they become refugees.  If they are not granted asylum they are given a deportation notice.  At this point they aren’t illegal immigrants.  If they fail to comply by absconding or if they never present themselves to authorities, they then become illegal immigrants.  Most of the illegal immigrants in this country are not in detention centres.  Most ( the majority ) are are simply people who have overstayed their visas.. and they flew in on aeroplanes.  But we don’t get hystrerical about them, perhaps because since many of them come from Europe and the US, they are PLU .

The government maintains a category of person called an “unlawful arrival” which is roughly translated as “illegal immigrant” in the media (and some elected representatives).  An unlawful arrival is simply one who doesn’t have authority to enter Australia.  However it is not illegal to enter Australia without authority if you are seeking assylum.  The government has the right to assess your claim and judge it on it’s merits, and they can send you home.  Australia also maintains that you aren’t able to apply for assylum if you have left the protection of a 3rd country before arriving in Australia.  The Convention doesn’t make that distinction however.  It allows anyone to claim asylum who are:
[list]
[*]are outside their country of nationality or their usual country of residence, and
[*]are unable or unwilling to return or to seek the protection of that country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion[/list:u]

Re: Merlin

[quote author="Jason Poulos"]
Is it accurate to state - from memory I would think so - that the correct legal term is “illegal immigrant”. Illegal as they are not “refugees” until they have been assessed and accepted, or granted refugee status? This definition would be from the perspective of the Australian Govt - i.e the country of origin. For people genuinely fleeing a country, I wouldn’t think they would consider themselves “illegal immigrants”.

I think not.
A refugee is a refugee, whether or not i think they are.  when a government (or the UNHCR) grants you refugee status, they’re recognising a condition.  Since nearly all the people who were put in detention over the last five years have been recognised as refugees, it means none of them were ‘illegal immigrants’ in the first place.  people are still being released, after years of imprisonment, because amanda has decided they are refugees after all.
So, strictly speaking, all of the people who are currently in detention centres but have not yet been recognised as refugees, are refugees (and we have rejected many people on administrative grounds, even though the UNHCR recognised their status and third countries like New Zealand or Canada accepted them). 

You’re right Jason, people genuinely fleeing a country wouldn’t consider themselves illegal, and if they declare their intention to seek protection as refugees at their first port of entry, then by law they aren’t illegal.  In fact, the term “illegal immigrant” is used in the legislation to describe asylum seekers, even though their action is not actually against any of our laws.  go figure.

I think it’s like: when you kill someone you’ve sinned, but you’re not a criminal until you’ve been convicted by a court.  when you are forced to escape from war or persecution you’re a refugee, but you don’t get a protection visa until a court decides.

weary, yes.
andrew

thanks jason.

to get back to the question, i can only think merlin did a good thing.  i think hannah is right on when she says those people who booed will be telling their friends “I was there” for a long time.

i’ve had quite a few conversations about merlin and refugees this week, including this one.  i guess that means he succeeded.  it’s the big question though - how do you raise an issue when you’re competing for mindshare with coke and mcdonalds (THEY’ve got some work to do!).  and if someone gives you a platform, should you take it and run?
appearently my mum got shunted of a live tv show in the 50’s because she didn’t want to say the thing they assumed she was going to say.  she never regretted it…

ansdrew

Hi All,

Even though I’m outside channel’s 10’s target audience for Big Brother I decided to watch the “Merlin” episode. What I have found fasinating and disheartening, is the politics of personality which is a tried and tested strategy for deflecting attention away from an an issue and the rational discussion of it, to the person who raised the issue and to discuss ‘them’ at the expense of the issue. Politicians are very good at this as are naughty children.

In many (but not all thank goodness) newpaper articles, chat rooms and radio talkback it’s Merlin who is being discussed (and in some cases crucified) rather than the asylum issue and our appalling (nailing my colours to the mask now) treatment of them.

I think it took a lot of guts and I’m glad this bit of real ‘reality’ TV rattled a lot of people. Australia needs people with guts and people who aren’t apathetic and living in their own comfort zone.

Rowen thanks for your post. I’m fond of Archbishop Jensen’s take on the whole asylum seekers issue:

....Third and last, if we want a real test for the humanity and the civilisation of our community, we must always look to the way in which we treat the lonely, the dispossessed, the vulnerable, and especially how we, as a community, treat prisoners and captives. Any Archbishop must first of all declare, as I am declaring today, an interest - a prior interest - in those who are most vulnerable, in order that our consciences may be quickened.

And I want particularly today to call attention to the whole question of so-called ‘illegal immigrants’. The very name itself begs the question. Very often, these people are legitimate asylum seekers. And there is a question before our community today, I believe, about our treatment of such folk and how we handle the situation of their coming here. I believe that we are playing on some of the fears of the Australian community in an unfortunate way. I’m very sympathetic to the Government and its grave difficulties in handling this issue. I don’t believe there are simple solutions. But I believe if we want to know whether our community is travelling well, we need to go to places like Villawood and other places like this and ask ourselves how we are treating the alien and the stranger in our midst.

