Links Round Up on the ALP's Refugee Policy

[box] “23,000 persons per day leave their homes and seek protection elsewhere – more than the total number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia in a year[/box]

Since the Kevin Rudd announced the new ALP policy on refugees and asylum seekers last Friday afternoon, I have been at a mental and moral loss. Still trying to get my head around it, I thought I would put together a few of the interesting articles and pieces written about this so we can try gather enough information to have a reasoned debate. Here are a few of those pieces...

***

A fine piece examining the detail behind the policy and what it means.

Morally, though? There are real questions that need to be answered, not least of which is: at what point did we decide we would no longer even consider processing boat-borne refugees – any refugees – on our own land?

That’s what is important here. Not hysteria, not deliberately misleading headlines, not hodge-podge rallies responding with the speed of a knee-jerk to a few bullet points.

Asking the right questions. Calmly, implacably, and constantly.

A really well written piece by a professor of international law:

The average Australian enjoys extraordinary fortune by world standards, but privilege has bred concern for ourselves not others. In the internet age, it would take little effort for Australians to educate themselves about the real state of the world's refugees. Not enough could be bothered to do so, yet still feel entitled to express an opinion on the subject.

Great visual via the Antibogan:

The Conversation is one of my favourite places for good information on politics and policy in Australia. On this topic they are no exception.  Here is an explainer on our international obligations, whether or not turning back boats is legal,  experts' response on the announcement and an explainer on the fact that the policy probably doesn't comply with international law.

[box] There is some irony in Australia unloading its problem onto its developing neighbour while at the same time seeking to show international leadership on the broad issue.[/box]

Michelle Gratton talks about how this policy is largely to shift the problem into someone else's backyard.

In his [Rudd] news conference on the night of the 2010 coup against him he warned against a lurch to the right on asylum policy.

Now he has taken his own huge step to the right.

He says one has to respond to changing circumstances.

On each occasion he has managed to sound sincere and convincing as he articulated his position. That is his political skill.

A perspective from The Guardian on the situation in PNG.

A strange article on the ABC implying the 'policy is working'.

Muhammad Asif, who spoke to the ABC via a translator, asked the Government to take pity on asylum seekers and said Australia should fund the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to help process their claims.

"He said 'after I saw this, I will never go by boat. I'm decided to go join UNHCR'," the translator said.

"Before he see this he says he wanted to go by boat with most of his friends. They wanted to go by boat.

"One thing he requests ... from Australia, [is] to push the UNHCR. Please let it be faster.

A great PDF fact sheet on Australia's refugee burden versus the world.

Julian Burnside's opinion piece (worth reading!!)

A satirical piece that hits a lot of spots.

Rest easy, Australia. Our borders are now safe from illegals. They always were, of course, as seeking asylum has always been legal. As Julian Burnside pointed out yesterday, “Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights every person has the right to seek asylum in any territory they can reach.” But now we are safe from legal illegals. And besides, we have no obligation to accept refugees and allow them to live here. Well, yes, OK, technically as a signatory to the Refugee Convention we do have that obligation, legally and morally, especially given our involvement in international conflicts that is partially responsible for people fleeing their country...

Have you read any good pieces or perspectives on this topic since the announcement?

**New updates on the 23rd of July**

Visual piece by GET UP!

White Nationalists welcome Rudd's Policy: Satire by Aamer Rahman

Further analysis by The Conversation on what a truly regional solution would look like.

Free Trade Agreements: Handle with Care

 

Just posted a piece on Free Trade Agreements on the fabulous Future Challenges blog!  Click to see more of my pieces on Future Challenges :)

***

Like many other structural policies, free trade agreements are a tool used by governments to achieve their objectives.

Now tools can be used or misused, and in this case the tool is not being used to its fullest potential. Free Trade Agreements need to be handled with due care if they are to achieve the economic benefits they have the capacity to deliver. Let me explain why.

Free trade is a concept that arouses much opposition around the world but that still seems to be an accepted part of the global economic state of play.

Let’s take the case of Australia.

The terms of the Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) proved much less favourable than expected for Australian companies.

The influential key industries of sugar and beef at best saw only a modest improvement in terms of access.  A survey of exporting companies conducted by the Australian Industry Group in late 2009 indicated that less than half of companies surveyed saw any direct benefits from AUSFTA while almost 80 percent of respondents said the FTA was not very effective in improving export opportunities. As AI Group chief executive, Heather Ridout said at the time:

“The survey shows that FTAs alone do not motivate companies to seek new export opportunities but do provide some advantages to those already exporting to that market.”

The New York Times also shed an interesting light on the agreement, saying that it:

… sends a chilling message to the rest of the world. Even when dealing with an allied nation with similar living standards, the administration, under pressure from the Congress, has opted to continue coddling the sugar lobby, rather than dropping the most indefensible form of protectionism. This will only embolden the case of those around the world who argue that globalisation is a rigged game.

