Refugees represent the vanguard of their peoples

Refugees driven from country to country represent the vanguard of their peoples.

- Hannah Arendt 1943

Many people who flee their countries represent the highest of their peoples. They may have been forced out because of their education, politics or religion. But regardless of the reason for their lives being in danger, these people have great determination to seek safety for themselves and to rebuild their lives regardless of their circumstances.

It is the small-minded in the supposedly 'advanced' nations who fear them. The same people who consider themselves better than those in developing nations because of their education or occupation. Yet, their fear is grounded in ignorance. People fear what they don't know. People rooted in materialism, selfishness and greed fear, what they may lose.

The most polarising argument regards asylum seekers who arrive by boat and then claim asylum. To prevent this, the Australian government operates off-shore detention camps at Christmas Island (Australia), Manus Island (PNG) and Nauru, while also refusing to resettle asylum seekers in Australia. The government has also literally towed boats back to Indonesian waters.

The Abbot-led government has boasted that these harsh policies have meant that not one boat has reached Australia in months. However, this doesn't explain how many boats have made it into Australian waters, only to be pushed or towed back to Indonesia. The government simply refuses to release this information, claiming that it would prejudice the military-run Operation Sovereign Borders that it uses to wage war on asylum seekers.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, boast of stopping the boats and credit their inhumane policies with this. These policies keep asylum seekers locked up in indefinite detention with a promise to never settle them in Australia.

In essence, the government is using asylum seekers as human scare-crows, by hoping the indefinite detention and inhumane conditions that they are keeping asylum seekers in, will deter others from coming.

In an effort to torpedo the critics of this harsh policy, the government states that there have been no deaths at sea since it was implemented. While a lack of drownings is good, the policy does not genuinely care for the asylum seekers. What is the government turning these people back to? A life without hope. A life in which they are in constant danger.

The government coerces asylum seekers to return to their country of origin by assuring them that they will never be settled in Australia and if they want to leave detention, all they have to is sign documents requesting to leave. There are still thousands of people languishing in Australian detention centres. Many are being forcibly returned to their country of origin, which may include Sri Lanka or Iraq for instance. Countries which are not safe. The government even donated a Navy frigate to the Sri Lankan government to round up people trying to flee the cruelty and persecution.

The Australian government may well be breaching the UN Refugee Convention by indefinitely detaining asylum seekers in inhumane conditions. Article 31 requires members states to not impose penalties regardless of how a refugee arrived. Articles 32 and 33 also prohibit states from refouling or returning asylum seekers to countries in which they are in danger. ⁽¹⁾ Yet Australia continues to breach the Convention.

The government continues its rhetoric that asylum seekers are illegal in an effort to delegitimise claims and manipulate the mind-set of voters into thinking that asylum seekers arriving by boat are not 'genuine'. Asylum statistics produced by the Department of Immigration for the March 2013 quarter showed that on average more than 90% of so-called 'irregular maritime arrivals' were 'genuine'. That's assuming that the ones whose requests were denied, are not genuine. Given that many are being returned to countries such as Sri Lanka and Iraq, it's likely that those denied visas should have been given them. The following is a summary of the 'genuineness' of the asylum seekers arriving by boat in the last few years:

The government has perpetuated the belief that many asylum seekers destroy their identity papers or are queue jumpers. Believe it or not, but some people are stateless. Kurds for example. This means that for many, no nation claims or recognises them and therefore refuses to give them papers such as birth certificates. Others don't have time to grab papers when suddenly fleeing their homes in fear of their lives.

Refugees arriving by boat are not 'queue' jumpers. Queue jumping would be if they were lined up at McDonald's and someone pushed through to the front. There is no orderly queue for refugees. In 2012, there were 45.2 million displaced persons, with refugees accounting for 15 million of these. The UNHCR received 893,700 applications for asylum and processed 113,000 claims ⁽²⁾.  Based on this it would take around eight years for a claim to be processed. Considering that many refugees do not apply for asylum immediately, it could mean that from time of displacement to having an asylum claim heard could be much longer than that.

That's years out of a person's life. Years out of a family's life. For children, that could mean their entire childhood being held in a refugee camp with inadequate education and health services. The camps themselves are not particularly safe, with attacks being made on them by local Armies or militia.

It is no surprise that refugees flee for safer countries. Heading east from countries such as Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Burma the first country they come to that is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention is Australia. They could stay in India, Malaysia, Indonesia and so on, if they want their lives put on hold indefinitely. None of these countries allow refugees to settle and build lives. So some come to Australia.

In 2013, Australia took around 5,000 refugees who had arrived by boat ⁽³⁾. The country hasn't fallen apart. However, for those who have been given community detention their lives are still on hold. They can't work, they can't study and they live with the fear of being sent back to their country of origin. It really wouldn't hurt for Australia to grant permanent residency and to lift the intake. Refugees represent a fraction of total migration numbers (as at March 2013, net overseas migration was 238,000) ⁽⁴⁾.

Australia really needs to review it's approach to asylum seekers. The 'out of sight, out of mind' policy of imprisoning people on remote islands is inhumane and cowardly. It is time for the major parties to show some mettle and defend these persecuted people instead of caving to populist policy in order to get elected. Both Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison claim to be Christian, yet their policies and behaviour are decidedly not Christian. Martin Luther King said, 'He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it'.

Abbott, Morrison and the entire Australian government are not just passively accepting evil, they are perpetrating it. The ALP hasn't done much better. When in power they implemented inhumane policies, although it was mainly in response to the incessant bleating of Abbott with his mindless 'Stop the Boats' slogan and fear-mongering lies about the dangers posed by asylum seekers. Abbott showed that he'd do anything to get elected, including committing crimes against humanity.

Haile Selassie stated, 'Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph'. Australians must stand up against the evil that is being perpetrated against the world's most vulnerable. What would we do if faced with their decisions? To stay and face persecution, hopelessness and death, or make an attempt for a better life?

Refugees who come to Australia are here to make a better life for themselves. In so doing, they will contribute to Australian society and the economy. Yet, it is the Australian government that is preventing them from working and becoming part of our society.

As Hannah Arendt said, refugees represent the vanguard of their peoples. Sadly, it is the Australian government that is the antithesis of this. Rather than being leaders with integrity and compassion, changing the political debate, the LNP government is following a racist, xenophobic trend to shore up their own careers. They are dehumanising asylum seekers, referring to them by their boat numbers rather than their names. They are demonising asylum seekers to generate fear and hatred of them.

The Australian government's behaviour is designed to cauterise the community's collective conscience while masquerading as the defenders of Australian liberty. What a disgrace. Lying, using and abusing the world's most vulnerable for political gain.

Refugees have more integrity than many of our politicians. Release asylum seekers from detention and let them settle in Australia. Have compassion, empathy and understanding instead of being manipulated by government-run fear campaigns. It will benefit asylum seekers and it will benefit the nation.

References:

1. United Nations, Convention on the Status of Refugees (1951),http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

2. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Facts and Figures about Refugees, http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html, accessed 19 June 2014.

3. Refugee Council of Australia, Statistics on asylum seekers arriving in Australia, http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-as.php, accessed 19 June 2014.

4. Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Fact Sheet 15 - population growth, https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/15population.htm, accessed 19 June 2014.

Lest we forget

'I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is a racket' - Major General Smedley Darlington Butler.

Lest we forget

These three words are spoken in remembrance of soldiers who've fought and died for their nation. We hear the words on Anzac Day. We hear them on Remembrance Day.

We repeat them often, but we still send young men and women into combat, and with any combat, we have to accept that they could die.

Sadly, war is a fact of life. However, do we need to be involved in every conflict that we're invited to? Or even that we're not invited to?

Lest we forget.

Lest we forget what?

Lest we forget the horrors of war?

Lest we forget the lives lost?

Lest we forget the impact on civilians in the war-zone? The families, the children?

Lest we forget the crimes against humanity committed in war?

Lest we forget that wars were fought on Australian soil by original inhabitants? Sadly, these wars aren't even acknowledged at the Australian War Memorial or by the Australian government.

Lest we forget the freedoms that were fought for and that we enjoy today.

Lest we forget.

And what do we do with these memories?

We go to war for fabricated reasons that mask imperialist imperatives, e.g. Gallipoli, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Wars that were driven by politicians for political means.

Gallipoli. The battle that many say defined Australia. The battle in which Australia 'came of age'. It was a brutal battle and cost thousands of lives from each of the armies involved. But lets not forget, it was a battle fought in which WE were the invader. It was Britain that invaded Turkey, not the other way around. The excuse was that it would shorten the war. However, the real reason was that the Ottoman Empire ruled the Middle East and the Middle East contained oil. Vast reserves of oil. Oil which the British Empire needed for their new fleet of oil-fueled ships.

Vietnam? Australia wasn't even invited. Prime Minister Menzies practically begged the USA to invite Australia. In the end, he committed us to the war without the approval of Parliament. In the end, 500 Australian lives were lost and thousands were injured. Australia had gone to war as part of the US effort, which was more about geo-political reasons than it was about protecting the local population. The American involvement was under the pretext of stopping the march of Communism, which formed the crux of the domino theory (i.e. if one country falls to Communism, so will many others). It was a war in which America, supported by her allies, committed war-crimes, including the napalming and massacres of civilians, rape and torture. In the end, we lost the war and the domino theory never eventuated. Vietnam was a civil war, not part of a global Communist plot to conquer the world. Lest we forget.

Afghanistan. Invaded on the pretext that the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. More than a decade later, thousands of innocent Afghans killed, hundreds of troops killed, including Australians, billions of dollars spent and yet terrorism still exists and the war continues. Like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, the 21st century invasion by the USA has had severe economic impacts. For the Soviets, their occupation contributed directly to their downfall. For the USA, the unfunded war resulted in the borrowing of over a trillion dollars from China. It was one of the main causes of the 2007 Global Financial Crisis and for the USA almost bankrupting itself. Lest we forget ... we obviously forgot what happened to the Soviet Union (who?) in the 1980s. Oh, yeah, the Soviet Union collapsed. Remember? Lest we forget.

Iraq, 2003. Prime Minister Howard committed Australian troops again to follow the USA into a war on false pretences. The USA wanted Iraq for their own hegemonic reasons, not because Saddam Hussein was threatening America, or threatening our freedoms. This war was coupled with the war in Afghanistan. Also blowing out the economic cost. It cost the lives of thousands of troops, including Australians. It cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Lest we forget that many of the wars Australia has been involved in were fought not for our freedoms, nor were they to defend Australia from direct, or even indirect, threats. They were marketed like that, because what better way to enlist people than for governments to fabricate a fearful enemy and wave the flag.

Lest we forget that whenever politicians commit us to war, it comes at a cost. Soldiers die. Innocent civilians die.

The only war in the last century or so that was required to be fought, was World War 2. Obviously, Hitler had to be stopped. Obviously, Australia had to defend itself against Japanese aggression. Argument of course can be made that the Japanese were defending themselves against US aggression, hence the attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the only reason they attacked Australia was because of the presence of the USA. Nonetheless, Australia defending itself is understandable in that situation.

Most recently, Australian soldiers are being tasked with the unsavoury, and potentially illegal, turning back of asylum seekers boats. Former Prime Minister Howard engaged military personnel for the purposes of either turning back boats or detaining asylum seekers and transporting them to Australia's gulags on Christmas Island, Nauru, Woomera and so on. Current Prime Minister Abbott seems to think it is a good thing to unleash the military on a persecuted civilian population that is requesting assistance. He's even given it a military focus by appointing a military general and calling it a 'war'. It is a war against the most vulnerable people in the world. It is a war against those seeking Australia's protection. Instead of protecting them, we unleash the military. We imprison asylum seekers. We force back to inhumane camps, to lives in which they are persecuted and sometimes murdered. This is not what the military is for.

All wars have victims. We honour those who served Australia, who fought and died for this nation. We must not forget the dead, nor should we forget that the survivors are often victims too, carrying a life-time of trauma with them. There are incidents of depression, mental illness and suicide among returned service personnel, and the government usually fails to care for them. Governments are quick to send soldiers into battle and milk the political gain this brings. And they are quick to forget too. Quick to ignore the pain and suffering of returned soldiers. But of course, come Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, we see the Prime Minister and other politicians reciting 'Lest we forget'. Lest we forget what?

Lest we forget, that whenever we send troops into battle, they may be going to their deaths. The question has to be: 'are their deaths worth it?' Lest we forget the returned who often carry a life-time of pain, injury and anguish with them.

Lest we forget. Certainly honour the servicemen and women who were the pawns of political agendas, but don't honour war. Don't honour the lies and fog of war that justify killing in the name of nationalism, corporatism or emotive clarion calls, such as 'fight for freedom'.

Criticising war and the wars in which we've fought does not mean that we don't support the troops. In fact, those who claim to support the troops by sending them into every conflict  are the ones who are supporting our troops the least. Why send soldiers to be killed or maimed in unnecessary wars? If armies are to be deployed, make sure it is for a valid reason, not a manufactured one. 'Support the troops' doesn't mean sending them into every conflict for any reason. It means ensuring that they are used as effectively as possible for the defence of their nation.

Supporting imperialism is not 'supporting our troops'.

Lest we forget - war is a racket that sacrifices the innocent for the greed of nations, ideologies and money.

Lest we forget.

Battle of the Budget 2014 - Conscripting the poor to fight on the fiscal frontline

Battle of the Budget 2014 - Conscripting the poor to fight on the fiscal frontline



Raise the flag, sound the warning sirens and conscript the poor to the fiscal front-line of the budgetary battle. 

