RSS Feed

Category Archives: By Request

Catch Up On: US GUN LAWS (By Request)

640671_370

Unless you’ve had your head up an Ostrich’s arse (have I got that analogy a bit skew?), you will know that the US have some seriously cocked-up gun laws – i.e. having a gun readily available or even in your handbag is pretty normal for every Tom, Dick, Randy, Chuck and Harry. There are some truly heinous manifestations of these dickbrain laws, the most recent of which include:

- Last week’s discovery of a man in his dorm at University of Central Florida, Orlando. He was dead by self-inflicted gunshot wound but with him were four home made bombs, a handgun, a tactical assault rifle and 1000 rounds of ammunition. A plan to press an alarm and open fire on evacuating students was also found. A plan that would have been put into action had his room-mate not called 911. The arrival of the police meant that the madman executed not his plan but himself.

- The deaths of 28 people, including 20 small children, were shot dead by a gunman APTOPIX Connecticut School Shootingcarrying 4 weapons at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut. I will not give the fuckwit gunman any post-humous (he turned the gun on himself as police arrived) satisfaction by naming him or showing his weird-arse fugly face but it turns out he had been plotting the massacre for years and collected articles about other mass shootings. He also shot his mother before leaving for Sandy Hook School. E.Vil.

- Last year’s Colorado cinema shooting in which a gun man shot 12 people dead and injured 58. Had his semi automatic weapon not jammed, it is almost certain that more lives would have been lost. The perpetrator owned an array of weapons and had with him 1,000′s of rounds of ammunition.

This is just the recent ones. Two thirds of all murders in America involve guns; last year alone guns claimed 9,000 lives in cold blood. Each year in the US, around 30,000 people die as a result of gunshot wounds.

lennon-glasses-353-300x0Yoko Ono recently and poignantly tweeted her support of tighter gun laws. The tweet was  illustrated with a photo of Lennon’s glasses, smeared with blood and captioned: “Over 1,057,000 people have been killed by guns in the USA since John Lennon was shot and killed on December 8, 1980.” And you’d think that the tragic demise of the genius who wrote “Imagine” would have stopped the madness once and for all.

Regardless of who the perpetrators are or why they committed such unthinkable crimes, the question has to be – and is being – asked, why are these horrific gun-toting, cold-blooded massacres happening in the US so regularly? Why are guns so freely available?

How Freely Available?

Each state is different but basically any law-abiding citizen over 18 is allowed to buy a gun. In Colorado, Kansas and Louisiana, you don’t need a permit to get yourself a gun. Yep, you just mozie on in, ask, show proof of age and pay. In Arizona you can legally carry a concealed weapon. What for – oh, yep of course, just in case some other bugger is carrying a concealed weapon and decides to pull it on you, you can pop yours out and have a gun fight in the street.

NYC is now one of the hardest places to buy weapons – you have to apply for a permit and the licensing authority may order you to do firearms training and education. The authority can also decide the conditions under which permit holders can possess handguns or carry a concealed weapon.

However, the firearm industry can go largely unregulated because there is a loophole that allows gun owners to sell their firearms to an unlicensed person in the same state. Plus there is always the online option – the Florida University would-be gunman bought his military-standard weapons online for $700 with no federal regulation whatsoever. And while ammunition purchases are restricted in most states, transactions are not recorded so any old maniac can just shop-hop to get the amount they think they need.

In 2007, 270 million of 317 million people owned civilian firearms.

So what’s with the gun culture?

Well waaay back in 1791, an amendment was made to the US Constitution in response to a war of independence where citizens were compelled to revolt against an oppressive state. It is now known as the 2nd Amendment. It is this:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Which means, in my terms, that an armed population will be safe from any bugger thinking he or she might become a tyrannical dictator, that loose gun laws will keep the government in the hands of the people.

Those who still believe in the 2nd amendment evidently believe that the risk of tyranny at the hands of rulers is very real and that politicians who take an anti-2nd amendment stance have tyrannical motives. Their response to the Newtown tragedy was to suggest that armed security guards be placed in schools. Eeek, paranoid people with guns.

In 1871, the National Rifle Association (NRA) was founded “to promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis”. WTF is scientific shooting? Rhetorical question ‘cos I can’t answer that one.

Why hasn’t the amendment been amended into oblivion?

Well the NRA and the belief in the 2nd amendment has over the centuries become very powerful, to the extent that the right to bear arms is utterly ingrained in a large portion of the US population. This means that any political candidate to voice anti-2nd amendment beliefs would be facing certain death at the polls. For last year’s presidential election, neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama made gun control a priority in their campaigns.

The NRA is very wealthy and – as is the way – money translates to power. They – together with other poxy pro-gun groups like the Gun Owners of America (GOA) have the power to mobilise voters and politicians to stand firm behind the 2nd amendment and rail against the anti-gun lobby groups. They use arguments like “Americans are the most free people in the world because of the 2nd amendment”. Right, also the people most likely in the western world to get popped in the head just by going to school.

In 1994, a 10 year ban was placed on possession of magazines holding more that 10 rounds of ammunition. In 2004, congress allowed it to expire. In 2008 a handgun ban enforced in Washington was dismissed.

Is anything being done now?

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, has just yesterday announced he will put $12 million of his own money (blimey it pays to be mayor) toward a TV advertising campaign for tougher gun control laws in the hopes to get voters to back more comprehensive background checks on gun buyers. Congress will be voting on the issue very soon. Pro-gun control lobbyists claim that 92% of the population support detailed background checks and that the NRA’s arguments consist of scaremongery and conspiracy theories.

Last week – 8 months after the cinema massacre – Colorado changed its gun laws to include mandatory background checks as well as a limit on magazine capacity to 15 rounds or less. Already there is noisy opposition to this, and 2 ballot measures have been tabled to undo the new restrictions.

On 16 January of this year, in response to the Sandy Hook School shooting, President Obama announced plans for improved gun control. His proposal—demanding background checks for all gun sales (not just those from licensed dealers) and a new ban on assault weapons—would need new laws passed by congress, where Republicans (traditionally more gun happy than democrats) have a majority. Already the renewed ban on assault weapons has been dropped because of lack of support. Piss weak if you ask me.

obama on newtown

So even if the President waxes lyrical about change – and even if he means it – he alone can’t make it happen. In the US, love for arms and the “God given” right to self defence by fire power is deeply rooted into society. And deepy rooted. Period.

When I grow up I want to be a...

When I grow up I want to be a…

Post script: Given that I live a half hour drive from Port Arthur, the scene of the world’s largest gun massacre by a single person, I want to make it clear that I know too well that people are capable of these terrible crimes anywhere, even here in the sleepy peaceful place so dear to my heart. But the difference is that here in Australia, while our politicians had long chucked stricter gun laws rhetoric about but didn’t act for fear of electoral backlash from the gun lobby, we ended up with a leader who evidently didn’t give a shit about political ripples or even threats of violence. In 1996 Prime Minister John Howard brought the states and territories together and cut a deal for stronger, nationally uniform firearm reform. Since then, a study by Harvard University on the impact of our reforms concluded that, “”The National Firearms Agreement seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved.” That is, we’ve had no gun massacres (more than 4 people die in one rampage) since 1996, compared with 13 massacres during the previous 18 years. In the early 1990s, about 600 Australians a year were killed by gunfire; that figure is now fewer than 250.

SO GUN REFORM WORKS DERRRBRAINS.

The Christmas Song

To all my dear Megoracle supporters, friends and followers,

2012 isn’t over yet and there may well be more from me this year but I just want to take the opportunity to thank you for supporting me and my lil’ old blog over the last 12 months (in case I get overwhelmed by the needs of my family and the mayhem that is year’s end). I’ve really and truly had a wonderful time with you all (except the person who disliked The Angry Song, but of course you are entitled to your opinion just that it was a small wound to the heart and I’ll put it down to the fact that I said FUCK).

Many thanks for all your comments, corrections, suggestions and requests – keep ‘em, coming. Yes negative ones too, my heart mends.

A very Merry Christmas to you all (or holiday season, whichever suits you better). I will continue with the brain reboot process into 2013 – who knows what will pop out.

You’re all brilliant. Keep on being so.

I have made a Christmas present for you. Like all handmade presents, it is a little, well home made in parts (mainly the video – I thought I could improve on The Angry Song video but evidently not). And speaking of The Angry Song, I am overwhelmed by its reception – not in a million years did I imagine that so many people would watch it, share it and relate to it. I have had a few requests for another song and I am very happy to oblige, but I’m not sure I can ever replicate the chord I struck with The Angry Song. I am not a musician (I can’t read notes or draw a treble clef) and I have no idea what I’m doing when I think up songs, so if this doesn’t resonate as much as my previous ones, then please remember these facts and go easy on me. The main thing is I’m really enjoying making them and will just keep doing it until everyone is thoroughly sick of me probably. There are a few brewing away, and you can tune in or not just like any other blog post.  Anyway, I’m nervous, does it show? …

The good bits of this one are mostly by an awesome little crew which pulled together on short notice and made this song their own. They are listed in the credits after the song but in case you are utterly disgusted and don’t get that far…

The Christmas Song was produced by the very patient and brilliant Caleb Miller of Mac40 Music Hobart  and directed and mixed by the gorgeous Arabella Wain (who also plays most of the instruments – strings, tubular bells, celesta, piano, sleigh bells, drums, vibraphone… I know, sickeningly talented). They had a bit of help from the mysterious  Brian Woten on bass guitar (mysterious only because I haven’t met him but also because bass guitarists are always sort of enigmatic or is that just me?), sundry cool peeps from Hobart’s Conservatorium of Music and from a passer by who provided a fart (I don’t know if this is true but it’s a good story).

Anyway, from me to you, with love and thanks, for Christmas…

Take a Stance On: TONY ABBOTT’s CHARACTER (By Request) and FEMINISM and POLITICS (By Compulsion)

I have an automatic aversion to Tony Abbott. However I’m concerned that this is a product of successful political mud slinging spin. I would prefer to think that my opinion is immune to spin but I think that’s pretty unrealistic (actually I know it is – last week I bought wrinkle cream with Kakadu plum in it because it is a fair dinkum miracle cream never mind I have observed no change whatsoever except maybe deeper wrinkles where my annoyed expression happens). Anyway, when it comes down to brass tacks (whatever that means), I actually don’t know what to think of TA, even though the sisterhood keeps calling him an aggressive misogynist (more spin?) and hooray-ing Julia Gillard for her dressing down of him the other day.

I should know what to think though because one day everybody might stop flinging mud and start running the country a bit and there’s a (shrinking) chance it will be him, so maybe I should pay more attention and form my own opinion, spin-free.

