Looking forward to watching the new Ivan Sen film Toomelah that opens in Sydney tomorrow. The film tells the story of ten year old Daniel and the Gamilaroi people in the remote Indigenous community of Toomelah on the NSW/QLD border.
Interview with Ivan Sen on At the Movies.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Detention Crisis
Media sources in the last week have been reporting a dramatic rise in critical incidents at Australia's detention centres. For the twelve months between July 2009 and June 2010, a four-fold increase in the number of incidents reported brought the total number for the year to 1300. Critical incidents include deaths and threats to life, but also threats to the seucrity of the centre, including infrastructure damage, and unauthorised media entry.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship's (DIAC) Annual Report 2010-2011 notes a rise in protests, classed alongside 'other disruptive behaviours' leading to infrastructure damage. Interestingly, the report also documents the rise in the number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests made to the department about immigration detention following recent changes to the Freedom of Information Act (1982). DIAC reported an increase of 220.8 per cent between 1 November 2010 to 30 April 2011 in FOI requests received, the majority related to immigration detention. PDF download of report
Information accessed under FOI, as well as disturbing documentary evidence that continues to emerge about conditions inside the centres, tells us to reflect cautiously on the pike in the number of incidents. There is good reason to believe, that despite the four-fold increase, the figures reported may still be a massive under-representation of the real number of serious incidents occurring on a daily basis. New information has given us a better picture of the operation of immigration detention facilities. It has also revealed the terms of the agreement between the government department that processes asylum applications and the private security operator that manages the centres.
Independent media outlet New Matilda ran an exclusive on the department's contract with security company SERCO on 9 November 2011. Amongst the most disturbing revelations are those pertaining to the level of training required for guards at detention facilities and the absence of an independent auditing system for the centres. When DIAC finally did respond to New Matilda's request for an interview following the publication of the contract, they were told that questions about the training of guards should be redirected to the private security operator SERCO. SERCO, of course, are bound by their contract with the department, not to talk to the media.
According to the details of the contract,incidents at facilities are classified as minor, major or critical. While all major and critical incidents must be reported immediately and audited, incidents classed as minor need to be reported within 24 hours and only 10% need to be audited. The classification of incidents can mean that events related to the welfare of detainees and involving repeated cases of voluntary starvation (if each incident is under twenty-four hours), clinical depression, substance abuse, use of instruments to restrain detainees, minor assaults and abusive behaviour (by either staff or detainees) and the transfer of detainees, may go unnoticed for months.
Sarah Ferguson's deeply disturbing report 'Asylum' of 3 November 2011 for the ABC's Four Corners documented the extent of the mental health care crisis in detention facilities. The system of checks and assurances currently in place has clearly been unable to cope with level of the problem. Ferguson's report included material filmed inside facilities and interviews with mental health care professionals. The accepted view is that a period of 12-15 months in detention can cause severe and ongoing trauma. Many of the refugees filmed for the programme had been in detention far longer. This makes for an environment ripe for serious mental health issues. Yet the level of training required for guards to work in the centres does not necessarily provide them with the capacity to care for detainees in these situations. Shockingly, Ferguson's report documented not only the under-diagnosis of serious mental health problems, but also the way that detainees were 'managed' with a daily prescription of 'happy pills' that did not correspond to nor directly treat their particular condition. Given this catastrophic combination of underqualified attendants and severely traumatised detainees, is it a wonder that unauthorised media access to the facilities are classed as critical?
It seems that rather than focus on the realities of life in the detention centres, those in charge of running the system want the media to continue broadcasting shameful stories about asylum seekers living it up in luxury prisons. Now that makes for sensational prime time television viewing. Luckily, there is Media Watch to expose the facts. Watch the woeful story (with a beautifully alliterated title) of how "TT's false facts fuel fear"
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship's (DIAC) Annual Report 2010-2011 notes a rise in protests, classed alongside 'other disruptive behaviours' leading to infrastructure damage. Interestingly, the report also documents the rise in the number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests made to the department about immigration detention following recent changes to the Freedom of Information Act (1982). DIAC reported an increase of 220.8 per cent between 1 November 2010 to 30 April 2011 in FOI requests received, the majority related to immigration detention. PDF download of report
Information accessed under FOI, as well as disturbing documentary evidence that continues to emerge about conditions inside the centres, tells us to reflect cautiously on the pike in the number of incidents. There is good reason to believe, that despite the four-fold increase, the figures reported may still be a massive under-representation of the real number of serious incidents occurring on a daily basis. New information has given us a better picture of the operation of immigration detention facilities. It has also revealed the terms of the agreement between the government department that processes asylum applications and the private security operator that manages the centres.
Independent media outlet New Matilda ran an exclusive on the department's contract with security company SERCO on 9 November 2011. Amongst the most disturbing revelations are those pertaining to the level of training required for guards at detention facilities and the absence of an independent auditing system for the centres. When DIAC finally did respond to New Matilda's request for an interview following the publication of the contract, they were told that questions about the training of guards should be redirected to the private security operator SERCO. SERCO, of course, are bound by their contract with the department, not to talk to the media.
According to the details of the contract,incidents at facilities are classified as minor, major or critical. While all major and critical incidents must be reported immediately and audited, incidents classed as minor need to be reported within 24 hours and only 10% need to be audited. The classification of incidents can mean that events related to the welfare of detainees and involving repeated cases of voluntary starvation (if each incident is under twenty-four hours), clinical depression, substance abuse, use of instruments to restrain detainees, minor assaults and abusive behaviour (by either staff or detainees) and the transfer of detainees, may go unnoticed for months.
Sarah Ferguson's deeply disturbing report 'Asylum' of 3 November 2011 for the ABC's Four Corners documented the extent of the mental health care crisis in detention facilities. The system of checks and assurances currently in place has clearly been unable to cope with level of the problem. Ferguson's report included material filmed inside facilities and interviews with mental health care professionals. The accepted view is that a period of 12-15 months in detention can cause severe and ongoing trauma. Many of the refugees filmed for the programme had been in detention far longer. This makes for an environment ripe for serious mental health issues. Yet the level of training required for guards to work in the centres does not necessarily provide them with the capacity to care for detainees in these situations. Shockingly, Ferguson's report documented not only the under-diagnosis of serious mental health problems, but also the way that detainees were 'managed' with a daily prescription of 'happy pills' that did not correspond to nor directly treat their particular condition. Given this catastrophic combination of underqualified attendants and severely traumatised detainees, is it a wonder that unauthorised media access to the facilities are classed as critical?
It seems that rather than focus on the realities of life in the detention centres, those in charge of running the system want the media to continue broadcasting shameful stories about asylum seekers living it up in luxury prisons. Now that makes for sensational prime time television viewing. Luckily, there is Media Watch to expose the facts. Watch the woeful story (with a beautifully alliterated title) of how "TT's false facts fuel fear"
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Refuge in the post-Malaysia era
Related: World without Refuge
When the Labor government proposed their 'Malaysia Solution' in May 2011, the previous government's asylum application process - known as the 'Pacific Solution' owing to the fact that refugees were sent to small Pacific nations like Nauru to have their asylum applications processed - had already been dismantled. The 'Malaysia Solution' proposed that refugees arriving by boat would be taken even further offshore to have their applications processed through a 'people swap' deal between the Australian and Malaysian governments. That proposal was successfully defeated when the High Court ruled that those seeking asylum from Australia could not be sent to a third country that was not legally bound to protect them. The Labor Government, trying to bypass the High Court's ruling, proposed an amendment to the Migration Act that would change existing laws and so remove the legal obstacles to the Malaysia Solution. Those amendments were dropped when it became clear they would be defeated in Parliament. Without any way of passing the amendments required to legalise the 'Malaysia Solution', there was a default return to onshore processing for asylum applications.