Joe Hockey, Treasurer of the Lucky Country, delivered his first budget on Tuesday, 13 May 2014. He declared a budget emergency and unleashed a volley of budgetary attacks tantamount to declaring war on those who could least afford them.

So what was this budget emergency from which he had to ride in like a knight in shining armour to rescue the nation by sacrificing the poor to the altar of capitalism?

Well, the emergency was that Australia had a AAA credit rating with net debt at 12% of GDP. What a shocking financial situation! An economy that had been rated the highest that it could be by the three major credit rating agencies in the world.

Of course, Hockey banged on about how bad our debt was: it was 12% of GDP ⁽¹⁾. That's equivalent to having a $100,000 income and a $12,000 debt. No-one would panic about spending in that circumstance, nor would they sell the house and the kids in order to pay for it.

The gullible who swallow every deceitful word of the Abbott-led LNP, sincerely believe that Labor stuffed up the country. Let's not forget that it was Labor's Keynesian economics that ensured Australia successfully navigated the Global Financial Crisis with its AAA credit rating intact and it's debt relatively low. It was one of the few OECD countries to achieve this. By comparison, Germany ,who is seen as an economic power-house in Europe, has a net debt that's 56% of GDP. The United States is 89% and Japan is 143% ⁽¹⁾.

To achieve this successful and strong economy during a major global economic downturn was no small feat considering that revenue took a hit because of the impacts of a global recession (some would say depression) on business and consumer confidence. In other words, businesses and people spent and invested less, meaning that the government collected less through its revenue measures, therefore driving the deficit up. The government had to invest money in order to keep the economy stimulated. Had it not, it would have gone the way of other OECD nations who decided to adopt austerity measures, rather than Rudd's stimulus measures.

The Rudd and Gillard governments should have been given medals and awards for ensuring the economy stayed strong while subject to demanding internal and external pressures, rather than being castigated by the vile lies and scare-mongering that the Abbott-led opposition was renowned for.

But for the LNP, it was time to raise the flag, sound the warning sirens and conscript the poor to the fiscal front-line of the budgetary battle. It's always the poor, the lower-paid, the young and the workers who pay the price and fight the wars that politicians manufacture.

This 'budget emergency' was actually made worse by the Abbott government in order to concoct a perceived crisis. In the seven months following the election, Abbott increased the debt limit from $300 billion to $500 billion ⁽²⁾. Only the year before, he castigated Labor for daring to raise the debt ceiling from $250 billion to $300 billion, accusing Labor of being addicted to spending. In December 2013, the deficit was around $47 billion. Within seven months of the election, the LNP government borrowed in excess of $70 billion ⁽³⁾. The impact on the deficit was to double it. The LNP doubled Labor's deficit in seven months. ⁽⁴⁾

The election in 2013 was underpinned by a campaign centred on honesty and trust. Abbott made much mileage from a so-called lie by Julia Gillard. She had claimed that there would be no carbon tax under her if she won the election in 2010. Prior to the election she did say that she was going to price carbon, but let's not get hung up on semantics. The gullible reacted with shock and horror and feigned moral indignation that former Prime Minister Gillard had 'lied'. Most of those who carried on about it hadn't voted for her anyway.

During the 2013 election, Abbott ran a campaign declaring 'no surprises', 'no lies'. He also made promises such as:

• no cuts to the ABC
• no cuts to SBS
• no changes to the pension
• no cuts to health
• no cuts to education

You probably guessed where I'm going with this. The budget made cuts to all of the above. In fact:

• ABC cut by 1% and loss of $196 million over nine years
• SBS cut by 1%
• Pension supplements and concessions slashed by more than $1.3 billion
• Health cut by $50 billion
• Education cut by $30 billion

Lies? Well, you be the judge. However, it reeks of Howard's first-term lies when he claimed 'no new taxes, no tax increases and no indirect taxes'. But I digress. Of course, the gullible have made excuses for Abbott's lies even though they refused to extend the same latitude to former Prime Minister Gillard. 

The Abbott-led government has delivered a budget that breaks promises and slashes spending in essential areas. It is an austerity budget, it is a budget that will cause the economy to contract, not to grow.

Leading up to the budget, Abbott and Hockey manipulated the gullible by declaring the economy a basket-case and that tough decisions must be made. They both said that we need to 'share' the pain.

Sharing. Interesting word. By definition it means 'to divide, apportion, or receive equally'. The budget slashed $12 billion from welfare, $3 billion from high-income earners & $1 billion from big business.

This is not 'sharing', at least not in any realistic sense of the word. There is nothing equitable or fair about taking much from those who have little while taking little from those who have much. Those from a low socio-economic status are carrying the brunt of the LNP's fiscal irresponsibility. To increase revenue fairly, it would have been better to adjust marginal and corporate taxes.

While a number of the cuts are disturbing, perhaps one of the worst is the cut to Newstart. The eligibility age is being increased to 25 from 22. Those who are between 22 and 25 will only receive the Youth Allowance which is $96 per fortnight less than Newstart. However, if you're over 25 it's no bed of roses. In fact, it's even worse. You'll have to wait six months to qualify for Newstart and then it will only be paid for six months of the year until you're 30. Additionally, you'll have to complete 25 hours of 'work for the dole'.

Imagine: no income for six months of the year!

The idea is that people will either 'earn or learn' (another of the inane three-word slogans of the puerile LNP aimed at dumbing down politics for an electorate they treat as fools). Considering that the budget slashes jobs while rewarding businesses to hire older workers, means there is no job creation for young people. In addition, with the budget creating unaffordable higher education and the prospects of crippling university loans through the deregulation of university fees, there will be no incentive or capacity for many in this age bracket to 'learn'. So opportunities for young people to 'earn or learn' have been greatly diminished while their safety net is unavailable for six months of the year or dramatically reduced if they're under 25!

And just to help the belt-tightening situation for the unemployed and lower-paid out even further, the National Rental Affordability Scheme has been axed. Nothing like implementing policy that will increase homelessness and then axing programs that provide affordable housing.

What could possibly go wrong?

There will be increased poverty, homelessness and crime. There will likely be more suicides which is already the leading cause of death in young people ⁽⁵⁾.

The welfare safety net was introduced to assist people in being able to live while focussing on getting a job or an education. Now they will have nothing on which to survive for six months of the year and their ability to look for work or undertake study is further jeopardised because when they do receive Newstart, they'll be committed to 25 hours per week working for the dole.

Not the LNP's finest moment.

In terms of fixing the so-called 'financial mess' that Abbott and Hockey bang on about ad nauseum, the budget is going to result in less spending, which will affect business revenue and ultimately business investment and confidence. The flow-on effect will be lower government revenue and a resultant increase in the deficit. It is likely to also result in increased government spending to cover the costs associated with increased unemployment, homelessness, poverty, crime and the social issues that stem from those.

