It's only a week!

You'll see from the change to the header that this week, 17-24 June is The Ration Challenge.
This is a promotional activity of the Council of Churches to raise money (this year) for refugee work with Syrian refugees.
They are but one group of refugees amongst many cast on the world's woes.
Basically it's a sponsorship deal ...and I am being sponsored by a few (hopefully more . go here  https://my.rationchallenge.org.au/stephan-clark).
This pic is a 'set-up' riding on my breakfast.

Today's breakfast was Rice, rice, and more rice.

I often have great deliberations over breakfast...shall my eggs be scrambled? Or shall I poach them ... in a poacher, or in a tumbling pot (where the water is gently churning). Sometime I like perfectly fried eggs...these are not just chucked in the pan...the oil is gently warmed and the eggs cooked slowly...God save us!

All this and breakfast too.
I stop for a moment and realise (trying not to be a ridiculously pious priest) that I don't imagine most Syrian refugees have an egg...let alone can worry about poaching, scrambling or frying.

And I give thanks that my grandadughter (like me) loves gruel [thin porridge]...[we sometimes phone each other during breakfast and enjoy each other enjoying porridge!]

I can't have any for a week. BUT it's only a week! I need to get over myself

The nonsense of the mandate

I grit my teeth every time the modern politician talks about a mandate.
The truth is the Westminster system does not deliver mandates.
It delivers government.
We elect a team to govern, not simply or only to implement the declared and limited list of policies that may have been identified during the election campaign.
I am not saying that these should be disregarded, ....but I will come back to that in a moment...
Then truth is it nonsense for any party to say it has a mandate to implement every single policy that may have crossed their lips during an election campaign simply because they happen to have been elected (and in this latter case by the slimmest of majorities)
Just let me walk you through my logic.
During the last election campaign, just to take the presently elected team, they talked about: Marriage Equality, Superannuation, Budget Reform, Submarines, Education, Refugees and the hideously named  lie "Border Protection", let alone the duplicity on both sides about Health Care
Now I agree with them about some things..and indeed some aspects but not necessarily all of their policies. I do not agree with them about some others
Now I, and everyone else, did not get a chance to say what I was particularly "giving a mandate" for.

Indeed I was NOT giving a mandate! I cast my vote for an individual and/or a party whilst not necessarily agreeing to absolutely everything they were promoting.

Indeed I actively disagree with both major parties about their hideous policies to do with refugee resettlement.

Though they can erroneously claim that they have a "Mandate"...they have no way of knowing which of the broad range of policies people actually approve.

I would suggest that most Australians...however they voted... did not give "mandates", they thought some things were good and other things were not.
We vote not a "mandate" ...but on balance.
Indeed we vote for the team.
We recognise that not everything is solved, or sorted. But by and large one team has got the balance we prefer.  This does not commit us to support the details.
Rather we empower the team.

We do not implement the mandate. We elect a government.

This would rather expose the  current Marriage Equality discussion.

There is NO mandate to implement or not implement Marriage Equality; there is no mandate for a plebiscite.

What there is, is a requirement for the elected member to exercise their conscience.
And not to hide behind the false wall of the illusory mandate.

Mr Human Rights and Cardinal Dicky Heart

An excellent article with some strident observations from Elizabeth Farrelly about Ruddock's appointment to UN human rights representative for Australia. She rightly questions his credentials.
I also make the observation:

One would also wonder why at age 72 he needs another appointment any way. And I wonder how much it pays.

He has after all been in safe seat Parliament for 40+ years. That would seem a significant pile of superannuation and other benefits which Parliamentarians have so readily afforded themselves,

Farrely observes:
To anoint Philip ‘children overboard’ Ruddock as our special envoy on human rights is an irony of breathtaking proportions. It’s almost as bizarre as allowing George Pell’s dicky heart to distance him from those whose hearts he helped break. In both cases, Australia looks weak, venal and mean.


The WHOLE ARTICLE  is here

Who's in detention?