In the staying attentive process, questions have arisen: What was Julia all shouty about the other day anyway and was her finger pointing and stuff just theatre? Is Tony Abbott really just an over-aggressive  misogynist with a prominent ball bag*? I don’t know, I need to work through this….

2) How did this misogyny thing all start?

First up, misogyny is a bugger of a word to spell, but I’ve found that if you break it up into miso (as in soup) and gyny (as in the fella who checks my jacksie every so often) then you’ll be set. Just don’t go calling anyone a misogynaecologist because that could be really nasty and is even harder to spell. Anyway, this whole misogyny thing started when House of Reps Speaker Peter Slipper sent text messages to 33 year old James Ashby, a member of staff who also happens to be gay. I can’t seem to be able to throw this bit of information in casually as if it doesn’t add anything but it sort of does.

Peter Slip-Up

What also seems to add to the story is that Peter Slipper is an ordained priest. Maybe that’s because it seems at odds with a strong Anglican faith to write such messages as, “funny how we say that a person is a cunt when many guys like cunts”. True enough I guess, but undoubtedly inappropriate, as is the one that describes vaginas as “mussles out of their shells…salty cunts in brine.” My instant reaction to this one, in all honesty, was to snigger, before I checked myself and put on a disapproving-how-dare-you expression. I am a wayward feminist I know, but I have sniggered with my friends about scrotums so I guess that balances things out.

In another text he called Sophie Mirabella (shadow minister for Industry and Innovation) a bitch (well actually it was ‘botch’ but I think we’re assuming that was an auto-correct thing). Anyway, you get the picture – there were evidently hundreds of these texts and Ashby (not without what looks to me like a bit of vigorous flirting) eventually accused Slipper of sexual harassment, which of course saw Tony Abbott clamour for his resignation, and later passed a vote of no confidence in him as speaker of the house, saying his texts were “vile” and “derogatory toward women”.

And this saw our esteemed PM rile right up and deliver a very articulate 15 minute speech (worth a look) powered by seemingly genuine anger, the crux of which is (I think, in my basic terms) “Yeah right you dickhead now you get all holier than though because you’re trying to knock bits off my majority and get rid of a man who has pissed you off because he was once your close friend and is now an embarrassing liability – you expect us to believe in your sudden noble condemnation of sexist behaviour when you’ve been a shameless sexist porcine all these years especially toward me? Well we see right through you, you HYPOCRITE KNOB.” Or something like that. And to quote her directly, she made this call, that will no doubt be repeated throughout history:

“The leader of the opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well, I hope the leader of the opposition has got a piece of paper and he’s writing out his resignation because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives; he needs a mirror.”

Clever, very clever, but is it not going a bit far? It was, I think, a heartfelt dressing down of Tony Abbott but I do think it was partly fueled by excitable opportunism (you know that feeling adrenalin rush when you realise you have a window of golden opportunity) mixed with last straw syndrome (I’VE HAD ENOOOOUUUUGH!). And I don’t believe she is silly enough to be defending Peter Slipper (his texts are slightly humorous but also slightly indefensible), so surely it was more about keeping her majority than honest sentiment…(segue to)

2) Is Tony Abbott a misogynist? (Rant Alert – and not in the way you may expect)

Well in the traditional sense of the word (a pathological hater of women), no of course he isn’t. He has a wife and three daughters and it’s a safe bet he doesn’t hate them. His wife Margie was recently wheeled out by the Liberal PR machine to say (more spinny) stuff like, “just don’t ever try and tell me that my husband of 24 years and the father of three daughters is on some anti-women crusade. It’s simply not true.” And it was (presumably) a woman who pushed him into the world and I’m guessing he has a few positive feelings about her too. His chief of staff is a woman – Peta Credlin – who he describes as the de facto deputy leader of the opposition (I guess he thinks Julie Bishop is a dud).

But given that the Macquarie Dictionary has just broadened the definition, making misogyny an “entrenched prejudice against women”, then yes, I think he probably is. Here’s why:

I think most people are. To varying degrees anyway – it’s just the way of the world. Sexism is fading as the decades go by but it’s inherent in our society and in us. Many woman are misogynists if you stick with definition 2. Maybe I’m one of them – I’m just seeing a short film into production that portrays women in very traditional roles and even includes bottom pinching and sexy lingerie**. I don’t expect my husband to write thank you letters or sew up hems, I do expect myself to. This belief is entrenched because my father never sewed or wrote thank you letters and my mother – a full time working academic – did. So yep, I am a misogynist. I can feel some of you rolling your eyes here because it sounds like I’m taking this too far, but there are women all over the country pushing misogyny onto any bloke who dares to mention women (or parts thereof) in a sentence and I think they are taking it too far.

If you’re digging around in someone’s past searching for evidence of misogyny then surely you’ll come up with something. Tony Abbott’s something was the alleged groping of a female activist when he was a uni student – an accusation that was thrown out of court when seven witnesses testified that the grope was simply a touch on the back.

Then there was his standing beside signs saying “ditch the witch” during a no carbon tax rally. Well he had to be there and there is no evidence that he commissioned the signs, nor did he pose with them. He perhaps could have called for them to be pulled down, they were nasty, but I wasn’t struck by the their sexism (another example of sexism being inherent?). If they’d said, “Ditch the Witch, she’s got Tits”, then I would have uproared with the best of them.