Yet at the end of the day, AUSFTA has neither substantially benefited nor severely disadvantaged Australia.  The huge growth in trade predicted for the United States failed to materialize, but neither did the fears over intellectual property and the PBS.  It is almost a neutral situation.

The AUSFTA was one of the first significant FTAs that Australia entered into, coming into force under much controversy on the first of January 2005.  The Howard government of the day supported by the Center of International Economics heralded it as a major success.  According to CIE modeling, Australia’s annual GDP would increase up to $6 billion in a decade thanks to the agreement.

It was the first of such agreements and Australia has now sealed seven of them with various nations from Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Thailand to the ASEAN bloc.

Signing a Free Trade Agreement in1935 by Wiki Commons. CC C-031017

Could it be that the political role played by Free Trade Agreements is more important than all other considerations? Are they nothing more than just an accurate reflection of the politics of the day?

In this piece by fellow Future Challenges Blogger Aylin Matle, the ‘real’ merits of these agreements are interrogated.  Perhaps, as Alyin mentions, Free Trade Agreements are part of a government’s economic toolkit but also have a subtle but equally important political effect.

On the other hand however, there are examples of when trade triumphs over politics (and vice versa) and perhaps, suggests that the two concepts should not be treated with the same broad brush.

The concept of “free trade” is not in itself inherently bad or negative.  As such, we should switch our focus away from the idea of free trade to the details of the agreements being forged, in an effort to ensure they are as fair and mutually beneficial as possible.

They say that the devil is in the detail and nowhere is that more true.  Each government decides how they will use this increasingly popular tool to further their own policy objectives.  To understand what these objectives are though, we need to take a closer look at the devil in the detail.

Check out the original piece here!

The Malaysian Moderation Obsession

Thoughts of a young Aussie on a Malaysia cultural exchange...we made it into the paper! Check out my first reflection on the trip so far here.

The 'Global Movement of Moderation Foundation', or the GMMF for short, is symptomatic of an contradictory obsession with moderation in the Malaysian political sphere.

This contradiction has been demonstrated over the course of the Australia-Malaysia Institute's current program, an initiative pitched as a cultural exchange between the youth of the two nations. The Malaysian Government's Ministry of Foreign Affair's determination to include the GMMF along the way has led to the 'moderation' agenda dictating the terms and language around the program and it is clear that this is coming from the top. Why? What is this all achieving?

A more fundamental question to ask is 'What exactly does it mean to be part of the moderate movement?'

In essence, what does 'moderate' actually mean?

This is a question we have been asking as a group for the last few days and have yet to receive a comprehensive answer. It seems that the concept of 'moderation' is something along the lines of 'the middle path', or more boldly, the opposite of extremism. How such an amorphous concept can be a goal however - especially when so poorly defined - is difficult to understand.

What is concerning is the use of the word 'moderate' when it is a word that quite clearly comes with baggage.

It means various things to various people and as a Muslim, the use of the phrase 'moderate Muslim' is slightly...uncomfortable.

Rather than moderate, some Muslims prefer words such as 'mainstream', if we have to give ourselves a label.

'Moderate Muslims' however, to me seems to just imply a Muslim that is lukewarm, or just 'moderately' interested and engaged in the religion. It makes me think - if I am a 'moderate Muslim', does that mean I am not a 'good Muslim'?

It almost insinuates that it's neither here, nor there. Just a bit, well, meh?

Different Muslims have different preferences, but it should be recognised that the word 'moderate' does have that connotation to many.

So clearly, the use of phrases such as the 'movement of moderation' when that is so poorly defined and in fact insinuates a dilution of [religious] belief is concerning and confusing.

In addition, the second issue of note is the corresponding and contradictory moves in Malaysia to politisice Islam. This has been demonstrated by the tightening of particular laws excessively and against the principles of Islam, an attitude which flies in the face of 'moderation'.

The most recent case is naturally that of banning the use of the word 'Allah' by other religions and various cases in family court that are said to terribly disadvantage women. This disadvantage is due to procedural issues and poor implementation of the law rather than of the word of the law itself.

It would seem that even one of the most outwardly progressive Muslim majority nations in the world suffers from the deep politicisation of religion, evidenced in the adoption of the word 'moderate'. It is a word that the West love, as it is nice and not-extremist-scary. A nation that adopts this position will be internationally favoured.

Domestically however, the opposite is true. Political leaders use the religion to justify their actions in order to try gain the domestic Muslim internal support they desire.

It is an interesting situation indeed...

***

Politicisation of religion is difficult to fight without true, just, fair education, and that includes proper religious eduation that focuses not on the rituals of a religion but the spirit behind the words.