I wrote to Matt Williams  (MP for Hindmarsh, SA) about the present Government policy concerning immigration detention

Dear Mr WilliamsI have always been glad of your replies (even if sometimes taking a few weeks) to my questions.Can you tell me what is your understanding about the number of children who are in detention in the so called "arrangements" with Nauru and Manos Island. In particular I would be interested if you can you tell me how many children have been shifted from the mainland to Nauru and Manos to make it look as though we have actually reduced the numbers of children in detention, even though we have added to those on Nauru and Manos.

He replied :

Dear Stephen Thank you for your email. At the moment there are 79 children in detention which includes 72 children who are scheduled to go back to Nauru. The Immigration Minster has been working hard to get that number down to zero as quickly as possible. In some cases parents of the children have adverse ASIO assessments. We will not be releasing that parent out into the community but we are trying to make arrangements for the mother and children to go out. Like you and the Immigration Minister I want all children to be out of detention and the Government and Immigration Department are working very hard to achieve this. I discuss this matter and other migration issues with the Minister during our regular meetings in Canberra. Thank you again for raising this matter with me. Yours sincerely
Matt

I leave you to decide whether this is satisfactory. 

As for me. It is not!

Not just a pic

The beautiful young boy, and do not forget his sister and mother who also drowned actually has a name:

This fine soldier whose heart must break

He too is  a father!

Let us rejoice..in what is really happening

I am not a refugee but I am an immigrant to Australia. I note that in the more than forty years I have lived here every generation of immigrants has been viewed sceptically and  with cynicism. At the time I came to these shores, Italians and Spanish immigrants were regarded as a profound threat  to our lifestyle. Well that was wrong then! 
They appear to have entered Australian society and been hardworking, their culture, and society has deeply enriched our quality of life
Then there were the Vietnamese and the Cambodians. To some they spelled out the end of Australian society.  Next time you go to the doctor ask yourself where we would be if these devastated families had not encouraged their children to succeed and to be good Australians. To get good education and, indeed, to succeed!
I have encountered the Iranian, Sri Lankan and African communities who are in the process of doing likewise.
I don’t want to be naïve and suggest that everyone coming to Australia has been without problem, but it does seem to me that our recent history tells us that no one comes to these shores, girt by sea, wanting to ruin this country.
So I will be voting for those who tell me, not that they are repelling refugees, but to those who are telling me that they believe that those who are fleeing to Australia need to be encouraged to fulfill their potential. And by extension, to continue the history of this nation which is not only young but free and is deeply enriched by those who seek sanctuary and security for themselves and their families here

Good News Story

It was great to hear that one of our younger parishioners, J, a wonderful sax player in a youth band went with his con-freres to Inverbrackie on Christmas Eve to help the new residents of the detention centre celebrate their first Australian Christmas.

His mother, R, was agog at her son having to pass through a security cordon but also thrilled that he was having to confront some of the real stuff that we as Australians have to deal with today.

This is what we need more of, our children being exposed to the reality that you can meet people from vastly different backgrounds and then play soccer with them and find that they are just the same as us.

Inverbrackie!!!

There is little doubt in my mind that in this land of the “fair go” most genuine Australians are not fearful of refugees. All strength to those of the Woodside community (and beyond) who are standing up to the scaremongering of those who, for what ever reason, are shouting at us that we should be frightened of women and children to be housed at Inverbrackie!
This time last year I was at the wedding of a young man, born in Iran who had for some time been housed at the Baxter Detention Centre. I was struck as I watched the photographs being taken of this man’s statuesque father and his extended family how much this looked like my own Dad and his descendants. My God (and I use this term advisedly) we are all the same!!!

Heartening

It is deeply encouraging to hear so many voices of the local Woodside community speak out in support of the Inverbrackie option. Scratch an Australian and you are unlikely to find someone who will think that people down on their luck should not be given a fair go. When we put aside the political point-scoring most of us would agree that there is nothing to be gained by making those who are already dislocated suffer any more than they have to. Because others in the world treat asylum seekers badly, does not mean that we have to. I would actually have thought the reverse is true if we are genuinely a civilized nation.