On this note, I do tend to agree with Mrs Abbott when she said, “I believe a disservice is being done to women when the gender card is played to shut down debate about policy” and not just to shut down policy but just to be grasping at straws of evidence so flimsy you couldn’t pick your teeth with them. I mean Abbott was accused of being sexist because he said that Tasmanian premier Lara Giddings spoke to him in a ‘schoolmarm manner’. Oh come on, he didn’t call her a useless woman or stare at her boobies and if he did it would be rude and stupid but it doesn’t mean he hates women. Stop crying wolf for your own ends girls or we’ll start earning the complaining women status.

2) Do his anti-abortion views make him a misogynist? 

I don’t think so. I suspect his religious tainted views would apply to men as well if they happened to be the ones to have babies. BUT his stance on abortion does set off other alarm bells – ding dong extreme conservatism dong ding.

As a young activist he was fiercely anti-choice in the abortion debate. In 2006 he attempted to block legislation to pass the anti-abortion pill RU486, arguing that “every abortion is a tragedy” and the rate of abortion at the time was “this generations legacy of unutterable shame”. I know it’s a sensitive issue and a life changing, terrible decision but in many cases abortion is the sensible option. No not always the easy option as Abbott has stated, but a necessary one. And the hard truth is that kids are having sex younger and younger – in 2008, it was found that 25% of year 10 students were having sex (La Trobe Uni) – so this is not an issue we can throw blanket judgment over. Every case is different and should be assessed individually by people trained in the field of family planning – not by some big man up in the sky.

3) Does he have trouble dealing with women in positions of power?

Durr, yes. The Prime Minister is a woman, he is her prime opposition – they dislike each other immensely, of course he has trouble dealing with her. But she has trouble dealing with him too, clearly thinking he is a twat. Have you seen them try to be civil to each other at sober, we-are-you-are-austalian events like the funerals of statesmen or soldiers? Awkward.

Whether he has an actual problem problem (i.e a psychological wonk) with women in power, maybe he does. Maybe his doodle does a little in-his-head shrink when a woman asserts authority over him), maybe he had a bossy mother he spent his life trying to overcome and now he’s in a habit. I don’t know, who does. But if it’s a serious mental problem then surely we would have seen more compelling evidence of such.

4) Is Tony Abbott aggressive?

I think there’s an element of aggression in all politicians – especially the high profile ones. And evidence suggests Tony Abbott is an aggressive politician, which would make aggression a definite aspect of his character. But I don’t think stuff like bending road signs (he did this as a uni student shortly after the grope allegation), and kicking glass panels (after being defeated in University elections in 1976) illustrates harmful aggression. As for kicking or bending people, well there are a few slightly worrying examples and allegations:

  • allegedly punched the wall on either side of a woman’s head at uni after he’d lost the SRC election to her (he denies this)
  • walked in a threatening manner toward Labor’s Graham Edwards after he called out “You’re a disgrace”. Should this be made worse by the fact that Mr Edwards lost both legs in Vietnam? I don’t think so.
  • punched Jo Hockey while playing sport in the 80′s
  • made a thoughtless remark about the cruise ship Costa Concordia a la “That’s one boat that did get stopped”
  • said, “Shit happens” when being given details of the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. I’ve watched this footage and I think he said it because he just didn’t know what else to say. It wasn’t a throwaway don’t-give-a-toss kind of line, just a very tactless remark. I think his response in the aftermath was truthful – that he would never make light of such a tragedy. What bothers me most about this matter is his reaction when questioned by a journalist on Sky News. He seemed utterly paralyzed – by what? Fear? Total loss of words? Some kind of medical condition (looks like a seizure to me)? Or is he about to punch the shit out of the journalist? After a 28 second silence accompanied by a steady dose of stink eye, he told the journalist that he’d given the response he deserved. Creepy.

Senator Barnaby Joyce apparently said that Tony Abbott’s aggression is evident in his gait.

The Australian newspaper’s foreign editor, Greg Sheridan was active in university politics with Tony Abbott, and his best mate. He said on a recent episode of Q&A that Abbott was never aggressive, especially toward women. His view is that the aggressive portrait has been painted in response to fear of a conservative catholic running the country.

At odd with this, Sydney barrister Irving Wallach, who was at the same uni at the same time but not a friend of Abbott’s, said (on the same episode) that Abbott was a pushy and physical person who loved his beer (nothing wrong with that) and that the reported aggressive behaviour is consistent with the Tony Abbott he knew.

Australian writer Robyn Davidson said that he exudes a kind of barely controlled temper and my gut feeling (pretty damn trusty) is that she is right. I think his levels of aggression could be a problem to him and could become a problem to Australia one day. But hey, I’m no psychoanalyst.

5) Is Tony Abbott a Liar?

Well Leigh Sales certainly proved he is a little ‘loose with the truth’ when she destroyed him in a recent 7:30 interview – watch the carnage here.  She and others over the years have highlighted his misrepresentations of the truth when it comes to all sorts of issues – climate change (it’s a little blurry as to whether he really believes in it or is just saying so to win votes), carbon tax, asylum seekers…but I don’t think his wonky truths are unusual or particularly scary. What is a bit of a worry is that he can’t seem to think on his feet well enough to even remember what he has said before, how he stands on important issues or even – as shown in the 7:30 interview – make any sense at all when put under the pump.

We don’t need a PM who goes to pieces and gets all weirdly starey and creeped out when under pressure. NOr, for that matter, do we need one who can’t seem to keep track of his beliefs. I am yet to be impressed by a public performance of his (this doesn’t carry much weight as I don’t go out of my way to follow his public appearances).