When Muslims are properly educated themselves as to their rights, responsibilities and duties as good Muslims, the true spirit of Islam - which is like any religion, lauding peace, mercy, forgiveness, et. al. - will shine through.

After all, Muslims are told to walk the 'middle path'...

Ironic, la?

Malaysia's Identity Issues.

Why the sudden interest in Malaysia? As part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Cultural Exchange program, six young Muslims from Australia are partaking in an exchange program in order to deepen cultural understanding. I have the immense honour of being one of the participants of said initiative.

Traveling through Kuala Lumpur over the last couple of days and engaging in deep and meaningful conversations with various Malaysians has been an enlightening experience indeed.

What has emerged from the conversations?

To an outsider, it seems there is an underlying undercurrent of confusion and frustration in the Malaysian population about identity, politics and religion.

***

It is important to start with the understanding that Malaysia is made up of three main ethnic groups; Malays, Chinese and Indian.

The Malays are the majority, and they are also defined in the nation's constitution as those who are Muslim and speak Bahasa Maleyu.

If you are Malay, you are entitled to many privileges under the 'Bumiputera' policies.

This leads to an interesting dilemma.

1. If a nation is seeking to be truly multicultural, an affirmative action law that racially privileges one over the others makes life difficult for those in the minority (Malays make up just under 60% of the population). What then is a 'Malaysian' exactly?

2. If the criteria to be a Malay includes being a Muslim, how does a nation separate 'Mosque' and 'State'? Does the religion simply become part of an identity of a race rather than a true spiritual practice? How do minorities fit in a society that only 'accepts' one standard version of Islam?

These are the two questions that have been at the root of many of our conversations. It seems clear that the issues are far from resolved, and the results of the recent election raise more questions than they answer.

***

There is much more to be said and shared, but this is only the beginning of the program, and I am weary of making judgements that may be unfair.

Observationally though, it seems there is an insecurity around the idea of identity, of what it means to be 'Malaysian', both individially for Malaysians and for the nation itself. It is clearly still a country that is journeying through the nation building process.

What is concerning is the politicisation of Islam and the use of the religion for political gain, or on seemingly superficial matters. This is one such example.

What this means for the future of the nation, particularly one where the opposition is a coalition of the PKR, PAS and DAP parties (i.e. Muslim Malays and Chinese Malaysians who are varied) is interesting and unknown.

***

I will no doubt learn and reflect more as the week goes by. What are your thoughts though, on how Malaysia deals with the issues of identity, as a nation and individually?

Insane, sickening attacks: Let's not let 'them' win.

This article in The Conversation strikes an appropriate tone: Terror on the Streets of London, but don't jump to conclusions yet.

If you haven't heard yet, there has been a random and vicious attack in broad daylight on the streets of London, where a man (believed to be a soldier) has been hacked to death in a busy street.

Aljazeera has more details here: 'Soldier hacked to in London'.

The incident is being called a 'terrorist attack', the likes of which 'we have seen before' by news and politicians in the UK (that quote by London Mayer, Boris Johnson).

***

This is a sickening, terrible attack and one that is sure to garner much media attention, speculation and a strong backlash in London itself due to the demographics of the super-metropolis. It is interesting that even though atrocities are being committed in Syria daily, we become desensitised...

...but the streets of London are not a warzone, and the attack happened near the gates of a primary school.

***

For those who will premetively speculate or link the attack to Islam, stop.

We (as a society in general) must not let sick violence hijack our peace and work towards harmony. We (as Muslims) must not let people commit terror in the name of the religion that we believe in and stay silent.

Islam explicitly forbids killing innocents.

"Nor take life -- which Allah has made sacred -- except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)." [Quran 17:33]

Thus the term 'Muslim Terrorist' is an oxy moron (see more on this here).

It is a shame that every time there is attack we (as Muslims) must go on the offensive, denying any link, defending our religion. It is frustrating that we must constantly justify our way of life and our beliefs.

Unfortunately though, this seems to be the status quo.

In a world where Islam and the cultures of the East are 'Othered' and misunderstood, is it the responsibility of Muslims living in the West to educate on the true values underpinning the religion? Perhaps. But it can also be exhausting.

In the Aljazeera article, a Muslim resident of the area echoed similar sentiments:

"This has nothing to do with Islam, this has nothing to do with our religion. This has nothing to do with Allah," he said. It's heartbreaking, it's heartbreaking."

Defenses aside though, the purpose of the attack is still unconfirmed.

I think a harder question that must be asked though is why.

Why do young men feel the need to commit such acts of terror??

What sickness is in our society, what are we missing, that allows such motivations to exist and fester into action? Be it the numerous shootings in the United States or even Norway, to the hacking attack in London; these are not the results of well balanced and harmonious communities.

