Sabbatical Sundays

This is an idea that I've been thinking about for a few months now. I thought I would write something up about it before I start a public Facebook page for discussion and accountability purposes. Let me know what you think!

Work, Buy, Consume, Die

Sabbatical Sundays

Imagine it’s nine in the morning on Boxing Day. The consumer capitals of our major cities are preparing for the rush of shoppers seeking a bargain. Blurry-eyed retail staff, still recovering from the lead-up to Christmas awaken early. Some of them cancelled plans to attend Christmas dinner with their families the night before knowing that the security of their employment depended upon their availability during the ‘Christmas black-out period’.

But this year, when the shops open from eight in the morning, something is different. You’re nowhere to be found. Not just you, but several of your friends who once flocked to the sales and battled for car parks have made a conscious decision. This year you decide to put yourself in the shoes of the retail staff. You decide that time spent with family and friends is more sacred than your shopping. This year, your shopping can wait.

Sabbatical Sundays is the meeting place for a movement of people who are concerned about how 24/7 trade effects things more important than consumables. This is a movement of people who understand that the conditions of employment for many workers in service-related industries are not what they would choose if they had greater influence over their terms of employment. These are not the conditions we would choose if we were employed in service-related industries.

There are several reasons why one may want to consider the effects of demanding 24/7 labour. It might be because you are concerned with the effects that this kind of trade has on the people working in the industry. It might be because you are concerned with the ever-increasing power of multi-national corporations and how 24/7 trade makes it more difficult for small-scale businesses to break into the market. It may be because you believe that time spent with family is more important than corporate profits. It might be because you believe that 24/7 trade is incompatible with your religious or family values. There are many reasons why you may want to consider what labour you demand and when you demand it – this is a place where people with different drivers can come together under the same idea.

While a sabbath or sabbatical, considered to be a time of rest or worship, could be observed for any stretch of time on any given day, month, or year, this idea specifically related to Sunday labour. If there is one day of the week that could be won back, one day of the week that some consider holy, or one day of the week that families and communities gather together to appreciate what is really important about our existence, that day is Sunday.

This movement, however, also believes that 24 hour trade is not a necessity and that to drop into a fast-food joint at two in the morning demands a kind of labour that no one should be asked to provide. This kind of out-of-hours luxury labour is drastically different to requiring emergency services. It is inevitable that people working in the emergency services sector will be required to work unusual hours. The same cannot be said for fast-food and retail outlets. For their services, we can wait until morning.  

From these thoughts has sprung the idea and movement that has long existed yet feels buried: Sabbatical Sundays.

Video: BAE Systems Australia: at the forefront of war

My last post regarding the work of BAE Systems Inc. and BAE Systems Australia has attracted an enormous amount of views, making it my second most viewed post ever. It's great to know that people are paying attention to the militarisation of our world.

Check out this video made by some peace activists in Melbourne to get a better idea of what we are trying to communicate to BAE Systems Australia. Let them know what you think here.

BAE Systems: Censoring the voices of the people

The site of the latest BAE Systems protest - with many more to come

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems would not want a couple of Gandhi & Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes pasted around their Facebook page?

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems would censor any views which they disagree with, no matter how politely they are put? 

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems who claims to be fighting the 'war on terror' would, in the most undemocratic fashion, silence the voices of the people?

Maybe it's because BAE Systems are one of the largest, if not the largest arms producer in the world. They sell weapons to over 100 countries including Israel. They are a threat to national security. They are a threat to human security. They are a waste of, what essentially is tax payer's money.

You don't need to do much research to find out about the instances of bribery and corruption within their ranks. BAE Systems have been caught breaching arms control regulations which aim to prevent weapons falling into the wrong hands.

Don't let BAE Systems fool you. They are not a civilian transport organisation. They are primarily involved in the arms trade. 

They're not on a particular side of global conflicts. They are on every side of global conflicts. 

They are in it for the money. If the wars stop, their profits go down. It's in their interest for people to keep blowing each other up.

I plan on posting more about BAE Systems. Fortunately here they cannot censor what I say, although I'm sure they will try. I hope to have a video from a recent protest outside their offices in Melbourne posted shortly.

Maybe it is time for us to stand up against this organisation. Post your city below - there is probably a BAE Systems office near you. Organise a protest, a blockade, a letter handout. Do something. Change the world.

The uninvited neighbour: A Christian response to modern refugee issues

I would like to thank Jessie Taylor & Gordon Preece for helping me to think about this issue in a clearer manner.