6) Would he make a good Prime Minister?

Nope. My opinion. Willing to hear others. I’m over him now and the sun’s just come out so I’m pushing off. See ya bitches.***

 

UPDATE: My friend, a brainy statesman type who read my post 1) agreed with what I said (and I love it when a brainy person agrees with me), 2) added to my sentiments and 3) improved greatly on my lazy answer to that last question. I quote…

“ I think he is an ultra conservative bully, a position which results in a certain degree of homophobia, sexism and God bothering.

Whilst those traits are concerning on a personal level, what concerns me more is that he doesn’t appear to be all that bright. Of course if history has taught us anything in politics it’s that a high intelligence quota is hardly a pre-requisite for taking office. All the same, I’d prefer someone in The Lodge who can remember the nuclear codes – if we ever get nuclear weapons (God forbid).

Coming back to the misogyny argument, whether he is one or not (under definition a) or b) I believe he’s brought the label on himself. Partly because of his actions, there’s no doubt he has issues with women in power, and partly because his election campaign seems entirely devoted to mud slinging and bullying tactics. “Julia’s a liar, Julia’s a liar. Julia’s a fraud blah blah blah”. You throw enough stones you gotta expect a few back.

And finally, if we are both wrong and he really is a woman loving, homophobic  moderate with an IQ somewhere between Einstein and Stephen Hawking, there is still one major problem – do you really want someone running the country who is that aligned with the views and politics of Alan Jones?”

Niiiiiice. Thankyou Matthew Annells.

~

*This is a good example of something that could be construed as misandry, or hatred of men and boys. But how silly, I mentioned his ball bag but I quite like some ball bags (well one anyway) and it doesn’t mean I hate men.

**To find out more about my film and maybe even get involved, click here.

***No misogynistic undertones intended.

The Angry Song

Not so long ago, I posted a poem called “Eat Your Dinner”. I noted in my blog comments that sometimes I sing angry songs to the children at such times as they don’t eat their dinner. A few people commented that they’d like to hear an angry song. Well be careful what you wish for people because here it is (I’ll let the song speak for itself – there are more than enough words within it to make up a post – some of them potentially offensive so be careful who is in earshot)…

(For some reason this takes ages to load up on my computer. Sorry if this is happening at your end too, I have posted it to You Tube as well in case that loads up better. You can find it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZtyPgFT7I&feature=youtu.be)

Oh and a disclaimer: This project was my silly idea, schmicked up by the talented goodsport Dan Hack at Sticky Horse Studio and then dulled back down again by my dodgy video work.

And just so you know that I’m not all that bad (all the time) here are the slightly rude-ish words I say in front of or to my children: balls, bum, shut up, arse (accidentally and occasionally), bollocks, bull, cock (once), crap, knob, twat, biatch, WTF, butt hole, bugger and shite. I don’t say fuck, arsehole, bastard, shit or that C word that WordPress would probably kick my arse for if I said it whole. I promise.

Take a Stance on: Asylum Seekers (by request)

October 2012 Update…

It’s now two months since the Manus Island / Nauru solution was reinvented (see August update at the bottom of this post) and 3421 people have floated on over in 56 boats, including a record 2295 people seeking asylum last month. A total of 10,528 have arrived in Australia since January.

It has been reported that numbers from Pakistan have decreased, while numbers of Iranians have remained steady. The Afghan Ambassador to Australia says that life in Nauru is depicted to Iranian asylum seekers as preferable to life on the Indonesian fringe. 

Also of note is that the Government’s decision to increase humanitarian migration from (approx) 14,000 to 20,000 (nice one Jules) has lead to a spike in Afghans inquiring about legal migration options.

Meantime in a tent city on Nauru, 120 people (Sri Lankans and Iranians) are awaiting some indication of how they will be processed. The Sri Lankans are mostly Tamils, the most persecuted group in their homeland.  None of them know how many days, months or years they will await decision on their fate. As a lawyer for the refugee and immigration centre, David Mann, said last month, “…the stark reality is this: that if a refugee is wrongly refused under a flawed process, they could well face the risk of being sent back to torture or execution.”

Oh lordy, there is one certainty in all this – it’s a tough one. 

Anyway, if like me you need a dum-dum’s guide to the ins and outs of the asylum seeker issue, here’s some context I prepared earlier….

As I write these words, federal Parliament is hearing Julia Gillard’s bill to change the current Migration Legislation in a bid to alleviate asylum seeker issues, particularly the boat people, who keep floating into everyone’s conscience and generally causing grievance.

The issue of asylum seekers is ongoing  and all over the planet – 39 countries in Europe, North America, Oceania (Pacific Islands) and Asia received 9.9 million applications for asylum between 1980 and 2004. According to Amnesty International (in 2001), 1 in every 115 people on Earth are refugees, and a new refugee is created every 21 seconds (I can’t find any more recent global stats of this kind sorry, but we get the picture).

It is particularly topical here in Tasmania as well because the first residents of the new Pontville Immigration Detention Centre (near Hobart) arrived and bunked down on September the 2nd. But before I get into all the current news, I need a few questions answered…

1st Asylum Seekers Arrive in Pontville, Tas

What is a refugee? Well according to the 1951 Status of Refugees Convention, a refugee is someone who, ”owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…” And as a result, the Government of another country agrees to protect them as a legally recognised refugee under a Permanent Protection Visa (PPV).