Is it foreign policy stances? Is it family structures and issues growing up? Is it lack of support and understanding as a society as to what young men are experiencing? Is it mental health or the lack thereof? Is it misunderstanding? A combination of all the above?

These are the hard questions that need to be asked if we truly want to work towards preventing and eliminating sickness and violence in our socities.

*Featured photo from Twitter (@BietLe_)

Links, Links, Links!! 5th May 2013

A stunning way to tell a story. Check out this audition on the X Factor.

What have you been up to this week? It's been a crazy one on this end...I had this interview come out on Radio National about the piece in the Griffith Review, learnt a fair bit about training someone and read many analyses about the reaction to the Boston Bombings (a few of which I have included below).  Enough about me though...here are some of the bits and bobs which caught my eye this week.

---

Paul Grahams words on finding your purpose and doing what you love (via Brain Pickings).

What you should not do, I think, is worry about the opinion of anyone beyond your friends. You shouldn’t worry about prestige. Prestige is the opinion of the rest of the world.

Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. It causes you to work not on what you like, but what you’d like to like.

---

Terrorism and other religions...

[box] Contrary to what is alleged by bigots like Bill Maher, Muslims are not more violent than people of other religions. Murder rates in most of the Muslim world are very low compared to the United States.[/box]

An amazing piece on moderation versus extremism.

[box] The Quran and the Hadith very clearly and explicitly warn against extremism in matters of religion...In the Quran God says, ‘Do not commit excess in your religion.’ According to a report in the Sahih Ibn Majah, the Prophet Muhammad is said to have remarked ‘O People! Save yourselves from excess in religion, because earlier communities were destroyed […] due to excess in religion’[/box]

It is this that I wish people remembered.

This a beautiful piece written by artist James Rhodes...

[box]The government is cutting music programmes in schools and slashing Arts grants as gleefully as a morbidly American kid in Baskin Robbins. So if only to stick it to the man, isn't it worth fighting back in some small way? So write your damn book. Learn a Chopin prelude, get all Jackson Pollock with the kids, spend a few hours writing a Haiku. Do it because it counts even without the fanfare, the money, the fame and Heat photo-shoots that all our children now think they're now entitled to because Harry Styles has done it.[/box]

Very cool Facebook page, Room for Debate - it is the exact kind of space I would like to encourage and grow...They are currently talking about whether the Hijab is worth fighting for?

[box] ...aside from the racial overtones when mostly white Western women are trying to “save” mostly non-white non-Western women, Femen activists have insulted the group they claim to care about. A campaign against the hijab is an attack on Islam instead of on patriarchy itself, effectively marginalizing all those women who choose to seek their rights in an Islamic context.[/box]

An MUST read by Mohamed Ghilan on "The Irony of Muslim Terrorism". I've just discovered his blog and I am sold.

[box] The matter is not about Islam. A closer investigation of Islam through proper methods of study and proper contextualisation will reveal that it is impossible for anyone to conclude any room for justifying, let alone do it in the name of Islam, the indiscriminate killing of innocent people on the streets. What we are dealing with are the repercussions of political decisions and historical forces that gave rise to insane acts by misguided Muslims who think they are serving Islam and Muslims.[/box]

A really well presented piece by Stella Young on the Politics of Exclusion, something I know about perhaps from one angle but not from this particular angle - that of disability and the invisibility it renders...

I posted this during the week but it is worth a conversation - diversity in motorsport.  Will Buxton writes an awesome piece on this...

I have to include this amazing spoken word video. It's rather viral at the moment (includes swear words). Seriously though, watch it. A letter to JK Rowling from Cho Chang.

Here are some equally interesting critiques, all which bring up interesting points (this is just one example) and it is good to see the poet has engaged with them via her tumblr.  I think pieces like this are extremely important and a healthy part of the public sphere of debate.  Clearly, there are many critiques, but what this has achieved is highlighted a problematic discourse and created a catalyst - a conversation through which we as a society can dismantle and tackle the issue.  How can issues ever be resolved if they are not talked about? 

For a bit of fun, check out these awesome LEGO CREATIONS!

Enjoy your Sunday!

F1 and Domestic Politics - Should it Matter?

I originally wrote this piece on the day of the Bahrain GP for the International Political Forum - check it out here!

---

The F1 world exists in a bubble of its own. Although highly political, its politics are usually internal, and as such the domestic politics of the host nation rarely rates a mention. Granted, (by and large, with exceptions of course) most of the races are in stable states, and so voicing of political concern is either verbal or doesn’t make the international news.

That is why the case of today’s race in Bahrain is very interesting indeed.

Just briefly – the Bahraini race was the result of the work of King’s son, Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who thought it would be a great way to put Bahrain on the international radar. It worked wonderfully in doing so, and its first race in 2004 was a huge success (according to the BBC at any rate), both domestically and internationally.

The problems only really started appearing in early 2011, when the island nation got swept with Arab Spring fever, and the Shia majority began protesting in earnest against the ruling Sunni minority. Their main issue is with the human rights record of the government (which, as the Bassiouni report showed, is a spotty record indeed).

The race was cancelled that year. A brief roundup of those events by the BBC can be found here.

So where does that leave Bahrain and Formula 1 now?

Well, media stories are filled with visual depictions of angry protestors holding anti-F1 signs and chanting slogans such as “Your race is a crime,” and “No, no to the blood Formula.”

Bahraini leaders are downplaying the unrest, with the Crown Prince insisting the event will be safe for teams and spectators. However, MP’s within the government requested that the event again be cancelled. The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Democracy in Bahrain said: “We request you cancel the Grand Prix. It is likely to attract as much negative publicity as last year.”

The world motorsport’s governing body the FIA and the promoters Formula One Management (FOM), caught in the middle, have simply said the event will go ahead.

CEO of FOM, the infamous Bernie Ecclestone, wants to keep the sport as far away from the politics as possible, saying to the BBC: “We don’t want to see trouble. We don’t want to see people arguing and fighting about things we don’t understand, because we really don’t understand. Some people feel it’s our fault there are problems.”

“We’re not here, or we don’t go anywhere, to judge how a country is run”, although he did also mention that he thought the government was “stupid” to put the race on, as people will use it [emphasis added] as a platform for protesting.

Bernie is right in a way; trying to figure out which side is right or wrong never ends well. There are too many shades of grey.

What the true question is about though, is how much of a role as Formula 1 plays in domestic and global politics. Much of the media focus has been around the protests, whether Formula One as an event should be in Bahrain, trying to figure out if there is a “morally” correct side to be on.

The sad fact of the matter is if Formula 1 hadn’t come to Bahrain, the country wouldn’t rate a mention in any international paper. It certainly doesn’t appear to have done so, especially not alongside the even more unfortunate tragedies of Egypt and Syria.

Formula 1 is both a sport, and a business. From a business sense, no, it isn’t desirable to be associated with or seen to be friends with a government that is denying its citizens human rights. But sport is a common language. Like music, sport has an uncanny ability to transcend politics and bring people together. Granted, this isn’t the Football World Cup, but it is a huge international event, with lots of focus on a nation where the battles are usually forgotten.

It is understandable that protestors are upset that the Formula 1 circus is coming to town – they are likely to be upset at many of the ruling party’s initiatives. But the race can be seen as an opportunity for their nation to bring their issues to the attention of the international media. Not that this is what Bernie Ecclestone wants, but  Formula 1 doesn’t have to find the answers. It is only a sporting event after all, not the mediation arm of the United Nations.

No, Formula 1 doesn’t have all the answers. What it does have is an amazing capacity to draw the attention of millions of people towards various places, and in doing so, highlight the goings on in that state.

It is that opportunity, that captive audience, that international focus. That is the power of Formula 1.

Some might see sport as a frivolity, but it has an important role to play – in its own unique way – in the journey of every nation.

After all, the Formula 1 coming to town is one the main reasons we are all talking about the plight today anyway, isn’t it?

Links, Links, Links!! 28th April 2013

Hi everyone! How are we this fine Sunday?

I've had an interesting week, not least as I was interviewed by the ABC (live! zomgsh) on my piece in the Griffith Review.  Check out the video HERE!

How many times do we have to say this?  The use of the word "illegal" is ignorant and mischievous!

[box] While the Coalition may have hoped to score political points with the reappearance of its "illegal boats" billboard this week, it has shone a spotlight on its feeble grasp of international law. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is wrong to say that the Refugee Convention says asylum seekers are "illegal". [/box]

On the topic of the Boston Marathon Bombings: why is it considered terrorism and Aurora and Sandy Hook not?

Wise words on Bahrain from an unlikely source: Joe Saward, the F1 journalist...

[box] Some would argue that it is necessary to remove all religion from the political process and that until Bahrainis stop thinking about being Shias or Sunnis there cannot be a truly democratic country. If you go back in history you see many nations going through similar religious troubles, notably in Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries when Catholics and Protestants murdered one another in large numbers. We do not live in a perfect world, but sport is one of the few ways in which nations can unite, transcending internal divisions and thinking as a group. Thus looking at a much bigger picture one has to say that the Grand Prix is a good idea for Bahrain. No doubt some will disagree…[/box]

Finding a way of being a girl that doesn't hurt... again going to a question of where the feminist movement is?

Again on the issue of feminism...Five Myths about Feminism.  How do you feel about the label?

A massive discussion about social media's do's and don'ts. Really interesting - how do you use social media, as an individual and as a company?

Seth Godin asks the question: What is your critical mass?

[box] If your idea isn't spreading, one reason might be that it's for too many people. Or it might be because the cohort that appreciates it isn't tightly connected. When you focus on a smaller, more connected group, it's far easier to make an impact.[/box]

This is old news but I think I forgot to link it in my hubris - the first female, Muslim MP in Australia!

I am a sucker for beautiful photography (who isn't), and beautiful photography of beautiful machines? How could I resist...

Oh and don't forget to check out my posts this week; one on Global Migration and Identity and the other on Stirling Moss's comment's on women in F1. If you want to keep in touch more regularly, you can always check out my Facebook page!

Global migration: Changing the way we define our identity?

This was originally posted on Future Challenges! Check out the [button link="http://futurechallenges.org/local/global-migration-changing-the-way-we-define-our-identity/" newwindow="yes"] Original Link[/button]

---

When my parents moved to Australia with me as a screaming baby in tow, the situation in Sudan was dire, true, but it was much more an economic and socio-political decision rather than one of safety. This type of migration is increasingly common, particularly to a migration based nation such as Australia. How a nation and its people – as well as migrants themselves – deal with these global flows currents of people will define attitudes and perspectives of our current generation and generations to come.

I describe myself as either a “global citizen” or “mongrel”, both labels of which I am proud. What exactly does that mean though, for me personally, for many others in similar situations and for our society as this becomes perhaps the norm?

From a purely economical point of view, there is no doubt that migration, particularly skilled and business based migration, is of great importance and benefit to a society. The introduction of policies such as 457 visas (officially known as the Temporary Business (Long Stay) Visa), which allow Australian companies to sponsor employees from overseas has allowed for the development of sectors where skills are required, for example the oil and gas industry. Australia is no stranger to migration by any means; more than a quarter of the population in 2011 was born overseas, we speak more than 260 languages and identify with more than 270 ancestries. With the ease of travel this century and the relative stability of our economy compared to the global status quo, it is no wonder that more people are looking to cross the oceans to call this land girt by sea ‘home’.

If we are to look at this from a cost-benefit point of view, there is no doubt that what is gained from migration – an increase in labour supply, national income, skills, development, cultural depth, awareness and exposure, heavily outweighs any perceived disadvantages; identity crises, housing and services, the cost of humanitarian arrivals (although this is an international obligation), possible rise in community tensions due to a lack of understanding leading to changes in social cohesion.

It can be said that from that point of view as well, Australia is lucky in the sense that it only stands to gain skills from migration. By and large, we are not suffering from the ‘brain drain’ affecting other nations; our Net Overseas Migration (NOM) is 232 000 (497000 arrivals and 265000 departures, ABS and DIAC projections, 2012). It should be noted that NOM is the net gain or loss of population through immigration to Australia and emigration from Australia.

Although the drivers and immediate economic benefits are known and recognised, the effects on the socio-political landscape are those that are more often talked about, highlighted and debated. Migration can be seen as a purely economical factor perhaps, however we must not forget that we are dealing with actual people, who have hopes, dreams, desires and families. Migrants not only bring economic impacts, but their very presence changes the fabric of communities, and it is this change that can turn the tide of opinion. Economic factors are enough to convince a company perhaps, but “not in my backyard” is also a term used…

A cursory look at headlines over the past year or two clearly indicates that migration and identity are in the forefront of people’s minds. The discourse hasn’t always been friendly:

Australia is a nation based on multiculturalism, and we have a great untapped resource in our cultural diversity. It is important that we appreciate the value of our migration and cultural diversity, capitalise on its benefits and ensure that we do not neglect the socio-political effects that it has. We must ensure the communication lines are always open between migrants and those who have been settled for generations, and that we provide the space for young people to discover and mould their own identities to find the balance between their heritage and their current environment in a manner that is comfortable and familiar to them. It isn’t something that will happen overnight or be ‘resolved’ but more one that will change over time as influxes and migratory patterns change.

This level of cross cultural pollination has never been seen in history before, so we are at a unique point in human civilisation where we can create and mould identity based on more than just an accident of birth location – we almost have the choice and freedom to form whatever identity we want. What effects will that have on our society as a whole? Who knows yet. It could mean that nationalism no longer has the same power that it used to, or that it becomes based on something other than race, birthplace or religion. It could mean that cultures become based on hybrids of existing national traditions… who knows? All I know is that it is within our control.

Migration is not a crime, by dkalo on Flickr, CC BY SA 2.0

***

The irony is never lost on the Indigenous population – apart from them, we are all migrants to Australia. So who is anyone to deny the benefits of a concept that brought them there in the first place?