Refugees on Nauru during the 'Pacific Solution' era

Biblical teaching suggests that Christians have a special duty to love those who are foreigners and refugees (Deuteronomy 10:19). How should this teaching be understood and applied by Christian citizens in Australia's current political context?  

Introduction

This article seeks to examine if and to what extent the normative elements of the Christian texts are relevant to the context of the current debate surrounding uninvited asylum seekers in Australia. I begin by providing a brief outline of the current political situation. Then, I explore the relationship between the biblical narrative, Christian principles of justice, and the politics of asylum. Finally I will consider the normative implications of applying Christian principles of justice within the Australian political context and what issues this may raise.

The Australian context

Many Australians will remember the famous words of John Howard in 2001 when he declared ‘we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’[1] Thus began, or at least brought to the surface, a nation’s fear of so-called ‘illegals’, ‘queue-jumpers’, ‘aliens’, or the all-inclusive term ‘boat people’. In August of that same year, a small fishing boat called ‘Palapa I’ was discovered by MV Tampa as it carried 433 asylum seekers who were ‘mostly Hazaras escaping the Taliban.’ MV Tampa, the Norwegian fishing vessel proceeded to take the asylum seekers to Christmas Island, However, the SAS forcefully gained control of the vessel. On September 11, 2001, the Federal court ruled that ‘the government was obliged to bring the asylum seekers ashore and assess their claims.[2] Later, that decision was reversed and the refugees recued by MV Tampa were taken to Nauru. The ‘Tampa affair’ presented Howard with the perfect opportunity to reassure Australians that the government was in control of the nation’s borders.[3]

The offshore processing of the refugees discovered by MV Tampa in the Indian Ocean marked the beginnings of the ‘Pacific Solution’, which would a decade later be reinvented by the Gillard-Labour government in response to political turmoil over an apparent ‘influx’ of ‘boat people’. This costly endeavour of sending those who ask for our help to offshore detention centres has been praised for its effectiveness, or more precisely, its ability to ‘stop the boats’. The slogan ‘stop the boats’ has been embraced by both major Australian political parties.[4] Digging beneath the surface of such a slogan reveals the troubling normative issues in deterring asylum seekers through what is effectively indefinite imprisonment (or more diplomatically, detention). The costs associated with offshore processing are not just financial but also moral, psychological, and spiritual. I believe the Christian metaphysical underpinning that can operate from a non-consequentialist basis has something unique to offer the ethical discourse on this matter.

A biblical narrative

The narrative of the biblical texts are crucial for developing a holistic understanding of what a biblical response to this seemingly complex issue could look like. Rev. Dr. Gordon Preece emphasises that ‘we are all boat people,’ and that like us, ‘the Israelites needed repeated reminding that they were originally refugees.’[5] William Cavanaugh goes further in suggesting that the church itself is ‘already constituted by refugees,’ not merely originally, but is continually a body of refugees.[6]

The Old testament provides countless images of refugee stories. The Hebrew word ‘ger’ appears 92 times in the text. The word is translated to mean ‘stranger’ (Gen15:13, 23:4), ‘sojourner’ (Exod 2:22, 1 Chron 29:15), ‘alien’ (Exod 12:19, 2 Chron 2:17), or ‘foreigner’ (1 Chron 22:2).[7] Nearly all appearances of this word are accompanied by normative commands. Examples of these normative commands can be found when God orders no preferential treatment for the native-born over the alien (Lev 24:16, Num 9:14), when God orders the Israelites to love the foreigners (Deut 10:19), and when God commands the Israelites to leave enough food ‘for the foreigners, orphans, and widows (Deut 24:20).[8] Rather than top down charity which reinforces existing power relations, there is a strong emphasis on empathetic solidarity in the biblical text.[9]

Furthermore, Jesus is presented as a refugee who is fleeing a despotic dictator who gave orders ‘to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under.’[10] As a refugee King, Jesus recapitulated the normative themes explored in relation to refugees in the Old Testament texts. In Matthew 25, for example, Jesus tells his followers that we must view actions which are to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society as our duties as people who claim to love God.[11] It is in this crucial passage where Jesus explicitly states that there is no difference between an act of commission and an act of omission. Not doing something good, in Jesus’ ethical framework, is doing something bad. In other words, ignorance is not bliss.

