27-7-2013

Page 1

My replys about the refugee issues noted below the article: https://theconversation.com/drowning-mercy-why-we-fear-the-boats-16394 26 July 2013, 6.12am EST Disclosure Statement Patrick Stokes does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. Drowning mercy: why we fear the boats There’s a Latin word: misericordia. It’s usually translated “mercy” or “pity”. Thomas Aquinas took misericordia to be a kind of grief at the suffering of others as if that suffering were our own. Alasdair MacIntyre, the leading modern exponent of Thomist virtue ethics, sees misericordia as a responsiveness to the distress of others that offers the same concern we would normally show to those in our own family, community or country to total strangers. Misericordia in this sense is the virtue of the Good Samaritan; it’s the virtue the ancient Chinese sage Mencius describes in the way we would rush to help a child who has fallen down a well, not through hope of reward, but simply through concern for the child – any child. You might say this particular virtue went missing at sea the day the Special Air Service was ordered to board the MV Tampa. We have been doing our best to keep it from surfacing ever since. And so it has come to this. Not only are we denying asylum seekers arriving by boat any prospect of resettlement in Australia, we are publishing pictures of their anguish at being told so. Whether this is genuinely meant to deter people from risking death on the high seas, or whether, as Melbourne philosopher Damon Young put it, it’s “immigration torture porn for xenophobes”, it seems we now see the suffering of others as an opportunity to exploit rather than a call to action. The consensus among the commentariat has been that all this will go over beautifully in an electorate that has long seen boat arrivals as a standing existential threat. As journalist David Marr points out, Rudd is merely the latest prime minister to play on our disproportionate fear of “boat people”. The moves are new but the game itself is decades old. It’s a bizarre national obsession and it begs for answers: why are we so scared of the boats? No doubt straightforward racism is a very big part of it. But that can’t be the whole story: if it were, why has the government not been pilloried for talking about raising the overall humanitarian intake? Why is there no comparable outrage over the considerably larger number of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by air? If it’s about respect for Australian law, where’s the outrage over visa overstayers, a much larger cohort than asylum seekers? If it’s driven by opposition to population growth, where were all those “F—– Off, We’re Full” stickers when the Baby Bonus was introduced? So what is it that boat arrivals symbolise that other forms of arrival don’t? Well, here’s a stab at an answer: they remind Australians that we haven’t earned what we’ve got. Consider John Howard’s “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” line. That same message has been built into all our rhetoric on boat arrivals ever since: we don’t have to take you, and unless you come here entirely on our terms, we won’t. Form an orderly line, jump through this set of hoops, and maybe we’ll let you in. You’re welcome. This emphasis on sovereignty over mercy serves to bolster the idea that “our way of life” is
27-7-2013 Page 1 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

27-7-2013

Page 2

somehow ours by right, and so within our gift to bestow or withhold however we see fit. A gift, by its nature, must be freely given and gratuitous; it cannot be demanded of us. And it must be ours to give; we can only share what we ourselves are entitled to. Except, of course, we haven’t earned such an entitlement at all. Consider what Howard’s former chief of staff Arthur Sinodinos told a Q&A audience this week: …our obligation…is to give people protection. It is not to guarantee them a first world lifestyle in every case when they come to Australia. But then, by what right are we guaranteed such a lifestyle? What law of nature or reason determines that we get to live in luxury simply by virtue of the accident of birth? Consider the slogan bandied about during the Cronulla riots: “I grew here, you flew here” – as if it was a personal achievement to be born on this part of the earth’s surface at this point in history. It’s not. It’s sheer dumb luck. It’s nice to be lucky, but it’s no merit. I suspect on some level that’s what boat arrivals remind us of: the radical contingency of everything we have. It’s not just that we’re repulsed by undeserved misfortune – “there but for the grace of God go I"; “really makes you think, doesn’t it?” – we’re deeply unsettled by undeserved good fortune too. As a species we always have been. That’s why we invented doctrines like karma, so we could insist that those born into abased misery or obscene privilege must, somehow, be getting their just deserts. In the modern West we have a similar myth: that “anyone can make it” if they just work hard enough, and so the poor must simply be lazy, undeserving – as if talent and even the capacity for hard work itself aren’t themselves dealt out by random chance. Acknowledging such radical contingency knocks the ground from under out feet. It suggests our claim to our prosperity ultimately rests on happy accident rather than cosmic justice. No amount of “Cronulla capes” and bumper stickers and half-remembered tales of Bradman riding Phar Lap to victory at Gallipoli can change that. K.E. Løgstrup, a 20th century Danish moral philosopher who deserves to be much better known outside Scandinavia than he is, argued that once we see the gratuitousness of what we have, we can no longer stand on our own rights in order to begrudge others our help. Our individual sovereignty is shattered by the realisation that everything we have is, ultimately, a gift we’ve received, not an entitlement we’ve earned. Perhaps that’s why the boats scare us: they remind us of a far more demanding ethics lurking behind our comfortable norms of reciprocity and exchange. Perhaps that’s at least part of why we go to such lengths to dehumanise, to demonise, to refuse to see asylum seekers in their full humanity. None of what I’ve just written fixes the problem or even offers any policy suggestions whatsoever. Understanding our motives won’t stop people dying at sea – as I write this, yet more lives have just been lost. But the moral demand to respond with misericordia hasn’t gone away. And we cannot act morally, or even see others properly, if we’re more concerned about justifying our own privilege.

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka 27-7-2013 (No 1)

27-7-2013 Page 2 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

27-7-2013

Page 3

Patrick Stokes, I will from onset admit that I have no particular good impression about Deakin University and certainly not when it comes to philosophy. My native English wasn’t English and neither did I have any formal education in the English language but at least as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I seem to have a better understanding then what you seem to have about Australians. QUOTE Consider the slogan bandied about during the Cronulla riots: “I grew here, you flew here” – as if it was a personal achievement to be born on this part of the earth’s surface at this point in history. It’s not. It’s sheer dumb luck. It’s nice to be lucky, but it’s no merit. END QUOTE Well, tell that to the Aboriginals, and they so to say may skin you alive! The issue is that we are living in a society that happen to have fallen apart into colonies and then had the wisdom to unite in a federation called Commonwealth of Australia. And they laid down some rules for you and I and every one else to live within. Albeit they provided for section 128 that if we were wanting to change the rules then we could do so using the majority of electors in the majority of states. So, since the federation most attempts to amend the constitution failed but some succeeded. That makes us all part of the Framers of the Constitution, this is because when we vote for a referendum either VETO or approve an amendment, then we are framing the future of the constitution until the next referendum is held. It is this constitution that was created to secure Australia (meaning Commonwealth of Australia) as a sovereign nation. You and many others may not like it, but then it is open to you and others to pursue to amend the constitution, but until you achieve this I view you are bound by the rules. My blog www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati sets out matters in far greater details, this would be beyond the ability of this post to set out, safe to say, that those who are in Australia are entitled to have sovereign protection as any other nation has. the constitution was specifically created to keep undesirable people out, and also certain classes of people which the government feel better not to be admitted for the protection of Australians. Don’t give the nonsense that we do not care, because we do. It are the humbug self proclaimed human rights activist who generally are the least concerned about human rights, but more concerned about securing their financial gains of employment pretending to fight for the human rights of refugees. My blog sets out how we instantly, yes instantly, can stop the flow of refugees or self proclaimed refugees being it by air or by boat. with boat arrivals the risk of diseases may be greater. I still wonder why the federal government isn’t seeking to sue people smugglers for cost incurred in dealing with refugees! if my plan dealing with refugees had been implemented many years ago, as I then already recommended then the about 1,100 people who now have drowned may never have done so. Anyone who cares about human rights should consider the rights that were robbed from those who drowned! More people will drown because we have those so called humanist claiming it is all right to come by boat to Australia, even if this means there is a huge death toll associated with it. If you are a true humanist and not just something liking to use English words with no real solution provided, then I expect you would not hesitate to check out my blog and support 100% the solution I have recommended for so long. No more the proverbial widow with 5 children stuck in a refugee camp having to wait on and on before being considered for placement in Australia, as my system would be to give the longest resident in a refugee camp the first option to be considered for placement. Meaning that the so
27-7-2013 Page 3 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

