The Stanford Prison experiment & Australia's brutal immigration detention regime

The Stanford Prison experiment & Australia's brutal immigration detention regime

State-sanctioned human rights abuses in Australia


The Australian government's long-running off-shore program for detaining asylum seekers was plunged into chaos when the Papua New Guinea High Court ruled that the indefinite detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island was illegal because it violated the PNG Constitution. The PNG government subsequently announced that the Manus Island detention centre was to be closed, leaving the fate of the 900 or so men housed there undecided as the Australian government tried to shirk its responsibilities and refused to allow the men into the Australia.

PNG also stated that approximately half of the men held on Manus Island had been found to be genuine refugees and that they would be offered the opportunity to resettle in the country. However, they wouldn't be forced to stay. To date, only seven of the refugees have chosen PNG to settle in⁽¹⁾.

For a number of years, Australia has been using neighbouring countries, namely Papua New Guinea and Nauru, as its dumping ground for asylum seekers who arrived by boat in Australian waters. It arranged these through Memoranda of Understanding and 'aid' grants to the less developed nations.

Australia justifies its brutal off-shore program in the following ways:

• labelling asylum seekers arriving by boat as 'illegal' or 'queue jumpers'
• claiming that asylum seekers are being saved from drowning by deterring them coming to Australia by boat
• that there is a flood of asylum seekers invading Australia
• breaking the 'people smuggling' model
• border protection
• security from terrorism

None of these excuses are truthful nor do they excuse the brutality of Australia's actions.

First and foremost it must be remembered that asylum seekers are people who have fled persecution and war. Very few of these people are 'economic' refugees as some in the government try to portray. Most come from countries such as Burma, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Somalia. All countries with well documented histories of persecution or war.

Source: NT News

The asylum seekers are not illegal. If they were, why haven't they been charged with a crime? Not one has been charged for unlawfully entering Australia. Why? Because they have committed no crime. The terminology becomes confusing because the government updated Australian law to declare that asylum seekers arriving by boat without a valid visa are 'unlawful non-citizens'. However, this doesn't mean those arriving by boat have committed an offence. The government itself admits that boat arrivals have broken no law and states that 'although those who come to Australia by boat seeking Australia's protection are classified as 'unlawful non-citizens', they have a right to seek asylum under international law and not be penalised for their mode of entry'⁽²⁾. This is because international law, i.e. Article 31(1) of the UN Refugee Convention⁽³⁾ to which Australia is a signatory, 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'.

The government's indefinite detention and refusal to accept genuine refugees is punitive and breaches international law. It specifically singles them out for arriving by boat and is aimed at punishing them accordingly.

As for them being queue jumpers? There is no queue. There is only an artificially created quota that the Australian government has mandated in order to suit its political agenda of harvesting votes from those who fear the foreigner. Again, even the government itself acknowledges there is no queue⁽²⁾.

We are not saving asylum seekers from drowning by discouraging them coming to Australia by boat. Rather, they are trying dangerous crossings elsewhere in the world. There has been a significant increase in the number of refugees taking boats across the Mediterranean Sea with a subsequent increase in drownings there. It can be safely assumed that people who would have chosen Australia are now attempting the Mediterranean crossing at great risk to their lives. Typical of the conservative government, rather than solving the problem, they have merely shifted it elsewhere.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's puerile dog-whistling slogan, 'Stop the Boats', was about policy not people. The government's concern is not for the people presenting themselves on our shores requesting our help, it is for shoring up votes.

The idea of border security and presenting asylum seekers as illegal or a security issue, resonates with many in the community who are happy to live under the pretence of a security blanket that a fascist state provides. And Australia's treatment and demonisation of asylum seekers is fascist. It imprisons indefinitely and without charge, it removes people from their homes and detains them, it sends people back to their countries of origin regardless of Australia's refoulement obligations. 

Border protection? Security? No self-respecting terrorist would attempt the dangerous journey by sea. Terrorists are usually either recruited from within a country or arrive through other migration or travel channels, as the 9/11 bombers did.

Following PNG's High Court decision on 26 April 2016, Australia's Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton stuck his head firmly in the sand and stated that the decision didn't bind the Australian government. What he didn't seem to understand was that the asylum seekers were Australia's problem as they had been sent there by Australia with the agreement that it was a temporary solution until Australia sourced other countries for them to go to. Gillian Triggs, Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, took to the media to explain why the detainees were clearly Australia's problem⁽⁴⁾.

The issue was escalated the following day when Prime Minister Peter O'Neill declared that Manus Island detention centre was to be closed⁽⁵⁾. Despicably, Australia then tried to persuade PNG to change its Constitution to accommodate the unlawful detention of asylum seekers. It also tried to bribe PNG with the promise of more money. The government has sold its soul. Nothing illustrates this better, than Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull callously stating 'let's not get misty eyed over this', in relation to Australia's barbaric immigration policy⁽⁶⁾.

The Australian Labor Party is no better. Its leader, Bill Shorten, reiterated that the ALP was on a 'unity ticket' with the Liberal and National Party government in not allowing any genuine refugees to settle in Australia. Four Labor politicians have opposed their own party's policy, with former UN lawyer, Melissa Parke MP admirably stating 'We have caused them enough suffering already. This is a sick game and it needs to end'⁽⁷⁾. Parke went on to state that 'these people have suffered enough under a system that was designed to brutalise them in the name of deterrence'⁽⁸⁾.

Brutalising people, including children, in the name of deterrence. Let that sink in.

Photo: Drawing by child asylum seeker on Manus Island: 'My mum is crying and I am sad'.
Source: www.humanrights.gov.au/news/stories/we-cant-outsource-our-moral-obligations-these-people

The government's platitudes about the off-shore detention policy being for the benefit of saving the asylum seekers lives is a load of Orwellian garbage. If Australia was so concerned for the lives of asylum seekers, then why is it refusing an offer from New Zealand to resettle 150 of them⁽⁹⁾? Because New Zealand is too safe and is not a 'deterrence'. Australia would rather see refugees settled in a less developed country such as PNG or Cambodia; countries with their own poor human rights records. PNG is home to a number of Australian ex-patriots, yet how many of those live in the general community? Few, if any. Instead, they live in high-security compounds because of the violence in the community, yet Australia expects refugees, people who've already been persecuted and abused, who've been brutalised by their own country and by Australia, to live within the violence that permeates Papua New Guinean society.

The Australian government wants asylum seekers to suffer. It wants its treatment to be a deterrence, to be a punishment.

The Australian government is persecuting and abusing innocent people, people who've been charged with no crime but who are being imprisoned indefinitely. What sort of government jails babies, children and innocent people? This is what the Australian government is doing.

Following the PNG decision, Australia considered a number of options, including transferring the detainees to Christmas Island, Nauru or even making the Manus Island detention centre an 'open' facility similar to Nauru. Given the animosity of some of the Manus Island locals and the murder of Reza Barati there in 2014, this would surely have been a deadly option to pursue.

Australia's abuse of asylum seekers has drawn world-wide condemnation. The New York Times published a scathing article of Australia's brutal treatment of refugees⁽¹⁰⁾. The lies and brutality of the off-shore program has gone beyond just mere populist politics to become a horrendous indictment of Australia's inhumanity toward its fellow humans.

Iranian asylum seeker, Hamid Kehazaei died when he developed septicaemia after cutting his foot on Manus Island. It was medical neglect that his injury was left untreated for an unacceptable period of time, becoming septic before he was finally airlifted to Australia where he died from the infection⁽¹¹⁾. The Australian government is responsible for the treatment of asylum seekers and responsible the neglect and abuse of them, responsible for their maltreatment and deaths.

Detainees on Nauru are treated no better. The Australian government ignored the pleas of medical experts to bring a rape victim to Australia for treatment and an abortion⁽¹²⁾. What callous mind does this? The same sick and perverted mind who then falsely accuses the victim of refusing to accept an abortion. Documents released under a Freedom of Information request revealed that Immigration Minister Peter Dutton lied about the reasons the woman wasn't granted an abortion⁽¹³⁾.

On Nauru, an Iranian refugee known as Omid was so desperate and despondent, that he set fire to himself. He died in Brisbane on 29 April 2016 from his injuries. He isn't the only asylum seeker to suicide or self-harm. Meanwhile, Nauru charges asylum seekers if they attempt suicide⁽¹⁴⁾, making no allowance for the horrors and loss they've experienced or the empty future they face at the hands of a barbaric Australian government that is more interested in votes that compassion.

These are just some of the victims of Australian brutality. There are many other examples of abuse, including violent sexual assaults⁽¹⁵⁾, that highlight the culture of systemic violence in detention centres, and the government's negligence and atrocities.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott even gave ex-Navy vessels to Sri Lanka so they could round up Tamils fleeing the savagery of the Sri Lankan government. Sri Lanka's human rights record is atrocious and the UN has accused it of significant war crimes⁽¹⁶⁾. Yet Abbott was more than happy to facilitate these crimes and human rights abuses.

Each of these actions clearly demonstrates the turpitude of a morally bankrupt government.

Manus Island and Nauru have been described as Australia's Guantanamo Bay⁽¹⁷⁾.

If Australia genuinely wants to save lives and break the people smuggling model, it would be working with countries in the region, such as Malaysia and Indonesia and encouraging them to become signatories to the Refugee Convention as well as looking at safer ways to bring asylum seekers into the country.

Australia used to be the first safe haven east of Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan. Now, Australia is as bad as the nations that asylum seekers are fleeing. This is nothing to be proud of.

An Amnesty International reported identified that Australian officials had apparently paid people smugglers to return asylum seekers to Indonesia⁽¹⁸⁾. On one hand, Australia wants to break the 'people smuggler' model, but with the other pays $31,000 USD to people smugglers - a strange way to break a business model⁽¹⁹⁾.

The UN warned Australia that boat push-backs breached the Refugee Convention⁽²⁰⁾. It also found that Australia is breaching international laws on torture⁽²¹⁾ and is in violation of international laws on the rights of the child⁽²²⁾. Furthermore, Australia has been returning asylum seekers to their countries of origin when they have a well-founded fear of persecution. This is called refoulement and it also violates international law⁽²³⁾. Only Australia and the United States have challenged this and continue to refoule refugees to situations where they face arrest, persecution, death⁽²⁴⁾.

Article 33(1) of the UN Refugee Convention⁽³⁾ states:

'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'.

Despicably, the Abbott government introduced the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014 in order to grant themselves the power to refoule by including the following clause:

197C Australia's non-refoulement obligations irrelevant to removal of unlawful non-citizens under Section 198⁽²⁵⁾.

It's not asylum seekers who are illegal, but the Australian Government.

Most Australians support the government's position on asylum seekers⁽²⁶⁾. Most believe that asylum seekers are 'illegal' and that there is a flood, even though both claims are manipulations and falshehoods promoted by the government. By end of 2013 (a period when boat arrivals were near their highest), asylum seeker boat arrivals accounted for 6% of Australia's population growth, compared to other migrant arrivals which accounted for 56% of Australia's population growth, while 38% was from Australian births⁽²⁷⁾.

Source: Costa A, New Matilda

If Australians are so concerned about the rule of law and the legality of seeking asylum then they should be concerned about their own government's illegal actions⁽²⁸⁾. Asylum seekers aren't abusing anyone's human rights, they aren't torturing people. They are the victims of persecution from their own country and Australia.

There needs to be a Royal Commission into Australia's brutal, inhumane and illegal treatment of refugees. These policies are not about keeping Australia safe but purely about abusing people for votes. Politicians such as former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who established the Manus Island detention centre, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who was the architect of the PNG Solution (where no refugee would resettle in Australia but would remain in PNG), former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, former Immigration Minister Scott Morrison, Prime Minister Turnbull and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton should all face charges under Australian and international law for gross and deliberate human rights violations, for abuse and torture.

In 1971, the Stanford Prison experiment was conducted by Professor Philip Zimbardo in which he studied the psychological effects of prison life in a simulated prison⁽²⁹⁾. People were profiled to rule out anyone who had psychological issues. The remaining volunteers were assigned to be either guards or prisoners. Not long into the experiment, the guards made up their own rules and committed vile abuses against the prisoners, who either rebelled or degenerated physically and psychologically.

Australia's gulags are our own Stanford Prison. Our politicians are the prison guards and the asylum seekers are the prisoners. The government has made up its own rules, referred to prisoners (including children) by number rather than name, shaming and blaming the victims, used harassment, retribution and dehumanisation. The abuse and brutality being committed by the government is no different to the abuse and brutality that occurred in the Stanford Prison experiment and the effects on the prisoners mental and physical health is also comparable. The off-shore detention program is based on dehumanisation, fear and an insatiable lust for power and votes.

While the government has now released most children from detention, hundreds were detained for years. The terribly detrimental effects of this on children and their parents were well detailed in a 2014 review into children in detention⁽³⁰⁾.

Source: Getup

The Stanford Prison experiment recommended that prisons 'promote human values rather than destroy them'⁽²⁹⁾. Some 45 years later, Australia's politicians have learned nothing and are proudly destroying human values and lives for the sake of populist politics.

The government is doing this for one reason: votes. It is a sad truth that the policies behind the 'Stop the boats' mantra is popular with the Australian electorate. In fact, there is a tangible anger, even hatred, from many Australians towards those who they believe are queue-jumpers or not genuine refugees. Of course, Australia's concern for 'genuine' refugees is laregly non-existent given that half population of the Manus Island detention centre have already been assessed as being genuine refugees, yet most Australians don't want them in our country.

The reaction and behaviour of Australians towards the world's most persecuted people demonstrates the veracity of The Stanford Prison experiment and shows that many Australians would gladly fulfil the role of torturer as they fail to stand up against their own government's crimes against humanity.

Inimitable American author and social critic, Gore Vidal once observed, 'It is true, as Sartre once wrote, referring to French Army atrocities in Algeria, that the real tragedy in our time is that any of us can be, interchangeably, victim or torturer'.

How true this is for Australia.

History will eventually show this to be one of Australia's most disgraceful periods and its perpetrators, the politicians who've implemented and sanctioned it, will be viewed as despotic criminals. And the people who demanded and supported these policies? Will be seen as sheep, blindly manipulated by fear to support gross human rights abuses.

Related article

Australia's Lord of the Flies: fear, mob-rule and the killing of asylum seekers

References

1. ABC News, Francis Keany and Louise Yaxley, 'Manus Island detention: PNG responsible for asylum seekers, Peter Dutton says', 29 April 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/png-responsible-for-manus-island-asylum-seeker-dutton-says/7369032. Accessed 30 April 2016.

2. Parliament of Australia, Janet Phillips, 'Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts?', 2 March 2015, http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts#_Toc413067441. Accessed 30 April 2016.

3. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, 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 30 April 2016.

4. ABC News, Fact Check, 'Is Australia responsible for asylum seekers detained on Manus Island?', 28 February 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-27/who-is-responsible-for-asylum-seekers-detained-on-manus/5275598. Accessed 30 April 2016.

5. BBC News, 'Papua New Guinea to shut Australia's Manus Island migrant camp', 27 April 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36136630. Accessed 30 April 2016.

6. ABC News, Anna Henderson and Stephanie Anderson, 'Manus Island detention: Malcolm Turnbull warns Australians against being 'misty-eyed' on immigration policy', 28 April 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/dutton-refuses-to-be-drawn-on-christmas-island-option/7365940. Accessed 30 April 2016.

7. Sydney Morning Herald, James Massola, 'This is a sick game and it needs to end': Labor splits over asylum seekers', 28 April 2016, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/this-is-a-sick-game-and-it-needs-to-end-labor-splits-over-asylum-seekers-20160428-gogw6u.html. Accessed 30 April 2016.

8. Melissa Parke MP, Latest News, 'Asylum seekers should not be political pawns', 28 April 2016, http://melissaparke.com.au/news/latest-news/759-asylum-seekers-should-not-be-political-pawns.html. Accessed 30 April 2016.

9. The Guardian, Helen Davidson, 'Turnbull rejects New Zealand offer to take 150 refugees from detention', 29 April 2016,  http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/29/turnbull-rejects-new-zealand-offer-to-take-150-refugees-from-detention. Accessed 30 April 2016.

10. New York Times, The Editorial Board, 'Australia's Brutal Treatment of Migrants', 3 September 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/opinion/australias-brutal-treatment-of-migrants.html. Accessed 30 April 2016.

11. ABC News, Emma Pollard, 'Iranian asylum seeker Hamid Kehazaei brain dead in Brisbane hospital: Refugee Action Coalition', 5 September 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-03/asylum-seeker-hamid-kehazaei-brain-dead-in-brisbane-hospital/5716292. Accessed 30 April 2016.

12. Sydney Morning Herald, Bianca Hall, 'Australia ignored its own medical experts' pleas to bring Nauru rape victim here', 28 April 2016, http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-ignored-its-own-medical-experts-pleas-to-bring-nauru-rape-victim-here-20160428-goh30z.html. Accessed 30 April 2016.

13. SBS, Robert Burton-Bradley, 'Department's claim that raped refugee rejected abortion wrong, FOI reveals', 2 January 2016, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/01/02/departments-claim-raped-refugee-rejected-abortion-wrong-foi-reveals. Accessed 30 April 2016.

14. The Huffington Post, Josh Butler, 'Nauru refugee Omid Dies From Burns, As Two Reportedly Arrested For Suicide Attempts', 29 April 2016,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/04/28/omid-nauru-refugee-fire_n_9802366.html. Accessed 30 April 2016.

15. The Guardian, Paul Farrell, 'Not Seen, not heard, often not reported - the harrowing stories of Australia's detainees', 10 June 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/10/not-seen-not-heard-not-reported-the-harrowing-stories-of-australias-detainees. Accessed 30 April 2016.

16. Sydney Morning Herald, Ben Doherty, 'Tony Abbott's gift to Sri Lanka comes under fire', 18 November 2013, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-boats-gift-to-sri-lanka-comes-under-fire-20131117-2xp5z.html. Accessed 30 April 2016.

17. Sydney Morning Herald, David Isaacs, 'Nauru and Manus Island are Australia's Guantanamo Bay', 29 February 2016, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/nauru-and-manus-island-are-australias-guantanamo-gay-20160228-gn5qtg.html. Accessed 30 April 2016.

18. Amnesty International, 'Australia: Damning evidence of officials' involvement in transnational crime', 29 October 2015, http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/38332. Accessed 30 April 2016.

19. The Guardian, Claire Phipps, 'Did Australia pay people-smugglers to turn back asylum seekers?', 17 June 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/17/did-australia-pay-people-smugglers-to-turn-back-boats. Accessed 30 April 2016.

20. UN News Centre, 'Australia: UN agency concerned by reports that asylum-seeker boats forced back to Indonesia', 10 January 2014, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46902. Accessed 30 April 2016.

21. Human Rights Law Centre, 'UN finds Australia's treatment of asylum seekers violates the Convention Against Torture', 9 March 2015, http://hrlc.org.au/un-finds-australias-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-violates-the-convention-against-torture. Accessed 30 April 2016.

22. ABC News, Fact Check, 'Children in detention: Is Australia breaching international law?', 8 April 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/children-in-detention-is-australia-breaching-international-law/5344022. Accessed 30 April 2016.

23. The Guardian, Richard Ackland, 'Handing back asylum seekers is called refoulement. And it's illegal', 7 July 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/07/handing-back-asylum-seekers-is-called-refoulement-and-its-illegal. Accessed 30 April 2016.

24. Sydney Morning Herald, Jane McAdam, 'Our obligations still apply despite High Court win', 30 January 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/our-obligations-still-apply-despite-high-court-win-20150129-1316fm.html. Accessed 30 April 2016.

25. Australian Government, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014,  https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014A00135. Accessed 30 April 2016.

26. ABC, The Drum, Peter Lewis, 'Voters say: punish asylum seekers, just don't give them our cash', 23 June 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/lewis-crossing-the-line-on-border-security/6566396. Accessed 30 April 2016.

27. Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Detention and Refugee Statistics - as of 29 February 2016, http://www.asrc.org.au/resources/statistics/detention-and-refugee-statistics. Accessed 1 May 2016.

28. SBS, Kerri Worthington, 'Does Australian asylum policy break international law?', http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/28/does-australian-asylum-policy-break-international-law. Accessed 30 April 2016.

29. Stanford Prison Experiment, http://www.prisonexp.org. Accessed 1 May 2016.

30. Australian Human Rights Commission, 'The Forgotten Children: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (2014)', https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/publications/forgotten-children-national-inquiry-children. Accessed 1 May 2016.

What's a Senate Sleepover without lies, fear, Monty Python and pollies in pyjamas

What's a Senate Sleepover without lies, fear, Monty Python and pollies in pyjamas

Labor's blatant lie about the Greens vote on marriage equality

On 18 March 2016, after a marathon 28 hours straight, the Australian Senate passed Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, otherwise known as the Senate voting reform after the Greens and independent Nick Xenophon voted with the Coalition. It's been a long time since a Bill had so much hype and caused so much division.

The Labor Party had argued that the Greens did a dirty back-room deal with the Coalition. Which is a tad ironic, because the state of the current Senate laws means that all parties are doing dirty back-room deals with each other over the allocation of preferences. The Greens have long held a policy to reform the Senate so they were doing no back-room deal. In fact, the argument could be made that it wasn't the Greens who sold out to a Coalition policy, but the Coalition who sold out to a Greens policy - which could be a tad upsetting for those voters who go into paroxysms of panic at the mere thought of the Greens 'agenda' getting a tick in parliament.

The Senate voting reform Bill aims to return some sense of democracy to the process by enabling voters to have more control over where their votes go rather than the Parties deciding for them. Yet, Labor and most of the cross-benchers have been running scare-campaigns that it will undermine democracy when it is the current laws that are undemocratic. It's understandable that the minor parties would oppose the reform because they are the ones who stand to lose seats under it. However, for voters to oppose the reform is a little strange because many of them were left shaking their heads after the 2013 election when Ricky Muir of the Motoring Enthusiasts Party (the what party?) gained a Senate seat with 0.5% of the vote⁽¹⁾. Half a percent of the vote. 1/2%. Yes, that is democracy in action under the current Senate laws. Someone gets a seat when 99.5% of the votes went elsewhere.

No wonder the reforms were needed.

The Bill was always going to pass. When the Senate convened on 15 March 2016, it was clear that the government had the numbers to pass the Bill. So why not take the vote and pass it?

The Bill was scheduled for debate on 17 March 2016. Instead of just having the vote and getting it over and done with, the Labor Party and some of the minor parties began delaying tactics and stunts.

One of those stunts was the tabling of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 on Tuesday, 15 March 2016 by Liberal Democratic Party Senator Leyonhelm. It was tabled to embarrass The Greens who have been very vocal about marriage equality but who were siding with the Coalition, who have in general opposed marriage equality. Instead of voting against it to appease the Coalition, the Greens referred it to Thursday 17 March for debate. Come St Patrick's Day, the aptly-coloured Greens stopped the debate and brought on the vote. The Greens, and for that matter every other Senator, knew that the Marriage Equality Bill was there as a stalling tactic on the Senate Reform Bill, so why waste time.

The Greens called the ALP's bluff and requested a vote. The Division Bell rang and the Senate was forced to vote on whether they should vote on the Bill. The nine Greens senators vote 'yes', along with Independent Glenn Lazarus, Liberal Democrat Leyonhelm and Motoring Enthusiast Ricky Muir.

The ALP, fresh from vilifying the Greens for siding with the Coalition, then sided with the Coalition to vote 'no'.

Then in an extremely bizarre move, the ALP's Leader of the Senate, Penny Wong, herself a staunch supporter of marriage equality but who had just voted to block the Marriage Equality Bill, accused the Greens of blocking the Marriage Equality Bill.

Confused?

This was Penny Wong's Facebook page moments after the Senate vote on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill on 17 March 2016:

Not to be outdone, Bill Shorten, the ALP Leader, then shared one as well:

In case you are not clear on Penny Wong's post, she posted a second one later that afternoon:

Cute memes. Complete rubbish.

This is how the votes fell according to the Senate Hansard report⁽²⁾:

The Greens clearly voted for the bill. It would seem that for Wong and Shorten, 'Yes' means 'No' and 'No' means 'Yes'.

Both Wong and Shorten lied about how the votes fell.

Why?

Clearly they have an agenda to undermine the Greens and discredit them for siding with the Coalition over the senate reform bill. Clearly the Marriage Equality Bill stunt was pure filibustering by Labor and the minor parties to avoid the vote on the Senate reform Bill.

With the Marriage Equality Bill shut down by Labor jumping into bed with the Coalition (even though they have previously stated their support it), the Senate got down to the real business of voting on the Senate voting reform bill.

And that's when the real fun started.

The Senate degenerated into farce.

The Coalition stated that the Senate would sit until the Bill was passed - a bullying tactic itself, but as the passage of the bill was a fait accompli, it could have been all over very quickly. Instead, Labor began filibustering of epic proportions. As the day dragged into the night with no end in sight, independent Nick Xenophon entered the chamber in pyjamas and Labor Senator Doug Cameron channelled Monty Python by proclaiming, 'I fart in your general direction'.

Perhaps Labor simply wanted a sleep-over with their parliamentary playmates, all of whom were acting like kids pulling an all-nighter without parental supervision.

28 hours after debate started, the vote was finally held and as predicted days earlier, the Bill passed 36-24 with the Greens and the coalition voting in favour.

Shorten and Wong accused the Greens of being in bed with the Liberal-National Coalition, yet the Greens had held this view on Senate voting reform for almost 20 years. It would have been a sell-out for them to now oppose the Bill ... somewhat like Labor selling out their own position on the marriage equality bill.

So who's in bed with who? The Greens sided with the Coalition twice between July 2014 and March 2015 compared with Labor voting with the Coalition 35 times:

It's a bit rich for the ALP to vilify the Greens over the Senate voting reform Bill when the ALP has capitulated to much of the fear-mongering of the Coalition in relation to asylum seekers. Going way back to Kim Beazley in the 2001 election when he caved into Prime Minister John Howard's opportunistic use of the Tampa crisis to bolster his flagging popularity and the implementation of the draconian and brutal Pacific Solution. And then along came Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, promising a more compassionate approach to asylum seekers. This lasted until the first of the Coalition billboards listing the numbers of asylum seekers arriving by boat. Rudd capitulated and re-introduced the Pacific Solution. Labor is yet to distance itself from the Coalition's xenophobic human rights abuses against asylum seekers.

The Labor Party was once the voice of the people. Its grass roots were workers and unions, but over time they drifted further and further to the right.

There has been speculation that the Greens should form a coalition with Labor because of their ideological similarities, just as the Liberal and National parties joined forces. But Labor's blatant lying, scare-mongering and willingness to sell-out its commitment to its policies shows its behaviour and ideology is more aligned to the Liberal Party.

It's not the Greens who will drop into political irrelevance, but Labor who has left behind their left-wing roots in order to harvest the vote of the right-wing.

Wong sarcastically stated that the Greens were no longer the party of Bob Brown. Perhaps she should look at her own party. The Australian Labor Party is no longer the party of Gough Whitlam. If Labor wants to remain relevant it needs to re-establish itself as a party of the people, with social reforms of the magnitude that Whitlam put forward. They need to distance themselves from the lying, scare-mongering, xenophobia and bigotry of the Liberal Party, otherwise what is the point of having two major parties whose ideology can only be separated by a fine-tooth comb.


References

1. ABC Elections, Anthony Green's Election Blog, 'The Preference Deals behind the Strange Election of Ricky Muir and Wayne Dropulich', 13 September 2013, http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/09/the-preference-deals-behind-the-strange-election-of-ricky-muir-and-wayne-dropulich-.html. Accessed 18 March 2016.

2. Parliament of Australia, Senate, Bills: Marriage EqualityAmendment Bill 2013, Second Reading, Division 2016, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1ea904ea-ae93-4f0c-bb20-3d8c33e83f81%2F0032%22. Accessed 18 March 2016.

Why hang capitalists when Trump is already hung?

The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang himself with if he thinks he can make a buck off it.

A quaint quote from Michael Moore, of which older variations have been attributed to Stalin, Lenin and Marx.

And then came Donald Trump, promoting his credentials as potential President of the free world by slapping them in the face of voters across the United States.

His credentials?

A big dick.

So he says.

Why hang capitalists when Trump is already hung ...

The Republican Party is proving how true Moore's adage is, given the farcical fascist candidates that are running to be the Presidential nominee. They're so focussed on greed and selfishness, that they would try to make a buck by selling the hangman's rope to their executioners. Short-sighted policies for short-lived gain.

Well, it would be farcical if people weren't taking them seriously. With the leading candidates, Trump, Cruz and Rubio, promising to wage war on Muslims, Mexicans, the poor, while celebrating the continued exploitation of workers through unfettered capitalism.

It's a funny thing about capitalism. It kind of needs consumers and if you don't pay people a living wage, then they can't consume. If you boot people out of your country or ban others from coming, then that also reduces the number of consumers. Eventually capitalism will fail because of its own greed and fear.

There's nothing democratic about capitalism. Democracy, rule by the people is anathema to capitalism which is founded on corporate evolution, namely survival of the wealthiest. Capitalism benefits the few at the expense of the many. Capitalism's political system is plutocracy. Democracy provides power for the majority, Capitalism provides power for the few. Yet, the pretence of democracy is the charade that capitalism uses to mask its misanthropic greed and hegemony.

Many Republican supporters are workers. Every day mums and dads and working Joes and Janes, struggling to make ends meet. But they've been sold the candy-coated capitalism that sees the gullible embrace network marketing scams in their desire to get rich quick. Couple this with fear of the 'other' and people will do whatever it takes to achieve unattainable and implausible goals, no matter how self-destructive.

'... they'll sell us the rope'

Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

Astute Canadian author, Ronald Wright, nailed the American Condition when he stated in A Short History of Progress:

'Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires'.

People are being denied a realistic minimum wage while companies post record profits at their expense. Workers, without whom these companies would not be successful, are believing the lies by the venerated corporations that capitalism will set them free, that the harder they work the richer they'll be.

They fear the communist idea of wealth redistribution as they go about redistributing their wealth to the wealthy.

Former Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren summed up the selfishness of capitalism and the unrealistic fear of socialism when he stated:

Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others to be socialism.

Capitalism is a redistribution of wealth to the few for the benefit of the few. Communism is redistribution of wealth to the many for the benefit all.

Yet the many have been blinded by greed and distracted by mass debates about penis size. Trump has trumped sensibility and intelligence.

It's no wonder that arrogant capitalists with fascist, white supremacist policies can garner support of workers while failing to present any feasible economic policy that will effectively benefit the nation. Instead, people are whipped into a frenzy through the fear of migrants and refugees, of Islam and unions and communists. We've seen this before with other fascist leaders, such as Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. People are still buying the lies.

Modern capitalism is exploiting workers who ignorantly celebrate their corporate slavery.

Make America Great Again?

Trump's simplistic mantra sounds great to the ignorant, however, the shallowness of it doesn't withstand even the most cursory analysis.

It's said that Nero fiddled while Rome burned ...

While 'Murica is fiddling with Trump's turgid tool, the world's greatest empire is being propelled down the slippery slope of fascism and bankruptcy, through corporate greed and irrational fears based on xenophobia and bigotry. 

The United States economy is still struggling to recover from the Global Financial Crisis. Yet capitalists continue to accumulate riches they've taken from underpaid workers while refusing to share the wealth. Homeless numbers are at an all time high, medical costs are unaffordable for many people and even putting food on the table often requires workers to hold down more than one job. And the Republican nominees are spending hundreds of millions of dollars convincing people that they are one of them, that they understand the struggles of everyday Americans.

But at least Republicans can sleep comfortable in the knowledge that they've elected the biggest dick to lead them to the Presidential election.

Capitalism is eating itself.

No-one needs to hang capitalists, they are doing a great job of it themselves.

Conservative Christianity: Trumped by fear and greed

Right wing Christians use the bible to justify capitalism and its fruits of exclusion, greed and fear, however, the teachings of Christ are clearly socialist. The bible in general talks of sharing wealth with the poor, caring for the stranger in the land (such as the refugee), the widow, and forgiveness of debt (including the financial sort).

Capitalists will point to the fact that the bible does have rich people in it, including King Solomon (mind you, they don't seem to advocate Solomon's polygamy these days), and the parable of the talents (which is not promoting wealth accumulation but productivity - a necessity for socialism).

These examples are not provided by the bible to defend capitalism. They are there because these sort of people existed in those times. There were wealthy and selfish people. The bible addressed what was the contemporary society of the day. Yes, people accumulated wealth. However, other verses of the bible talk explicitly about sharing wealth (e.g. Acts 4:32-35, Exodus 16:18) and particularly, about rich people struggling to make it into the kingdom of God (per the description of the camel and the eye of the needle).

With the US presidential primaries in full swing and the leading Republican candidates being Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, it is disturbing that so many Christians defend the positions of these clearly non-Christian nominees who are more interested in accumulating wealth for individual greed rather than for society's need.

For instance, Trump wants to build a giant wall around the USA to keep migrants out, to ban Muslims from the USA and keep a register of Muslim refugees⁽¹⁾. Cruz wants to carpet-bomb ISIS, deport, deport 12 million people⁽²⁾ and abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS being the tax collection agency) and the Department of Education⁽³⁾. Rubio wants to round up and deport 12 million people⁽⁴⁾ and to focus on border protection rather than tax collection⁽⁵⁾. The policies of the three leading Republican candidates involve mass incarceration, labelling and segregation. All of them oppose raising the minimum wage, reducing welfare and privatising basic services such as health and education. Their policies are driven by greed and fear. The three of them want smaller government because such selfish and fear-driven policies clearly define the generosity of voters who will willingly take care of the poor and the most vulnerable out of their own pockets, rather than out of government coffers. Yeah ... let's see how that works out.

If this were a sitcom, it'd be a ratings winner and we'd all be laughing like hyenas discussing it at work over the water cooler. But it is real life. There is a very real possibility that Trump, Cruz or Rubio could become President. And it will be with the help of America's radical right-wing Christians.

The similarity to Nazi Germany is staggering. The only difference is that Hitler wasn't the buffoon that Trump, Cruz and Rubio are. The critical role that the church played in Hitler's rise to power is well documented. The critical role that Christians played in the imprisonment of those deemed a threat to Nazi Germany is well documented. Those threats were Communists, Unionists, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the infirm and essentially anyone who they deemed undesirable. Hitler claimed to be a Christian to court the vote of the church. Hitler believed he was doing the work of the Lord and the church swallowed it up:

And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.⁽⁶⁾

Substitute Jew for Muslim and we have any number of conservative politicians, pastors and pew-warmers. Hitler's seminal work, Mein Kampf, is riddled with references to the Lord and the Creator as he attacks Communists, Jews, Unions, welfare and those who are a burden on society, such as the poor and the sick.

What is the difference between the rhetoric of today's conservative candidates and Hitler's? There's still the extreme Nationalism, patriotism at all costs, while identifying common enemies on which to blame America's economic and social ills, particularly, Muslims, Migrants, Unionists, Socialists, the poor and the sick. Welfare and socialised health are particularly blamed. Ironic coming from Christians considering the bible bangs on so much about caring for the poor and the weak.

With the bible speaking so much about loving and caring for the poor, the refugee, the widow, the weak, it is quite clear that Christians who vote for conservative politicians have never understood their bibles.

Many are more comfortable attacking homosexuality and abortion, than in being upset about the torture and abuse of babies. For instance, in Australia the United Nation has stated that Australia's detention of asylum seekers, and in particular their children, violates the Convention Against Torture⁽⁷⁾. Yet, a large number of conservative pastors fail to condemn their precious Liberal Party in its abuse of the world's most vulnerable, but get upset with an anti-bullying campaign to prevent the abuse of LGBTI people⁽⁸⁾. Priorities? Skewed!

People end up being labelled: illegal or sinner. And then the mantra starts. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Which really is just a slogan to make Christians feel good about abusing people.

They're happy to enforce their twisted version of the bible through law and war. The United States has been the most aggressive nation of modern times with military involvement in dozens of countries in the name of democracy and capitalism.

Conservative politicians have built their empires of wealth and power on platforms of selfishness and fear in order to shore up votes from gullible Christians who believe that a Jesus bumper sticker represents signs and wonders following God's anointed.

Yet the bible is clear: You will know them by their fruit ... not their bumper stickers, not their catchy little slogans. Waging war and attacking the poor, attacking the most vulnerable, fostering hate against other religions and political ideologies is not the fruit of Christ. It is the fruit of the loins of misanthropists; haters of humanity.

Conservative Christians are easily manipulated by misanthropic politicians because they're more interested in dogma than doing, in creed than in caring, in rules than in rights. They're manipulated by fear of the 'other', they're focused on accumulating wealth rather than in sharing wealth.

Who are Christians to criticise radical Islam when they're so willing to vote for radical politicians who preach such greed, hate, fear and war-mongering?

In the well-known parable, the Religious Right are the goats!

References

1. On the Issues, 'Donald Trump', http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm. Accessed 27 February 2016.

2. Washington Times, Victor Morton, 'Ted Cruz toughens immigration stance, says he'd deport them all', 22 February 2016, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/ted-cruz-says-hed-deport-all-illegal-immigrants-us. Accessed 27 February 2016.

3. On the Issues, 'Ted Cruz', http://www.ontheissues.org/Ted_Cruz.htm. Accessed 27 February 2016.

4. The Daily Currant, 'Marco Rubio: "Deport them all" ', 2 April 2013, http://dailycurrant.com/2013/04/02/marco-rubio-deport-all. Accessed 27 February 2016.

5. On the Issue, 'Marco Rubio', http://www.ontheissues.org/Marco_Rubio.htm. Accessed 27 February 2016.

6. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume I: A RETROSPECT, Chapter 2 YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA, translated by James Murphy.

7. Human Rights Law Centre, 'UN finds Australia's treatment of asylum seekers violates the Convention Against Torture', 9 March 2015, http://hrlc.org.au/un-finds-australias-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-violates-the-convention-against-torture. Accessed 22 February 2016.

8. The Age, Jill Stark, 'Safe Schools program: why zealots are trying to drag us back to the dark ages', 24 February 2016, http://www.theage.com.au/comment/safe-schools-program-why-zealots-are-trying-to-drag-us-back-to-the-dark-ages-20160223-gn1ryq.html. Accessed 28 February 2016.


Updated 29 February 2016

2,500 year old laws are no way to run the 21st century ... or Australia

2,500 year old laws are no way to run the 21st century ... or Australia

Prior to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott being ousted in September 2015, he had to contend with a passionate debate about marriage equality. Abbott, supposedly a devout Christian (while torturing children and abusing vulnerable people, but that's another story), is adamantly opposed to marriage equality. Not so, other members of his party or other members of parliament. So to placate the 'yes' vote, Abbott stated that a plebiscite would be held straight after the next federal election. Given that most people want marriage equality, a plebiscite is clearly just a waste of money and time.

Sadly, Abbott's successor, Malcolm Turnbull has continued with the promise to hold the plebiscite rather than just putting a marriage equality bill to parliament.

In the meantime, right-wing extremists whip themselves into a frenzy at the thought of two loving adults marrying each other. Anyone would think that homosexuality was the worst crime in the world. Funny how these people are so silent on the abuse of the world's most vulnerable people at the hands of politicians such as Abbott, Turnbull et al. State-sanctioned child abuse? Meh. Marriage equality? Bust out the pitch-forks and stakes.

The right-wing have claimed that their rights are being violated if same sex marriage is legalised. I'm not quite getting this. It's the right-wing that is preventing gay people from marrying. The gay community isn't stopping heterosexuals from marrying. If there is an attack on the family or a violation of anyone's rights, it is the right-wing's attacks on preventing gay people from marrying and being able to establish loving families.

The right-wing raised the ante by demanding that existing anti-discrimination legislation be suspended during debate on marriage equality. Why would they want that? The law doesn't prevent people voicing their opinion against marriage equality. It does however, ensure people don't persecute others based on sexual orientation. So why does the right-wing want this law suspended? Clearly they don't understand the difference between debate and abuse, between discussion and bullying. Clearly they don't understand the effect their words and deeds have on others.

Not surprising then, that so many LGBTI people suffer bullying. A recent study found that 85% of  LGBTI people suffered abuse, harassment and violence⁽¹⁾. There are much higher incidences of self-harm and mental health issues with LGBTI people than the general community. Much of this stems from the abuse and rejection that they suffer at the hands of bigots, the intolerant and the ignorant.

And so it was that the government implemented the Safer Schools program to promote understanding and acceptance of LGBTI people in order to reduce the incidence of abuse and bullying that they suffer. If a school has protective policies in place, 75% of LGBTI students report feeling safe, compared to 45% in schools where there are no policies in place⁽²⁾.

Instead of promoting this as a good thing, the rabid right have shown why the Safe Schools program is necessary. They claim it is a conspiracy to further the gay agenda and that children shouldn't be taught that there is such a thing as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex. Senator Cory Bernardi went further with the haughty statement that the Safer Schools program 'indoctrinates kids with Marxist cultural relativism'⁽³⁾.

If Bernardi's bigotry is the benchmark, then bring on the Marxist cultural relativism as it obviously protects and respects people from the abuse of bigots.

By the by, cultural relativism essentially holds that all cultures are equal. Marxism also essentially holds that we are all equal. Now that we've got that out the way ...

Many of those opposed to marriage equality are right-wing Christians who seem more hung up on the Ten Commandments than the Two Commandments that Jesus espoused (Love the Lord your God ... Love your neighbour). They seem more hung up with laws of Leviticus than they do with the blessings of the Beatitudes.

When it comes to homosexuality, the religious right is adamant that the 2,500 year old Levitical law of the bible applies. Leviticus 20:13 - 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them'.

There's a few issues with this scripture. If we're going apply one part of it, then why not the other part. If homosexuality is an abomination, then why aren't the religious right campaigning for the death penalty for the LGBTI community? They're not taking this scripture seriously, so why even bother with it at all? One more thing, 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman ...', what happens if he has never laid with a woman and has no intention to because he finds women to be sexually repulsive. Perhaps the scripture only applies to heterosexuals who abandon their natural heterosexual orientation to get it on with a man. Something like what's mentioned in Romans 1:27, 'Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another ...'. This kind of implies that the men were heterosexual to start with and gave up the women for each other. Heterosexual experimentation could be screwed here, but homosexuals and bisexuals who are born that way are not really the target of this scripture.

The upshot is that the world has moved on from the cultural times of the ancient Middle East. We don't stone people. We don't marry hundreds of wives while also collecting concubines. King Solomon, I'm looking at you. According to 1 Kings 11:3, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Oh and he was also the wisest man in the world.

So it's kind of funny in a bizarre, hypocritical, moving-goal-posts kind of way for anti-LGBTI Christians to declare Solomon's polygamy and infidelities to be redundant while stating that questionable anti-gay scripture is the ducks nuts. Or is this their own version of cultural relativism; that biblical culture is so equal to 21st century culture that we can apply 2,500 year old laws. But then there's the cultural issue with polygamy per King Solomon. I don't know. A difficult position to reconcile for the religious right.

Ancient laws are no way to run a modern society and no excuse for bullying, bigotry, hate-speech, persecution, violence.

Turnbull has acquiesced to the crazed Reds-under-the-bed, homophobic demands of the hysterical Cory Bernardi regarding the Safer Schools program, by granting a review into it. Bernardi's plan is that we shouldn't have Safer Schools. Gays be damned ... and bullied ... and bashed, all because children are being brought up in ultra-conservative homes where they learn that LGBTI people are an abomination and will suffer damnation at the hands of a loving God.

The Liberal Party has been pushing the fear-mongering mantra that a vote for Labor is a vote for a Union-led government. It is painfully clear, that a vote for the Liberal Party is a vote for a government controlled by religious extremists and rabid right-wing bigots.

Now, where can I buy some cultural relativism? Perhaps Acts 10:34 - God shows no partiality. That sounds relatively like cultural relativism. I think I'm going to need more of it in the lead up to the plebiscite.

Thank God for the Marxists.

References

1. Australian Human Rights Commission, 'Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersexual Equality', https://bullying.humanrights.gov.au/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-and-intersex-equality-1. Accessed 23 February 2016.

2. Australian Human Rights Commission, 'Face the facts: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People', https://www.humanrights.gov.au/face-facts-lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-and-intersex-people. Accessed 23 February 2016.

3. The Guardian, Shalailah Medhora, 'Turnbull orders review of Safe Schools LGBTI program after pressure from Cory Bernardi', 23 February 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/23/turnbull-orders-review-safe-schools-lgbti-program-after-pressure-from-cory-bernardi. Accessed 23 February 2016.

Peter Dutton versus Baby Asha, AMA & the UN

The Australian government: walking the Goering Line.

You know you should review your position on asylum seekers when the conservative Australian Medical Association accuses you of 'state-sanctioned' child abuse ⁽¹⁾.

Australia's Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton appeared on Radio National's Breakfast show on 22 February 2016⁽²⁾, following the release of Baby Asha from Lady Cilento Children's Hospital into community detention. Medical staff at the hospital refused to release the baby if she was to be sent to Nauru because it wasn't a suitable environment. This sparked 10 days of protests, a 24/7 vigil at the hospital and hashtags that trended globally: #BabyAsha #LadyCilento. The AMA supported the doctors' stance, as did a number of state Premiers.

Newsweek⁽³⁾

Moments into the interview, Dutton reiterated the Abbott mantra of 'Stop the Boats' and stated that he wanted to be the Minister to Get Children Out of Detention. Then get them out. It's not hard.

Dutton managed to justify his cruelty, at least in his own mind. And cruelty it is. The UN has stated that Australia's treatment of asylum seekers, and in particular the detention of children, violates the Convention Against Torture⁽⁴⁾.

Imagine that. Australia torturing children. Australians all let us rejoice ... 

The national anthem goes on:

For those who've come across the seas, we've boundless plains to share ... now that's a bit awkward.

Even more awkward is that Amnesty International has state that Australia is acting illegally by forcing refugees to return to countries where they are in danger⁽⁵⁾. Kind of ironic then, that Australia is so hung up on branding asylum seekers who arrive by boat as illegals. Amnesty has also found that Australia is a leading example of what not to do. Australia's boat turn-back policy has encouraged other nations to do the same, endangering the lives of asylum seekers around the world. It makes a mockery of the hand-wringing claims by the LNP that they are saving lives.

But I digress. Back to the RN Breakfast interview.

Dutton justified the government's cruelty by claiming that people smugglers could use Australian hospitals as a formula for asylum seekers to be released into the community. 'These are ruthless, organised criminals we're dealing with', said the Minister for Getting Children Out of Detention. Clearly treating the electorate like fools by conflating asylum seekers with people smugglers and then exaggerating the threat posed to Australia by said smugglers.

Dutton appealed to emotion by stating that there were 1,200 people who 'went to the bottom of the ocean when Labor lost control of the borders'.  Dutton went on to state that there were 'many children within the 1,200' and he wasn't 'going to allow 'new families to be put in that perilous position'.

Again conflation of two issues: deaths and Labor.  While trying to sound like he has compassion for the lives of asylum seekers, he is happy to bribe asylum seekers to return to their country of origin, to return to the threats faced there as long as they aren't here. As long as Australia doesn't have to share its wealth and good fortune with the less fortunate. Failing that, he will send them to Nauru. Dutton then made statements regarding what might happen if there are 'security issues, domestic violence issues, criminal activity issues' against the father. Wait! What? If there already were these issues, the father wouldn't be here, so why in the world would he mention these things if he isn't trying to demonise the father and whip up fear and anger against the family. Can he sink any lower? Well, yes, challenge accepted!

Dutton alleged that Asha's mother deliberately poured boiling water on her while in Nauru, in order to be repatriated to Australia for treatment. Medical documents from Lady Cilento hospital showed that the injuries were accidental⁽⁶⁾, proving that Dutton lied for his own perverse benefit. Dutton is devoid of moral values and compassion; lying in order to slander a family who sought protection in Australia. The strong persecuting the weak. The insolent oppressor abusing the vulnerable.

Dutton wants to make things so bad for refugees that they'd rather go home than remain in Australia. Instead of refugees being literally caught between the devil and deep blue sea, Dutton would rather they stay with the devil; amid war, persecution, rape, hopelessness, disappearances.

A despicable position for any politician to take.

Even more despicable Dutton then accused some of those who oppose him of using this opportunity to 'lift their own media profiles'. According to Dutton, this is 'shameful'. Yes, indeed. Using abused children and vulnerable adults to further ones career is extremely shameful. And the Liberal Party has been doing this for years. Demonising asylum seekers, linking them to terrorists. Instilling fear and racism and Islamophobia into the population, to then milk the fruits of that for political gain.

In the Radio National interview with Fran Kelly, Dutton was asked to respond to the statement by Professor Bryan Owler, National President of the AMA, that indefinite detention was akin to child abuse. Dutton deflected this by pointing to 14,000 refugees languishing in Indonesia and 1,200 who drowned at sea 'under Labor'. Both serious issues, but complete distractions from the question. Children being abused by government policy? Ooh, look - something is happening over there ... ooh, look - something else is happening somewhere else. Distraction. Dutton didn't answer the question other than distorting the issue and again conflation other issues with the subject at hand. Child abuse is child abuse, whether there are 14,000 refugees in Indonesia or 1,200 who've tragically drowned.

To use those lives and deaths to justify child abuse sets a new standard in opprobrium.

Dutton boasted that he has reduced the number of children in detention to less than 75. This could be admirable if they were going to be granted permanent resettlement, but since the Labor-led government of Kevin Rudd in 2013, it has been government policy to not offer permanent settlement to any refugee arriving by boat⁽⁷⁾.

Dutton, Turnbull, the LNP government are using asylum seekers as human scarecrows to ward off any other would be boat arrival.

Disappointingly, the feckless leader of the Labor Party, Bill Shorten was silent for much of the 10 day vigil for Baby Asha. Eventually he simply requested Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to ensure that the government is 'following correct procedures'⁽⁸⁾. Gutless.

At least the Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, also from the Labor Party showed true leadership and guts by demanding the government release baby Asha and stop playing politics with people's lives⁽⁹⁾. Conversely, and tellingly, the leader of the Queensland LNP, Lawrence Springborg demanded that if Baby Asha is healthy enough she should be discharged and 'cared for in accordance with the laws of the land'⁽¹⁰⁾ - which could mean sending her back to Nauru. Springborg showed himself to be all legality and no morality.

After the 10 day protest, Dutton relented and released Baby Asha and her family into community detention. While this appears a small victory for the Lady Cilento staff and the protestors, it is hardly reassuring because Dutton emphasised that the family will eventually be returned to Nauru.

New Zealand offered to take 267 asylum seekers in Australia who were part of a High Court case⁽¹¹⁾, yet the government has refused. Dutton, in true Liberal Party form, blames Julia Gillard for this. Apparently it was her deal with New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, that provided a back-door way of gaining access to Australia. If this is the case and the government is genuinely concerned about the fate of the asylum seekers as well as concerned about keeping them out of Australia then surely it wouldn't take much to write a clause in the agreement to ensure they don't come to Australia once resettled in New Zealand. Instead, the government would rather the asylum seekers are punished, either returning them to the harsh realities of their country of origin or resettling them in a developing country or in countries committing human rights abuses, such as Cambodia, Philippines and Malaysia.

This was made clear by Dutton when he went on to state that it (resettlement in New Zealand) would encourage people smuggling by providing asylum seekers with a 'legitimate outcome'. Apparently, the Immigration Minister can't possibly allow a 'legitimate outcome' - implying that his solution is an 'illegitimate outcome'. So the people suffer while the Australian government uses people smuggling as a distraction and excuse for the abuse of innocent and vulnerable people in the name of politics.

Dutton's modus operandi was painfully transparent: raise the threat level, denounce the detractors and state that it is only the Liberal Party who can keep the country safe.

Herman Goering would have been proud:

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Recently, a psychiatrist likened the electorate's view on Australia's detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island to Nazi Germany⁽¹²⁾. The message that the Liberal Party conveys to the electorate is not just following the Nazi recipe espoused by Goering, but is having the same outcome: 'public numbing and indifference towards state abuses'. Even more telling of the Liberal Party's fascist approach to refugees is the threat to jail whistle-blowers who report on conditions in the detention centres⁽¹³⁾. This includes doctors, teachers and aid workers. How does that national anthem go again?

Australians all let us rejoice 
For we are young and free

How about:

For we are young and gagged?

Patriotism. The conservative parties seem to be trying to out do each other with how patriotic they are. Former Prime Minister Abbott couldn't seem to surround himself with enough flags when delivering or defending soul-destroying policies. Australia Day and Anzac Day have both been hijacked by radical right-wing into being a celebration of White Australia, where racism and vilification are the ordre du jour.

Malcolm X's words come to mind: 'You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it'.

Dutton couldn't help but go into election-mode fear-mongering by trying to scare us with the prospect of a 'Union dominated government'. This apparently requires the current coalition government to 'work harder to keep our country safe and out of the hands of these Union bosses'. Oooohh ... scary. The only scary thing is a country devoid of Unions and controlled by business interests whose only priority is the bottom line. Workers be damned. Any worker who votes for a party that is so proudly and vocally anti-Union is committing industrial relations suicide. Business bosses aren't interested in the rights of workers, only the Unions are.

Back to the issue at hand. According to Dutton, the government is dealing with the refugee issue in a 'firm and compassionate way'. Maybe spend some time in a detention centre on Manus Island, Christmas Island or Nauru and then explain how compassionate it is.

Failing that, have a listen to the AMA. At least they're not the biased, bleeding-heart refugee advocates. If the AMA is calling it child abuse, if the UN is calling it torture, then stop the distractions, stop the diversions, stop the lies and stop the demonisation!

#EndTheCamps

#FreeTheRefugees

#LetThemStay

References

1. The Guardian, Helen Davidson, 'Prolonged detention is 'state-sanctioned child abuse', says head of doctors' group', 21 February 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/21/prolonged-detention-is-state-sanctioned-child-abuse-says-head-of-doctors-group. Accessed 22 February 2016.

2. ABC Radio National, RN Breakfast, Fran Kelly, 'Interview - Peter Dutton on the release of Baby Asha', 22 February 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/peter-dutton-on-the-release-of-baby-asha/7188402. Accessed 22 February 2016.

3. Newsweek, Mirren Gidda, 'Baby Asha will be sent back to Nauru detention camp, says Australian Immigration Minister', 22 February 2016, http://www.newsweek.com/australia-immigration-policy-nauru-baby-asha-428920. Accessed 22 February 2016.

4. Human Rights Law Centre, 'UN finds Australia's treatment of asylum seekers violates the Convention Against Torture', 9 March 2015, http://hrlc.org.au/un-finds-australias-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-violates-the-convention-against-torture. Accessed 22 February 2016.

5. The Guardian, Ben Doherty and Calla Wahlquist, 'Australia among 30 countries illegally forcing return of refugees, Amnesty says', 24 February 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/24/australia-among-30-countries-illegally-forcing-return-of-refugees-amnesty-says. Accessed 24 February 2016.

6. Brisbane Times, Nicole Hasham, 'Peter Dutton accused of 'dirty politics' after report suggested mother deliberately burnt baby Asha', 23 February 2016, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peter-dutton-accused-of-dirty-politics-after-report-suggested-mother-deliberately-burnt-baby-asha-20160222-gn0wif.html. Accessed 23 February 2016.

7. ABC, 'Asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat to be resettled in Papua New Guinea', 20 July 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-19/manus-island-detention-centre-to-be-expanded-under-rudd27s-asy/4830778. Accessed 22 February 2016.

8. ABC, 'Baby Asha: Protesters vow to put bodies on the line to prevent baby's offshore removal', 21 February 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-21/protesters-vow-to-block-cars-if-baby-asha-is-deported/7187278. Accessed 22 February 2016.

9. Brisbane Times, Amy Remeikis, 'Peter Dutton 'playing politics' on Asha: Annastacia Palaszczuk', 22 February 2016, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/peter-dutton-playing-politics-on-asha-annastacia-palaszczuk-20160222-gn03kx.html. Accessed 22 February 2016.

10. Queensland Times, Kim Stephens, 'Springborg: Hospital should release refugee baby Asha', 15 February 2016, http://www.qt.com.au/news/springborg-hospital-should-release-refugee-baby-as/2931228. Accessed 22 February 2016.

11. The Guardian, Daniel Hurst and Ben Doherty, 'High court upholds Australia's right to detain asylum seekers offshore', 3 February 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/03/high-court-upholds-australias-right-to-detain-asylum-seekers-offshore. Accessed 22 February 2016.

12. Brisbane Times, Nicole Hasham, 'Psychiatrist likens immigration detention views to Nazis and gulags', 18 February 2016, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/psychiatrist-likens-immigration-detention-to-nazis-and-gulags-20160216-gmv833.html. Accessed 22 February 2016.

13. Australian Medical Association, 'Whistleblower doctors face jail threat from today', 1 July 2015, https://ama.com.au/ausmed/whistleblower-doctors-face-jail-threat-today. Accessed 22 February 2016.


Updated 24 February 2016.

Church of the Poisoned Mind

Church of the Poisoned Mind

In the 1980s, British pop group, Culture Club led by the inimitable Boy George, had a hit song called 'Church of the Poisoned Mind'. It included the lyric:

Love is hard to find
In the Church of the Poisoned Mind

While the song was more of a love song than a critique of modern religion, the lyrics can certainly be applied to modern Christianity. The religious right has hijacked Christianity from being an inclusive, loving religion to one that is exclusive, hateful, spiteful and driven by greed.

Much of the modern church is a church with a poisoned mind.

The religious right treat abortion and homosexuality as the worst things in the world, they regularly vote for politicians who's primary focus is on the support of big business at the cost of the poor. They vote for politicians who wage illegal wars based on false claims. They vote and campaign for politicians who wilfully imprison and demonise asylum seekers.

It is these policies that are the biggest threat to family values, to the poor, to the downtrodden, to the vulnerable, to the persecuted.

Considering that many conservative politicians claim to be Christian, their treatment of refugees, the poor, the needy, is anything but Christian. Take Australia's abuse and torture of children for example. The United Nations has found that Australia's treatment of asylum seekers breaches the international convention on torture⁽¹⁾. Yet, both the Liberal and Labor parties continue to support the brutal and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers.

Christ said, "suffer the little children". This doesn't mean to make the little children suffer.

While the religious right is distracted with abortion and same sex marriage, children are being tortured and murdered by the very political policies they support. Conversely, less conservative churches, such as the Uniting Church, are protesting against the government's inhumane treatment of asylum seekers.

Abortion is a biblical issue that is younger than the McDonald's Happy Meal ⁽²⁾. As has been pointed out by The Christian Left, abortion was designed by the founders of the religious right in the 1970s to 'coalesce a right wing political movement' ⁽³⁾. It was instilled purely for political manipulation and not from faith.

While abortion maybe unsavoury for many, the religious right's concern for the child ends at child-birth. They oppose welfare, they oppose rises to the minimum wage, they oppose refugee resettlement, they oppose foreign aid but they often support war in third world nations. Each of these factors contributes to the reasons women choose abortion, each of these factors contributes to child mortality and each of these reasons are not consistent with the teachings of the bible that the religious right so voraciously claims to support. The bible teaches sharing, caring, peace and love. These are the things that the religious right either actively campaigns against or at best, pays lip service to.

Opposition to homosexuality is the other key issue that underpins the religious right's narrative and drives their political choices. Given that the bible is not the best role model for marriage, it is strange that the religious right declares that they support the biblical view of marriage.

Let's unpack marriage according to the bible:

Take your pick: rape, incest, polygamy, infidelity, sexual slavery, arranged marriages.

Yeah ... let's go with marriage according to the bible.

Same sex marriage is not going to ruin society. It is no threat to anyone else's marriage. Critics will often argue that it will destroy family values.

What does destroy families is the wilful imprisonment of children. The wilful imprisonment of fathers, mothers, sons and daughters without charge. The wilful demonisation of innocent people based on lies often perpetrated and perpetuated by the religious right in their blind support of politicians who pander to racism, xenophobia, fear.

What destroys family values is hate-driven ideology and slander. Something that a number of Christians are doing without thought of scripture commanding them to love their neighbour. instead, they're happy to spread lies about Islam or twist the words of the Quran in order to justify their own hate and fear. We're seeing an increase in attacks on Muslims and mosques reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Martin Niemöller, a German Baptist minister at the time, firmly blamed the church for the rise of the Nazis, because it tolerated the persecution of communists, the sick, the Jews⁽⁴⁾.

The religious right defends to the death the selfish and unbiblical ideology of capitalism. They believe the bible teaches them they can accumulate wealth without limit and that redistribution of wealth is theft.

Capitalism succeeds through exploitation. It is a fallacy that the rich earned their wealth from their own hard work. Most of the rich got rich through the efforts of people who slaved their guts out for little return: some not even being paid minimum wage. Workers contribute to the wealth of the company. It isn't theft to expect that wealth to be shared at least with those who contributed to it, whether they're the cleaner, checkout operator or the CEO. It is obscene that the executives are paid thousands times more than what their employees are paid. Some CEOs earn thousands of dollars an hour, while their staff barely make minimum wage.

For Christians to support this is anathema to the precepts of the bible. James 5:1-5 condemns the hoarding of wealth and the robbing of the workers through withholding of wages. Interesting then, that the USA's right wing so voraciously opposes lifting the minimum wage to a standard that it can be lived upon:

¹ Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! ² Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. ³ Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. ⁴ Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. ⁵ You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter.

Much of the Western world is built on the rape of the third world. Corporations are continuing to source their labour from low-income nations to avoid paying higher wages. This doesn't benefit the third world. It only serves to drive a wedge between the rich and poor, it increases poverty and child mortality.

The religious right campaigns for smaller government. It sees taxation as theft. Yet who is going to build the roads and bridges, the schools, hospitals, electricity generators? The west has seen a major drive towards privatisation. This may reduce the tax burden, but privatisation comes at a cost. It is a fallacy to expect competition to drive down prices when consumers are prisoners to the greed of the capitalists who control that competition. Corporations introduce user-pays systems to cover their costs.

Of course, the reality is that even with privatisation, the government doesn't reduce the tax it takes, so consumers are hit double:

Taxation by government and taxation by corporation.

One of the religious right's recent mantras is that government is evil. Yet again, the bible clearly states that the government is the minister of God to do good. Romans 13:1-7 states: ' ... the authorities that exist are appointed by God ... For he is God's minister ... For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers ... '

Dare to state that the Bible promotes Socialism and one will be lynched in some Christian circles. Yet the bible consistently tells us to share wealth.

The basic premise of Marxism is biblical. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is a summary of the bible which states, 'He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack' (Exodus 16:18).

Acts 4:32-35 which speaks of the basic elements of communism - communal ownership and redistribution of wealth:

³² Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. .... ³⁴ Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, ³⁵ and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

The bible is opposed to capitalism, to the accumulation of wealth while others suffer. Luke 12:33 - 'Sell your possessions, and give to the needy'.

The racism, bigotry and intolerance that permeates the ideology of the religious right is borne of fear. If the religious right read their bibles they'd realise there is an antidote to the fear that consumes them, as stated succinctly in 1 John 4:18:

Perfect love casts out all fear 

Sadly, many in the religious right would rather reference the teachings of arch-capitalist and atheist, Ayn Rand, then reference the teachings of the Christ they claim to follow.

If the religious right is genuine in the love of Christ, they would do well to free and care for refugees, to share wealth and care for the poor, to share love and stop attacking Islam, to promote peace and stop voting for politicians in the mould of George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard, who waged war based on lies and fear.

The religious right are happy to twist scripture to support their warped view of Christ, however it is all legalism. All they try to defend is anti-abortion (or pro-life as they misname it, as their concern ends at birth), anti-homosexuality, anti-Islam, anti-immigration. Their view of scripture is 'thou shalt not' rather than 'thou shalt'.

Right wing Christianity is all legality and no morality.

They care more for capitalism and greed than they do for people. They fail to care for the poor, for the refugee, for the least of these as the bible calls it in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-45): inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it to Me.

The religious right should ditch its poisonous teachings and embrace the socialist teachings of the bible, the teachings of love, peace, caring and sharing.


References:

1. Human Rights Law Centre, 'UN finds Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers violates the Convention Against Torture', 9 March 2015, http://hrlc.org.au/un-finds-australias-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-violates-the-convention-against-torture. Accessed 14 February 2016.

2. Patheos, Fred Clark, 'The "biblical view" that's younger than the Happy Meal', 18 February 2012, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal. Accessed 14 February 2016.

3. The Christian Left, 'Abortion', 2 February 2015, http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/abortion. Accessed 14 February 2016.

4. 'Of Guilt and Hope, by Martin Niemöller', document and analysis by Harold Marcuse, http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/Niem1946GuiltHope13-16.htm. Accessed 14 February 2016. This page provides the following quotation from Martin Niemöller:

'When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians - "should I be my brother's keeper?" Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. - I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? -- Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out. … We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934 - there must have been a possibility - 14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30-40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now'.