Links, Links, Links! 21st April 2013

 

How are we all this morning? How has the week been? I've been super busy with a crazy week at work (I've a new trainee), getting excited about being published and wrote one of my most-read articles on an encounter at the airport.  Enough about what I did though...here is what I came across on the net!

I love this piece by the Informed Comment: Top Ten Reasons why Terrorism is Forbidden in Islamic Law...

From the simple dollar: 5 pieces of advice that changed my life.

Young people need to be more involved in all levels of decision making in society; even though public and corporate decisions usually affect us we are rarely party to the decision making process.  That should change, and one way is by getting young people on Boards.

I completely relate to this writer - the love of technology mixed with nostalgia for print (I was an insane bookworm growing up and still feel guilty that I own a Kindle...I feel like I am betraying print) and it's interesting to read this piece from a lady who says her life is better without Facebook. I don't know if I could leave Facebook (isn't that a sad state of affairs!) - working out in the sticks doesn't help I guess...

Feel like you have media overload? A piece from Wired on balancing your media diet...

Why aren't there more women in technology? Forbes thinks it's a numbers and expectations game...

On one hand, the Boston bombing reaction reporting seemed relatively free of bias...but that was definitely not the case. 

Regardless of your views of justification and intent: whatever rage you're feeling toward the perpetrator of this Boston attack, that's the rage in sustained form that people across the world feel toward the US for killing innocent people in their countries. Whatever sadness you feel for yesterday's victims, the same level of sadness is warranted for the innocent people whose lives are ended by American bombs. However profound a loss you recognize the parents and family members of these victims to have suffered, that's the same loss experienced by victims of US violence. It's natural that it won't be felt as intensely when the victims are far away and mostly invisible, but applying these reactions to those acts of US aggression would go a long way toward better understanding what they are and the outcomes they generate.

A post (a rant, really) from an irate Sudanese blogger who is frustrated at the fact that in Sudan, skin colour is still an indication of status...

I don't agree with everything the United Nations does, but I do believe there is a place for it.  Why we get value for money at the United Nations.

I love examples of Muslim women challenging the expectations, and this Bosnian Mayor is a inspirational case!

The difference in treatment and expectations of male and female CEOs - Queen Bees getting the flak.

The age old question about "peak oil..."

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday (and the Formula 1 and MotoGP!)

Women in the Workforce: More to it Than Just Numbers

  I wrote this piece for FutureChallenges.org, an awesome site. Check it out originally here.

***

The questions of women in the workforce and how that affects society’s fabric have been posed since the early days of the feminist movement.  The question of what is gained – or lost – as women assume a larger role in a country’s economic burden is not so much just about the economic aspect, but spans the issues of the political, social and cultural impacts as well.

Women on the job in Afghanistan, by United Nations Photo, on Flickr, 2012 CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

As a young woman growing up in a Western country with heritage and cultural influences from the East, the question of women’s role in society more broadly has been of interest. The different cultural expectations of women, and the interestingly underlying and sometimes unexpected similarities give an indication of how far women have come, but also how far we still have to go.

In terms of what is gained, there is much to be said. From a numbers point of view, between 1984 and 2009, the number of working women has increased from 44 million to 72 million (in the US).  Not only do the sheer numbers of individuals contributing to the workforce make a difference, but women are said to bring particular skills to industry that change the tone.

Women are said to be more intuitive with different values, including empathy and support.  They are also said to be better team players and are able to look at problems more holistically.  On a more extreme level, workers in traditionally male dominated industries such as oil rigs have anecdotally welcomed women as they “make it seem more like the real world” and “bring a different mentality so we even end up talking about different things”.

These are all sweeping generalisations though; can it really be said that “all women are empathetic” and that is why they are good for the marketplace?  Is it fair to pigeon hole an entire gender into an expected set of stereotyped values?

Perhaps these generalisations are more damaging than beneficial and are part of the reason women are thought of in a particular way, limiting their ability to contribute in a meaningful manner.

An interesting article on the Financial Times also questions this focus on “what women bring”, concluding that perhaps it just comes down to the skill set of the individual and this is where the focus should remain. This particularly applies to women in senior and leadership positions in companies.

Or to put it another way, the women who “make it” perhaps do so because they are far better than the men. It might mean the focus should be less on “what women bring” and more on getting them into leadership roles in the first place.  (Source)

Generalisations aside though, the increase in the number and proportion of women in the workforce does have implications on society more generally. There is no more obvious platform for this societal shift than of the oft asked question “Can women have it all”. Interestingly, it is a question posed usually by women themselves.

“Busy Mom”, by gwilmore, on Flickr, 2005, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Anne Marie Slaughter’s well read essay in the Atlantic, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All” in 2012 was a profound example of an ambitious, accomplished female role model who argued that women weren’t able to have it all – ‘all’ meaning an ambitious career and a fulfilling family life. The article, based on Slaughter’s personal life as a senior US Department of State employee, provoked responses from around the globe and shocked many, opening up a public conversation about what the result of having women in the workforce meant for our society.

It would seem that from a purely economic point of view, having women a part of the workforce and contributing to nation building in a corporate sense does nothing but improve, gain, increase and enrich productivity and our work place environment. Where things are perhaps lost is not in the office or on site but outside that world – in homes and within families. This is not to say that having women in the workforce is purely detrimental to families, but that society needs to accommodate the fact that women spend more time away from the home and the resultant shift needs to be accounted and allowed for. Society has accepted that women are part and parcel of the working world, now the cultural change needs to follow so that the overall outcome is of one positive benefit for all.

Women collectively breastfeeding for IWD – the right to work and family, by Amadeus Sanz, on Flickr, 2008 CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Sometimes images like this suggest that even with women in the workforce and contributing to our society, mentalities still have a way to go.

Shoot the Messenger?

"Everybody, at the end of the day wants to come back with the best shot." The Bang Bang Club.

Wow, does this film give some food for thought.

Where …are they getting the guns?

What …do you care man, it doesn’t matter. Just take the picture!

***

The movie, The Bang Bang Club, follows the lives of four war photographers during the apartheid in South Africa and their adventures while they attempted to record and broadcast the events of the conflict through image.

Although the film did capture part of the emotional journey, the film makers did not interrogate the moral and ethical dilemmas as deeply as they could have.  Instead, the film chooses to follow the stories of the men more generally and to refer to greater issue indirectly.

This doesn’t detract completely however from the question underlying the film: what is the role of photojournalist in a war zone, a person driven by humanity or by the passion and job description?

How then, does that fit in with moral and ethical expectations that we have as a society?

***

Kevin Carter, one of the four members of the club profiled in the film, committed suicide shortly after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for taking a photo of a starving child in Southern Sudan.

The guilt of not doing anything to save the child, and moreover being constantly asked and berated for his “inhumanity” was said to be his undoing.

…But who are we, as mere observers, to tell people like conflict photographers what they should and shouldn’t do in the line of duty?  How would we know what we would do in such a position?

The more important question is…Should they interfere? Are we allowed to judge them as we do if they do not?

It is interesting to read interviews with the journalists themselves, years after the fact.  For example Greg Marinovich speaks below about the piece “Mob Attack”.

***

…the door was flung open and this guy with a scarf tied like a turban around his head came dashing out. He looked me straight in the eyes, and then took off.

All these other men started chasing him, and he hadn't gone far when he was brought down. About 15 or 20 men were all around him, hitting and stabbing and clubbing. And I was right there, photographing it. On the one hand, I was horrified, and at the same time I was thinking: what should the exposure be?

It was the old days: analogue, manual focus, crappy cameras. I felt torn between the horror of what I was seeing and trying to capture it. I was also thinking, how am I going to survive this? Because sooner or later these people are going to say, "There's this guy taking pictures of us committing murder." I was 1km from my car and the nearest outsider.

They killed him. And then one of them turned and said, "The white guy's photographing." Everyone leapt away, and I said, "No, it's fine, it's fine. Why did you kill him? Who is he?"

It was my first exposure to such a thing. And although, as a journalist, my reaction was fine, as a human being I felt I'd really let myself down [emphasis added]. It wasn't how I'd expected I'd react – I thought I'd try to intervene, or do something more noble. Yet I hadn't. I was really quite torn up about that. I was gutted that I'd been such a coward. From that moment, I was determined that, no matter what, I'd try to intervene and save someone if I could.

***

Greg’s Photo

It cannot be easy, and it isn’t an area with black and white distinctions; war never is.  It is easy for those sitting in comfortable chairs at home to disparage decisions made in the heat of the moment of an intense conflict zone.  The fact of the matter remains that without photojournalists, journalists and the men and women who put themselves in the line of fire to report, we would never have records of the atrocities that occur around the world.

As a society, we send soldiers out to fight on behalf of our “freedom”, but then avoiding dealing with the effects of war on a conscious.  Similarly, I believe these photographers, and many journalists in similar situations around the world, sacrifice a part of themselves for what they believe is a greater cause.  It is a sacrifice they have volunteered, and sometimes, they pay the ultimate price.

Whether we agree with their actions in the heat of the moment is a speculative, and a question of morals and values based on the individual.  Either way, we as a society should be grateful.

***

Read more about this fascinating topic via the links below:

NPR Podcast

New York Times

Greg Marinovich

Joa Silvia

Movieline Review