The Australian government has just announced a very positive change to the policy detaining asylum seekers.  According to the new policy, detention of asylum seekers will no longer be mandatory and will only apply to those arriving by boat or who are deemed to pose a threat to the community in some way or another.  It would also appear that even those detained will be subjected to a less draconian form of detention, with an emphasis on resolving cases quickly.

Not surprisingly, the Liberal opposition has condemned the move, claiming that this will send the wrong message to people smugglers. The opposition spokesman for immigration, Chris Ellison stated that:

“The fact that we only have six unauthorised arrivals in detention in Australia today demonstrates the past success of the coalition government’s strong border protection policies,” he said.

The decision would send a message to people smugglers in the region that the nation is relaxing its border control, he said. (SMH, 29 July 2008)

I have always been horrified by the logic of such arguments, which essentially says that some people, whether “genuine” refugees or not, should be punished in order to prevent criminal behaviour on the part of others.  This is a form of exemplary punishment akin to flogging some prisoners in order to serve as a warning to others.  It is particularly disturbing that a logic of this kind has the sort of respectability it does in public discourse in Australia.  Politicians from the right have been justifying mandatory detention, including the incarceration of children, for years.  Even now, Labor is careful to emphasise that they are not “opening the gates”, or going soft on asylum seekers.  For me this is a false framing of the debate: it shouldn’t be about who is “hard” or “soft” on asylum seekers but rather whether it is justified to use the misery of some as a deterrent to others.

In any case, the new policy direction is indeed welcome, though the online activist group GetUp! has noted that it could be easily reversed due to a change of heart of this, or a future, government.  They are calling for an ammendment to the Migration Act (PDF) in order to reverse the “presumption of detention”.  This is something I wholeheartedly support and I would encourage people to sign the online petition in order to put pressure on the Rudd government to do just that.

Jovan Maud

Scott Thill at Alternet has published an article on the social impact of climate change.  The article goes as far as coining a new term: ‘envirogee’.  The implication seems to be that ‘refugee’ has a certain amount of baggage, being intrinsically associated with political persecution.  We are entering an age, mainly due to climate change, but also because of other cheery current/future phenomena such as peak oil, in which the traditional definitions of refugee will need to change to retain relevance.  The article is certainly polemic in tone, but I think it does the job of provoking thought on what the world is going to look like in the not too distant future and how our understandings of human movement, human rights, national boundaries and so on.  Here’s an excerpt:

Chew on this word, jargon lovers. Envirogee.

It carries more 21st century buzz than its semi-official designation climate refugee, which is a displaced individual who has been forced to migrate because of environmental devastation. Maybe the buzzword will catch on faster and shed some much-needed light on what will become a serious problem, probably by the end of this or the next decade. That light is crucial, because so far envirogees haven’t been fully recognized by those who certify the civil liberties of Earth’s various populations, whether that is the United Nations or local and national governments whose people are increasingly on the move for a whole new set of devastating reasons.

In short, immigration is about to enter a new phase, which resembles an old one with a 21st century twist. For thousands of years, humanity has fled across Earth’s surface fearing instability and in search of sustainability. But that resource war has kicked into overdrive thanks to our current climate crisis — a manufactured war with its own clock.

And the clock is ticking.

From earthquakes in China to cyclones in Myanmar to water rationing in Los Angeles, societies are shifting like their borders. And all the outcry over so-called illegal immigration neglects to answer one time-honored question: If the borders aren’t standing still, why should the people who live in their outlines do so? Especially when they’re under attack from catastrophic floods, fires, droughts and any number of other environmental dangers?

Right now, the 1951 Geneva Convention does not recognize the envirogee phenomenon, instead focusing on immigration as a result of political persecution. But then again, it was established over five decades ago when Earth’s climate was anything but a terrorist. But the Geneva Convention, like everything that must adapt or die, needs to mutate in time with the rest of the world and its hyperconsuming inhabitants in order to remain relevant in our still-new millennium.

Via the BBC, this story about Burmese refugee Kayan women who are being denied the right to emigrate to New Zealand by Thai authorities who allegedly want to keep them in Thailand because the “long necked” Kayan women are a popular draw for tourists.  The UNHCR representative calls it “a human zoo” and urges a tourist boycott.

I just received news of a new film on Australia’s policy of detaining asylum seekers.  Looks like it would be worth a watch.

Screenings to be happening in Melbourne and Perth (see below). I wonder if it will be coming to Sydney any time soon? Here is the film’s blurb:

In 2006, a group of young people of different nationalities, backgrounds, attitudes and political views took a trip to the Baxter Detention Centre. The stories of the people they met behind the razor wire surprised, moved and challenged them.

“WE WILL BE REMEMBERED FOR THIS” documents their journey. It is a film for everyone. It is a clear, rational and nonpoliticised look at the human issues of Australia’s mandatory immigration detention policy. This film poses the essential questions surrounding Australia’s refugee policy. Who are the people behind the fences? How did they come to be there? What are the psychological and legal battles they now face? How much do average Australians know about this policy, and if they knew the truth, would they want it to change?

The Justice Project is proud to sponsor the world premiere of “We Will be Remembered for This”, a film about Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers in recent years.

MELBOURNE
6.30pm Wednesday 20 June 2007
State Library of Victoria
Entry by generous donation
For bookings (recommended) email wewillberemembered@gmail.com, or call 0407 220 443.
For further details see www.wewillberemembered.wordpress.com

PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA:
Project Safecom, with support from The Justice Project, Presents “Why The Boats Must Come”
& the Western Australian premiere of “We Will Be Remembered For This”
Friday June 22, 2007
7:45pm for 8:00pm start
The NAVY Club 2nd Floor, 64 High Street (cnr Pakenham Str)
Entry by generous donation
Featuring Carmen Lawrence, Melissa Parke, Scott Ludlam, and TJP’s very own Jessie Taylor.
For further details see http://www.safecom.org.au/wrd2007

A recent article in The Bulletin sheds some light about a little-considered subject (as far as I know): the relationship between sexuality and the treatment of refugees in Australia. The article itself is full of appalling puns and titillated tone, but the subject matter is still interesting. Not only does it illustrate some of the bizarre decision-making processes taken in relationship to asylum seekers who claim refuge on the basis of homosexuality, it also sheds some light on the workings of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). Regarding “R and J”, a gay couple claiming to be fleeing persecution in Bangladesh, who had received a favourable ruling in the High Court:

The refugee action community assumed the men had settled into Australia. But The Bulletin has found the couple are still fighting after the secretive Refugee Review Tribunal came up with a way to get rid of them: it told them they were not gay.This comes after news that a bisexual Pakistani man has been shown the door because an RRT member said the man’s bisexuality was “simply the product of the situation where only partners of the same sex were available”. That is, in Sydney’s Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.

In the case of R and J, their problem, according to the article, was that they were not promiscuous enough:

Most gay refugees have no problem proving their sexuality. They sleep with Australian men who testify to the RRT to that effect. The problem for R and J is that they say they’re monogamous; they don’t wish to sleep around to prove a point.

According to the article, the RRT appears to be something of a power unto itself, making ruling based on hunches, stereotypes, or a “finely calibrated” gaydar.

Under the gaydar