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.