[quote author="Angela Crittle"]I’m fond of Archbishop Jensen’s take on the whole asylum seekers issue:

we must always look to the way in which we treat the lonely, the dispossessed, the vulnerable, and especially how we, as a community, treat prisoners and captives.
[..]
I believe that we are playing on some of the fears of the Australian community in an unfortunate way. I’m very sympathetic to the Government and its grave difficulties in handling this issue. I don’t believe there are simple solutions. But I believe if we want to know whether our community is travelling well, we need to go to places like Villawood and other places like this and ask ourselves how we are treating the alien and the stranger in our midst.

Bingo. 

I know that it’s a complicated issue, but it seems there is no complicated issue that can’t be made simple by referring to “us” and “them”, like, I dunno..

“WE will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”

Then throw in some vaguely dogwhistle statements linking boat people to terrorism and we get whipped up into a frenzy (BTW, has there ever been a case of a terrorist entering a country by leaky boat?  Most arrive by plane and probably get called “sir” by the flight crew). 

I don’t know why we can’t acknowledge the complexity of the issue and allow for areas of greyness, like allowing children out of detention or even being generous to asylum seekers while we assess their claims.  It doesn’t change the outcome of the investigation to treat them like humans while they wait.

Oh, except that it “sends a message” to people smugglers that we are soft on border protection.  Heaven forbid. 

Don’t get me started on message sending.

So do you have any thoughts on the concept of “message sending”, Rowen?

;)

-A-

[quote author="Adam Gregory"]So do you have any thoughts on the concept of “message sending”, Rowen?
;)

I’ll “message sending” you if you don’t watch out.. :)

Hi guys,

I haven’t read the background of Merlin’s own reasons for not being a citizen and must admit if he doesn’t vote it makes him an easy target for critics. But then I don’t think that the issues of him as a person need take away from the importance of the issue he raises.

Thanks for the tip on the book Hannah. I suppose the reason I had mixed feelings was the way he simply clammed up and refused to say anything. While I agree it made for an, “interesting and controversial show” my concern was that by not explaining why he was protesting he would turn some people off who may otherwise been more receptive to his message.

As it turns out after the night itself, he has been doing the media circuit and had plenty of opportunity to explain his actions.

I was going to say something along the lines of what Rowan has about the distinction between asylum seekers vs illegal immigrants but he says it better than I could. My concern is less about the semantics of legality and is more about they way they are treated and defamed in the media and by the government as potential terrorists etc…

As mentioned previously, a question always in the back of my mind, is that if the Government and sections of the media were truly concerned about illegal immigration, why is it that the tens of thousands (I read that figure somewhere but can’t back it up right now) of “illegal immigrants” that have over-stayed on work and holiday visas aren’t subject to the same attention.

Instead it seems much too easy to create anxiety about groups who come from countries that don’t offer the same opportunities as Australia.

I don’t know if you will still find the articles, but last week while doing a Google on the words - Merlin Big Brother - I noted some North American media outlets had picked up the story and the slant they had hinted at asylum seekers being a hidden shame of our egalitarian. While I’m sure our politicians have thick skins and could less about what the “Baltimore Sun” says, having international attention must have some affect.

Hi,

Can someone please explain to me slowly and carefully why someone HAS to have citizenship to have an opinion regarding a country’s national or foreign policies?

Am I missing something as Merlin has been criticised for not having Australian citizenship yet still having an opinion on this country’s policies and treatment of refugees/asylum seekers?

I have a range of views on various countries and their politics, do I have to be a national of all of them to have my views considered valid? As I said I must be missing something in this drama.

As an aside:- I am most interested in the views of overseas visitors and long-term residents in Australia as their perspective can be very refreshingly different, insightful and challenging. Such as Merlin. All of my friends who have travelled overseas for several months come back home and see Australia in a remarkably different light. They are able to examine various cultural practices, govt policies and our standard of living in a way they couldn’t before.

Why has there been such an outcry by the the BB audience, memebers of the popular press etc about the opinion of a young German residing in Australia regarding our refugee policy/treatment of refugees? I don’t quite understand the drama....Please explain to this muddled headed wombat before she crawls ino her burrow.

[quote author="Angela Crittle"]
Can someone please explain to me slowly and carefully why someone HAS to have citizenship to have an opinion regarding a country’s national or foreign policies?

Ha ha ha.. LOL.  The reason is because there is a set within the right wing which seeks to find a fairly simple hook from which to hang criticism.  The classic example is Michael Moore.  Not wanting to re spark the “bowling for columbine” debate, there are some who’se entire rebuttal of his ideas is that he is fat.  or John Kerry is rich, or Peter Garrett didn’t vote, or.. merlin isn’t a citizen.  It’s a lot easier to discuss in a 2 second sound bite, and avoids the messy need to deal with the issues, rather than playing the man with a formulaic rebuttal.

For more information and examples of this principle in action, see Tim Blair