AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
I hate the term ‘asylum seeker’. In the 1970s, asylum seekers were smart-suited Soviet spies walking off planes at Heathrow and pampered Eastern bloc athletes and ballerinas going AWOL in America.
In our national dialogue, when did people fleeing war, famine and persecution morph from being refugees into asylum seekers? The very term cushions us from the misery of those escaping whatever despairing lives they left behind.
Last week’s events on Ashmore Reef highlight once again that people will do anything, believe any promise, and spend any money, to get a better life. One can only feel compassion for the men, women and children we see on TV each night, sadly sitting lined up in dank rooms waiting to be ‘processed’. God loves these people, even in their loneliness and despair.
The Government is facing a dilemma that their more compassionate approach to refugees, evidenced by abolishing aspects of the former government’s policies, may increase the number of arrivals as people-smugglers take advantage of the changes.
Distancing itself from past wrongs, yet maintaining a strong policy of border protection, will prove a major test for Kevin Rudd, particularly in the face of an Opposition determined to make political capital from the misery of others, and public distaste for women and children behind razor wire.
This is one area of policy which requires a more global and bi-partisan approach than we are seeing at present. Australia under John Howard was part of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must bear some of the consequences.
Globally, we must continue working with Muslim nations like Malaysia and Indonesia to ensure that they shoulder some responsibility for the trafficking of refugees and ultimately their re-settlement.
However, do we want a refugee policy which promotes the "survival of the fittest" by granting asylum to those who have spent the most money and undergone - and survived - the greatest risks to get here?
Are people who did not have the money or were not prepared to undergo such risks less worthy of our compassion? I have met many Sudanese - often Anglicans - assisted by Australian government officials to leave Kenyan refugee camps and fly to a better life in this country: while the Howard Government was vilified as racist and harsh every day in the media, the truth is that thousands of such people were quietly rescued in this way every year of its term. None of them died getting here, or were in any danger of doing so.
The NW coast of Australia is barren and mostly uninhabited - it is a miracle, frankly, that the people-smuggling voyages undertaken do date have not resulted in higher fatalities. If the government does not toughen its policies, they will surely come. We have a small navy, and it cannot be everywhere. Perhaps you have to be cruel to be kind. Otherwise, worse tragedies are inevitable.
These current events also demonstrate something about refugees and their plight that is little understood in Australia - that is, there is very little 'orderliness' in being a refugee. Yes, some people such as Sudanese refugees in camps in Kenya may be selected to come to Australia, but there is no such process in other parts of the world.
There are not refugee camps in Afghanistan. In Sri Lanka at present people are being held hostage in the middle of conflict. There have been refugee camps on the borders of Pakistan but with the worsening situation in Pakistan, refugees will suffer greatly. Yes our government has to protect our borders and should be actively involved in finding global solutions, especially talking to Muslim nations as Karin suggested. But as Australia has signed the International Refugee Convention, we have a responsibility to refugees. As Christians we especially need to care for the alien and stranger even if they arrive in unordered ways - just as I suspect Ruth and Naomi did.
do you think that we should have a compassionate attitude towards refugees after they arrive in Australia? The Camden christians protesting against a mosque in their district sits unhappily with welcoming the refugees, surely.
It's hard to believe Christians (especially) are particularly compassionate when they're spreading nonsense that Islam is 'an ideology for world domination.'
Arriving on a barely-seaworthy boat having risked your life to travel through multiple countries is a strange path to world domination.
But the xenophobic were never much for reason or common sense.
It would be nice to hear his personal views, rather than just quotes or reports via the papers, given he seems to be a Sydney Anglican with strong views on the matter.
Thanks for your question. It’s our understanding that Tony Galea isn’t talking to the media at this stage and given the potential for misunderstanding on this issue, this would seem to be a wise move. In turn, anything he says on this site could be misconstrued.
So there are no plans at this stage to add to what is already in the public domain, but we will of course be keeping a close eye on any further developments.
Thanks for the response! I can't imagine a friendlier platform for Rev Galea than SydAng/SX to explain his views and help set the record straight (whatever that record may be), after all he did sign a letter apparently saying "Islam [...] is an ideology with a plan for world domination" and that Islam is incompatible with the Australian way of life in a submission to the Land and Environment Court, which has obviously been widely reported.
I'm sure there would be many Sydney Anglicans keen to hear his views, and if he is unwilling to speak to SX then perhaps it would make an interesting topic for SX to provide some enlightenment.
Given the similarities between Christians and Muslims vis a vis a belief in a God and conservative moral and social values, I personally find it very strange that some Christians seem keener to defend liberal, secular Western cultural values rather than their own faith, so perhaps it's a topical issue SX could shed some light on.
My 2c anyway!
I have been following this closely and can safely say that there isn't anything further to investigate - talking to the punters you are merely going to repeat this same debate derived from these two very same sources. The Chapman and Sookhdeo books/resources are the two paradigms in operation in Sydney Anglican churches.
I would point out, however, that Colin Chapman's course Cross and Crescent is endorsed as a resource for Connect09.
My gut feel is that most of the Diocesan leadership are more sympathetic to the Chapman position.
Durie also wrote an article for the Australian comparing Islam and Christian doctrines on holy war.
He has written an article on these issues for the the Journal of Anglican Studies which you can access this way
If you are serious about this issue you need to get your ahead around the Islamic doctrine of dhimmitude.
I agree with Jeremy that there is plenty of good info easily available to Sydney Anglicans on the subject. One of the best things we can be doing locally is making friendly approaches to our Muslim neighbours, whilst not being blind to the more militaristic teachings some of them will have heard from their leaders.
It would seem wise to frame our fears in that kind of context.
Alan, this was not always the case as one tragic incident in 2005 involving a refugee family from Burundi demonstrated.
There were a number of serious concerns under the previous government with how humanitarian resettlement programs were managed here in Australia. Much of the program was outsourced to private, for-profit contractors which resulted in a lot of corner-cutting by some operators to keep costs down: lack of support services, innapropriate housing etc.
Previously, such programs were run by not-for-profit community organisations, (many of them Christian), who were not successful in re-tendering for the resettlement programs ostensibly because many had been outspoken in their concern for how both refugees and asylum seekers were being dealt with by the then Coalition Govt.
In 1997/8 157 unauthorised 'asylum seekers' arrived by clagged out boats.
Last year it was just 25. Over the last six years an average of 65 people arrived by boat per year.
(between 1997 - 2009 the higest number to arrive in Australia in a year(2001/02) was 1212.
Now let's compare last years number of 'illegal' boat arrivals to Australian shores with a couple of other countries for context's sake.
In the first nine months of 2008 (could not quickly find FY numbers) the 'illegal' boat arricvals to Italy was 23,900 and same period to Greece was 10,000.
It really strikes me that Australia's 'illegal boat people problem' is a storm in a tea cup (even when we were not very strict on 'border protection')
Is it really helpful for politicians and social comentators to be sucked into this type of talk-back radio fodder?
I personally don't think harsh border protection policies are worth tarnishing our national image over, given 90% of the 'illegals' are given asylum seeker status anyway, AND that anually over the last several years Australian authorities issue about 13,000 humanitarian visas.
(This is less that 1% of the worlds total asylum seekers (there were 670,000 to Europe in 2001, and 350,000 in 2005)
We should be glad that we have so many people from so many different countries arrive at our door step in so many different circumstance. The opportunities for Christians to help the new arrivals are fantastic, and as they do, so are the opportunuties the gospel of Jesus. We can do mission work without catching a plane anywhere or having malaria et al shots! You have to love that.
I have noticed that sometimes the richer one becomes the more penny pinching one becomes as well. We Australians are among the wealthiest 4% of the world polulation, we need to watch we don't become more greedy. We can easily afford to share our God given wealth with even more migrants and refugees, even as we see our investments drop a few points.
So bring in more I say - imagine what would happen if we seriously took up the gospel opportunities!
But then again I am a migrant so perhaos I am biased...:)
I think we should be rather less concerned about "tarnishing our national image", than with the lives and safety of the people we are encouraging to come here by this method.
Getting to Australia from Afghanistan or Sri Lanka by sea is a good deal more difficult, and more dangerous, than the short hop to Italy from North Africa (or, for that matter, the short hop across the Palk Strait to India - which is where you would expect any genuinely desperate Tamil Sri Lankan to go).
As Michael Costa said in today's Australian "to argue that the changes [to asylum seeker policy] have not influenced the business activities of people-smugglers defies credibility".