Despite the crude politics now attached to any discussion on how asylum applications for refugees arriving by boat should be processed, the defeat of the 'Malaysia Solution' and the resumption of onshore processing, was seen as a return to a more humane refugee policy. That may be so for now, but fears that this will be an 'interim' rather than a long-term policy measure are compounded by the ongoing political squabble between the two major parties over whose promises of a 'solution' - at times to stop 'people smugglers', and at others, to 'stop the boats' - will be more effective.
This continues to be an issue of electoral significance, and the polls - both online and official - continue to return mildy varied results. A Nielsen poll (11-13 August) of 1400 people surveyed two weeks before the High Court decision showed 53% of voters preferred applicants for asylum be allowed to land in Australia and have their applications processed here, 28% thought they should be processed in a third country and 15% said they should be sent back to sea. An SMH online poll (2 September 2011; 51,309 responses) following the High Court ruling on the Malaysia Solution found that 40% of respondents wanted asylum applications processed in Australia, 20% in Nauru (only 1% said Malaysia) and 35% wanted asylum applicants 'sent home'. Finally, a Newspoll survey for October 2011 found that 44% of voters agreed with the Coalition's policy (which can mean either the Pacific Solution or turning boats back out to sea) while 17% agreed with the Goverment.
While the overt politicisation of boat arrivals, what you could call 'the politics of asylum', has almost completely overtaken other considerations about refugee policy in Australia in the last ten years, refugees continue to risk their lives seeking safety. The sinking of a fishing vessel carrying seventy people off the coast of Java recently left at least eight dead. It came only two weeks after the tenth anniversary of the tragic sinking of the SIEV X on 19 October 2001 that claimed the lives of 353 people.
I wrote World without Refuge as a reflection on this excruciating mix of heartache and electioneering. Written only weeks after the launch of Ghassan Nakhoul's book Overboard (2011: Dar Meera, Sydney), it is simultaneously an engagement with Nakhoul's gripping and heartbreaking account of the unfolding tragedies of an inhumane system and the unanswered questions that continue to mask it. World without Refuge was published by Jonar Nader on his site Logictivity on 11 November 2011.
When the Labor government proposed their 'Malaysia Solution' in May 2011, the previous government's asylum application process - known as the 'Pacific Solution' owing to the fact that refugees were sent to small Pacific nations like Nauru to have their asylum applications processed - had already been dismantled. The 'Malaysia Solution' proposed that refugees arriving by boat would be taken even further offshore to have their applications processed through a 'people swap' deal between the Australian and Malaysian governments. That proposal was successfully defeated when the High Court ruled that those seeking asylum from Australia could not be sent to a third country that was not legally bound to protect them. The Labor Government, trying to bypass the High Court's ruling, proposed an amendment to the Migration Act that would change existing laws and so remove the legal obstacles to the Malaysia Solution. Those amendments were dropped when it became clear they would be defeated in Parliament. Without any way of passing the amendments required to legalise the 'Malaysia Solution', there was a default return to onshore processing for asylum applications.
Despite the crude politics now attached to any discussion on how asylum applications for refugees arriving by boat should be processed, the defeat of the 'Malaysia Solution' and the resumption of onshore processing, was seen as a return to a more humane refugee policy. That may be so for now, but fears that this will be an 'interim' rather than a long-term policy measure are compounded by the ongoing political squabble between the two major parties over whose promises of a 'solution' - at times to stop 'people smugglers', and at others, to 'stop the boats' - will be more effective.