What is an Asylum Seeker? They are the ones who have got the hell out of their countries – again due to violence or persecution and risky stuff – and are waiting for their refugee application to be processed and approved by another country’s Government. Asylum seekers may be authorised – arriving on a student or tourist visa, or unauthorised. Unauthorised asylum seekers (usually boat people) are detained and assessed for PPV eligibility. These are the ones making all the waves – in and out of their boats.

Imagine what they must have left behind

What about boat people? Boat people are most often still asylum seekers as opposed to illegal immigrants – around 95% in the years since the late 90′s have been granted asylum). So (most) “boat people” are – under the Refugee Convention – not breaking any Australian laws by turning up unannounced on our shores. Boat people usually find their way onto their miserable excuses for boats and to our shores (if they don’t sink or bash into reefs) thanks to people smugglers, who are small or large scale operations taking vast amounts of money in exchange for getting people across borders. Asylum seeking by boat first began in the 70s as desperate Vietnamese fled communist-led Vietnam after the war. There was an increase in boat arrivals in 2009-2010 – 2700 people arrived by boat in 2009. This is most likely because of increased violence in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka, as well as the changes in processing policy.

What rights do asylum seekers have? In 1951, Australia signed the UN’s “Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees”. This means that anyone who falls within the definition of refugee (above) cannot be sent back home to the wolves – or as the convention puts it so aptly, ‘refouled’. Authorised asylum seekers are often given a ‘bridging visa’ which allows them to live in the community. They can be granted refugee status and a PPV if they pass medical and security tests. Unauthorised asylum seekers (God I’m sick of writing that, I’ll abbreviate it to AS’s if that’s ok), are detained while they are assessed for refugee status.  Hence the use of those notorious Detention Centres. (I always picture them with huge blackboards and loads of chalk – “I will not board a rickety boat again, I will not…).

What rights do refugees have? Once through the process and assigned refugee status, those given a PPV are allowed access to a range of specific resettlement services and a full range of social security benefits. They can come and go as they please and bring family members over to join them.

How many people are granted asylum in Australia per year? In the early 1980′s (perhaps to the tunes of  Bros), Australia accepted 20,000 refugees per year. These days, we accept about 13,000 per year. In 2010, 6,879 AS’s arrived in Australia.

What is The Process? Ok so just say I’m Lilli, a Bosnian circa 1994 (pre Bosnian-Serb resettlement program)…

I need to get the hell out of here before I get chucked in a camp and raped by Serbian soldiers. I decide I want to get myself and my two small children to Australia because I’ve heard it’s friendly, free (as in liberty), with lots of space – and maybe I can find my children a bronzed, cheery lifeguard as a father figure. I manage to buy myself some forged documents that allow us to exit the country via air. Too easy? This is just the beginning. In Australia the customs officials are onto us and we are marched into immigration and fronted by two scary looking officials (neither are hot or remotely life-guardy, one turns out to be female). I need to convince them that we are under threat and do need their protection. I must also remember not to say the words “refugee” or “asylum” as I’m told this will see us sent packing back to the Serbs without so much as a sniff of official application papers. One of the officials took a few notes but no one offered to help me with legal advice or language issues (luckily I can speak a little English). Also luckily, I have a whopping great bruise on my left arm where I was grabbed by a fuckwit Serbian merchant. And the children are pretty skinny and scared. We all looked desperate (and are).

So we don’t get marched back to the Bosnia-Air office to buy return tickets. Instead I am given a wad of papers which I understand to be an application for a protection visa – yipee! Not so yipee when we are sent off to a place called Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, which they tell me is temporary housing while we wait for the wad of papers to be read and assessed. It’s about an hour out of Sydney and housing my arse. Looks more like a prison with all the barbed wire.

But Villawood is home for a while. The worst thing is being ‘detained’ without knowing when we might get out. But I don’t like to complain because there’s no-one banging on the door threatening rape and my children are safe. Because we are ‘women and children’ we get slightly better quarters, even a television. I watch a show called the seven thirty report every night because sometimes they talk about the status of refugees and I am so hungry to know just anything. We have a library where I take the children for schooling, and a playground.

Many people are unhappy here. Many are bitter that they know nothing of their progress toward permanent visas. One man hanged himself in his room and some others started a fire on their roof as a protest against their rejected applications. It was all over the news. Some have been here for years and some have appealed rejection at great expense. I can’t afford to appeal. I am frightened because no one has asked to speak to me. It seems our future hangs on what I wrote in the application and I’m not sure it was very eloquent. I keep as quiet as I can because I can’t bear them to threaten to send us back.

Eventually, finally, after twenty months, we are granted asylum and a PPV. Hooray! I have been assigned a project manager to help us ‘assimilate’ into our new community – which is a really nice suburb of Sydney called Marayong. I have met others who have had a similar experience to me, and made some friends. The children are at school and I have a job. I work very hard because I want to give back to the country that has saved us. I still have nightmares but not so many now.

So this is just one possible story – of on-shore processing. Some refugees are processed in their neighbouring countries. For instance, many Afghan refugees have spent years and years in camps in Pakistan while their applications to a variety of countries are processed. Other refugees arrive with legitimate visas and find the process easier.