How many asylum-seekers will have to die trying to get here, before anyone in authority will admit that we need to do a little more to discourage the practice?
Alan, that’s awfully Orwellian. Some kind of ‘Safety through brutality.’ “We have to put kids in jail behind razor wire because they arrived by boat for the safety of others.”
I can just imagine desperate Afghans or Sri Lankans planning to flee war and desperate poverty in an incredibly risky journey into the unknown, leaving friends and family behind possibly forever to go to a country they have heard almost nothing about… and then thinking “Oh no, I just picked up a copy of the The Australian in Kabul (hah!) and the Australian government has tightened it’s border protection policy. Well, better give up then!”
From the report:
That's even from the ABC so it must be impartial! ;-)
Seems to me there are plenty of ways for people in Afghanistan or Sri Lanka to find out what's going on with our refugee policy.
Given the significant sums of money being handed over to people-smugglers, I suspect their customers are a good deal better informed than you take them for.
To suppose that a desperate Sri Lankan would choose distant Australia - at such great expense, and all the attendant risks - over next-door India, without some up-to-date notions on the likelihood of success, is I think just a little far-fetched.
Even if he left Iraq in less certain times, a flight home would be a lot safer and cheaper; than the boat-journey to Ashmore Reef.
Well, it doesn't just sound brutal, it is and was brutal. But if our kindness is measured by our brutality, maybe we should just randomly shoot people on sight? That would make an even better deterrent, and make us even kinder, by your logic.
I think the ABC article touches on the heart of the issue:
There is no mention in the ABC article about precisely what, if any, threat of persecution the Iraqi asylum-seeker faces. No surprise why: if he's lived in Indonesia since 2001, then the regime he was fleeing was that of Saddam Hussein. It has since been deposed; there is a democratic government; it's unclear why he can't or won't return home. I'm sure he'll think of something to tell the UNHCR, but he's also said he won't be deterred even if they reject his claims.
This man admits he was deterred by Howard's policies from attempting this risky voyage; and that he is encouraged by Rudd's policies to attempt it.
He may die in the attempt. Others may die in their attempts.
Will those support the current policy, and still "maintain the rage" against the policies of the previous government, face up to these consequences, and explain why they are more acceptable than the "tarnishing of our national image".
When we have this national debate about whether the previous government's policies deterred 'them' we are not debating some of the important issues. We should be asking whether the previous policies were legal and ethical. Temporary Protection Visas left people in limbo - it may have been an unintended consequence of that policy, but it was still bad.
Also even if people smugglers have up to date information about current government policies and pass it on to their potential customers we still need to try to understand what all this means from a refugee's perspective.
If I were fleeing war,conflict and persecution I probably would not have the time or opportunity to do a google search about current issues, safest means etc and then find the cheapest way to do all this - as I have the privilege of doing when I go on holiday.
As Jeremy commented, Jesus set the bar pretty high - when Christians think through all these issues we need to consider not only the impact and consequences of government policy on asylum seekers but also what our comments and government policy teaches the wider population about how the alien and stranger should be treated. We once were aliens and strangers.
In this BBC interview canon Andrew White Rector of St Georges Baghdad tells of what happens to people who become christians in Iraq. They get shot. He tells of the story of a family of Five who were baptised in January. They were shot within a week. Andrew White says he pleads with people not to get baptised....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p002nrqx/The_Interview_11_04_2009_Canon_Andrew_White/
I would have thought that if you were serious about this issue, you could simply say that religious intolerance is wrong, especially from Christians.
Where is the diocesan leadership on this? It would be nice to see some pro-active, public statement that religious intolerance as we've seen from Camden churches is neither Christian nor appropriate for multicultural Australia.
We'd be outraged and appalled if the shoe was on the other foot, but when it's us who are the intolerant ones, it's softly, softly.
Aren't we the ones practicing, or silently condoning, 'dhimmitude' - becoming the very things we allegedly oppose?
Perhaps more importantly, it favours the wealthy and strong over the poor and weak. Only those refugees with significant resources can afford to be smuggled. Since Australia has a finite capacity to handle refugees, it means that those refugees with means will get priority. From the point of view of our national interest, this is probably a good thing - it means that we get the most wealthy, capable and resourceful refugees. But that also means that some of the neediest will miss out.