Nauru

I had a friend who spent an interesting couple of years in Nauru in the 80s. By and large he was bored out of his mind. He used to crudely (but perhaps accurately) refer to it as a pile of bird sh*t. Referring to the fact that it is essentially a block of phosphate rock in the near Pacific...or I should say was.(see what the CIA tells us about Nauru here)

It is now mined out, and its income stream severely diminished.

We forget (or perhaps never knew) that though Nauru is a "republic" it has less than 10,000 inhabitants. It is one tenth the area of Kangaroo Island...though admittedly Kangaroo Island has only half the population of Nauru!

What really worries me about the Liberal's Pacific solution is that the Liberals shift the responsibility of our modestly sized nation, to an economically vulnerable island with little or no natural resources (I note that they have 0% arable land!). And who have no real political clout in the scheme of the world or the region.

Assuming also that power is likely to be concentrated in the hands of a few privileged individuals who have benefited from the former largesse it is nonsense to suggest that the "President" is anything more than the equivalent of a small town country mayor. (He represents less than the Mayor of Mitcham!)

This is nothing less than using money to attempt to bribe those who can exercise disproportionate influence in what, despite the nomenclature, is not really a nation at all!

Work together!!!

If politicians, of all persuasions, genuinely had the nation’s interests at heart then they would recognise that the refugee issue is not straight forward and that it requires both parties to work together.
What we want to see is not a wedge being driven into the heart of the electorate, but rather both parties seeking a just and compassionate solution to what is human tragedy, not a political football.

Thank God for the Greens!

At the bash with Tim Costello the other night (here) it was good to see at least two politicians there. Costello made the interesting point about World Vision that some aid agencies say they are "not political". He said that he made no such claim and that he thought such statements were incorrect...overseas aid is essentially political and will always be so. I agree.

Costello made the point that what he thought such agencies meant was that they were not partisan.

Any way, back to the function, present there was local Federal member Andrew Southcott. I was bemused, but pleased, to see him there...remembering that two elections ago he was teed up to come to a forum that local church members were organising and obviously decided at the last moment that he couldn't be bothered. Throwing us rather into a spin I suggested to the organisers that they should just tell him that they would go ahead without him!

He actually capitulated!

Last election a similar meeting was held and there was a lot of talk about the fact that he could lose!!! So he was there feet forward.

I was entertained by the fact that many, many questioners opened their questions to him by suggesting that he was only seen in his electorate when he was on the run!!

That may or may not be true, but it was good to see him there. And it allowed Tim Costello the cue to say something about growing up in the Australia of Robert Menzies!

Also there was the spectacularly short Sarah Hanson-Young, South Australian Greens' Senator. I took the opportunity to thank her for her outspoken support of the refugee cause.

At a time when it looks as though the Labor Party is going to commit another act of treachery against the most vulnerable her voice has been steadfast. As an idealist, I recognise that they are few and far between.

Thank God for the Greens. Thank God for Sarah Hanson-Young

The Refuge of ANZAC

We hear a lot in the run up to ANZAC Day about why soldiers fought and died. My impression is that it was so we might live in a country which celebrates the right of everyone to live safely and securely with families and communities who, unashamed and unabashed, look to the future with hope.
That we have been successful in this is unchallenged. Let us not, then, in the spirit of ANZAC turn our back on those refugees who seek exactly the same thing.

Too much compassion?

In comparing our two great leaders the ABC news says of Mr Abbott: "A man who is himself plain-spoken to the point of recklessness" and does indeed have a point.

Yesterday I heard him say about the next boat load of people escaping Indonesia..."If we are too compassionate..."

Now my question is "Can you be too compassionate?"

You can be "too kind" or "too naive" but I wouldn't have thought you can be too compassionate. Mr Abbot would know from his, albeit brief, theological training...that the word "passion" in the Latin means suffering, (not lust or romance as the popular mind would sometimes have it). And that compassion is "to suffer with". So either you try to share the suffering of others with them, and hopefully alleviate some of it by sharing it with them or you gameplay. It would seem all too apparent that we are getting ready to play the Tampa game again!

Great wedding

I went to to E & B's rather lovely wedding yesterday. I have known E's family for many years and in fact married her two brothers as well.

She is a very fine professional woman, statuesque and lovely personality. Her fiance is actually an Iranian refugee. Great young man, and a true example of the system working well (if not a little slowly).

It was great to see him stand amidst his brothers and with much of his family who now llive in Australia.

You can imagine that this provides much food for thought, reflection and prayer so I won't try to tell you everything, dear reader. But here are some thoughts.

First, the speeches were all great. Which is not always the case.

But we were all impressed, not in a patronising way with speeches crafted by the best man and the groom.

The great care they took was wondrous.

At many weddings there is too little care, but given that neither was speaking in their first language, I was touched by the careful word choice and the absolute sincerity.

A good dose of humour was present, which is not always easy to get in another language.

Their desire to assert the establishment of this new family and to embrace this lovely woman into their fold was just amazing.

I was moved to watch B stand with his father and mother and their sons and daughter, and have their photos taken...while we all have such photos at weddings...this did have about it the great sense of victory.

Second, perhaps the best thing about the wedding ceremony (though the bride looked stunning) was the ululation. ... you know that high pitched African trilling ... as E walked into the garden this spontaneously erupted. I hadn't quite expected it, but it was so thrilling and happened several times , well often, during the night.

As the excitement and joy just boiled over it would be picked up and thrill us all!

Now this is Australia, there is always something like this at weddings because we come from such diverse cultural backgrounds. I guess we will find something like this when S marries D (of Hungarian extraction) next year.

Third, as I prayed for those who weren't there. Particularly thinking of Claire, E's grandmother who died not so long ago, I suddenly realised that who knew what else this refugee family had had to bear, and who was not there for them today and who this prayer might refer to.

And then, lastly, there was just the dancing. It looked a lot like young men showing off, but it was great!!!

Schadenfreude

Here in our family we love 'Schadenfreude'. The peculiarly human trait of (secretly) delighting in the misfortune of others. It was interesting to see Mr A Downer expressing his Schadenfreude towards the Australian Government in today's paper.

Mr Downer's obvious delight in the inherited suffering of this present Government with regard to the difficult refugee plight (what he tells us is Schadenfreude) is a bit sad. He misunderstands that Schadenfreude is essentially kept to oneself and is not smug.

Perhaps it was the Smuggenfreude of the Downers, Abbots and Pynes that the electorate finally decided it had had enough of.

As for Downer extolling the virtues of using Nauru, it just serves to remind us that he still doesn't get it!! At least he admits that Nauru was particularly his unfortunate suggestion.

See the "Schadenfreude" song from AvenQ here ...in the version When Harry met Schade!!(language warning!!!)

De rigueur

It is difficult to turn the news on and not be struck by the fact that we are obsessing once again about refugees.

I was even interested to hear John Hepworth rattling on to a recent meeting of Forward in Faith (FiF) in England, FiF is a reactionary organization within the Anglican Communion principally opposed to the ordination of women priests and bishops.

Hepworth is not a member of the Anglican Communion, but leader of the TAC, a rag-tag group of former Anglicans. He is talking to these "Fathers" (for such they were) shortly after the Vatican has told the Anglican Church that it will set up an "ordinariate" for Anglicans which will allow the disaffected to become members of the Roman Catholic Church whilst looking ostensibly Anglican.

There are certain ironies about this. While some FiF members are absolutely delighted to be allowed to be Anglicans in the Roman Church, many...perhaps most .....of them have practised being more Roman than the Romans whilst Anglicans. We used to joke to Romans that if you actually wanted to see how Mass should be celebrated well, then go to your local Anglican Church if they happened to be Anglo-Catholic in persuasion.

Anyway, the point of this blog! Is that Hepworth's little peroration (audio of 3 different continuing Bishops including Hepworth here) is highly infused with the language of refugees.

His imagery is that the Vatican has issued refugee visas to Anglicans, and he insists that such visas will be operational for quite a long period...he suggests 300 years.

What of course he also neglects to mention is that it has taken the Curia 300 years to get round to issuing them in the first place.

Ahhhh! Interesting times....for some!

As the world turns

It was my great pleasure at the weekend to officiate at a wedding of one of my parishioners. I have known the family for nearly forty years. The uncle of the groom and I were mad Anglicans at university together.
His parents, who in a way look exactly the same as they did in 1970...except for the fact that they are frailer...have been faithful church people, I suppose, for all of their lives.
In fact when I said to their parish priest some weeks ago when we were bemoaning how hard things were...Thank God for KK ....and she said to me with liturgical vigour...Yes thank God for KK!
For that reason alone it was sufficient joy to do this wedding.
KK is probably the quintessential Australian born in the 1920s. Of Anglo-Celtic background, stable job for most of his life. Worked hard. Maintains a sense of humour and a strong sense of service, loyalty and friendship. He and CK, as faithful matriarch and patriarch beam benignly over their family...even though it has not been without its pain.

The groom is a great young man, who works hard and has a great sense of humour. He is lively and intelligent and socially and politically aware. His new bride looked, of course, stunning. She is of Cambodian origin though she was actually born in a refugee camp in Bangkok. Her parents finally ended up with their kids in Adelaide, and they sat with quiet and respectful demur throughout the proceedings. Conversation with them is good, though you are never quite sure of the transmission of subtlety from them to me and me to them. Always, always deadly polite.
The best man, older brother, I married five years ago. His wife today looking quite the mother, and their two daughters (both of whom I have baptised) looking gorgeous. Well, the best man spoke with a humour and dignity that shows the maturation of the marriage process on a man. And it was good to see it.
Did I mention that the uncle of the bride who works in a remote aboriginal community as the administrator/carer/ambulance driver...wasn't actually there, because well he lives remotely? Or that the groom's sister has a boyfriend who is Iranian.
I bumped into a man who told me he was baptised in the church where I am the priest, and he was blown away when I told him I knew his mother.
Much food for thought about our interconnectedness....I tend not to think of it as being inbred!
But any way it does suggest much about the nature of Australian society.
For those who live in small worlds where two chops and three vegetables automatically present themselves for dinner still, and everyone's ancestors were born in England, mainly, or Europe...it is not like that. Probably has never been like that. Thank God for open families. Thank God for culture-clash. Thank God for opportunities like this.

Colourful comment

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?

Où commencons nous?

Two unconnected, yet strangely related stories in my mind, make me ask is the world going mad?
None of us were really surprised that the American gun lobby could twist the travesty of Virginia Tech, to their own advantage. So we heard some whacko (or should it be Waco?) saying "This massacre is reason why everyone should be allowed to carry weapons on to a campus.

"You should be able to shoot a maniac who wants to shoot you!"

There is a certain logic about it. But it is just plain WRONG!!!

But I really think the world is going plain loopy when we talk about sending our Sri Lankans to Guantanamo, so they can send their Cubans to us.

Now am I wrong in thinking that our government don't actually want any refugees of any sort. So what is this all about?
On one level it doesn't really make any difference as long as refugees end up in a safe haven. But our nasty government has never before shown such magnanimity to any refugee.

There are other issues. One of the key issues for Cubans, for example, is that it is clear that they will be more dislocated in Australia than they would be in America...since there is an extensive Hispanic network there but not here. So why would we want to cause these people to be more profoundly dislocated?

And have we forgotte D Hicks and suddenly now think that Guantanamo is a more acceptable place to send our refugees than Christmas Island?

There is clearly more to this than meets the eye. But what is it?


so indeed: "dove cominciamo?"