There is also off-shore processing, which is precisely what is being bandied about in Parliament right now. You see, John Howard thought he had it all sorted with his Pacific Solution, Kevin Rudd threw it out and now, as the boat people increase, Gillard is looking again at something along the same lines. Let’s break that down a bit because it’s a bit over my head…

Where and what are the on-shore processing facilities? There are numerous types of facilities used to detain ASs on-shore under Australia’s mandatory detention laws:

1) Immigration Detention Centres (IDC’s), which are mainly used to house over-stayers, people in breach of visa conditions, or those who are refused entry at airports. They are at Villawood in Sydney, Maribyrnong in Melbourne, Perth and Christmas Island (an Australian territory south of Indonesia).

2) Immigration Reception and Processing Centres (IRPC’s), which are mostly used for unauthorised boat arrivals. Most of them (Baxter, Port Hedland and Woomera) have closed, with one remaining at Curtin in the Kimberley

3) Residential Housing Projects (RHPs) in Port Augusta, Port Hedland and Woomera provided family style homes for women and children. Thse are no longer used.

4) Immigration Residential Housing Centres are now used in Perth and Sydney to house families within community settings whilst still in formal detention.

5) Immigration Transit Accommodation Centres in Brisbane and Melbourne are used to accommodate ‘low risk’, short term AS’s (I’m guessing that means they’re not Muslim blokes)

6) Temporary Facilities Given there was an influx of boat people in 2009 and 2010, the Christmas Island facility became crowded and Kevin Rudd saw to it that some AS’s were relocated to a disused mining camp in Leonora in remote WA. The Pontville facility in Tasmania is one of these temporary places; the Government says it will stay open for 6 months. It cost $14.4 million – for 6 Months???!!! Leave it open I say.

What is the Pacific Solution? This was John Howard and Philip Ruddock (2001 – 2007) flexing their border security muscles in response to a rise in boat arrivals around 1999 (97% of whom were Iraqis and Afghans). As a first deterrent, they officially excluded many islands targeted by boat people from the Australian migration zone, which meant that ASs who didn’t reach the mainland couldn’t apply for refugee status.  Then they recruited the defence forces to intercept boats and transport them to detention camps on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. These ‘third world’ islands agreed to the idea in exchange for increased aid. This solution was formed in response to the Tampa affair and was seen as Australia being seriously tough about border security. The pacific solution ended in 2008 when Kevin Rudd came into power and brought processing back on-shore (including Christmas Island).

What was the Tampa affair? Just over ten years ago, 369 men, 26 women and 43 children aboard a 20m wooden boat became stranded in international waters about 140 km north of Christmas Is. Coastwatch Australia called for all vessels in the area to respond the the boat’s distress. A Norwegian freighter on its way from Fremantle to Singapore, the Tampa, was closest and went to the rescue. When they arrived, around 12 of the boat people were unconscious and the boat was clearly falling apart. The Tampa – on advice from the Australian Government – took the boat people toward an Indonesian port about 12 hours away instead of Christmas Is, about half the distance. But deterred by an aggressive and distressed group of boat people, the Tampa then turned for Christmas Is. The government refused the Tampa’s entry into Australian waters and threatened the Norwegian skipper with prosecution as a people smuggler if he proceeded. The skipper declared a state of emergency and moved into Australian waters regardless. Eventually, Nauru agreed to take the refugees and they were transported to detention camps by the Royal Australian Navy. And presto! The Pacific Solution began.

What was the Children Overboard thing?  

Help, you dickheads pulled our boat apart.

This turned out to be one great big porky pie on John Howard’s part to get him over the line in the 2001 Federal election. He claimed that sea-faring asylum seekers just south of Christmas Is were chucking their children into the drink as a ploy to be rescued and taken into Australia. Photos of children overboard accompanied Howard’s public announcements and outrage. Turns out (after a senate inquiry) that the children were in the water because the HMAS Adelaide towed it and under the strain it broke apart and sank.

See!

So what’s this Malaysian Solution? It is Julia Gillard’s latest boat deterrent. The ‘boat people problem’ reared up again following the death of at least 30 people when an AS boat was shipwrecked on Christmas Is in 2010, and because more than 240 boats have arrived since Rudd’s changes. Under the plan, Australia would ‘trade’ 800 AS’s arriving by boat to Malaysia in exchange for 8000 UN certified refugees – a “people swap”. The deal was scuttled by the High Court – unsatisfied that AS human rights will be protected in Malaysia, as it is not a signatory to the 1951 convention for the treatment of refugees. This has lead the Gillard Government to bring to parliament a bill to change the human rights legislation in order to make the Malaysia solution legal and do-able. But it looks like the opposition (and probably the Labor lefties) will pretty much shit all over that idea anyway. So all in all it seems the Malaysia solution is altogether irrelevant - perhaps officially by the time you read these words.

What is the alternative? The Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, says there is no plan B. Watch this space. Tony Abbott has some ideas for processing – again off-shore, primarily using Nauru or other signatories to the 1951 convention.

What do I think? I’ve just gone head to head with my husband over this, and discovered I feel a bit passionate about it (I’ve been wondering how I can get into Pontville to make some new friends and show them how accepting Tasmanians really are – this could be a disastrous repeat of when I anxiously overemphasised my pro-gay beliefs by asking  my mate – in a horrifyingly giggly fashion – if he was the giver or receiver). Despite another bee in bonnet, I will try to be sensible.

