It is very dispiriting to see yet another asylum seeker debate being driven by the same disregard for the human cost and the same disinterest in connecting the ‘debate’ to facts or reality.
A recent example is the bizarre assertion by the Prime Minister that the public or political debate on asylum seekers is somehow being constrained by political correctness.
For well over a decade, public commentary in letters to the editor, talkback shows and online forums have contained a vast array of views on this matter, including many that are extremely aggressive, antagonistic, abusive and vilifying – and all of which have clearly not been put through any sort of political correctness filter. Check any recent online forum on this issue and there is a high probability that it will be littered with outpourings of bile.
Leading up to a policy announcement addressing the issue of asylum seekers arriving in boats, Julia Gillard has said she’d
“like to sweep away any sense that people should close down any debate, including this debate, through a sense of self-censorship or political correctness.”<
It is simply ridiculous to suggest that public debate on the asylum seeker issue has been closed down or constrained by any sort of so-called ‘political correctness’. Maybe, just maybe, you could have plausibly put forward that view in the mid-90s (and not coincidentally, John Howard did just that), but if there was one thing Mr Howard did achieve on this issue, it was the removal of any tendency for people to feel they should be ‘politically correct’ in how they expressed their view.
I am not blaming John Howard, Julia Gillard or anyone else for the views that other people express. But political and other leaders need to be very clear they do not condone or encourage hateful speech or views.
Simply saying ‘people should feel free to say what they feel’, as Ms Gillard has just done in relation to the asylum seeker issue, could encourage some people to feel there is now an open season when it comes to abusing asylum seekers (or Aboriginal people, or whatever other vulnerable, visible minority gets put under the spotlight next). Encouraging and validating any view, no matter how toxic, is a recipe for increasing and entrenching community division.
Of course, Julia Gillard knows all this, which makes her strident dog-whistle tactics all the more disappointing. Hatespeech and racism are extremely toxic to a community and often directly harmful to the targets of such views. It also takes much longer to remove poisonous social and public attitudes than it does to change any laws or policies which are brought in to appease such views – especially if those views have received implicit endorsement from public and political leaders.
27 Comments
But Gillard loved Ruddock and his policies Andrew, you know that. She went to Nauru with him like a giggling child and came back in awe.
She only ever went after him over the Dante Tan thing and a few other meaningless scandals.
She has no interest in the law of the land, the conventions and treaties or being fair or decent.
I note though that smarter and more decent heads like Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean jumped on her from a tall tower.
I think everyone ought to read Shitstorm to find out who the real redneck and gang banger in this country was and is and which former PM actually did all the work she is now trying to brush aside with the dog whistling.
A friend of mine came up with a very pertinent joke about Australia and McDonalds.
Q. What do Australia and McDonalds have in common?
A. they are both run by red headed clowns.
Another friend chimed in with “but only one of them has been to clown training school”.
PC, sounds just like that other red head doesn’t she?
SHEPHERDMARILYN: You loathe Julia Gillard with every fibre of your being. You urge people not to vote for Tony Abbott on the well founded belief that the man is a clown. You are passionate in your desire to help refugees which suggests, to me, that the Greens wouldn’t be the party of your choice.
I wonder what your preferred party would be? Please don’t tell me. It will be something banal, like an informal vote.
Well tell me what is to like.
Marilyn, stale jokes that feed your displeasure/attitude towards Gillard do nothing to advance your views on asylum seekers. Which party has raised the issue of boat arrivals ? Who is linking it with population growth and crowded cities ? If you want to throw stones then aim your missiles at the source.
The trouble with facts and reasonable discussion on refugees is that some people are happy to accept lies because it gives them something to base their argument on. They are not going to investigate the facts much less listen to a view that doesn,t fit their own. This talk about PC is rubbish and has been for a very long time. Its sometimes trotted out when some individual is caught out doing the wrong thing and used as a attack on people comment or punish that individual. As for refugees as the article says , its open season for any racist or misinformation in the media and elsewhere. Who hasn,t had a bogus email saying how refugees get more than the rest of us ? Usually the cretins dont even bother to adjust terms to Australia and say things like food stamps.
Well spotted geomac.
More generally, I really wish the Greens could get out there more. I only ever see Bob Brown on the news, and sometimes hear about Sarah Hanson-Young second-hand. it would be really good if there were more people like Andrew Bartlett (and Mr Bartlett himself, for that matter), Greens or not, who could do something to dispel the myths in the public eye.
All we’ve had so far is Gillard saying she “understands” and Abbott repeating his “turn back the boats” mantra, and very little else in the media. But that’s the media for you. Bring on 2001/1996/1890 all over again…
I believe this is being done to deflect attention from the real problem ; the ridiculous surge in immigration (legal) and the deliberate housing shortage.
Tell me I’m wrong.
So your man Bartlett who along with Julian Burnside is one of the more unctuously pious of the politically sanctimonious left on this issue is apparently in to more of the same:
“It is simply ridiculous to suggest that public debate on the asylum seeker issue has been closed down or constrained by any sort of so-called ‘political correctness.”
