True inspiration

Image from a protest in Perth http://goo.gl/Sz7ga

This afternoon I went to the rally in Melbourne to end mandatory detention. Passing the anti-carbon tax rally, we eventually found our way there.

Julian Burnside spoke of the hypocrisy of Tony Abbott’s policies. Abbott, a self-identified Catholic, is more than happy to see vulnerable people used as political weaponry in a bid to gain votes. The logic behind offshore processing of asylum seekers is that it will exploit the vulnerable to stop more people from coming. Adam Bandt, the Greens member for Melbourne had this to say about the offshore processing "No one's ever accused me of being an economic rationalist before but what is very clear is that it [humane processing of asylum seekers] is also the cheapest alternative, when we have a government spending a billion dollars on offshore processing while we can't find enough money for schools and we're having to stop putting drugs on the PBS system.”[1] Why are we wasting money on mistreating people?

While I was listening to Bandt speak, I got talking with the lady next to me. She was holding a ‘We Welcome Refugees’ balloon… and also a walking stick. She told me how three of her grandparents were boat people from Europe. This lady had no problem with welcoming vulnerable people into our country, she even applauded it. Volunteering at the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre teaching English, she had really reconciled what her Catholic faith means for the treatment of ‘the least of these’.

At 85 years young, she had done well to make it to the rally. Her passion inspired me. She told me she wasn’t sure whether she would make it all the way, but she will stand up for the vulnerable for as long as she physically can. Inspiring.

So what makes you stand up? What makes you take action? What causes are worthy of your time?

---

[1] http://goo.gl/wwSLu

Why we cannot accept the Malaysia Solution

Recently, the Gillard-Labour government announced the ‘Malaysia Solution’. The deal proposes that the next 800 boat people to arrive on Australia’s shores will be sent to Malaysia. I won't delve into the details of the deal here, but rather focus on its ethical implications

      1.       We are taking vulnerable people and using them as a means to an ends to deter other people from taking the journey to our country.

This is a Kantian based concept, derived from deontology, yet it has been around much longer. Doing unto another, as one would do to oneself, has implications for the above statement. Why would I want someone to use me with no consideration to the effects that their actions will have on me? Is it ever justified to exploit one person to ‘save’ other people from taking the hazardous journey to Australia? I would suggest no, it is not. Whether we are doing it for our economic gain or for the safety of the next wave of boats, it is not ethical to use people as a means for the ends of other people with no consideration of that persons ends.

      2.      Rather than appealing to a good principle, we are using utilitarian methods to support this flawed scheme.

An appeal to the ‘greatest good’ as shown in statement above, in my mind, is completely misguided and very dangerous. Can we as Christians, or people who claim to be ethical, support the Malaysia solution when its appeal rests in its consequences? Paul thinks not. In Romans 3:8, some people suggested that Christians thought it was permissible for ‘us [to] do evil so that good may result’. Paul wrote that such ideas are slanderous. We are, as voters and as a country, doing evil so that ‘good’ will result by buying into this ‘solution’.

      3.      We’re treating some people better than others.

James (2:1) writes  'My friends, if you have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, you won't treat some people better than others'. He continues on to say treating some people better than others is a ‘sin’. If we are bible believers, we are walking on a tight-rope by arguing that it is permissible to treat a poor (if not materially, then otherwise) asylum seeker badly, and yet it is impermissible for the government to treat us (who are presumably richer – financially, security, etc.)  in the same manner. Our allegiance is not with nations, it is with the Kingdom.

I could go on about other implications, especially from a biblical point of view, but I won’t right now. From these three points I think it is clear that any policy that attempts to ‘stop the boats’ by harming innocent and vulnerable people is not one that can be supported by those who take morality seriously.

Make sure you check out Go Back To Where You Came From if you would like to get a more in depth and challenging experience of asylum seeker issues. It is a three part series that commences on Tuesday June 21, 8.30pm on SBS (Australia).