I don’t at all think that Australia should opens its doors to anyone and everyone, but I do think we absolutely should open our doors and hearts to those fleeing war-torn places, persecution and fear – all those who truly fall into the definition of refugee. So I don’t agree in turning boats around, nor do I believe in deterring ASs by making it impossible to get here. Because, for fuck’s sake, these people  are people, many of them (and I’m not naive enough to believe that none of them are shysters) are in the sort of danger Australians could only vaguely imagine; some of them are unaccompanied children. I mean who would pay a seedy smuggler and risk life and family to get on board a rickety boat to leave their homeland and sail the high seas unless they were running from something pretty bloody awful? Ok maybe there’s the odd bad egg escaping a well deserved bad end, but that’s where the assessment process comes in – and yep, this means wading through the red tape of official processing, which will inevitably take time. Asylum seekers must accept that we must look closely at each case before PPVs are granted.

But do we really need to chuck them behind razor wire without regular progress reports while they wait? Australia is the only convention signatory to have such harsh detention conditions. I don’t advocate AS’s burning down detention centres, but I do think a huge effort needs to be made to accommodate these people into our communities while they wait, with a view to closing all the detention centres altogether. Educating everyone – AS’s and our communities – and working on acceptance will have to come into this.  And I think the turnaround time of applications should be looked at – or at least communication with the applicants on their progress. If we can’t bring them all into community settings, then reopen the detention centres within Australia and forget the off-shore processing business. Do we really need to increase suffering by suspending these people in Pacific limbo?

Aren’t we supposed to be multicultural and proud? There are horrid remnant wafts of the White Australia Policy / Pauline fuckwit Pantsdown codswallop in all this off-shore processing business. Off-shore processing may ‘stop the boats’, and yes, may avert some seaward disasters, but you can bet your arse it won’t stop (and many claim it will only increase) the suffering.

Thems my thoughts, I will shut up now.

August 2012 Update…

So it looks like we’re headed back to the days of John Howard’s Pacific Solution (it is explained below), because today the House of Reps passed a bill that will reinvent asylum seeker processing on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. Julia green lit the legislation and the coalition supported it. Andrew Wilkie voted against it. The bill, which will go to the Senate tomorrow, will among other things, take away an asylum seeker with a protection visa’s right to apply for sponsorship for their family to join them in Australia. It was based on an expert report commissioned by the Government. If it passes tomorrow, preparations on the islands will begin immediately and detainees could start arriving in the next few months. 

 My opinion? I need to do more homework but on the face of it I think I’m sticking with my Indonesia solution (see below). 

June 2012 Update…

I wrote the below post in September 2011. Today, the Australian Maritime Authority is searching for 90 people missing after their boat capsized in Indonesian waters en route from Indonesia to Australia. 

Julia Gillard’s bilateral agreement with Malaysia (the reason for my post below) was scuttled by the High Court, and negotiations with the opposition to amend the Migration Act to allow for offshore processing broke down in November last year.

Since then, an average of 733 asylum-seekers have arrived each month - 57 asylum seeker boats carrying a total of 4006 passengers and 82 crew have arrived in Australia. 

In December 2010, more than 50 asylum seekers died when a boat crashed against rocks off Christmas Island. Last December, as many as 200 people drowned when an overloaded boat sank off the coast of East Java on its way to Australia.

Of course, the political argy bargy continues. The Government blames the coalition  for voting against offshore processing last year. Abbott says (somewhat conveniently but correctly) that it is not a time for political point scoring but for human sympathy.  But once it’s all over and the casualties counted, isn’t it time to ACT?? 

I still don’t, despite the risk of rickety boats and the some 340 lives lost, think we should turn the boats around. I still think Tasmania’s Pontville Detention centre should remain open, for various reasons, but it closed in February this year. What do you think – I’d really like to know. If you need some background then please read on…

By Request: SUPERHEROES

So it was probably remiss of me to report that Spiderman was ranked third in IGN’s 2011 list of the top 100 comic book heroes without naming the top two, or for that matter, for not revealing how IGN came to their conclusions or indeed who the boody hell IGN are anyway. Well…

IGN (Imagine Games Network) is a news and reviews website that focuses on video games, music, film and other new media. They listed their superheroes based on ”their cultural impact, character development, social relevance, general cool factor, and importance of storylines”.

Number One on their list comes Superman…”He’s arguably the single most important creation in the history of superhero comics. Superman is a hero that reflects the potential in all of us for greatness; a beacon of light in times that are grim and a glimmer of hope for the hopeless.” High praise. He has been around since 1939.

At Number Two comes Batman (AKA Bruce Wayne) is “the only human being to stand amongst the Justice League – alongside gods like Superman and Wonder Woman – without superpowers.” He too has been in existence since 1939 – (what was remiss that year to have people dreaming of superhero rescue?)

Then comes Spidey, who is a 1962 spring chicken. His alter-ego, Peter Parker, is a relatable Everyman, of middle class with middle class issues. “Spider-Man remains one of the most snarky and fun heroes in existence. His cheesy banter during combat is always appreciated, and he’s able to make light of even the most dire of situations. There’s never a dull moment when ol’ webhead is around, and there’s something to be said for an icon that doesn’t take himself too seriously.”

Hey, I’m liking the fact that my boy chose Spiderman as his personal favourite. Next time, maybe I’ll find book week loop holes and get him accepted into the ranks of suitability. But given that Superman and Batman came about over twenty years before Spiderman, I think they deserve their top rankings.

For interest’s sake, IGN rank Wolverine as number 4, Wonder Woman as number 5, Catwoman as number 20 and Some snoozer called Groo the Wanderer as number 100.

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers