Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
Yesterday the Government announced it will change the Migration Act to enable the Malaysia solution to go ahead. This latest action reinforces rhetoric about queues and people smugglers that obscures the real effects and motivations of current asylum seeker policy.
The stories of Jesus' trial highlight the triumph of expediency over legality and morality. The Malaysia solution and the scramble to restore it contains detailed similarities. The people of the time are now remembered principally for their participation in an act of bastardry.
When I argued that the Malaysia solution was ethically flawed, I implied that ethical arguments in favour of the solution were unsupportable, and that those who disagreed with me should change their views. That may seem arrogant, but it is the nature of any ethical argument.
Before Tampa, refugees were regarded as a positive for Australia's economy and lifestyle. After Tampa they were a threat to our sovereignty that was somehow grafted on to the sense of public malaise prompted by the 9/11 attacks on the sovereignty of the United States.
From now on, the High Court will apply a very fine tooth comb to any legislation allowing ministers to ship asylum seekers offshore. Unless there were to be a bipartisan agreement in the Parliament or a government deal with the Greens, asylum seekers arriving by boat now need to be processed fairly, promptly, on our terms and on our turf.
By pursuing the refugee swap deal with Malaysia, Australia may be in breach of one of the most serious prohibitions in international law. This raises the question of what Australia's attitude is to other fundamenal norms of international law. This question goes well beyond issues of refugee protection.
This week as we mark the 10th anniversary of Tampa, the High Court is hearing a legal challenge to the Malaysian solution and an inquiry into suicide and self-harm in detention is underway. Meanwhile a new report hopes to change the direction of the debate on refugees.
Sociologist Eva Cox heard all the vitriol about boat people when, as a five-year-old Jewish girl, she fled Nazi Germany and headed to Australia. My nine-year-old mother was a different kind of boat arrival: one of 135,000 'child migrants' imported under the 'Populate or Perish' policy.
Suppose that in France under Hitler's occupation, a bloodied man arrived at our doorstep asking for shelter from a Nazi mob. The claim made by the presence of the endangered and injured man would precede questions of fairness and relative need.
In this debate, moral passion is common, especially among those who cast themselves as refugee advocates. But moral passion should not be confused with moral superiority. Any claim to occupy the moral high ground in this complex area of public policy is at best brave and at worst self-serving.
At least adults have a little hope of understanding the pain, and coping with it. Even the most equable of children must find the experience bewildering at best, and agonising at worst. My eldest son had a period of not eating. His migration as a child remains the defining fact of his life.
The Malaysia solution has hit a snag called the High Court of Australia. The Government is now in very stormy waters, because the rule of law and the separation of powers do not readily yield to the sound bites of populist sentiment and the fear tactics of politicians.