On Liep and Kevin Andrews

On Wednesday an news article was published in The Age that should have had more prominent space on the print version and the web version (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/murder-shame-on-entire-community/2007/10/10/1191695968357.html). It had to do with the bashing murder of Liep Gony and his funeral. While the perpetrators have been caught, and extradition is proceeding for the two men and one woman, the focus of this article is not the criminal prosecution, but the fact that Liep Gony was of a distinct ethnic origin. He was Sudanese in ethnicity, and it has since become evident that he was an Australian citizen, for 8 years. Further, it is disturbing that has been racially motivated. While racial violence is not a complete surprise to this author, how the fact that Liep Gony was a naturalized citizen was overlooked by many has been disturbing, to put it mildly.

In the article, it had been noted that the mother Martha Ojulo was disturbed that her son had been portrayed as a refugee when he was not. The media did not investigate whether Liep was a refugee or not, and it appears that that by virtue of associating Liep with being Sudanese, and Sudan being a country in Africa that has suffered a long civil war and all of its horrible trappings, that he was a refugee. Although this author has not been explicitly following the media coverage extensively, the eulogy made by Liep’s mother would most likely hint at a complete ignorance by all the major and minor media outlets to research and uncover this little fact. Consider another recent case in the media that has received more coverage, that of the murder of 3 young boys by their father, Robert Farquharson, after he drove his car into a lake in Western Victoria. Agreeably, the trial had just finished and hence the depth of recent coverage, but this author remembers the trickle of information that this case produced while under investigation. Compared to Liep’s case, where it becomes evident of his right of abode one week after his death, there has to be something said about the media and its ability to remain an enforcer of the third estate.

What have been probably more chilling and provoking has been the reaction of the Department of Immigration and the Minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews. When questioned about whether or not the Department was doing enough to help migrants with integration and whether more support services were needed (in light of Liep’s case), the minister replied that African refugees were finding it harder to integrate into Australian society. He followed this up with a statement that Australia’s intake of African refugees was to be reduced in order to accept more Middle Eastern and Asian refugees. This enticed a strong response from the Non-Governmental and community groups, including the Human Rights Commissioner and the Uniting Church as noteworthy examples. When further pressed for evidence to support his claims, the minister was not forthcoming and since has remained so.

Immigration and the plight of refugees has been a long standing issue for governments in Australia. From the boat people of the 1970s, to more recent issues such as the Tampa crisis, Children Overboard, Mandatory Detention, Nauru, just to name a few, there has been a growing air of indifference emanating from the department that is flowing into the community. That the minister and the government is behind the policies that excoriate refugees and submit migrants to a citizenship test sets hurdles to become contributing members to our society. Furthermore, this reaction is morphing to a xenophobic reaction against migrants, especially African ones, as witnessed by an attack on a Sudanese man coming home from a casual job at a fast food restaurant. The minister and the department have constructed a biased opinion and policy based on either very poor data or whatever the minister feels is appropriate at the time, without confirming facts before making a decision.

What is further disheartening is to read about this further violence, or the voices given to members of this community, who most likely were migrants themselves, to fuel this hatred and ostracism. This lack of respect for the rights of fellow human beings, whether they are refugees or not, is dividing our society by stratifying between cultures and identities, and the worthiness of each based on a numerical and moral superiority that has no basis in a society formed on egalitarianism and equality. This is reflected also in politics, where ethnic representation is distinctly lower than other democratic states, and the ethnic representative is the exception rather than the norm, especially at a Federal level.

Government policy should not only be about integration, but also retention of identity as well within the customs (so things that our society find abhorrent, such as female genital mutilation, remains unacceptable despite cultural acceptance). This is to support a cornerstone of Australian society, that in reality most Australians have come here through some sort of migration, whether they are 3^rdth generation Australians descended from the 1850s gold rush, or newly arrived people. to 5 Education to support people to become valued contributors to society (through things such as classes on language, laws and customs as examples) to enable them to integrate effectively, is better than a mandatory detention and limited access to assistance, where the government sits as a prosecutor and the refugee or migrant as a defendant. It should be cooperative and assisting, not adversarial and predatory.

If the minister has information and evidence on his stance regarding African migrants, then he should present it to highlight the critique. That he has not indicates that this evidence does not exist. Even then, he should answer the calls for an apology to at least the family of Liep Gony for erroneously identifying him as a refugee, and listen to the outcry of an ethnic minority that has suffered not only at the hands of our government, but the one that they most likely had fled from (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sudanese-outcry/2007/10/10/1191695993790.html). The less said about the responses and actions in support of the minister’s stance, the better. Denial of such a right to support subtle racial policies with overt and inflammatory remarks is the best option, rather than attacking them on their lack of merit.

CP (Capital Punishment) and PC (Political Correctness)

The death penalty is a punishment for crimes that has been shown, in the modern era, to be archaic and valueless in the deterrence of criminal acts. Australia had abolished (in state and commonwealth law) the death penalty in 1985, and the last execution in Australia was in 1967. Generally the question of reintroducing the death penalty as a political debate is done affair, although there is still some community sentiment for it in light of some of the more heinous crimes that have recently been committed (such as sexual assault, serial killers, mass murders etc.). Generally, the sentiment is that capital punishment is not going to be reintroduced any time soon.

Ironic then, that the capital punishment debate has suddenly appeared and become a hot topic again with a looming federal election. Far from it being as important as the drought or economic management, this sudden interest is not even about the capital punishment debate, but it is about a policy stance regarding capital punishment in other countries and the campaign against it. Neither is it about the correctness of having such a policy or even the discussion, as it could be reasonably assumed that such a regional or international campaign would have some support for both sides of the argument. What is vexatious about the reason for this discussion is the timing and the political reaction.

When Robert McClelland, the ALP Foreign Spokesperson, made a speech to the Wentworth Human Rights Forum stating what the ALP would do on capital punishment (in that he would establish a regional coalition to abolish capital punishment in Asia). At face value, this announcement has very little wrong with it. In fact, it would be a very welcome piece of proactive foreign policy from some corners of the political sphere. The problem came when both sides of politics (first the Liberals, then the ALP) attacked him for saying the speech was insensitive to the victims of terrorism, highlighting the fact that the Bali bombing anniversary was fast approaching, and the perpetrators of this act were sitting in an Indonesian jail cell awaiting execution. What was more disturbing, however, was the backflip that the ALP leader, Kevin Rudd, took in regarding his colleagues’ speech. His subsequent political rebuke of his colleague had another element of “me-tooism” that many political commentators have been harping on about for months. But the damage had been done.

While it has been a very recent ALP policy for the ALP to adopt what I have called the agreeance model of political campaigning (agree with what they cannot engage on), one must be beginning to wonder when the ALP will decide to make a genuine stand against the Liberals when it comes to certain issues. Cherrypicking issues is fine, but it will become more problematic as the election date looms large, and electoral voters see a dearth of areas where there is a significant difference between the two parties. At this point, the question is whether Rudd is relying too heavily on himself to carry his political party to a victory? It definitely appears that he is trying to control the message, and these slip-ups are infuriating his team. What is more insidious though is the perceived change in Rudd’s stance purely because of political correctness. Deep down, he is very against capital punishment, but this attack on his foreign spokesperson is politics at its very worst.

On the other hand, some (albeit little) blame should be laid at the Liberal Party’s feet. It would’ve been easier for them to dismiss the comment and move on, there was political hay to be made for such a politically incorrect slip-up, especially for a starved mass of supporters looking down a 12 point margin in the polls. In essence, the real stance of both parties would be the same, and rather than talking about capital punishment (CP) we’re talking about political correctness (PC).

While I do agree that the speech made my Robert McClelland was probably ill timed, two questions still remain: Is such a policy bad on its merits alone? It probably is not. I think that, while there is a divided opinion amongst the electorate, it doesn’t make it bad policy. Neither does modern understandings of the more ancient respects for life and the sanctity of it make it bad moral policy either. Of course, there are some people that are so reprehensible that we think twice about letting them live, but in general, it is part of the complicated system that is democracy that this debate continues.

The second question is this: When is a good time to bring this up? Maybe there is a better time, but if the issue is raised then it should be discussed on its merits, and not bandied around as a political football to score cheap points. If politics treated all issues such as these, that are divisive and contentious, with the merits and respects as it deserves, society would be a better place for it. All we have now are leaders that take a swipe on the basis of timing, or ones that fear a voter backlash and back away from their own position when they could see an impeding storm. Both sides are losers in this debate, but Rudd has more to lose here, especially when the core issues and actions to address this problem have been lost to hubris.

(Written on way to work)