There is much more to be said and done in relation to this budget. There are protests planned across the country which people should participate in if they are angry about the unfairness and deceit that underpins this budget. Labor, the Greens and Palmer are talking of blocking elements of it in the Senate, potentially forcing a double dissolution which will enable people to vote while their anger is still fresh.

In closing, here are some of the highlights ⁽⁶⁾ of this short-sighted budget, starting with the increases in funding, followed by the 'cuts': the decreases in funding or restructuring of charges that will yield the government money at the expense of vulnerable.

References:

1. 'Total Net Debt (% of GDP) Data for All Countries' - 2013, Economy Watch, http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/economic-indicators/General_Government_Net_Debt_Percentage_GDP/, accessed 17 May 2014.

2. 'Treasurer Joe Hockey announces debt limit to increase to $500 billion', Jonathon Swan, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 October 2013, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-debt-limit-to-increase-to-500-billion-20131022-2vyog.html, accessed 17 May 2014.

3. 'Borrowing by the Abbott government just hit $70.95 billion', Stephen Koukoulas, 9 May 2014, http://thekouk.com/blog/borrowing-by-the-abbott-government-just-hit-70-95-billion.html#.U3at7PmSz3N, accessed 17 May 2014.

4. 'Has the Government doubled the budget deficit?', ABC Fact Check, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392, accessed 17 May 2014.

5. 'Suicide leading cause of death for young Australians', Rachel Brown interview with Megan Mitchel (National Children's Commissioner), ABC 'The World Today', 31 March 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3974978.htm, accessed 17 May 2014. Also refer to 'Statistics on Suicide in Australia', Lifeline which identifies suicide as the leading cause of death for Australians aged between 15 and 44, https://www.lifeline.org.au/About-Lifeline/Media-Centre/Suicide-Statistics-in-Australia/Suicide-Statistics, accessed 17 May 2014.

6. 'Budget 2014-15', Australian Government, http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/index.htm, accessed 16 May 2014.

Open the borders, close the camps, free the refugees

On 28 February 2014, hundreds of people gathered at a rally in Brisbane to protest against Australia's detention of refugees, particularly following the murder of Iranian refugee, Reza Berati, at Manus Island on 17 February 2014.

The rally kicked off in Queen's Park, under the austere gaze of Britain's colonialist Queen Victoria. Ironic given Australia's colonialist expansion into neighbouring countries to establish Gulags for the unwanted and ostracised asylum seekers who arrive by boat in our waters.

The rally was organised by the Refugee Action Collective, with other campaigns run by Socialist Alternative, Socialist Alliance and the Greens. Speakers included Sam Watson, aboriginal affairs activist, Andrew Bartlett from the Greens, and Ali, an asylum seeker who spent 13 months on Christmas Island and four months in a Brisbane immigration detention centre before being allowed to settle in Australia. There were also speakers from Labor for Refugees, Queensland Supporters for Democracy in Iran, and of course the Refugee Action Collective.

The speakers all highlighted the need for a more compassionate and humane approach to welcoming asylum seekers to Australia. The gathering then marched around the CBD, up George Street, along Adelaide, down Edward, along Charlotte St, back up George St to Queen's Park, noisily chanting 'Free the Refugees', 'Hey Abbott, we're talking to you, close Manus Island, close Nauru', 'Sack Morrison' and 'Open the borders, close the camps, free the refugees'. At various points the rally stopped so that people in the CBD could hear the message about why we were protesting and to encourage others to take up the cause. Photos taken at the rally are at the bottom of this article.

The military-run attack on asylum seekers with the grandiose title 'Operation Sovereign Borders', shows just how low Australia has slumped in human rights. Even human rights abusers, China and Iran, are criticising Australia. While it's a bit rich for either of those two nations to criticise anyone else over human rights, it shows just how much damage Operation Sovereign Borders, and for that matter former Prime Minister Gillard's 'PNG solution', has done to Australia's legitimacy. Who is Australia to lecture any other nation on human rights when it is committing gross human rights abuses itself. While the majority of Australians live in comfort and can afford the luxury of supporting xenophobic policies, the government is horrendously treating the most vulnerable of the world's people; people who have fled persecution for a safe country that is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

The main-stream media is awash with ill-informed opinion on refugees. For instance, the claim that the UN Refugee Convention says that refugees must seek asylum in the first country they come to. To validate this argument would mean to look at which is the first country they come to who is a signatory the UN Refugee Convention. Oh, look, it's Australia! Between Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran, refugees who flee east will not encounter any signatory to the Convention until they hit ... wait for it ... Australia.

Then there is the argument that under the Labor government, thousands of refugees died at sea so the LNP policies have saved lives. Technically, this is true ... as far as we know. However, the Liberal government's secrecy means that we don't know if anyone has drowned. Operation Sovereign Borders hasn't stopped people arriving in Australian waters, although, it has prevented most, if not all, reaching Australia's shores as the Navy either turns the boats around or shoves the asylum seekers in life-boats and pushes them back to Indonesia.  Hundreds of asylum seekers have faced this callous treatment since the Liberal Party came to power only five months ago.

If Australia was so concerned about asylum seekers, it would not be imprisoning them indefinitely, denying them water, information, decent accommodation and a future. The LNP boasts that no asylum seeker has drowned attempting to reach Australia.What a straw-man claim that is! So they don't drown in our waters, but we are actively trying to return them to their country's of origin in which they will face persecution, torture, imprisonment and for many, death.

Operation Sovereign Borders is not about saving lives.

Manus Island and Nauru are not 'processing centres' as the government would have us believe. In the last 12 months not one asylum seeker held in detention has been processed. Earlier this week, Liz Thompson, former migration agent on Manus Island, blew the whistle on the lies the government is telling the asylum seekers. Disturbingly, the most telling description of the true aim of the Australian government's use of Manus Island, was her comment, 'It's not designed as a processing facility, it's designed as an experiment in the active creation of horror to deter people from trying'.

Again some are propagating the idea that refugees arriving by boat in Australian waters are 'illegal'. Australia's Migration Act does declare people who arrive in Australia by sea as 'unauthorised maritime arrivals'. This doesn't mean they are illegal. In fact, under Australia's rule of law, all people are innocent until proven guilty. Not one asylum seeker has been charged with entering the country illegally, so indefinite detention without charge is a breach of the presumption of innocence.

Besides if Australians are so concerned about the rule of law, then refer to Article 31(1) of the UN Refugee Convention⁽¹⁾ to which Australia is a signatory, which states:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Further to this is the refoulement principle in Article 33(1) of the UN Refugee Convention⁽¹⁾:

No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Yet, the Australian government is trying to force refugees held in detention centres, to sign documents that would return them to their country of origin. This is refoulement and is a breach of international law.

In fact, the United Nations has warned Australia that it is guilty of almost 150 breaches of international law in relation to its treatment of asylum seekers. The UN described Manus Island as Australia's Guantanamo Bay⁽²⁾.

