It’s official. Labor has abandoned boat people, and a new, hard line consensus on boat people refugees is in place. Goodbye rights. Trust your government to do the right thing by the poor sods, including getting our prisoners of our war off the Minoora without unreasonable force. Don’t be honest enough to renounce the refugee convention, just flout it.
Here’s the news story I filed for smh.com.au
Beazley backs Howard’s tough line on boatpeople
By Margo Kingston in Canberra
Labor today fell in behind the Government’s hardline stand on boatpeople, backing moves to stop their vessels landing in Australia.
It will now support the Border Protection bill, the outsourcing of refugee processing offshore, and an end to judicial review of decisions on refugees in Australian detention camps.
The wholesale desertion of boatpeople asylum seekers by Labor – after previously voting down the Border Protection bill and the Judicial Review in Parliament – marks an end to Labor’s commitment to the human rights of refugees and compliance with international refugee treaties.
Opposition leader Mr Beazley quashed dissent in the Caucus room meeting today by citing current political imperatives.
Today’s historic decision by Caucus to support the government’s hard line stand marks a new bipartisan consensus on refugee policy, and total defeat for forces supportive of boat people refugees.
After previously refusing to pass the Border Protection bill – which would have retrospectively validated the military takeover of the Tampa and allow Australia to turn back boats from our territorial waters – Labor will now pass it after minor amendments.
The new bill retrospectively validates the government’s actions since August 27 with respect to the Tampa, the Aceng and “any other vessel carrying persons in respect of whom there were grounds for believing that their intention was to enter Australia unlawfully, and persons on those vessels”.
Unlike the old bill, the new bill only allows officers to return people to a ship if it is “safe” to do so.
Under the old bill, the courts had no power to examine the actions of officers to see if they were unlawful. Under the new bill, officers are protected from court scrutiny if “they acted in good faith and used no more force than was authorised”.
Labor has also agreed to allowing Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands to be excised from Australian territory with respect to boat people. Labor will allow these islands to be used as processing centres which do not apply Australian refugee law, cutting off refugees from legal protection.
Labor’s backdown means that from now on, boat people will not be allowed into mainland Australia. Neither they, or boat people now in detention in Australia will be able to access court oversight of the government’s actions.
In a subdued Caucus briefing to journalists today, the spokesmen refused to reveal the content of Mr Beazley’s report on the issue.
ends
Today, contributors on the boat people are: David Eastwood, Roger Montgomery, Barry Rutherford
Contributors on the catastrophe are: Michael Pollard, Glenn Edwards, Zebee Johnstone, Anastacia, Greg Gilmore, Beth Vollbach, Jeremy Raine, Porus H Havewala.
To begin, two important contributions.
When George Bush called it a “crusade” I couldn’t believe that he’d use the language of a religious war. An experienced army man I had dealings with during the debate over gays in defence forces, Brigadier D’Hage, is also concerned.
Brigadier Adrian D’Hage, retired, in Kangaloon
WANTED – DEAD or ALIVE !?? Whilst our heartfelt sympathies are with those whose lives have been shattered by this truly criminal act, the rhetoric from the US President gets more disturbing each day. Already, US citizens have been promised a decisive victory – and decisive victories against unseen enemies can never be delivered.
The Australian Government has signed a blank cheque – without the foggiest notion of what might be planned. Whatever happens, history will question the wisdom of that course. And whatever we do, we will have to do it without the Army Engineers who are exhausted on Nauru.
It is time to take a very deep breath.
ends
Several readers have sent me an email from Afghani-American writer Tamin Ansary, a version of which was posted on the United states’ NBC website. I publish it here.
Tamim Ansary, Afghani native and writer now living in the U.S.
I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about “bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.” Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but “we’re at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?” Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we “have the belly to do what must be done.”
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I’ve lived here for 35 years I’ve never lost track of what’s going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I’m standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.
But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They’re not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think “the people of Afghanistan” think “the Jews in the concentration camps.”
It’s not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.
Some say, why don’t the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they’re starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan – a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that’s been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They’re already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today’s Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They’d slip away and hide.
Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don’t move too fast, they don’t even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn’t really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban – by raping once again the people they’ve been raping all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of “having the belly to do what needs to be done” they’re thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let’s pull our heads out of the sand. What’s actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden’s hideout. It’s much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we’d have to go through Pakistan.
Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I’m going. We’re flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.
And guess what: that’s Bin Laden’s program. That’s exactly what he wants. That’s why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It’s all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he’s got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that’s a billion people with nothing left to lose, that’s even better from Bin Laden’s point of view. He’s probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours.
Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
BOAT PEOPLE
David Eastwood
The parliamentary secretary to defence Minister Peter Reith, Peter Slipper, said today :
“There is an undeniable linkage between illegals and terrorists and it is absolutely vital in my view to ensure that we don’t have illegals entering Australia inappropriately because given the fact that some of those people come from the country that is the centre of terror, I would be particularly concerned if those people were allowed to enter Australia.”
Yes Peter you’re absolutely right, there is a link between them refugees and the terrorists. The refugees are running away from the terrorists.
Idiot.
Roger Montgomery
Now that the Full Bench has handed down its decision, can you stop saying that the government “knew its actions were unlawful”. All the government knows, and still does know, is that trendy lefties like you and Tony North will try bloody hard to find a legal justification for your do-gooder leanings.
You keep talking about “compassion”. People who can afford to fly into Malaysia and then pay US$10,000 per head to travel to Australia are not refugees. They know that do-ggoders like you and North are more than willing to provide them with a better way of life – which for them means welfare payments from day 1, free public housing, free medical treatment – without lifting a finger.
Barry Rutherford in Mermaid Beach, Queensland
It was a fresh breath of hope to me today when Malcolm Fraser wrote in the SMH today. Despite being upset by the failure of the recent court decision yesterday on the Tampa refugees. I cannot adequately add to Mr Fraser’s most statesmanlike piece only to urge like minded Australians to mobilize their personal resources. Write and lobby the government, opposition and democrats to reconsider their views and actions in relation to the yet to be heard Tampa refugees.
NEW YORK
Dr K Michael Pollard in California, United States
As an Australian who has worked in the US for over 15 years I feel I should add a few comments to the Webdiary about the recent tragic events over here. Unfortunately I’ve not had time to read all the contributions to the Webdiary in detail, but I have read some and I’m quite concerned by those who believe that the US brought this upon themselves.
It is true that the US has not been perfect in its relations with all countries, but I doubt that there is a faultless nation on this globe. One of your correspondents suggested that the Swiss have an exemplary record. Are these the same Swiss that allow virtually every rogue and villain to store their ill gotten gains in their banks?
It seems to have been ignored by some of your correspondents that the major target of these fanatics was the WORLD Trade Center; its not called the US Trade Center or the New York Trade Center for good reason. Those two towers housed the citizens of dozens of countries. If we are to ascribe to the terrorists a level of intelligence that underlies the magnitude of their assault then it should not escape anyone that they meant to enrage not just the US but the world in general.
Evil may begat evil and violence may breed violence, but to ignore the message inherent in this attack is to put in peril our own existence. It is not possible to talk or even negotiate with these terrorists. It is very clear from their statements that they want the annihilation of the Western world. Surely there are not people out there who are deluded enough to think that if the US is defeated or bowed by terrorism that terrorism will then end???
Fortunately there are very large differences between these terrorists and moderate followers of Islam. This should give us hope that we can defeat the terrorists. What we face now is truly our greatest challenge. We MUST bring together and maintain a coalition of all nations, especially those Islamic countries that have opposed this act as abhorrent to the teachings of Islam, to bring an end to this violence. If we can succeed at this we may usher in a “brave new world”!
Can anyone tell me what country, other than the US, is capable of leading us at this moment in history?
Glenn Edwards
That anyone could be driven to a suicide killing is bad enough. That anyone could attempt to justify the killing of thousands of civilians is a horrific reflection of the lack of value given to human life. But there will always be those who have much to gain from fostering anger and harnessing the aggression so generated. If it isn’t religion driving the hatred, it is history.
There will always be those who think it is OK to profit from murder. And there will always be the money and political machinery to grease the wheels. So do we really believe we can “smoke out” terrorists once and for all?
Yes, we need to respond to this. Yes, this is an opportunity to make the world better. And no, I don’t know what the right response is.
But it seems to me we should remember the other social “war” – the war on drugs. Despite the stirring anthems of the war on drugs, the drug trade is alive and kicking. There seems to be almost global agreement that the war on drugs has been a complete failure. Maybe a better solution could have been found (removing the profit motive while stemming the public health cost), but maybe this response is too subtle for a community that demands visible action.
The rhetoric is great and it makes for a good sound byte, but the war on drugs failed. With George W’s “war on terrorism” the stakes are so much greater. Maybe we can learn from the drug war, and somehow find a smart solution that doesn’t rely on smart bombs.
Zebee Johnstone in Campsie NSW
I can’t help thinking that this “war on terrorism” is like the “war on [some] drugs”. The same rhetoric, the same methods, the same effects on bystanders, the same results?
Something has to be done in both cases, but I don’t think “war” is the right thing. “War on cancer” didn’t work either… “war” isn’t the solution to everything, no matter how good it feels to declare it.
We have to stop terrorism, and it does have to include some way of make it harder to carry out. I think that will only work if we also do things to limit the reasons people have for carrying it out.
Let us try to make a world where almost everyone (it will never be everyone) will have better things to do, and more to lose.
Anastacia in NSW
In the light (or should I say dark?) of recent events, I think the next thing the government or organisations should be doing is being proactive and helping the people prepare for anything, war being one of the possibilities.
We have been raised in peace and progress and this is all we know. We have watched war movies but what is the ordinary Aussie’s ability to survive a crisis like this? What do we do? Do we stock up on basic needs? Do we identify safe shelters and pack up our valuables ready to go anytime at a moment’s notice?
It is a grim picture I know but better be prepared if we want to see the human race survive this potential catastrophe.
Greg Gilmore in Brisbane
I have been looking at the opinion pieces and editorials in numerous American newspapers, and have been heartened to find that most appear to be cautioning against massive retaliation, and racism, and quite a few are looking at global poverty and injustice as key factors.
I include some quotes; there are many more to be found.
Thanks again for this service.
New York Times
Terrorism can be fought globally and locally in ways that do not diminish us as a nation, that do not make us afraid to look into the mirror, that do not lower us to the level of the murderous zealots who reduced so much of lower Manhattan to ruins. Everything we need to know about how to behave in this crisis can be learned by watching the people who are at the epicenter of the horror.
The terrorists may have altered the New York City skyline, but they should not be allowed to alter the spirit and character of the American people.
National Catholic Reporter
A traveller whose plane had been affected by the attack groaned to the TV interviewer in despair, “I cant understand who would initiate this kind of attack on us.” As the West takes over more and more of the resources of the world with small regard for social inequities that raw capitalism leaves in its wake, we may all have to try to understand again that it may be weakness, not strength, that is our enemy.
As unpatriotic as it may be seen to be in the initial moments of such an event, we may have to learn that listening to those to whom no one listens at all may be the only power thats really effective.
http://natcath.org/NCR-Online/archives/092101/092101j.htm
International Herald Tribune
The immediate conclusion nearly everyone has drawn about the origin of these attacks is that they come out of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. It is reasonable to think that this is so, although there is as yet no proof. .For more than 30 years the United States has refused to make a genuinely impartial effort to find a resolution to that conflict. It has involved itself in the Middle East in a thousand ways, but has never accepted a responsibility for dealing impartially with the two sides – locked in their shared agony and their mutual tragedy. .If current speculation about these bombings proves to be true, the United States has now been awarded its share in that Middle Eastern tragedy.
http://www.iht.com/articles/32239.html
Beth Vollbach, an American in California
It’s been almost a week since the atrocities here in the U.S. I live in San Diego, California, about 3,000 miles from where they happened (New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC). But the horror didn’t just happen to them; it happened to me, too. It was an assault on our way of life. And for that reason I would think people in other countries such as Australia would feel as I do.
A lot of tears have been shed here in my country in the last few days. I, too, have been pretty choked up. But my first tears came this evening when I checked the Internet for responses to our tragedy from other countries’ newspapers. So many blame the victim. So much hate and resentment!
Jeremy Raine in Sydney
Like other contibutors I need to express something in written form, rather than verbally, and at this stage its all fairly ad hoc rather than considered. I was mesmerized, and I have to admit it bothers me a little, that as I watched those astonishing scenes it was almost elegant as a sleek silver jet with the sunlight glinting on it banked slowly in its approach to the the twin towers of the world financial centre, straightened then banked again crashing into the building at speed and a ball of flame. Incredible!!
I’ve been brought up on hollywood blockbusters , and images from the movie “Independence Day” came to mind. I’ve read every paper, scoured the net sites, read all the web journalism, watched all the TV shows until I’m almost blind and falling asleep and still I come back for more.
Some commentators have said things will never be the same, that we are looking at WW3. I pray to god that is not the case, and yet there is a touch of the apocalyptic in many of the commentaries, almost desirous, as though the media trivia that has washed over us in recent years can be put aside, that at last the serious commentator will be able to attend to something , some event with meaning and import, that may well change our lives in the near future.
Dare I say it, give our lives some meaning?
Porus H. Havewala
A Chinese friend at work was talking to me last week and said: “What other way do poor people have to fight for freedom?”
I replied: “This is not the way to fight for freedom. If they want to fight for freedom, they should do what Gandhiji did in India, when he fought for his country’s freedom from colonial rule. “They should fight for freedom in a non-violent way, using non-coperation and protests, and without taking human life. This is a noble and righteous way to fight for freedom.
“Or else, the ones fighting for freedom should form an army, and with their soldiers, declare war and fight against the soldiers of the occupying force – like another famous Indian patriot of the time, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose did, forming the Indian National Army and launching a military attack on occupied India at that time. This is also a brave thing to do – fighting like a soldier on an open declared field of war.
“But in the name of freedom, if people kill other ordinary unarmed people by terror, by bombs, assasinations and other devious methods, that is not the righteous way, neither is it noble.
“Gandhiji succeeded in fighting for freedom without hatred or rancour, in India’s freedom struggle there was no taking
of life of either soldier or ordinary people. Herein is the greatness of Gandhiji’s method.”
The Chinese friend said: “Yes, but that worked due to the leniency of the British. They were good rulers and had a sense of fairplay. That would not have worked if say the Japanese had ruled, who were cruel masters. Non-cooperation and non-violence would not have worked with them.”
I replied: “Yes, the British were fair people, but the Japanese are human beings as well. The method Gandhiji used is a moral method that touches the heart of people – even cruel people can be changed. He did not fight to conquer people’s bodies – he fought to influence their hearts, and change them for the better.
“You talk of human beings. But even the terrible grizzly bear, when he confronts a human being, lets the human being go unharmed if the human being falls on his knees and lowers his head. If a wild animal can do this, a human being’s heart can be changed as well.
“In Indian history, we have the story of Ashoka – a terrible King about 2000 years ago, who came to power by killing his brothers, their wives, their children, and even his father. Then, he waged wars on neighbouring states and killed thousands. Finally, he waged a great war on a democracy – Kalinga – and killed hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens, who all defended their country.
“When he visited Kalinga and watched the destruction he had done, he had a sudden change of heart. He was filled with abhorrence and disgust for what he had done. He renounced war. He renounced violence. He renounced the taking of life in any
form. He became a Buddhist.
“This ancient Indian King started public as well as animal hospitals – the first animal hospitals in the world about 2000 years ago – and cared for his people like a father. Historians have analyzed his works for his people and have called him the greatest king the world has ever seen.
“If Ashoka – a killer king – could change his heart and become such a different person, it means that any man – even the cruellest of men – can be touched in their hearts, and change for the better. And this is what Gandhiji did – he changed the hearts of the rulers.
“In India, we also have the story of Valmiki, in the ancient age of India which was tens of thousands of years ago. Valmiki was a killer dacoit who reformed, became a Sage and wrote the Sanskrit Ramayana, one of the great sacred scriptures of the world.
“So, in India, a killer could change, become a holy man, and write a sacred scripture. We Indians believe in the potential of the human heart to change for the better, and it was Gandhiji who demonstrated this method to the world.”
The Chinese said : “Yes, but the British were tired anyway, and they left India.”
I replied : “Yes, it is true that after World War II they had no stomach for ruling India against the will of its people. However, if there had been no Gandhiji, then probably thousands of lives would have been lost on either side – in a war of freedom, the British would have lost many people, and the Indians too.
“Gandhiji prevented this taking of life – he saved thousands of lives, and prevented the human misery that would have followed, and therefore it was a great moral victory for him and his country.”
Today, Gandhiji’s method is very important for the world, which will otherwise spiral down a never-ending path of violence and revenge. Therefore, I urge the Western TV networks to show documentaries about Gandhiji’s methods and way of life, and learn from Eastern great people such as Gandhiji, rather than rebroadcasting again and again serials about the World War II and so on. Let us appreciate good people, not the bad.