No shit?
What of the political correctness for non queue jumping UNHCR asylum seekers worldwide deprived of immigration to Australia as a result or the more than 170 lost-at-sea since Rudd played the same disingenuous self-righteous card?
Not a bad point about the deliberate housing shortage. I suspect nothing would sink an Aussie government faster than falling (or even stagnant) house prices, given our obsession with home ownership. So there is little impetus to deal with a housing shortage.
How is it that the 50,000 odd illegals who come by plane are never a concern to people who shout about boat arrivals ?
Jamesk 300 odd dead from SIEV ? and the sham inquiry similar to the AWB but you fail to recall or selective memory ? Lets face it, its pandering to the racist element that has always existed in Australia. Maybe because I grew up in Port Melbourne and experienced first hand people from various countries in primary school and later work that I have no xenophobia. I,ve always perceived racists as people who lack something and use others to bolster their fragile self esteem. They cannot do it by attacking those similar to themselves because they feel inadequate. The rest are just doing it for political purposes and couldn,t give a fig about lives lost at sea or anywhere else for that matter.
@geomac
Yeah geomac, I’m so sick of the all the fucking high and mighty crocodile tears as if people are really stupid and can’t see through them; it’s just a total disrespect and insult to people’s intelligence, they can’t see that it makes people want to puke.
I disagree with you that merely voicing an invalid idea validates it. To put it another way, I disagree that discouraging people from voicing their views makes them go away.
The problem with this issue is that too many people believe we’re being over run by boat people. The truth is that arrivals by boat are just a drop in the ocean compared to the total number of skilled migrants who settle here every year. But I find I never get to point this out to people, because they won’t discuss it for fear of being branded racist. The only time they will talk about is if they’re so worked up about the issue they don’t care if they’re branded as racists or not.
Can we please just all calm down and talk about the facts?
Just say the words “SIEV X and/or “John Howard is a rodent” and a rational argument let alone an explanation is deemed unnecessary geomac?
Not even Andrew Bartlett or Julian Burnside would try that shit on.
But then they both have at least some intelligence.
I didn,t say John Howard is a rodent which I believe was attributed to Brandis and naturally being a staunch party man he denied it. I had assumed we all knew of the shady circumstances of the SIEV boat, the deaths from its sinking and the inquiry afterwards. If you require chapter and verse , google it James. You didn,t explain your 170 deaths but at least I provided the gist of what I was referring to. So on that basis alone I dont think your comment shows logic or for want of a better word ” intelligence “.
I love the likes of JamesK who whine about this so-called 170 drowned asylum seekers but totally ignore the facts of the countries the people have come from.
In Afghanistan 75,000 women die in childbirth every year, about 300,000 kids die before they reach 5, thousands of civilians are blown but by NATO or the Taliban every year and the life expectancy is 43. But hey, 10 or so drowned.
In Iraq the ongoing toll is about 1.3 million excess deaths by all forms of violence, 2 million widows, 5 million orphans, 4 million refugees and 5 million hungry and internally displaced. Senator Seiwert worked out that the $300 million AWB stole and gave to Saddam would have saved 23,000 lives at a minimum.
In Iran people are killed and tortured for disobeying the mad mullahs, none have drowned coming here but we lock them up anyway.
No Palestinians have drowned but we lock them up anyway.
17 Sri Lankans have drowned even though we knew they were on the water and in trouble but about 40,000 Sri Lankans were slaughtered last year in the last weeks of the civil war, mostly Tamils by the ruling Sinhala.
Why we keep up this pretence that the short boat trip is the only danger refugees face is beyond me but it is completely dishonest and ludicrous.
What is “the gist” that you refer to geomac?
Presumably the parliamentary inquiry like “everyone” knew the “shady circumstances” as well? What of the relevance to the increased numbers drowning at sea since Rudd changed Australia’s policies?
What precisely are you trying to tell us geomac? Do tell
Facts and rational argument supported by evidence apparently are deemed unnecessary to slime opponents with outrageous accusations.
Just read any of Marilyn’s posts.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/hypocrites-silence-as-asylum-seeker-body-count-mounts-up/story-e6frezz0-1225880082644
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rescue-too-late-as-sea-kills-12-off-australia/story-e6frf7jo-1225793798646
The only relevance that I think you need to consider James is that over 300 died at sea in one incident during the Howard years. You cited 170 but didn,t state where or how just drowning at sea. I see nothing pointing to increased numbers drowning. Just on the basis of 300 against 170 alone it makes no sense. Where has this 170 figure come from ? I mention one incident you mention none.
Forget the drowning, you are talking about not much. It is at least a personal choice to leave and nothing at all to do with so called people smuggling.
300 died during the early Howard Government on SIEV X in 2001 and then Howard introduced policies that stopped the boats.
Rudd introduced policies that fired the people smugglers back into brisk business and 170 drowned at sea.
Rudd = Good, Howard = Evil?
Now that is the fact that “makes no sense” geomac.
I mention no slur you mention one.
You couldn’t read the references?
By the way I’ve always perceived as leftists “people who lack something and use others to bolster their fragile self esteem”…. people like those poor boat people so cruelly treated by Mr. Howard for example.
353 deaths from SIEV X James
I have voted Liberal , Democrats and even once for the DLP many years ago. I dont perceive todays liberal party as representing what people like Menzies or at state level Hamer thought of as being Liberal. I would no more vote for the present coalition than I would for Pinochet or Milosovic.
Fascinating geomac.
Actually…not really.
I couldn’t give a rodent’s hindquarters for whom you have voted in the past.
I suspect that you’re a leftist with typical leftist tendencies of ignoring arguments that don’t suit after being caught out inventing disingenuous straw-man slurs of people to the right of you which is apparently the 95% of your fellow Australians that don’t live wealthy lives in major inner city suburbs.
By the way George Brandis, a barrister, made a statutory declaration denying he’d ever described Howard in the terms you refer.
“My response to his assertions is emphatic and unambiguous,” he said.
“I can assure you that no such statements have been made by me to Mr Galt or to anyone.”
“Labor – yes, Labor! – orchestrated the “lying rodent” disclosure the very week John Howard announced his election” said Alan Ramsey no less in his SMH column.
Now that mud-slinging style is the Labor way.
Is it yours too geomac?
Ahh James you seem stuck on this Howard rodent thing. You are the one that implied I used it or more correctly would use it. Its you that introduced it not me. My terms for Howard would be unsuitable for this blog so I dont use any. Now I know the meaning of schadenfreude thanks to the 2007 election and the recent ICC rejection of Howard. Losing his seat and getting the flick from cricket. To quote Jackie Gleeson ” How sweet it is “
It’s a complete furphy of course. She’s using it as a political ladder on which to reach her ‘battler’ voters. Those people who do feel that they can’t say what they think (incorrectly) simply because when they do, people disagree with them.
A real debate or conversation would include the facts, which of course show that there is actually nothing to be anxious about (except perhaps what our moral legacy should be).
Just another politician talking junk.
Is political incorrectness just code word for ‘I want to say what I want but I don’t want you to answer back’? Seems to be.
PS. Dear Ms Gillard. I will not vote for you just because you’re a woman. And you may want to think about courting MY vote for a change as I’m in the seat of Melbourne, which you’re likely to lose come next election.
“I didn,t say John Howard is a rodent which I believe was attributed to Brandis and naturally being a staunch party man he denied it” says geomac and then ignoring the very point I made, proves it.
Sworn stat decs by an officer of the court, a parliamentary inquiry into the SIEV X following wildly disgusting slurs by people with the same facility as geomac and a judicial inquiry into AWB by Mr Cole all are liars according to geomac who prefers to bury his head in the sand rather than face facts and use…… you now….actual evidence.
I guess I should thank you geomac. You certainly have no shame.
I consider this ‘debate’ at a close.
Are we finished with “rodent” and similar racist, redneck, un-PC, discriminatory vilifications against mammals of the Rodentia persuasion? (which JAMESK did actually mention first, not that there’s anything wrong with that)
SHEPHERDMARILYN, you are in eloquent form today. Informative and cutting. You mentioned a bit of a credibility shortage in political parties, and I think you mentioned elsewhere that you used to work for the Democrats. Was that back when they were the only party trying to draw limits around federal government power?
It turns out throwing away principles of law to use power arbitrarily sort of has mixed results doesn’t it. One day they’re using it to ignore principles of fair contract in taxation law, another day they’re using it to flout the laws on refugees.
I’m not trying to be a smart-arse by the way. I admire your style. Just a small point about give and take, and following principle wherever it leads.
Of cousre if we werent fighting in Afghanistan we would be receiving bugger all refugees from there and as far as Ceylon (sri lanka) is concerned then we should be granting temp visas until things settle down or grant them proper ref status its really that simple.Its above any politics to say ” send them back” or whatever. These are real people like you and me, so some respect for the tenacity and true guts to do the boat thing,shit the plane loads that turn up we dont even worry about.This is not about people smugglers at all this is about our govt being complicate in genocide by not recognising there is a problem in there country and condoning it by having ties to there war lords (corruptly elected govts) I would be one of hundreds of thousands that would like to say we dont support ANY war or racial intolerance so therefore we will not trade or play sport with Any country that is currently engaged in such crap.It is simple we have done it before and for you drongoes out there that dispute this look at how long South Africa was out in the cold,and we dont trade with or send sports teams to North Korea now do we.Dreaming, yes youre probably right. oh well thats my rant on it.
.
I agree wholeheartedly with Defamed Raw Prawn.
The more people are willing to discuss the issue, reagrdless of their point of view, the more chance we have to understand and present our point of view.
And then, there is a chance for concensus and practical, agreed solutions.
Getting back on topic I think “dog-whistling” is the biggest non-word in Australian politics these days.
Definition of dog-whistling: You have no evidence whatsoever to prove your claim, it’s all about the vibe and the uh… yeah it’s the vibe.