There are a number of things Australia can do if it really wants to humanely address asylum seekers:

• Stop funding governments who are the cause of human rights abuses, such as Sri Lanka. Within weeks of coming to power, Prime Minister Tony Abbott provided Sri Lanka with a Navy vessel to round up people fleeing persecution. Instead, Australia should have been pressuring Sri Lanka to stop the persecution⁽³⁾.
• Increase the refugee intake. Australia is not over-populated, has plenty to share and refugees have shown themselves to be productive members of the community. Remember our own national anthem: 'For those who've come across the seas we've boundless plains to share'.
• End the off-shore detention, bring all detainees to the Australian mainland and process their claims. Emphasis on 'process'; don't indefinitely detain them without hearing the claims that they are trying to make as described above in Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention.
• End the lies being told to asylum seekers. 
• Treat asylum seekers as people. Remember the old adage, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.
• Provide asylum seekers with sanctuary from persecution.
• Provide asylum seekers with a future in Australia.
• Become a good example of how a humane country treats and protects the most vulnerable. 
• Encourage other nations to improve their human rights and to become signatories to the UN Refugee Convention.

Back to the national anthem:

In history's page, let every stage 
Advance Australia Fair.

Australia is supposedly the land of the 'fair go'.  There is nothing fair about how we treat asylum seekers. Our national anthem is becoming a hollow, meaningless statement as Australia continues down this path of xenophobic persecution of people seeking our protection. This is a shameful stage in our history.

References:

1. United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954, http://www.unhcr.org/496365eb2.pdf, accessed 1 March 2014.

2. International Business Times, Reissa Su, 27 February 2014, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/540887/20140227/asylum-seekers-australia-guantanamo-bay-immigration-manus.htm#.UxEXbvmSy3s, accessed 1 March 2014.

3. Amnesty International, Sri Lanka: UN report must be call to action on war crimes investigation, 25 February 2014, http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/34013/, accessed 1 March 2014.

Photos of rally for refugee rights, Brisbane, 28 February 2014

Sam Watson

Ali

Labor for Refugees

Queensland Supporters for Democracy in Iran

Manus horribilis

Manus horribilis: the horrible Manus solution and Australia's shameful treatment of the world's most vulnerable!

Tony Abbott's mantra 'Stop the Boats' has apparently paid off. Asylum Seekers haven't landed in Australia for more than two months. But at what cost? An asylum seeker has been brutally murdered on Manus Island, apparently at the hands of, or at least during the watch of, the security force G4S that was appointed by the Australian Government, Australia has damaged its reputation with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, and the UNHCR has issued a warning that Australia is breaching its responsibilities under the Refugee Convention ⁽¹⁾.

Great work Australia, but does anyone care?

Liberal Party apologists range from those who think its great that no asylum seeker has arrived, to those who proudly declare we should just kill the whole lot. And the Labor Party is silent. After all, the PNG Solution was their idea in response to the constant barrage of fear-mongering from the Liberal Party.

What an awesome country we have.

Yes, it is good that no asylum seeker has drowned in Australian waters, but this was not the purpose of Abbott's 'Stop the Boats' mantra. The purpose was to appeal to the xenophobia and racism inherent in the electorate. The xenophobia and racism that former One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, brought to the surface and that former Prime Minister, John Howard, cultivated because of its election-winning popularity.

On the subject of John Howard, it's ironic that his supporters think of him as 'Honest John', considering that he lied about so many things, particularly when it came to the suffering and deaths of asylum seekers. Remember Siev-X, Children Overboard and Tampa? Each of those was marked by Howard's lies, denials and blame shifting.

Since Howard, it's in the DNA of the LNP to lie, deny and blame others.

Since Abbott came in he has dropped a cone of silence over most of the party's political activities, particularly asylum seekers. When in opposition, the LNP loudly and proudly broadcast every boat arrival, even driving around the streets with a massive bill-board advertising it. Throughout Labor's reign, Abbott even encouraged people smugglers by stating 'Let people come and put out the welcome mat to people-smugglers'. ⁽²⁾ So was it any wonder that people smugglers took him at his word. Now that LNP is in power, the silence is deafening. They have banned their own staff from announcing boat arrivals, claiming it threatens the military security of Australia. What a crock!

Asylum seekers detained on Manus Island had reported to the previous Labor government that they were being threatened and harassed by the security guards. As far back as September 2013, there were media reports of threats to detainees by Manus residents⁽³⁾. There were also concerns about Australia funding the brutal PNG para-military force, the Mobile Squad, with fears of a major clash with locals⁽⁴⁾.  Both the Labor Party (who were in power at that stage), and the Liberal Party ignored each of these issues.

In October 2013, there was a violent clash between the Mobile Squad and PNG's Army, which resulted in Australian staff on Manus Island being evacuated and asylum seekers left undefended to fend for themselves⁽⁵⁾. Now, Morrison has stated that G4S claims the asylum seekers provoked them in the recent attack. The asylum seekers have been provoked and threatened for months by PNG security.

In November 2013, Amnesty International released a report⁽⁶⁾ detailing the inhumane conditions and treatment of asylum seekers on Manus Island.  It stated that 'Manus Island is not about asylum claims. This is how you break people'⁽⁷⁾. It is how YOU break people. People of Australia, YOU are breaking asylum seekers. People who have suffered persecution and war, who've been tortured and have come to Australia for assistance, are being broken by YOU! Both the Liberal Party and Labor Party have blood on their hands. Both have tried to out-do each other in their inhumanity towards their fellow man. The report stated that human rights violations included: refoulement, arbitary detention, discrimination, no legal protection, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. So, what did Prime Minister Abbott and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison do about this report? Nothing. They ignored it. Well, not totally ignored it. Morrison warned non-government organisations to be careful what they say⁽⁸⁾. He wasn't concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers. He was concerned that it was being reported. Why? Because this government will silence dissent where it can.

This was demonstrated when the ABC reported allegations of abuse by the Royal Australian Navy against asylum seekers on board a boat. Apparently, the ABC was unAustralian for daring to suggest there may be substance to the claims. Isn't the idea of reporting to report events? Not all of these will be palatable, but the independence of journalists should not be threatened by the Government. The LNP's attacks on media and free speech are bordering on fascism.

The Amnesty International report contained information that was not new. The human rights breaches were also documented by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in a report released on 4 February 2013⁽⁹⁾. Australia's response? Ban asylum seekers from ever settling in Australia. Oh, and then Abbott took it further by threatening to deport asylum seekers already in Australia for doing nothing more than what most Australians do now⁽¹⁰⁾.

Australia's racist, fear-driven and vote-seeking policies have culminated in the murder of an innocent Iranian man in the Manus Island detention centre. Reza Berati⁽¹¹⁾ was killed during the riot. While the events are still under investigation, numerous reports are emerging that it was PNG security forces, and possibly locals, who attacked the asylum seekers. One man was killed, 77 were injured, 13 critically. All this on the watch of Scott Morrison.

In addition, the Department of Immigration and Border Security published the names and details of 10,000 asylum seekers on their website, potentially placing these people at risk from the very regimes they are fleeing. The illustrious Morrison then revealed the location of the file in interviews and press-releases, displaying gross incompetence⁽¹²⁾.

Morrison should be sacked.

Australia maintains its Gulag Archipelago, of Manus Island, Nauru and Christmas Island, as well as a number of on-shore facilities. All breaching international law through mandatory detention and denying basic human rights to people seeking asylum.

If we've managed to stop the boats, then we need to make sure that we aren't just pushing people back into a life of persecution, torture, rape, murder. Australia should be working with the UN and with neighbouring nations, to have asylum seeker claims processed quickly and the claimants settled in Australia or another country of their choice.

Australia is the first country that Afghans, Sri Lankans, Rohingyans, will encounter when fleeing to the east, so it would behoove us to encourage nations that aren't signatories (such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand), to sign up to the Convention and to process and accept refugees. This may actually reduce the number of people fleeing to Australia.

Asylum seekers are being subject to human rights abuse at the hands of, and with the knowledge of, Australian authorities. We must take a more humane approach to those seeking safety. Australia is supposed to be the land of the fair go. Word around the camp fire is that 'for those who've come across the seas we've boundless plains to share'. Then let's share.

Raise the refugee quota and treat people the way we would like to be treated.

Stop the silence, stop the cover-ups, stop the dehumanisation and demonisation.

End the fear through love, empathy, acceptance and compassion.

RIP Reza Berati - murdered on Manus Island 16 February 2014.
Innocent victim of Australia's inhumane refugee policies.

References:

1. 'United Nations warns Australia about asylum seeker boat push-backs', Sydney Morning Herald, 11 January 2014, http://www.smh.com.au/world/united-nations-warns-australia-about-asylum-seeker-boat-pushbacks-20140111-hv83u.html

2. 'Abbott slams Labor's 'pull factors' for refugee crisis', Canberra Times, 9 December 2011, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/abbott-slams-labors-pull-factors-for-refugee-crisis-20111209-1ug6o.html

3. 'Manus Island landowners threaten 'guerilla war' against detention centre', The Australian, 2 September 2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/manus-island-landowners-threaten-guerilla-war-against-detention-centre/story-fn9hm1gu-1226709098089

4. 'Australians funding PNG's feared cops', Rory Callinan, The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 August 2013, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/australians-funding-pngs-feared-cops-20130803-2r65w.html

5. 'Greens to launch inquiry into security squads clash at Manus Island detention centre', Sarah Whyte, Natalie O'Brien, The Age, 12 February 2014, http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-to-launch-inquiry-into-security-squads-clash-at-manus-island-detention-centre-20140212-32gql.html

6. 'The Truth About Manus Island: 2013 report'. Amnesty International, 11 December 2013. http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/33587/?utm_medium=microsite&utm_source=trthmns&utm_campaign=refugees, accessed 22 February 2014.

7. Truth about Manus, http://truthaboutmanus.com/

8. 'Amnesty International's Manus Island report sparks Scott Morrison warning', Mark Coultan, The Australian, 13 December 2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/amnesty-internationals-manus-island-report-sparks-scott-morrison-warning/story-fn59niix-1226782530623

9. 'UNHCR Mission to Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, 15-17 January 2013', United Nations High Commission for Refugees, 4 February 2013, http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/images/2013-02-04%20Manus%20Island%20Report%20Final.pdf, accessed 22 February 2014.

10. 'Australia threatens to deport asylum seekers who spit, swear or spread rumours', Kashmira Gander, The Independent, 30 January 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-threatens-to-deport-asylum-seekers-who-spit-swear-or-spread-rumours-9097152.html

11. 'Manus violence: dead asylum seeker named as Iranian Reza Berati, 23', Oliver Laughland, The Guardian, 21 February 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/manus-dead-asylum-seeker-iranian-reza-berati

12. 'Tim Wilson says Morrison response to asylum seeker data breach ‘undesirable’ ', Oliver Laughland and Paul Farrell, The Guardian, 21 February 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/tim-wilson-morrison-response-asylum-seeker-data-breach-undesirable.

Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut - a eulogy

Ariel Sharon - born 26 February 1928, died 11 January 2013, former Israeli Prime Minister, Minister for Defence, military commander. He was 85.

World leaders are eulogising former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon who died a few hours ago. Some are cautious in their words, such as President Barack Obama sending his 'deepest condolences to the family of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and to the people of Israel on the loss of a leader who dedicated his life to the State of Israel'. Nothing about Sharon being a great leader, but it is true that he dedicated his life to Israel ... at the expense of Palestinian lives. Current US Secretary of State, John Kerry said that '... he sought to bend the course of history towards peace'.  British Prime Minister David Cameron stated, ' ... he took brave and controversial decisions in pursuit of peace ...'. ⁽¹⁾

There was nothing brave or peaceful about Sharon's massacres of innocent civilians.

Australia's Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, laid a wreath at the grave of Ariel Sharon, prompting a response from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society informing her of their concern over her support for breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the racist policies of Israel. ⁽²⁾

In 2003, then President George W. Bush referred to him as a 'man of peace'. However, in 1982, President Reagan's special envoy, Ambassador Philip Habib stated, 'Sharon was a killer obsessed with hatred of Palestinians. I had promised Arafat that his people would not get any harm. Sharon, however, ignored this commitment entirely. Sharon's word is worth nil'. ⁽³⁾

The eulogies for Sharon should not be honouring the man, but ensuring his crimes against humanity are remembered and his victims are not forgotten.

Unit 101

With the founding of Israel in 1948, Sharon was a paratrooper in the new state's Army, and later commander. His initiation was during the so-called 'War of Independence', when a number of neighbouring Arab states attempted to repel the military forces of the newly created state of Israel that were violently forcing Palestinians from their homes, killing those who resisted. It was a war of self-defence for the Arabs against a European invasion.

In August 1953, on orders from Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, Sharon founded Unit 101, a Special Forces unit. Within one month of its founding, a Unit 101 patrol attacked civilians in Gaza, killing dozens of Palestinians. Two months later Unit 101 attacked civilians in the village of Qibya, in the West Bank, murdering 69 civilians and destroying 45 buildings, a school and a mosque. Three-quarters of the victims were women and children. Both attacks attracted international condemnation. Israel initially denied the attack and tried to blame others for it, however, was finally forced to admit that Unit 101 was responsible. Unit 101 was also responsible for other attacks on civilians, including Bedouins. The Unit committed crimes against humanity but was never held responsible. ⁽⁴⁾



1956 Suez Canal invasion

In 1956, Israel attacked Egypt in order to gain control of the Suez Canal. It also gained the Sinai. Being a war, meant that there were prisoners, and Israel had captured hundreds of Egyptian soldiers. Sharon was in charge of units that murdered 273 Egyptian prisoners of war, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention. It was a war-crime. ⁽⁵⁾

Pacification of Gaza

The so-called 'Pacification of Gaza' should have been called the 'Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza'. In 1971, Sharon led military operations into Gaza which were responsible for thinning out the population. It was ethnic cleansing. Israel massacred hundreds of civilians, blew up houses, hospitals, schools and forcibly relocated more than 13,000 civilians to the Sinai. ⁽⁶⁾

Lebanon

Over the subsequent years, Israeli forces under Sharon's command continued their brutal occupation and attacks on civilians. Whenever Palestinians fought back, Israel would respond with excessive violence. In 1982, while Sharon was Minister of Defence, Israel attacked Lebanon, bombing refugee camps for weeks, killing an untold number of people, destroying hospitals, orphanages and schools. This campaign resulted in 125,000 people fleeing for their lives.

Sharon accused Palestinian 'terrorists' of murdering Lebanese leader Bashir Gemayel. It was later proven that the attack was carried about my a Lebanese Maronite Christian. Nonetheless, Sharon unleashed Lebanese Christian Phalangists into the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in an horrific campaign of terror in which more than 2,000 refugees, including women, children and babies were raped and murdered over the following three days. English journalist, Robert Fisk visited Shatila only days after the massacre, during which he was stepping over the corpses of 'raped and eviscerated women and their husbands and children ... ' ⁽⁷⁾

Following international condemnation, a commission of inquiry was established and Ariel Sharon held personally responsible because he knew the massacre was occurring and he allowed it to continue. His troops stood idly by, watching the massacre unfold. Sharon was dismissed as Minister of Defence, but was not charged. In fact, he continued to serve in the Knesset. In September 1984, he was appointed as the Minister for Industry, Trade and Labor. Later he became the Minister for Housing and Construction, Minister for Energy and Water Resources, and Minister for Foreign Affairs. In 2001, Sharon was elected Prime Minister.

For more on the Sabra and Shatila massacre, refer to:
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/remembering-sabra-and-shatila.html

Settlements

Sharon sponsored the establishment of hundreds of illegal Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. These settlements were in violation of international law and were often established at the point of a gun with the use of Israeli military to violently drive Palestinians out of their homes and off their lands. These were homes and lands that the Palestinians held deeds of ownership for.

In 2004, Sharon ordered settlements be withdrawn from Gaza. His supporters claimed that this showed he was a man of peace. However, military attacks on Gaza increased and often involved military jets firing on and bombing the civilian population. Israel has used chemical weapons such as white phosphorous, and nuclear warheads containing depleted uranium, in Gaza. These are war-crimes being unleashed on a civilian and undefended population.

Removing the settlers from Gaza, meant that Israel could literally imprison Gaza and control the movement of people into and out of it, as well as control supplies going into it. The military often stops deliveries of food, clothing, building products and so on, that are being legitimately delivered through either road or sea networks. Much was made of secret tunnels from Gaza into Egypt, however, these tunnels were necessary in order to ensure that Gazans received necessities that Israel denied them. Gaza has been described as the world's largest open-air prison.

Although settlements were withdrawn from Gaza, establishment of settlements in the West Bank increased and now there are more than 500,000 settlers illegally occupying the territory. Numerous UN resolutions, including resolution 22/29 adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on 22 March 2013, declares the illegality of the settlements and that Israel is an 'occupying Power' breaching the Fourth Geneva Convention by transferring 'parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies ...' ⁽⁸⁾. This resolution was in response to a UN fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of Israeli settlements on the rights of the Palestinian people. The fact-finding mission details the history of the illegal settlements, including Ariel Sharon's decades-long involvement in their expansion. ⁽⁹⁾

Agence France Presse reported on 15 November 1998, that while addressing the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Sharon stated,  'Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours ... Everything we don't grab will go to them'. ⁽¹⁰⁾

Sharon encouraged Jews from across the globe to move to Israel. To house them annexing Palestinian land and establishing the illegal settlements. 'As long as I'm needed. I'll be ready to serve. I look forward with optimism. We need the Jews here. Move to Israel! Move to Israel!' ⁽¹¹⁾

Operation Defensive Shield

In 2001, Sharon controversially entered the Al-Aqsa mosque surrounded by Israeli soldiers. It was seen as an insult to the Palestinians and resulted in the Second Intifada, in which some Palestinians undertook a wave of attacks against Israel. The following year, Sharon launched Operation Defensive Shield, in which soldiers attacked the West Bank supposedly to end the Intifada. The Army attacked with assault helicopters and commandos, resulting in the deaths of at least 20 civilians and a number of militants. ⁽¹²⁾

Following Defensive Shield, Sharon ordered the construction of a 'security' wall which would engulf the West Bank. Sharon claimed the wall was to stop Palestinian terrorists travelling into Israel, however the bulk of the wall separates areas within the West Bank from each other, not from Israel. This has created 'Bantustans', or small enclaves, and hindered Palestinian ability to travel between each area. People have difficulty getting to their jobs, visiting hospitals and attending schools. The Wall has been declared illegal by the International Court of Justice. ⁽¹³⁾

UN Resolutions

Israel has been the recipient of, and breached, over 200 UN resolutions ⁽¹⁴⁾, relating to:

• annexation of parts of Jerusalem 
• establishment of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention 
• annexation of the Golan Heights 
• deportation of Palestinians 
• destruction of Palestinian houses and when the houses are rebuilt, destroying them again 
• denying building materials, food and water to Palestinians.

Sharon has been a key player in many of the actions that these Resolutions relate to.

Remembering Sharon

His supporters claim that as Prime Minister, Sharon was constantly offering olive-branches to the Palestinians who refused peace. The truth is that Sharon did offer peace, however, it was on conditions that cost Palestinians more than it was worth and all the while Israel continued ethnic cleansing by either killing or driving out Arabs, stealing their land and moving settlers in illegally.

Sharon was not a man to be trusted. His entire life testified to his commitment to destroy Palestine. Sharon is not a man to be revered. He was personally responsible for ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank through military operations and the establishment of settlements on land stolen from Palestine. He was personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians through military operations he participated in or directed.

Sharon's actions were criminal, yet he was never charged. One of the reasons that Israel and the USA opposed the admission of Palestine to the United Nations was that it could pave the way for Palestine to bring charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court for genocide, war-crimes and crimes against humanity. Sharon once declared, 'Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial'.  ⁽¹⁵⁾

Sharon's actions must never be forgotten.

He was not a man of peace.

Ariel Sharon was the Butcher of Beirut ... and of Palestine.


References

1. Guardian.com, 11 January 2014, Ariel Sharon death: reaction from around the world,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/11/ariel-sharon-tributes

3.  Greens/Green Party USA, Resolution on Divestment of State Funds from Israel, Winter 2003, http://www.greens.org/s-r/30/30-05.html

4. David Blair, Why does Ariel Sharon matter, 11 January 2014.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10547694/Why-does-Ariel-Sharon-matter.html

5. Jeffrey Steinberg, Ariel Sharon: Profile of an unrepentant war criminal, http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/site_packages/2002/sharon/020430sharon_crime_hist.html

6. Edward W. Said, How Great Were the Injustices of Arabs to Jews; 'Pacification' of Gaza, 28 January 1988, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/05/opinion/l-how-great-were-the-injustices-of-arabs-to-jews-pacification-of-gaza-160288.html

7. Robert Fisk, Ariel Sharon', 6 January 2006,
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/ariel-sharon-by-robert-fisk-521809.html

8. United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 22/29, Follow-up to the report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, A/HRC/RES/22/29, 15 April 2013.
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/98edce37e189625b85256c40005da81b/053db1b0222d1e5d85257b6a004f2168?OpenDocument

9.Human Rights Council, Twenty-second session, Agenda item 7, Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, Report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/FFM/FFMSettlements.pdf

10. Joe Quinn, Peace In the Middle East? - Over the bodies of 3 million Palestinians, 17 December 2010, http://www.sott.net/article/124417-Peace-In-the-Middle-East-Over-the-bodies-of-3-million-Palestinians

11. Time World, Interview: Ariel Sharon, 14 May 2005,
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1061419,00.html

12. Human Rights Watch, Jenin, 2 May 2002, http://www.hrw.org/node/79081/section/1.

13. BBN News, UN rules against Israeli barrier, 9 July 2004,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879057.stm

14. The UN resolutions are available online.

• For resolutions accepted by the UN Human Rights Council refer to: http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/vCHRRes?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=1#1

• For resolutions accepted by the UN Economic and Social Committee: http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/vECOSOCRes?OpenView

• For resolutions accepted by the UN Security Council: http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/vCouncilRes?OpenView 

• For resolutions accepted by the UN General Assembly: http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/vGARes?OpenView

15. BBC News, Clashes mar Mid East inquiry, 25 March 2001,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1241371.stm


Note, that this article was updated on 18 January 2014 to include Julie Bishop's visit to Ariel Sharon's grave and the letter sent to her from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society.

Greed & gluttony - the real War on Christmas

Every year people across the globe celebrate Christmas, whether they are Christian or not. They'll decorate their houses, sing carols and give gifts to family and loved ones. For many children, the mythical Santa Claus will visit and leave them a special gift.  'On earth peace, goodwill to all men' is one of the main bible scriptures quoted during this time (Luke 2:14 KJV).

Also every year, we hear of a 'War on Christmas', a war that is apparently attacking the very fabric of the Christmas celebration.

This 'war' is allegedly perpetrated by grinches who want to ban Santa Clause or other aspects of the Christmas celebration. A number of hoax emails that usually blame Muslims, but have no basis in fact, are circulated - check Snopes¹ or hoax-slayer². I'd have to seriously question the mental and moral state of the person who sees fit to compose a hoax email in order to spread hatred in the community. It is a sad indictment on the community, that so many people actually believe these emails without checking them out. After all, Google is but a mouse click away. It is people like this who have lost sight of the meaning of Christmas (remember the 'peace, goodwill to all men' thing?)

The 'War on Christmas' is also being waged by anyone who commits the dastardly act of saying 'happy holidays' instead of the socially acceptable, 'Merry Christmas'.

These events do not signify a 'War'.

The only War on Christmas was waged & lost years ago. It is the one in which the Christmas spirit was usurped by capitalism; by greed and gluttony. The generosity of the real St Nicholas (Nikolaos of Myra - a Greek Bishop who lived in what is now Turkey) who gave to the poor and needy, has been replaced by Santa Claus who brings unnecessary gifts to rich kids while the poor continue to suffer. Sadly, Santa either doesn't visit poorer children or when he does, the toys are not as expensive. Maybe Santa uses cheaper elves for making the presents of the poor.

Santa's gifts are based on whether you're naughty or nice, good or bad - according to one or two Christmas Carols. Yet, this has no basis in scripture. Jesus didn't come for those who 'deserved' His redemption (remember Romans 3:23-24, 'For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus').

We are told that Jesus is the 'reason for the season'.  Yet most families, Christian or not, barely (if at all) acknowledge Jesus in their haste to open their presents before gorging themselves on food and drink. Christmas was lost to greed and gluttony years ago.

Of course, the irony is that Christmas was originally a pagan festival known as Saturnalia, in which people gave themselves over to absolute pleasure and indulged their fleshly desires in unrestrained revelry: not unlike Christmas in first world countries. Greed and gluttony.

People across the globe can't wait for the fat-man to deliver gifts that may or may not be needed, and then guts themselves stupid until they feel sick - while millions of people go hungry. All of this to the accompaniment of Christmas Carols extolling the virtues of peace and goodwill. Christmas spirit or Saturnalian celebration?

This decadence is hardly a celebration of Jesus and contains a shallow concept of peace and goodwill.

The 'War' on Christmas has not come from other religions or from the benign 'happy holidays' greeting, but from capitalist exploitation and marketing. Capitalism isn't just content to sell us rubbish that we don't need, but also to force many people in retail to work over Christmas, keeping them away from their families and friends in order to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the manipulated masses to spend, spend, spend.

Throughout his life, Jesus preached and commanded love of all humanity, to eshew greed and to help the poor. If we are to truly celebrate Christmas, we should be helping the poor and loving everyone (not just other Christians or those with the 'Christmas Spirit' who indulge in the Saturnalian or Bacchanalian decadence of consumerism and over-indulgence).

It is greed and gluttony that waged the War on Christmas, and that war was lost years ago. The bulk of Christendom indulges in the capitalistic and selfish delights of what constitutes the modern Christmas 'Spirit'.

Many of us appreciate that it is our family and friends who are more meaningful than any gifts we receive. Yet, what about those who are lonely or homeless, who are languishing in prisons, detention centres or refugee camps? Again, for those who want to keep 'Christ' in Christmas, it may not hurt to check out the parable of the sheep and the goats (remember the bit about 'for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me' - Matthew 25:31-46).

Here's a thought or two. Why not give a gift to a stranger, someone less fortunate than ourselves. Of course, we shouldn't wait until Christmas to help others, but as Christmas is a time of gift-giving, it is certainly a good time to give useful gifts to the poor and needy. Or why not take the time to spend time with the lonely, the homeless, the prisoner, the refugee. Time and attention are valuable gifts, and maybe for a moment, take the focus off ourselves and our greed.

Peace on earth and goodwill to all.

References

1. 'Cardwell', Snopes, http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/cardwell.asp, 3 December 2013. Last accessed 25 December 2013.

2. 'Hoax - Broadmeadows Shopping Centre Christmas Celebrations Ban', Hoax Slayer, http://www.hoax-slayer.com/broadmeadows-christmas-celebrations-hoax.shtml, 10 December 2013. Last accessed 25 December 2013.