27-7-2013

Page 4

called que jumpers will have to go back and wait their turn. As such, there is no use in paying a people smuggler, because the trip will be in vain. No more people drowning in attempting to come to Australia,. No more people coming here without having had time to learn what Australia’s customs and conditions (such as western society) is about, such as to show equality and respect of to a person of any gender. Try your argument against countries of which are in the Middle East and you find that people if not just being executed they may without trail imprisoned for the rest of their lives, for having invaded the sovereignty of any of those countries. This is not about reducing immigration and so your argument, as I perceive it, that we may not care is blown out of the window, as we do care but we and not people smugglers should determine who are to be considered for settlement. That is our right associated with out sovereignty and so for any other country. What we now have been subjected to is an unarmed invasion, and this needs to be stopped. The proverbial widow may have in the years she was stuck in a refugee camp gotten her children to learn the English language and what Australia are about, and when then allowed to settle in Australia they will assimilate with Australians while they can still within what is legally permissible, practice their customs and traditions. We cannot have people entering this country without any proper knowledge what we are about and then go on such as raping women because in their country the women have no equality as a status. We cannot have that they engage in forcing their children, even if born subsequently in Australia after their arrival, then are forced into a marriage at age 6, or so, because it happen to be their customs and traditions in their native country. It is in my view totally irresponsible to allow people from different cultures and traditions, regardless of their race or nationality, to allow to settle in Australia until they have shown sufficient effort to be considered they can assimilate in Australian’s society. We do not need enclaves of different groups. We need to have and maintain a secure Australia and people like yourself would do in my view far better to attend to the real issues and you may just start by learning what our constitution really is about. After all what is the use of all your studies and degrees if in the end you are talking about something as I view it without understanding what you are really talking about. The Tampa was a totally separate incident, and I was at the forefront to speak up for those refugees. However, you should be careful to pretend that all refugees are somehow all the same, in need of a other country to settle because of being displaced from their native country. Many are upon their own violation taking the risk because to them Australia has better things to offer. In their own native country they may not be able to be important and may not like the rules upon which they are subjected to, but then in Australia they then try to be important and then seek to inflict the very rules upon others. The huge financial burden upon Australian tax payers is considerably dealing with those so called boat people” monies that could be far better used. Perhaps a mere fraction of it would provide a better system for the refugees, and monies, then not so used can be channeled for more important matters. Hence, my recommendation of UN refugee camps for all refugees or self proclaimed refugees. If we take politics out of the refugee issue, you may just discover that the refugee issue will be more organized and the refugees will be considered for placement upon the longest recorded refugee in a refugee camp to be the first to be considered for placement. Then the proverbial widow with 5 children will be assured no longer being pushed back because of those using money to get in front. No more drowning of people trying to come to Australia.
27-7-2013 Page 4 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

27-7-2013

Page 5

Yes, I would like you to show that being a psychologist actually has some value in that regard, and your more superior English education does have value that even you too may understand what the constitution is about. . Hansard 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS: This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand. END QUOTE . G. H. Schorel-Hlavka 27-7-2013 (No 2) Let us also consider the following The Netherlands with 6% of population now Muslims is scrapping multiculturalism Http://conservastivepapers.com/news/213/01/26/the-netherlands-to-abandonmulticulturalism/#.UX7M272qk C And consider the traditions/customs of some countries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLzx-HDvtYk I'D RATHER KILL MYSELF 11 YEAR Old Yemeni girl Nada Al-Ahdal RUNS AWAY Forced Marriage CHILD BRIDE A compelling video that I view everyone should watch to understand that when little girls no longer are permitted to be little girls but end up not playing with Barby Dolls, but with real babuies, their own in a society where girls are sold off, then perhaps mariliyn and others may just thank their lucky stars not having been born in that country. And they dare to risk our youth for the same? Let's be clear about this, if you see a poor person you may give the person a meal, but it doesn't mean you have to throw away your own life! Likewise, those who want to reside in Australia, as I had to do - even so not being a refugee - must accept what Australian society is about, and if not they can go back where they came from. . An invasion (armed or not) is where people seek to invade a sovereign country and seek to force upon the citizens their rules. We have already experienced plenty. when a Australian born man raped an Australian girl the judge was noted to have excused the rapist for that he was brought up with the family standards that females have no value, etc. He blamed the bring up rather then the rapist. Is this the kind of society we desires? If those parents in the first place had not been permitted to settle in Australia until they were proving to be competent to accept Australian way of life and that includes respect for the equality of women, then likely the rape may have been avoided. No one seems to give a darn about the victim of the rape! That is why the Dutch have decided enough is enough. If you want to live amongst us then you do this on our terms, you learn the language and you must respect our laws. In my view a refugee is not desperate enough if he/she dictates the terms to our government. Send them back where they came from until they accept that if they desire to be accepted in our midst then they have to accept first the terms and conditions of our society. and our constitution made it clear that they can practice their religion free from any Commonwealth interference as long as it is done within the law. seems to me if we ourselves have to live within those rules then a new comer either accept it or go back to
27-7-2013 Page 5 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

27-7-2013

Page 6

where they came from.

27-7-2013 Page 6 INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, by fax 001161-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful