It is interesting to note that the newly released citizenship booklet (download here if you want) says "No one should be disadvantaged on the basis of their country of birth, cultural heritage,political beliefs, language, gender or religious beliefs."
I do not then understand how Minister Andrews can promote this document as a key policy
instrument, and at the same time use national and ethnic origin as the significant
filter against refugees of Sudanese origin. (here)
One thing that really worries me about these sort of defective analyses that say: it is because a person was born here, or there; or it is because they belong to a certain ethnic grouping...is that it is just so unreflective.
I mean a headline in the pathetic Advertiser this morning says...Africans drink and fight, says Andrews.
My immediate reaction is to say: it is not Africans that drink and fight it is young men!
(I don't think this is sexist!) Last year it was Lebanese Australians, and "Shire" Australians who were in a pitched battle on the beaches of Sydney. Last Sunday I watched a little of that ever-glorious West-Side Story...there it was Puerto Ricans, Poles and Italians.
It is pathetic to single out one nationality, when it is more to do with bored young men of any race or nation.
At a time when the UN is saying that Sudan is the refugee community of greatest need we are saying ...but we will not take the problem cases. How pathetic!
How pathetic, too, that the Labor Party agrees with the Coalition about this. There is here no ideology, but rather the craven cowing to a racist electorate that wants these problems to be (pardon the pun) black and white!
I do not want a government that capitulates to such populist nonsense, but one that actually says we will do more than just paint racist solutions to what are complex social issues.
Did the victimistaion of the Jews teach us nothing?
4 comments:
Africans drink and fight, says Andrews.
Ever ventured into the nightclub district of the average Australian city? Anglo-Australians drink and fight, too. By Andrews' logic, we should shut the door on immigrants from the UK also.
Having said that, I don't know how happy Andrews would be with the Advertiser for running that headline, given his endeavours to play down the racist overtones of his refugee policy.
Yes, I agree that Andrews woudln't be happy with the comment.
The denial, though, of Government Ministers is almost Orwellian in scope. The more something is obvious...the more strenuously the reverse is asserted to the obvious intent.
We are the most open country in the world for example seems to be asserted each time we become more draconian. I think they would have an hard time convincing Dr Haniff of that. He just seemed incredulous on 4 Corners this week. Either he is more sinister than we think, more naive or we have indeed passed into Orwellian unreality. My money is on the latter!
The more something is obvious...the more strenuously the reverse is asserted to the obvious intent.
This is the Howard Government formula: strenous denial + character assassination (as is the case with their response to the recent study on Workchoices)
Yes, I had neglected to mention character assassination.
It is an interesting phenomenon. If perceived properly it is so often self-assassination. I think this is partly responsible for the electorate's turning on Howard. I keep getting the sense that they should read Julius Caesar
Post a Comment