This continues to be an issue of electoral significance, and the polls - both online and official - continue to return mildy varied results. A Nielsen poll (11-13 August) of 1400 people surveyed two weeks before the High Court decision showed 53% of voters preferred applicants for asylum be allowed to land in Australia and have their applications processed here, 28% thought they should be processed in a third country and 15% said they should be sent back to sea. An SMH online poll (2 September 2011; 51,309 responses) following the High Court ruling on the Malaysia Solution found that 40% of respondents wanted asylum applications processed in Australia, 20% in Nauru (only 1% said Malaysia) and 35% wanted asylum applicants 'sent home'. Finally, a Newspoll survey for October 2011 found that 44% of voters agreed with the Coalition's policy (which can mean either the Pacific Solution or turning boats back out to sea) while 17% agreed with the Goverment.
While the overt politicisation of boat arrivals, what you could call 'the politics of asylum', has almost completely overtaken other considerations about refugee policy in Australia in the last ten years, refugees continue to risk their lives seeking safety. The sinking of a fishing vessel carrying seventy people off the coast of Java recently left at least eight dead. It came only two weeks after the tenth anniversary of the tragic sinking of the SIEV X on 19 October 2001 that claimed the lives of 353 people.
I wrote World without Refuge as a reflection on this excruciating mix of heartache and electioneering. Written only weeks after the launch of Ghassan Nakhoul's book Overboard (2011: Dar Meera, Sydney), it is simultaneously an engagement with Nakhoul's gripping and heartbreaking account of the unfolding tragedies of an inhumane system and the unanswered questions that continue to mask it. World without Refuge was published by Jonar Nader on his site Logictivity on 11 November 2011.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
archipelago: islands of asylum
After the tragic shipwreck near Christmas Island on 15 December 2010 that left more than thirty people dead and many injured, the phrase ‘boat people’ was in the news again. It had not been out of the news for very long, because ever since the Vietnam war in the 1970s, the arrival of refugees by boat has been seen as an event worthy of news coverage, but for all the wrong reasons.
The day after the Christmas Island boat accident, a popular online poll asked ‘Does the government need to change its boat people policy?’ Overwhelmingly the response was ‘yes’ by a margin of 83% to 27%. What is more baffling than the result is the ambiguity of the question since it is not clear exactly what a ‘boat people policy’ is. Indeed, since when has Australia had a ‘boat people policy’?
According to a Guardian article published on the same day on Australia’s ‘hardline asylum policy’, refugees arriving by boat comprise 2% of annual migration intake but 95% of those in detention. Would this not be what we could call Australia’s ‘boat people policy’ if indeed there was one? Isn’t this the policy that should change? Sadly though, in a political climate where it is still considered popular (and populist) to be ‘tough on people smugglers’, even a Prime Minister calling for compassion for the dead and injured needs to first acknowledge the ‘evils’ of the ‘trade’.
In this context, the ‘boat people policy’ indicated by the online poll is one seen as ‘not tough enough’. This is the other tragedy – when we don’t see those suffering as human nor give a thought to the factors that lead them to take such great risks to seek asylum, when we don’t see people only ‘boat people’, and when every situation, however devastating, is an opportunity to ‘stop the boats'.
More:
An interview I did (in Arabic) with SBS radio about refugee politics in Australia and the use of the phrase 'boat people'
A blog I wrote in July 2009 about Asylum Seekers and the Tyranny of Public Opinion Polls for Cultural Diversity News
The day after the Christmas Island boat accident, a popular online poll asked ‘Does the government need to change its boat people policy?’ Overwhelmingly the response was ‘yes’ by a margin of 83% to 27%. What is more baffling than the result is the ambiguity of the question since it is not clear exactly what a ‘boat people policy’ is. Indeed, since when has Australia had a ‘boat people policy’?
According to a Guardian article published on the same day on Australia’s ‘hardline asylum policy’, refugees arriving by boat comprise 2% of annual migration intake but 95% of those in detention. Would this not be what we could call Australia’s ‘boat people policy’ if indeed there was one? Isn’t this the policy that should change? Sadly though, in a political climate where it is still considered popular (and populist) to be ‘tough on people smugglers’, even a Prime Minister calling for compassion for the dead and injured needs to first acknowledge the ‘evils’ of the ‘trade’.
