[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> The Lonely Antipodean Travelogue

[Ian andrews <i.andrews@metroscreen.com.au>]

>Here, in discussions of xenophobia (and racism generally), the word 'guilt'
>is only ever used as a ritualistic prelude to its denial.

OK good point Angela. But the Australia's history of xenophobic policies
affects the way we are percieved by the rest of the world, in relation to
this issue, in such a way that the US or the UK would not be if placed in a
similar situation.
>
>I find it difficult not to laugh at assertions that the Government's (and
>Ian's) rhetoric of 'queue-jumpers'- constantly paraded before television
>cameras and reproduced on radio and in print - is "being constantly
>overlooked".

Perhaps I'm wrong here. Maybe I have not absorbed enough mainstream media
which may be giving more attention to this issue than I am aware.  But the
small amount of reference to the governments argument of "queue-jumpers"
has not received, as far as I have seen, much serious comment. And loath as
I am to defend the Howard Goverment, many of whose policies I regard as
absolutely racist, I must say that I do think that they have a point here.
And that a solution must be found that does not disadvantage those who have
aready lodged applications for assylum to Australia, and who are most
probably waiting it out in deplorable conditions in some refugee camp. Nor
do I think that it is useful to descibe the policy of favouring of legal
over illegal assylum seekers as "racist" or "xenophobic" since such
rhetoric only serves to harden those who oppose immigration (not me) and to
weaken the charge of racism when it is applied to such injustices as
mandatory sentencing, the post Wik land grab, and the systematic white
washing of Australian history in schools. In other words, the favouring of
legal over illegal refugees is not a position based on race or ethicity.
Rather it is a position based on a conception of justice (however flawed
that may be), which must decide who is the most in need of immediate
assitance. The question is: should those who enter illegally, because they
can afford to do so, be favoured over those whon can't, or those who are
fleeing a dangerous situation and have no other safe place to go? I fail to
see how race enters into it.



'People-smugglers' - or rather, clandestine travel agents -
>are the creation of a prohibition.

Heroin smugglers, arms smugglers, and wildlife smugglers are also the
creation of a prohibition. This does not mean that what they do is right
(and please don't read into this comparison any equation between refugees
and dangerous substances: the refugees are certainly the victims here).  I
must draw a sharp distinction between those who you rather romantically
refer to as clandestine travel agents, and political underground networks
(or even overseas aid organisations that help facilitate the camps, reunite
people and ultimately assist in their passage to saftey).  The former have
no other interest other than profiting from the misery of others. To think
of them otherwise is to be extremely idealistic.

   Despite the PM's claims
>that "Australia does not sink ships", it is difficult to see how such
>'deterrance' might be accomplished otherwise.

Oh come on. How long has this problem existed?  Do really think that the
Australian Navy has been sinking ships, or will begin to?
>
>Those who wring their hands at the competition between offshore and onshore
>asylum seekers might do better to question the system of quotas that creates
>this competition.

Thats like saying law creates corruption.  As long as there is a law there
will be people who will provide a way (for money) to get around it. But the
quota system is not the cause of the problem. War, repression and violence
is the cause, not the granting of assylum by process.

 All the problems associated with clandestine travel, the
>filling of onshore and offshore 'places', the billions spent on the
>detention, 'deterrence', and interdiction of under 5000 people per year
>would not exist were it not for immigration controls.
>
>Given the magnitude of the global movements, there is a stark choice: either
>resort to increasingly draconian and lethal border controls or open the
>borders - now, there's a thought.

a stark choice between evil and good obviously. I'm sure there are other
options, the granting of temporary assylum, such as what was done during
the Kosovo conflict for example.


 In any case, I doubt my or anyone else's
>capacity to stand in judgement over another person's reasons to move.  If
>those on the Tampa were tourists, no one would hesitate to ponder the
>question of whether or not they ought to be allowed entry.
>
>Angela
>_______________
>
>: Before I say anything, let me say that I do sympathise with the plight of
>: the "undocumented migrants" and I admire their courage to cross shark and
>: pirate infested oceans in small craft. But I do think that this debate has
>: become a little blinded by emotional issues which, to some extent, play on
>: white middleclass guilt associated with a history of xenophobic policies
>: (the White Australia Policy).
>: The main issue that is being constantly overlooked is that the "illegal
>: refugees" force themselves ahead of others who are patiently waiting in
>: refugee camps somewhere. I do not think that it is fair, just because many
>: of these people are better off economically (they have enough money to pay
>: the "people smugglers"), and that they are ready to risk, not only their
>: own lives but those of their children, that their entry into Australia
>: should take precedence over others.  On the other hand I do believe that
>: anyone whose life is threated by the goverment of their own country,
>: because of their, ethnicity, religion, or political leanings, has the
>: inalienable right to seek asylum in a neighboring country.  In this regard
>: I would not wish to turn back assylum seekers from East Timor, or
>: Indonesia, for example. But Afghanistan is not on our borders and the
>: refugees would not be placed in any direct danger if they were forced to
>: return to their last port of call, be it Indonesia or Malaysia. I don't
>: think this attitude is xenophobic. I would gladly accept more Asian people
>: in Australia. And if it is true that we don't accept our fair share of
>: refugees then that is a problem.  But it IS a seperate issue. The way I
>: look at it is that people who buy their way into a country are much like
>: people who buy an educational quailfication.  I support people
>: who go about
>: things in such a way that is fair to everyone else.
>
>#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
>#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net


Ian Andrews
Metro Screen
Sydney


Email: i.andrews@metroscreen.com.au
http://www.metroscreen.com.au
1981 - 2001 Metro Screen is a celebrating 20 years of access and
innovation in independent screen production.

Metro Screen
Sydney Film Centre
Paddington Town Hall
P.O. Box 299
Paddington NSW 2021
Ph : 612 9361 5318
Fax: 612 9361 5320




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold