The Light of love and a bushel of bigotry

'Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men'.

So stated Voltaire, the enlightened French philosopher, who defended religious freedom and civil liberties. Voltaire lived in the 18th century, yet this quote is pertinent today.

For decades, the Christian church has seen a large shift to the right-wing with a corresponding rise in intolerance, religious hate speech and violence. Many fundamentalist pastors preach against homosexuality, abortion, socialism, multiculturalism while embracing doctrine that borders on idolatry, such as prosperity doctrine and Zionism.

Religious hate-speech has most recently been manifesting itself through Islamophobia with attacks on Mosques and Muslims. Women have been attacked for wearing burqas, hijabs or head coverings. There is even an attack on food with campaigns against halal certification because some believe money raised from halal certification funds terrorism. Australian political journalist, Malcolm Farr appeared on the ABC's Insiders program on 24 November 2014 and eloquently stated: 'to those pig-ignorant droogs who shut down a South Australian business because it had halal certified yoghurt selling to Emirates. What stupid, stupid people! If they really think that this money goes to terrorists, they should stop buying petrol'.

Attacking food, attacking Halal does nothing to further the Gospel. Even Romans 14:20 states, 'Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food'.

Christians who attack Islam would do well to consider Matthew 7:3-5, 'And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye. Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.'.

What plank?

Many of the same anti-Islam brigade are happy for the West to go to war against the 'infidel', whether it be in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq. Yet these wars have directly resulted in the terrorism and fundamentalism that they so fear. It's no secret that during the 1980's the USA funded and trained the Mujahideen and jihadists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. Out of that arose Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Zionism, a dogmatic twisting and perversion of scripture, that claims the establishment of modern Israel as the God-given homeland of Jews. This has seen the displacement and genocide of Palestinians who lived there for thousands of years, many of whom were actually Jews who converted to Islam centuries ago. Yet Zionist Christians support the ethnic cleansing by cheering Israel's human rights violations and war-crimes, and by rewriting history to delegitimise Palestinian history and the right of Palestinians to their own land. The Palestinian Nakba and ongoing ethnic cleansing has directly resulted in attacks on Israel and the creation of terrorist groups. These groups only formed in response to the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The genocide that is sponsored, supported and cheered on by Zionist Christians.

The attacks on Islam in Western nations such as Australia and Britain, is a response to fear of Islamic extremism and terrorism. It's one thing to condemn terrorism, but another to attack innocent Muslims trying to live a normal life.

Why attack the burqa? Self-proclaimed experts in Islam will state that Muslims are not required to wear burqas or head-coverings. What arrogance to tell others how they should worship. Plank/speck ... Remember that the bible does tell women to cover their heads, yet how many Christian women do so? 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 'But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered'.

Christians should know better than to be driven by fear. 1 John 4:18, 'There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love'.

Christians who preach or practice intolerance and hate are not acting in love, they are nothing but clanging cymbals. 1 Corinthians 13:1, 'Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal'.

People respond in kind to how they're treated. Treat people with hatred & violence, they respond with hatred & violence. Show love, they respond with love ... you reap what you sow.

Francis of Assisi stated 'preach the Gospel, if necessary, use words'.

The one message from the Gospels is LOVE. Love God, Love Others. (Matthew 22:27).

If you're not loving others, you are not preaching the Gospel.

Christianity has enough issues of its own. Before attacking others with mindless, ignorant and often false allegations, clean up your own mess. Get your own life right. Live the life of love that Jesus commanded you to. Be an example to the world.

Christians are called to be tolerant of others. Romans 14 expounds on not judging others and in particular, be accountable for your own actions rather than attacking the actions of others. Verses 12 and 13 state, 'So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore'.

Rather than attacking others and opposing people we disagree with, Romans 14:19 tells us to pursue peace: 'Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another'.

Islam is the religion of peace. Christianity is the religion of love. Both religions are founded on peace and love. Who are Christians to criticise those who follow a religion founded on much of the same tenets as their own?

Matthews 5:14-16, 'Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven'.

Be the shining light of love to the world, don't smother love under a bushel of bigotry.

--0--

Other articles

This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising Islam. Other articles include:

• Bacon and dregs - Pork wars and Christianity
• Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity
• Was Muhammad a pedophile?
• Religion of Peace & Love?

A tale of two war crimes: MH17 and IR655

Wouldn't it be horrendous if those who shot down MH17 were to receive a medal for their efforts?

On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine while flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpar. It is a tragedy that cost 298 innocent lives.

Investigations are continuing into the tragedy, however it is widely believed that Russian separatists shot the plane down with a weapon supplied by Russia.

Because of the Russian backing of the rebels, some are holding President Vladimir Putin responsible. There is also pressure on Putin to withdraw any Russian troops or involvement in the Ukrainian conflict which has cost thousands of lives.

Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, demanded that President Putin apologise and pay compensation to the families of the MH17 victims. He claims to have evidence the weapon was immediately smuggled across the border into Russia after the tragedy. If this is the case, Mr Abbott should present this evidence to the investigators.

It is premature to be holding Russia responsible. Investigations are still ongoing and have even raised the possibility of a Ukrainian military jet firing on MH17. There is also the possibility that the jet was shot down by forces within Russia, which would mean a direct involvement from the Russian military. Investigators claim that the plane was hit by a number of high velocity objects that is consistent with it being hit by a surface-to-air BUK missile, which would most likely have been supplied by Russia.

President Obama states Russia's aggression against Ukraine is a 'threat to the world, as we saw in the appalling shoot down of MH17'.

It is a grim irony ... or hypocrisy, in fact, that President Obama decries the tragedy when it was his own nation that shot down a civilian passenger jet, Iranian Air flight 655, on 3 July 1988, killing 290 innocent civilians. The difference between the war crimes of MH17 and IR655 is that IR655 was within Iranian airspace over the Persian Gulf, flying its usual route and its transponder was broadcasting an IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) code on a civilian frequency. The US naval cruiser, the USS Vincennes challenged the jet, got no response and then fired. The crew initially claimed that they thought it was an F-14 Tomcat fighter, even though it was ascending at the time, was travelling relatively slow on a known civilian flight path and using a civilian IFF signal. A 53 page Pentagon report found that the crew testimony was 'erroneous' yet absolved them of any blame.

The crew of the USS Vincennes had more evidence of IF655 being a civilian jet than any Russian separatist in Ukraine would have had about MH17, yet Vincennes still fired and they still attempted to cover-up their crime.

The United States never apologised for the tragedy. In 1996 President Bill Clinton expressed 'deep regret', but this was only after a settlement reached at the International Court of Justice in which the US refused to admit legal liability but agreed to pay compensation of $131 million to Iran, with $61 million going to the families of the victims (around $213,000 each).

The US pinned medals on the crew of the USS Vincennes.

Where was the world-wide condemnation? Where was the world-wide anger? Where was the media? Where was the shirt-fronting?

There is no evidence that we know of which indicates either a sophisticated radar system being used to detect MH17 or that MH17 was challenged prior to the missile being fired. Both of which the USS Vincennes availed themselves prior to shooting down IR655. Whoever shot down MH17 most likely did not realise it was a civilian passenger jet, meaning that as tragic as this was, it was a terrible accident. It is highly unlikely that there was any direct order given, or any intention to attack a civilian airliner.

It is the sentiment of a number of world leaders that Putin be held accountable for the actions of rebels. This is fair enough and should be extended to ensure other nations are held accountable for war crimes committed with their support. For instance, holding the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and other nations that support Israel responsible for Israeli massacres of innocent civilians in Gaza and Israel's breaches of the Geneva Convention in extending settlements into Palestinian territory. Or holding Australia responsible for crimes against humanity committed by the Sri Lankan government against Tamils. After all, Australia recently gifted naval ships to Sri Lanka so they can round up Tamils who may attempt to flee the brutality.

Shooting civilians out of the sky is a war crime, whether it was intentional or not and regardless of whether the perpetrator was Government or a militant. Those who kill civilians should not be exempt from prosecution and certainly should not receive medals.

MH17 is a tragedy and those responsible need to be held accountable. However, the investigation must be conducted without the hyperbole, hysteria and hypocrisy that we are seeing from some quarters.

Respect: a two-way street

Respect is sadly lacking in Australia. Even the Federal Attorney-General has stated that everyone has the right to be a bigot. Now, I'm all up for Freedom of Speech, but with freedom comes responsibility and underpinning that responsibility is respect.

This lack of respect is publicly expressed by politicians, pastors, radio shock-jocks, newspaper columnists and any bigot with a social media account. Many of whom get offended by anyone taking offense at their offensive comments. They accuse the lefties, bleeding hearts and do-gooders of being weak and sensitive.

Studies have shown that racism is usually the domain of those less intelligent. However, academia hasn't been spared its share of racists. Professor Barry Spurr of the University of Sydney was suspended after his inner racist and inner sexist was unleashed in less than eloquent emails that used some of the most vile and offensive language against women, indigenous people, Asians, Muslims, people who are overweight and those lacking education. He whinged about Australia becoming less white. It was the quintessential expression of bigotry.

Spurr had recently reviewed the national school curriculum at the behest of the Australian Government and recommended that it focus less on indigenous history and more on its white 'Judeo-Christian' history. After the emails were leaked Education Minister Christopher Pyne stood by Barry Spurr and the review. Another politician promoting racism and white supremacy.

Funnily enough, many of those who claim the right to be bigots also whinge about how disrespectful young people are today.

Why shouldn't they be?

They have a right to be disrespectful based on the Attorney-General's logic and the Education Minister's acceptance of a racist review of the school curriculum. Young people see some of the most influential people in Australia, including journalists (or those that masquerade as journos), talk-show hosts, professors, pastors and politicians all bleating about how people should just 'toughen up' and not be offended if called offensive names.

Freedom of speech? Sure. Don't curtail it. It's a great freedom for revealing the racists and bigots. It's a great freedom for revealing the hypocrites who want the right to abuse others but to ban those who are different from expressing their differences. Freedom for some but not all if you listen to the racists, the bigots, the small-minded who can't see outside their own tiny world.

This right to bigotry and hatred is being expressed through attacks on innocent women who happen to wear Islamic head-coverings. These attacks are the physical manifestation of the political rhetoric voiced by politicians and some pastors who bang on about attacks on 'our way of life' and 'our Christian values'.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

A generation of young people are growing up watching adults behave in disrespectful, gutless and short-sighted ways. Is it any wonder then, that some of those young people adopt similar behaviours towards others, including against those same older people who have taught them disrespect.

If you want to be respected, than start by respecting others. That doesn't mean that you just respect those who are the same colour, political or religious persuasion as you. It means respecting everyone.

If you want respect, then give respect.

It's a two-way street.

Capitalism - a religion of fear, greed and envy

The difference between capitalism and socialism can be summed up as:

• Capitalism = greed, selfishness & fear of losing one's possessions. It is materialistic. It is survival of the fittest. It is economic Darwinism.

• Socialism = government sanctioned values of inclusiveness, sharing, caring for the poor and weak.

Capitalism's focus is on private accumulation of wealth and the naive idea that this wealth will trickle down to the society's less fortunate through the generosity of the wealthy. There certainly are some philanthropic capitalists out there, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, but most horde their wealth and attack the most vulnerable who could benefit from a portion of it.

Selfishness is the underpinning value of capitalism which requires the exploitation of people and resources in order to amass wealth. So it's no great surprise that we see the rise of rhetoric in right wing politics regarding 'protecting our values', or put another way, 'protecting individual wealth and the right to exploit workers, the vulnerable and developing nations'.

Considering that most right-wing voters are workers anyway, demonstrates the need for capitalists to use fear-based hyperbole to manipulate the electorate. Capitalists have been selling a dream to workers for years that claims they can also become filthy rich. For most this is just that: a dream. The Great American Dream. In the end it's the poor and middle class who pay for the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

Now we are seeing this dream couched in terms of more sinister propaganda in order to manipulate those most susceptible to and necessary for the capitalist lie to propagate. Capitalism has tied itself to patriotism and Christianity with the the right-wing wrapping themselves in flags and bibles, only caring for those who share their so-called 'patriotic' or 'christian' values. Values that they defend by demonising anyone who is different. In some cases they even verbally and physically assault those who don't meet their 'standards'. The right-wing often resort to outright lies, such as false and inflammatory comments about asylum seeker entitlements, Islam, aborigines, migrants and the poor in order to whip up racism, bigotry and hatred.

The right wing are fearful of threats to their materialistic lifestyles.

To assuage their conscience, some will donate a pittance of their income or possessions to help the poor. To justify their selfish behaviour many will attend church and find scriptures to demonstrate that God loves a 'cheerful giver' and rewards giving by reigning unfettered wealth on the generous. They have the attitude that the 'tithe will set you free'. It goes to show just how much they are bound by greed and materialism.

The right-wing has hijacked religion with the evolution of political parties such as the Tea Party and Family First, and the professing of Christian values by Presidents and Prime Ministers alike.

Capitalism is not Christianity. It isn't patriotism. It's a belief system full of fear and devoid of love. Remember the bible scripture, 'perfect love drives out fear'. If the right-wing actually showed perfect, unconditional love for others, they wouldn't be so full of fear of others or of losing their precious possessions.

Most right-wing Christians believe God is a capitalist. Yet the Christian God is supposedly one of love not of money. There are two commandments that sum up the entire bible: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul ... and love your neighbour as yourself'.

Funnily enough, love doesn't glow resplendent in the exploitation of people.

Apparently, 'love your neighbour', doesn't actually mean to have absolute and unadulterated love for everyone. I've heard a right-wing preacher say that we are commanded to love ... but that doesn't mean loving unconditionally ... that we are to love with 'wisdom'.

Really?

Love with wisdom?

Maybe if Jesus had shown wisdom and discretion in his love he wouldn't have been crucified. Oh well ... instead he sacrificed himself out of love for those who persecuted him. Jesus forgave those who crucified him. He died for their sins out of love for the entire world ... remember John 3:16 that the right-wing Christians like to decorate themselves with: 'For God so LOVED the WORLD that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes on him will be saved and will not perish'.

I don't see any conditions put on his love for the world. Jesus was sent for the whole world ... out of love for the world, which kind of encompasses everyone.

Right-wing fanatics hijacked religion because it can be so easily used to control and dominate people while providing justification for attacking the free thinker who questions the status quo.

Of course, not all capitalists are Christians, but even the non-Christian right-wing display similar values of greed, exclusion and fear.

The fanatical right-wing judge others by how much of a threat those others are. In fact, even before that, they judge others by their own level of ignorance; criticising and condemning those they don't understand. They become experts in other people's ideologies and religions with their own slanted and often inaccurate viewpoints such as their misunderstanding of Socialism and their complete contempt and misquoting of Islamic scriptures.

Aahh ... the rabid right-wing ... driven by fear, envy, pride, ignorance and a sense of privilege. They feel they are better than others and that it's ok to exploit and persecute people who are different.

People of all demographics need to be included and considered in society. There are those who require greater care than others and it is society's responsibility to care for them, not to persecute or exploit them.

Capitalism benefits the few at the expense of the masses.  It is for this reason that government needs to be Socialist and share wealth in a sustainable manner that ensures all have the ability to live a dignified and productive life while maintaining a strong and viable economy for the benefit of all.

Neither people nor the planet should be exploited or persecuted. Creeds and religions should not be used to justify exploitation and persecution. Capitalism has become the religion of the greedy and selfish while demonising its victims: the persecuted and exploited.

Burqas don't kill people, people kill people

The rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State has seen a rise in fear and racist attacks in the West. In Australia there have been numerous attacks on Muslims and mosques. The corresponding number of attacks committed by Muslims has been significantly fewer.

Muslim women in particular have reported being attacked by people screaming abuse, trying to tear away their head-coverings and physically assaulting them. The attackers threaten them with bashing, rape and beheading. Some of the attackers have even threatened to murder their children. Ironically, these attacks are ostensibly because Islamic State has beheaded a number of Westerners.

The small-minded cowards who've perpetrated these attacks have shown a distinct lack of intelligence. Many of these gutless wonder have attacked vulnerable women or snuck into mosques and defaced them.

It's not overly surprising that some elements of society lack the skills to separate true terrorism from the general Muslim community. After all, the Australian government has been feeding xenophobia and racism for years by linking asylum seekers with terrorism (even though asylum seekers are victims, fleeing war, terrorism and persecution), by linking Islam with terrorism (not mentioning the use of terrorism by Western nations in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, or the funding of despots responsible for much of the persecution that asylum seekers are fleeing) and by establishing Australian 'values' as some sort of whites-only club, namely Team Australia, that everyone must swear allegiance to.

The media has been responsible for peddling and expanding on the government's xenophobic mantras, thus feeding further the fear, racism and bigotry that is being manifested violently by some and repeated ad nauseum by others who can't differentiate one action from another.

Studies have found that lower intelligence in childhood often resulted in racist attitudes in adulthood. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand). This was because of a lack of cognitive skills and inability to see the 'big picture', which is constructed of individual events not a mass event. Racists lack the ability to separate the actions of a few from the larger group who disagree with it.  A Muslim committing terrorism is not representative of all Muslims. Just like a Christian who rapes a child is not representative of all Christians. Racists can't see the trees for the forest. Something happens and all they see is the forest, they can't drill down and separate the individual from the overall group. It is a lack of intelligence and cognitive ability that underpins racism, bigotry and xenophobia.

A number of these mental giants will argue that religion is not a race, therefore they aren't racist. However, the same behaviours that characterise racism also characterise their anti-Islamic bigotry. If you don't want to be called racist, then don't act like a racist. Speaking of forests, as Forrest Gump said 'stupid is as stupid does'.

These bigots claim they are defending their nation or religion from the insidious actions of Islam, yet it is the behaviour and hate-speech of bigots that is the biggest threat.

Recently, Parliament House in Canberra declared that anyone in a burqa can't sit in the open gallery, but can only sit in an enclosed room that is usually reserved for noisy school children. They would be separated from the chamber by a glass window.  This is a blatant attack on women wearing burqas. How many people wearing burqas have ever been to Parliament House? In addition, everyone who enters Parliament House goes through metal-detection security. A security officer at Parliament House stated that the new rule was implemented so that they could identify whoever yells abuse from the public gallery. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that no burqa wearing person has ever yelled abuse from the public gallery. It is blatant fear-mongering bigotry that is behind this rule and it is supported by the actions and rhetoric of the government.

Let's not get into the variations in Islamic head-dress - that would only confuse the racists. Actually, let's do get into the variations. This article from ABC gives a good description of the variations: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-23/why-do-muslim-women-wear-a-burka-niqab-or-hijab/5761510.

The attack on the burqa (as the racists keep banging on about), is partly fuelled by the belief that there could be someone dressed up in a burqa in order to commit a terrorist act. While it is possible that a cross-dressing terrorist might don the burqa, if they are intent on covering their face then what is to stop them dressing up as the Easter bunny, or a storm-trooper or some other fancy-dress that hides their face. If it's a suicide bomber, why would they hide their face at all? Would a suicide bomber care if anyone sees their face if they're about to blow themselves apart?

Some kind-hearted souls state that they oppose the burqa because women 'should be free'. I applaud their concern for the well-being of Muslim women, however, that is a facade and justification for another attack on Islam. Apparently, the freedom of Muslim women doesn't extend to having the freedom to chose what they wear.

Muslims across the globe have been protesting against the actions of Islamic State, and for that matter, the actions of terrorists in general. I don't see too many Christians protesting against the war-crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide perpetrated by Israel for the last 70 years or so. Israel's crimes in the name of Zionism, and therefore in the name of God, have given rise to much of the anger in the Muslim world. Yet even with this anger, very few of the more than 1.5 billion Muslims across the globe have reacted violently. Considering a quarter of the world is Muslim, we'd soon know if they were all hell-bent on destroying the west. Obviously, they are not.

There's a whole lot of discussion around the burqa. Some politicians are even calling for a ban on it. Even Australia's illustrious prime minister, Tony Abbott, has stated he doesn't like the burqa. If we are to ban the burqa, then ban all religious garb: ban nuns from nun outfits, ban priests from priestly outfits, ban the cute little collar that some protestant ministers wear. Banning the burqa is a ridiculous argument and is fuelled by fear and hatred of Islam. It masks a deeper loathing for the entire Islamic community by small-minded individuals who should know better. Government, church and community leaders should be condemning the deep-seated racism and bigotry being manifested against Muslims. This includes ensuring their own language and actions does not give tacit or blatant support for racist abuse and attacks.

Get something straight: burqas don't kill people, people kill people.

It is time that the government stopped feeding this fear and hatred. Focus on the real problem, focus on terrorism, condemn it, but do not condemn an entire religion because of the actions of a few.

What love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man

'What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man'. - Robert Green Ingersoll

Imagine being denied your liberty. Imagine being unable to do anything all day, every day; confined to a hell-hole concentration camp where your captors deliberately and systematically destroy any hope you have of freedom. You can leave ... if you don't mind going back to the hell-hole that you left, where you were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, your life was in danger, your families lives were in danger; death dogged you every day. What a choice. Yet it is the choice that the Australian government is giving asylum seekers who come to Australia seeking our protection.

The irony of this is that we see Australians showing support for Iraqis persecuted by the Islamic State. We see Christians changing their profile photos to the Arabic letter nun, which the Islamic State has allegedly been painting on the doors of Christians. Nun, or N, is being used to signify people who follow the Nazarene, Jesus.

But it isn't just Christians being persecuted. There's also the Yazidis and the Kurds. There are Muslims. Why limit your compassion to Christians?

With all this sympathy for Iraqis being killed and persecuted, it's surprising that Australia is still willing to detain Iraqis who come by boat seeking asylum. Even more surprising is that Australia is returning Iraqi asylum seekers to Iraq while persecution and murder is rampant. This is a breach of the non-refoulement provision in the United Nations Convention on Refugees, which Australia is a signatory to.

According to the Refugee Convention, asylum seekers may arrive by any means they can in order to seek protection, even if those means are normally considered illegal. Those who do arrive by 'illegal' means are not allowed to be punished for doing so. Yet Australia detains most of them in inadequate, offshore camps, that are little more than concentration camps, gulags. Asylum seekers are held indefinitely and told they will never be settled in Australia. Meanwhile, Australia bribes third world nations to take them at the same time as ensuring that asylum seekers aren't seen as genuine. The Australian government deliberately lies and demonises asylum seekers to justify unleashing a military operation on them for 'national security'. Its persecution of asylum seekers is designed to ensure that the majority of Australians believe they are queue jumpers who destroy their documents, hate Australia and are linked to terrorism.

Asylum seekers are not queue jumpers. What queue is there? Asylum claims are not processed in order. It isn't like taking a number at the deli. Claims are meant to be heard based on need, however, given the number of claims received it is more a matter of good fortune when a claim is processed. There are currently more than 50 million displaced persons in the world. Of these, the UNHCR has more than 16.7 million registered as refugees and 1,067,000 claims for asylum received ⁽¹⁾. In 2012, there were only 80,000 resettlement vacancies world-wide available for the more than one million asylum seekers ⁽²⁾. Based on these figures, an asylum claim could take up to 13 years to be processed.

A wait in a UN refugee camp could take up to 17 years according to the UNHCR ⁽³⁾. Who would languish for that long in a camp? Many camps aren't safe, have limited or unreliable access to water and food. Rape and attacks are common ⁽⁴⁾. What parent would want their child to grow up in such conditions, with no education and no hope for the future?

The reality for many refugees is that they have no documents. Stateless persons, such as the Kurds, Hazara and Rohingya are rarely if ever issued documents because they're not recognised by the governments of the countries they live in. Countries such as Sudan and Somalia do not record every birth. The Refugee Convention states that people should not be penalised for failing to have the 'proper' documents.

Asylum seekers chose Australia because of its freedoms. Many asylum seekers love Australia more than Australians do. They appreciate what we have, they want to contribute to our country. They are proud to be part of Australia. They are proud to be Australian when they get citizenship. Yet the government whips up fear against them in a frenzy of xenophobia by manufacturing a threat to Australian sovereignty. They are not terrorists. They are victims of terrorists, of despots, of persecution. Why would anyone travel on a boat, risking their life, to destroy our freedom?

The abhorrent treatment of asylum seekers by the Australian government is a disgrace, a blight on our national character. This is not what Australia claims to be or what it was founded on. Australia was founded as a welcoming and free nation, a fair nation. Australia's abuse of asylum seekers is anything but welcoming, free or fair.

Self-harm is rife in detention centres. The government claims it's because of emotional blackmail. But seriously, what sort of abuse brings a person to prefer death to the abandonment and abuse experienced in Australia's gulags? Part of it is the complete removal of freedoms and their lives being placed in limbo, with all hope torn away as the government perversely enjoys declaring they have no chance of settling in Australia ... but they're free to return to war and persecution any time.

Asylum seekers in community detention or on bridging visas fair much better than those locked up in a soul-destroying prison. Not that this is ideal. They are banned from working or contributing to society. Nonetheless, releasing asylum seekers into the community presents a much lower human and financial cost than barbaric detention ⁽⁵⁾.

If Australia is truly a welcoming, free and fair nation it needs to shed its xenophobia and addiction to cruelty. It should give permanent residency to asylum seekers found to be genuine, not draw out the process and torment them through temporary visas.

The quote from Ingersoll clearly demonstrates how important liberty is to the soul of man. Instead of destroying desperate people who are fleeing persecution, war and suffering, Australia should welcome them, embrace them, love them.

References:

1. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Facts and Figures about Refugees, http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html, accessed 23 August 2014

2. UNHCR Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, Standing Committee 54th meeting, EC/63/SC/CRP.12, 5 June 2012, http://www.unhcr.org/5006a6aa9.html, accessed 23 August 2014.

3. UNHCR Protracted refugee situations: the search for practical solutions, page 109, http://www.unhcr.org/4444afcb0.pdf, accessed 23 August 2014.

4. SBS, Go Back to Where You Came From, Series 2, How safe are refugee camps? http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/6/how-safe-are-refugee-camps

5. Medical Journal of Australia, Mental health and immigration detention, Gillian Triggs, Med J Aust 2013; 199 (11): 721-722, https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/199/11/mental-health-and-immigration-detention, accessed 24 August 2014.

Empathy for Palestine - If your country was illegally occupied by another nation, what would you do?

Many Australians, including the Government, politicians and churches support the state of Israel. This support has been declared even while Israel continues the decades-long genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. This support given and justifications made for the massacres of thousands of innocent men, women and children by Israel.

So, Australia, how would you react if the same thing happened here? Suppose for a moment that Israel, or maybe one of our Asian neighbours, decided that Australia was their ancestral homeland of 2,500 years ago. Suppose the United Nations agreed and allowed 55% of Australia to be taken over by Israel or Indonesia or Eastasia (looking at you, Orwell) or whatever country had set their sights on Australia.

Suppose the United Nations resolution provided only one option to Australia: agree with 55% being settled by another nation. As we know, the Arabs told the UN to shove it when given this choice. I'm pretty certain Australia would do the same thing. But there was no choice for Palestinians. In 1947 the United Nations recommended, through Resolution 181 ⁽¹⁾, that 55% of Palestinian land be given away to Europeans who had decided their ancestral homeland was in the Middle East. On 14 May 1948,the Jewish Agency headed by David Ben-Gurion illegally proclaimed the establishment of Israel even though neither he or the United Nations had the authority to do so ⁽²⁾. President Truman acknowledged it that day. The new neighbours moved in and violently forced Palestinians out. Not surprisingly, Palestinians supported by other Arab nations, fought to defend themselves. They lost. More than 700,000 Palestinians were displaced, thousands were massacred. While Israel argues the Arabs attacked them in 1948, it was the illegal creation and attack on Palestine by the newly formed Israel military that saw Arab armies come together in defence of Palestinian land ⁽³⁾.

In 1967, Egypt and other Arab nations tried to drive Israel out of Palestine. The war lasted Six Days. The vast military might of Israel prevailed (backed by the bottomless pit of United States military spending) and resulted in Israel expanding its occupation of Palestine to 78%.

Since then, Israel has continued illegally expanding its settlements into the West Bank, where it now occupies around 93% of Palestine.

The following graph overlays this scenario on the map of Australia. Note, that Gaza is represented by the Australian Capital Territory. Gaza is a 360km2 block of land with 1.8 million people. By contrast, the Australian Capital Territory is 2,280km2 and has a population of 373,000.

Following our hypothetical partitioning of Australia in 1948, the foreign nation (let's call it Eastasia for arguments sake) forcefully settles the land, driving the population out of the populous areas of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane into either the ACT or the West Bank, in this case Western Australia. Eastasia builds a wall around the ACT, which now holds 11.4 million Australians in a population density that mirrors Gaza: 5,000 people per square kilometre.

Following the 1967 war, Eastasia has conquered the Northern Territory and much of Western Australia. By 2014, what is left of WA is now a series of illegal settlements which Eastasia has given away to foreigners who have been paid to move in and continue the ethnic cleansing of Australia. The Australians, some 10 million of them, are now foreigners in their own land. Israel has built 'security barriers' throughout northern WA. Thousands of kilometres of illegal walls which force Australians to wait for hours, sometimes days in order to travel to schools, hospitals, jobs, farms. Movement within and between areas is controlled by Israel using a series of checkpoints. Sometimes they open the check points. Sometimes they don't.

What would you do? Would you accept this? Would you fight back? Who is the terrorist? Who is the criminal? If you fight back, you're labelled a terrorist, yet you can't access your job or your crops to feed your family, your children can't access school easily, your family can't get to the hospital with any certainty. Every step of the way is controlled. An angry Aussie fights back and Israel bombards the ACT as collective punishment, because obviously all Australians are responsible for the actions of the individual.

Your child throws a rock at a settler who has stolen your land. The settler shoots your child dead and is never charged. Do you accept this?

Australia gives its unquestioning support to Israel even while Israel attacks schools, hospitals, mosques, ambulances and houses. Israel argues that Hamas or other Palestinian militants hide weapons in these locations, yet Israel has never produced evidence of this. Even if it were the case, the attack on civilians is considered collective punishment. It is a war crime.

Israel claims that Hamas uses children as human shields, yet it is Israel that has done this very thing ^{(4) (5)}. Israel claims that it launched July 2014's Operation Brother's Keeper and Operation Protective Edge in response to the murder of three Israeli teenagers who were kidnapped in the West Bank. Israel claims they were murdered by Hamas. Yet no-one was arrested for the murders. Even before the teenagers' bodies were found, Israel launched attacks on Gaza. Two weeks later, Hamas started firing rockets in retaliation for the ongoing bombardments. While the murder of the teenagers is tragic, Israeli settlers have been murdering Palestinian children for years with impunity, often simply because of rocks being thrown.

The UN has issued resolutions condemning Israel's illegal arrest, detention and torture of men, women and children in its prisons ⁽⁶⁾. It has issued resolutions condemning the 'security barrier', an illegal wall that prevents Palestinians from accessing jobs, hospitals, schools, crops ⁽⁷⁾. The expansion of settlements into the West Bank is illegal under international law. ⁽⁸⁾.

Israel is illegally using chemical weapons in Gaza, including DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive), white phosphorous and flechette shells ⁽⁹⁾.

Israel illegally occupies Palestine. As such it cannot claim self-defence. It is the occupier. It is the aggressor.

It is time for nations such as Australia and the United States to stop supporting Israel's illegal activities and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It is time for the International Court of Justice to hold Israeli politicians and military accountable for war crimes.

If your country was illegally occupied by another nation, what would you do?


References:

1. Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine, United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/181(II)of 29 November 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253. Accessed 28 July 2014.

2. 'Milestones: 1945 - 1952, Creation of Israel 1948', US Department of State, Office of the Historian, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel. Accessed 28 July 2014.

3. 'Top 10 myths about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict', Jeremy R. Hammond, Foreign Policy Journal. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/17/top-ten-myths-about-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/view-all/. Accessed 28 July 2014.

4. 'Survivors of massacre in Khuza'a say Israeli forces using Palestinians as human shields', Yousef Alhelou, Mondoweiss, 26 July 2014, http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/survivors-massacre-palestinians.html. Accessed 28 July 2014

5. 'Israeli soldiers who used Palestinian boy, 9, as a human shield avoid jail', Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian, 22 November 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/21/israeli-soldiers-human-shield-avoid-jail. Accessed 28 July 2014.

6. 'Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem', United Nations General Assembly, A/HRC/22/28 of 16 April 2013, Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council, 22/28. , http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/98edce37e189625b85256c40005da81b/caa6c7c0a77bb73885257b6a004ff676?OpenDocument. Accessed 28 July 2014

7. 'Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem', United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/68/83 of 16 December 2013, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 11 December 2013, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/7e53a2de7e56a67685257c460051a00d?OpenDocument. Accessed 28 July 2014.

8. 'Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan', United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/68/82 of 16 December 2013, Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 11 December 2013, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/be8ab16f47676b2d85257c450061876e?OpenDocument. Accessed 28 July 2014.

9. 'Israeli weapons add to the brutality of Gaza attack', Jessica Purkiss, 24 July 2014, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/13030-israeli-weapons-add-to-brutality-of-gaza-attack. Accessed 28 July 2014.