In this context, the ‘boat people policy’ indicated by the online poll is one seen as ‘not tough enough’. This is the other tragedy – when we don’t see those suffering as human nor give a thought to the factors that lead them to take such great risks to seek asylum, when we don’t see people only ‘boat people’, and when every situation, however devastating, is an opportunity to ‘stop the boats'.
More:
An interview I did (in Arabic) with SBS radio about refugee politics in Australia and the use of the phrase 'boat people'
A blog I wrote in July 2009 about Asylum Seekers and the Tyranny of Public Opinion Polls for Cultural Diversity News
Monday, October 25, 2010
New Matilda Relaunch
Donate to a worthy cause and keep media content independent and critical. Just in time for the festive season....I know I have my eye on that gift package.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
From words without borders to words without organs
I recently (happily) donated my old domain name, 'words without borders.net' to 'wordswithoutborders.org'. If you haven't visited their site, you are missing out on many of the magical ways that language is transformed and reinvented everyday through translation . Google translate is no substitute for the highly complex linguistic acrobatics that translators perform each day. I am not pitting human against machine, and I know that Google Translate also performs many wondrous acts of dexterous acrobatics, but at this particular historical juncture, some of the processes created by and through the human machine are not entirely reproducible by machine alone.
To return to the story, as wordswithoutborders.org was gaining momentum, my first real experiment in site making (my soon to be defunct version of wordswithoutborders.net) was hitting the ground. I hadn't updated the site for a long time (ever really) and I was starting to wonder why it was there at all. So here I am now, at blogger, writing words, not without borders, but without organs...or so it seems. Paradigm shift or new words for old things?
My thoughts on this might change, but this is a map of where my speculations are at: Borders are the sharp edges of separation between here and there. But borders are also fuzzy zones of change and incompletion, they are productive places. Organs too are sites where genetic material is fixed into stable forms that usher in life as we know it. To borrow from the philosophers of the BwO, they are a synthesis of 'necessity and chance'. To talk about 'words without organs' is not to suggest (necessarily) that words, any more than bodies, are entities that actually do circulate without borders, or organs. Rather it is to open up the process of border/organ formation to a radical critique that could ask how things might be thought, said, written differently. I can't promise that I will always (or perhaps ever), live up to such a task, but I do promise that it sits there in the back of my mind provoking all kinds of riddles and musings. A contemplating Alice: I have seen many a cat without a grin, but never a grin without a cat...
P.S. If anyone can draw a cat grin without a cat, I'd love to see it...seriously.
To return to the story, as wordswithoutborders.org was gaining momentum, my first real experiment in site making (my soon to be defunct version of wordswithoutborders.net) was hitting the ground. I hadn't updated the site for a long time (ever really) and I was starting to wonder why it was there at all. So here I am now, at blogger, writing words, not without borders, but without organs...or so it seems. Paradigm shift or new words for old things?
My thoughts on this might change, but this is a map of where my speculations are at: Borders are the sharp edges of separation between here and there. But borders are also fuzzy zones of change and incompletion, they are productive places. Organs too are sites where genetic material is fixed into stable forms that usher in life as we know it. To borrow from the philosophers of the BwO, they are a synthesis of 'necessity and chance'. To talk about 'words without organs' is not to suggest (necessarily) that words, any more than bodies, are entities that actually do circulate without borders, or organs. Rather it is to open up the process of border/organ formation to a radical critique that could ask how things might be thought, said, written differently. I can't promise that I will always (or perhaps ever), live up to such a task, but I do promise that it sits there in the back of my mind provoking all kinds of riddles and musings. A contemplating Alice: I have seen many a cat without a grin, but never a grin without a cat...
P.S. If anyone can draw a cat grin without a cat, I'd love to see it...seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)