Christians are far from united on the specific issue of ‘boat people’, perhaps even more so than other modern political and ethical issues that the churches are tackling. Tony Abbott, the leader of the federal Liberal party, when responding to a question about ‘why his attitude to asylum seekers was unchristian’ responded by suggesting: ‘I don’t think it’s a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather than the front door.’[12] But as Preece points out, there have been plenty of Christian Refugees at Maribynong, Woomera, and Curtin detention centres.[13] Others, such as the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, have endorsed the Houston and Aristotle reports, effectively supporting the reintroduction of the ‘Pacific Solution’ even though Jensen opposed offshore processing a decade earlier, arguing that ‘illegal’ actions of asylum seekers were caused by necessity.[14]

Normative issues

The consequences of a policy of deterrence can be severe and the policy can cost lives. On the other hand, the consequences of having no deterrence mechanism in place could also cost lives. In a normative sense, all I have suggested thus far is that we should be nice to refugees, which I presume is fairly uncontroversial. The next section seeks to establish which moral theory is most compatible with a biblical response to this issue.

The justifications given in support of coercive deterrence mechanisms in regards to those seeking asylum are largely utilitarian. The utilitarian perspective suggests that the means can be compromised in order to achieve the desired ends. This means that a utilitarian would find it acceptable to strive towards an ideal through non-ideal means. This is the first and most obvious clash between Christianity and utilitarianism. If Jesus wanted us to ‘love our neighbours’ or ‘love our enemies’ only when it was effective, then the command itself is ruled invalid by a greater command of ‘do what is most effective’. Martin Luther King, Jr. noticed this contradiction between Christian thought and utilitarianism, contending, ‘ultimately you can’t reach good ends through evil means, because the means represent the seed and the end represents the tree.’[15] Elsewhere he suggests that ‘the means represent the ideal in making and the end in process ... So as you seek justice as an end, you use just methods to get there.’[16] Paul writes in Romans that the people who think the Christians are teaching ‘let’s do evil so that good will come from it’ will be justly condemned.[17] Sending asylum seekers to detention centres in third world countries is the most explicit example of doing evil, in the hope that good will eventuate.

The second problem associated with the utilitarian justification for sending asylum seekers to places like Nauru is that it treats the individual asylum seekers who are sent to Nauru as mere means rather than ends in themselves.[18] This is a separate problem from the first issue raised which is specifically about the inconsistency of the means. The second problem differentiates the common asylum seeker from the common criminal. The common criminal has her liberty denied firstly for her own sake (rehabilitation, inability to reoffend), and the secondly, as a means to deter other people from committing that same crime.[19] For example, I would agree to live in a society where if I murdered someone I would then be incarcerated. Even if I am not rational at the time I murder someone, I can say now that it would be in my best interests to be separated from society for a time and to receive compulsory counselling and behavioural training so that I can be rehabilitated. Whereas, the common asylum seeker differs from the common criminal in that the asylum seeker has committed no moral or legal wrong, does not need rehabilitation, and imprisonment, (particularly in places like Nauru) and imprisonment is not in the asylum seekers’ interests. Imprisoning people who have committed no crime in order to deter other people from asking for our help treats the imprisoned people as a means rather than an end and strips them of their personhood and equality under God.

It is important to remark, that even if the utilitarian framework is accepted, one still needs to consider whether the empirical data shows that coercive deterrence leads to the maximisation of welfare. In a similar way, a utilitarian would only support torture in circumstances where welfare is maximised (eg., torturing one person to save the lives of two others). Authors such as Andy Lamey point out that Australia’s deterrence system causes asylum seekers to suffer from high stress levels and an increased risk of committing suicide.[20] He also points out that it gives them a status lower than criminals which is detrimental to their identity.[21] This shows that even from a utilitarian perspective (which does not generally synthesise with biblical teaching) it is difficult to justify ‘stopping the boats’.

A common objection to applying biblical principles to national security policies is the radical and demanding outcomes they infer. Unfortunately Christian thinkers such as Preece and Ralston have done very little to address the objection which asks: ‘at what point ought we turn people away?’ Preece inaccurately suggests that ‘even the most bleeding hearted, naive liberal is not saying ‘let everyone in’.’[22] Perhaps most liberals are not arguing this approach, but some of them are, and they should be considered. Still, it is unclear as to when Preece thinks we should begin to refuse asylum seekers protection and what means we should use to keep uninvited asylum seekers out of Australia. Ralston suggests that it is not necessary for the church to ‘advocate for a complete open-door policy to refugees,’ pointing out that the break-even point may arise if resettling refugees has a negative outcome for the ‘existing marginalised populations.’[23]

One suggestion would be that our obligations begin at the point where we have to sacrifice something significant, but they should not exceed the point where our self-care diminishes. In regards to where our obligations begin, we should take seriously Carens’s claim that ‘we have an obligation to open our borders more fully than we do now,’ and especially more fully to those who are in need.[24] Carens suggests that ‘open immigration would change the character of the community, but it would not leave the community without character.’[25] We must avoid holding on to our ideals of a static hegemonic culture when displaced people require our assistance. In regards to the upper constraints of our obligations, we should not require of ourselves more than God has called us to. God has called all believers to love their neighbour as themselves, which requires a basic level of self-love and self-care as a means to fulfil his work on earth.

Conclusion

In terms of acting upon our obligations as Christians to care for the refugee, I will briefly note one model which Ralston believes is compatible with a Christian understanding of justice. Ralston suggests that one of the most effective ways of communicating God’s ‘love and presence’ is through living with refugees, as exemplified by the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS). He believes that the church is lacking in genuine encounters with refugees, and I am not inclined to disagree with him. This same model is being replicated through the ‘First Home Project’ in Perth, Australia. The Christian call is, however, not limited to one particular model (which some may find too demanding in their current context). Political activism and financial donations, or offerings of skills training and language development are all ways that Christians can live out the community and compassion they have been called to.

In conclusion, the Christian narrative and principles of justice encourage Christians to treat asylum seekers as humans who hold inalienable rights. This essay has shown the incompatibility of utilitarianism and the Christian ethical framework. First, coercive deterrence mechanisms severely compromise the commands which have been given to us in regards to how we ought to treat our neighbours. Second, people should not be treated as mere means due to their mode of transport and their legal status. Therefore, the Christian cannot endorse a policy which seeks to coercively use one lot of people purely as a means to deter others from asking for our assistance.

Works Cited

ABC. “Seek and Ye Shall Submit (Transcript).” Q&A, September 10, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3581623.htm.

Biblos.com. “Online Parallel Bible”, 2011. http://bible.cc/.

Burnside, Julian. “Australians Don’t Fully Understand What Is Being Done in Their Name.” The Age, August 26, 2011. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/australians-dont-fully-understand-what-is-being-done-in-their-name-20110825-1jcbn.html#ixzz28TZW5Dm7.

Carens, Joseph H. “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” The Review of Politics 49, no. 2 (April 1, 1987): 251–273.

Cavanaugh, William T. “Migrant, Tourist, Pilgrim, Monk: Mobility and Identity in a Global Age.” Theological Studies 69, no. 2 (June 2008): 340–356.

Clarke, Sarah. “Liberals Accused of Trying to Rewrite History.” Lateline. ABC, November 21, 2001. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s422692.htm.

Jensen, Peter. “Interview with Amy Butler on Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers and Refugees”, 2001. http://sydneyanglicans.net/seniorclergy/archbishop_jensen/48a.

Kant, Immanuel. “The Categorical Imperative.” In Ethics, edited by Peter Singer, 274–279. Oxford University Press, USA, 1994.

King, Martin Luther. “A Christmas Sermon on Peace” (n.d.).

———. Methodist Student Leadership Conference Address. September 10, 2011. American Rhetoric, 1964.

Lamey, Andy. Frontier justice : the global refugee crisis and what to do about it. Canada: Doubleday Canada, 2011.

Maccullum, Mungo. “‘Stop the Boats’ Has Become Bipartisan Policy.” ABC, July 2, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4105116.html.

Mares, Peter. Borderline : Australia’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press, 2001.

Preece, Gordon. “We Are All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View.” In Refugees : justice or compassion?, edited by Hilary D Regan, Andrew Hamilton, Mark Raper, and Australian Theological Forum. Hindmarsh, S. Aust.: Australian Theological Forum, 2002.

Ralston, Joshua. “Toward a political theology of refugee resettlement.” Theological Studies 73, no. 2 (June 2012): 363+.

“Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers”, n.d. http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/report.

The Australian. “Abbott Slams Boatpeople as un-Christian”, n.d. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/abbott-slams-boatpeople-as-un-christian/story-fn9hm1gu-1226422034305.

---

[1] Clarke, “Liberals Accused of Trying to Rewrite History.”

[2] Burnside, “Australians Don’t Fully Understand What Is Being Done in Their Name.”

[3] Mares, Borderline : Australia’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers.

[4] Maccullum, “‘Stop the Boats’ Has Become Bipartisan Policy.”

[5] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 73. I must thank Gordon for the time he has spent with me discussing these issues.

[6] Ralston, “Toward a political theology of refugee resettlement,” 373.

[7] Strong’s Hebrew: 1616 in Biblos.com, “Online Parallel Bible”, see: http://concordances.org/hebrew/strongs_1616.htm.

[8] Strong’s Hebrew: 1616 in ibid., see: http://concordances.org/hebrew/strongs_1616.htm.

[9] Cavanaugh, “Migrant, Tourist, Pilgrim, Monk,” 352.

[10] Biblos.com, “Online Parallel Bible”, Matt 2:16.

[11] Ibid., Matt 25.

[12] The Australian, “Abbott Slams Boatpeople as un-Christian.”

[13] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 82.

[14] Jensen, “Interview with Amy Butler on Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers and Refugees”; ABC, “Seek and Ye Shall Submit (Transcript)”; “Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.”

[15] King, “A Christmas Sermon on Peace.”

[16] King, Methodist Student Leadership Conference Address.

[17] Biblos.com, “Online Parallel Bible”, Romans 3:8 and 6:1.

[18] Kant, “The Categorical Imperative,” 279. Kant suggest that “every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will.”

[19] At least, this is how one would expect the legal system to function.

[20] Lamey, Frontier justice, 118.

[21] Ibid., 129.

[22] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 70.

[23] Ralston, “Toward a political theology of refugee resettlement,” 386.

[24] Carens, “Aliens and Citizens,” 270.

[25] Ibid., 271.

Conversations with Carl O'Sullivan about Nonviolence, Christianity, Tolstoy, and more!

I am ecstatic to be releasing the first episode of the first I Am Instrumental podcast series entitled Peace Podcasts.


The first episode in the 'I Am Instrumental: Peace Podcasts' series is with a good friend of mind, Carl O'Sullivan. Carl works for Caritas Australia as the Program Officer for the Australian Indigenous Program. Hear Carl talk about the intersection of his faith and nonviolence, and how we can live nonviolently in a violent world.

Subtle Conscription

What is the moral difference between abducting children and forcing them to become soldiers, and luring them into the military with opportunities they missed out on because of systematic injustices? In the last week there has been much deserved media hype  surrounding the use of child soldiers by Joseph Kony in Uganda. Invisible Children have created a highly effective Alinsky-like media campaign complete with key targets and actions. While I believe the cause they are advocating is worthwhile, I feel that it has brought to light some deeper contradictions in my nation's heavily militarised culture.

It strikes me as peculiar that society has deemed it appropriate for a child who is 17 years of age to join the Australian Defence Force (ADF) yet this same child is not allowed to purchase alcohol or drive a car. Children have various restrictions on what they can and cannot do because they are not complete in the moral development and capacity to hold responsibility. While some children develop at different rates, I believe that these restrictions are in the interest of the children affected, as well as the wider society.

What I cannot come to terms with is the perception that it is permissible to teach children to kill other human beings when they are still impressionable in their moral development. This may seem paternalistic, however that Is a mistaken assumption. Killing is not and should never be a normal facet of life. This is the distinction between paternalism and abuse. Children who are taught to kill at a young age become desensitised to violence. And when they have finished their service society expects them to fit back in.

 When I completed my VCE in 2009 I was tempted by the ADF Gap Year offer of an ‘attractive adult salary’ while being able to ‘enjoy a terrific lifestyle’^[1]. I thought I could get by without earning $50,000 in a year so I turned down the offer. However, if I came from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background it would not be a matter of choice, but rather a matter of necessity. Martin Luther King, Jr. found it problematic that during the Vietnam war, America was ‘taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties’ which they had not experienced locally[2].  I fear that he would feel the same way about the current situation in Australia.

Professor Frater of the University of NSW at the ADF Academy claims that ‘46 per cent of students (attending the ADF Academy) come from families where no other family member has gone to university’ [3] . It may seem benevolent of the military to take in so many new recruits from such backgrounds. But in fact, it is quite the opposite. Our defence force needs socioeconomically disadvantaged youth to survive. Those who control vast amounts of wealth are in no hurry to defend their country yet they rely on the poor to defend their fortunes. This creates little inspiration for our government to alter the status-quo. It seems as though we must keep the poor in poverty in order to secure ourselves.

In the midst of worldwide outrage at the use of child soldiers by foreign militia, it seems easy to focus on how immoral our opponents are. However at the same time, our nation’s children are going to war to defend a country and a people who have let them down.

There are three steps we must courageously take to overcome this contradiction. First, military advertising must be kept honest. Second, the ADF must stop targeting low socioeconomic areas for recruitment. With less spending on defence our nation will easily be able to invest in the education of disadvantaged youth. Third, we must stop using child soldiers, and raise the military age to twenty-one.

---

[1] http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/Jobs/ADFGapYearArmy/

[2] http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

[3] http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/usstyle-academy-urged-for-defence-20120101-1tjb3.html