BY SARAH STEPHEN
Since the MV
Tampa incident one year ago, a broad and vibrant protest movement
has developed. It is matched by no other social movement in recent years.
The movement has swelled well beyond the ranks of those who have formed
the backbone of progressive struggles in recent years. The Children Out
of Detention (ChilOut) network, for example, has drawn together many people
who have never before been involved in any protest movement, but who feel
so morally angered at the mistreatment of children in detention that they
were compelled to get involved.
An enormous range of public figures have spoken out against government
policy, and professional groups have issued reports condemning the effects
of detention.
Three thousand supporters of refugees' rights converged on Canberra
for the opening of federal parliament on February 12, many travelling from
Sydney, rural NSW and Victoria. The Palm Sunday marches on March 24 marked
the biggest refugees' rights national mobilisations so far, with 50,000
people participating. Demonstrations to mark World Refugee Day (June 23)
numbered over 13,000 people.
These large city-wide and nation-wide protests have been punctuated
with a myriad of smaller actions — pickets of events being addressed by
immigration minister Philip Ruddock; public meetings ranging from 20 to
800 people, addressed by a range of guest speakers, including legal and
medical experts, ex-military personnel and refugees; the regular Saturday
morning campaigning stalls in the outer suburbs of major cities and the
establishment of networks of people prepared to assist escaped refugees.
Green Left Weekly spoke to a range of people involved in the
refugee rights campaign about their thoughts on the year since Tampa.
“It's been a long and depressing year since the international spotlight
shone on Australia”, said Margaret Reynolds, a former Labor senator and
president of the United Nations Association of Australia. “A privileged
nation turned its back on traumatised people. At the time many voices were
raised in opposition to this bizarre example of political opportunism.
But there was an election due and the voices of reason and compassion were
insufficient to change government and opposition commitment to crass populism.”
Reynolds remarked that for the first time, Australia seemed to her like
a foreign country. “Its intolerance, selfishness and xenophobia have been
revealed in an extreme form. But I am ever-optimistic about the wonderful
resilience and commitment of so many Australians who have refused to accept
the myths and lies about asylum seekers.”
Anne Coombs, co-convenor of Rural Australians for Refugees, told GLW:
“The remarkable thing about the refugee support movement in the past twelve
months has been the large and diverse number of pro-refugee groups that
have sprung up and the thousands of people who have flocked to join them.
At a time when Prime Minister John Howard confidently believed that public
support justified his actions, tens of thousands of Australians became
activists — many of them for the first time — because they so passionately
opposed his policies.”
Clinical psychologist Zachary Steel told GLW that he dated the
beginning of the new movement from the ABC Four Corners program which highlighted
the plight of six-year-old Shayan Badraie, which was four weeks before
Tampa. “It was the first time ever that the suffering had been put in a
way that people could understand. Shayan was clearly an innocent. He was
only being kept alive by medical intervention, he'd lost the will to live.
“The tide of opinion started turning. There were two factors which triggered
that; the first was incredible human suffering, and the second was people's
horror at the administrative disregard for that suffering. Ruddock referred
to Shayan several times during the program as ‘it'.
“The backlash was Tampa, and it was a huge backlash. Tampa was an awakening
to people that we are living in the equivalent of the South African apartheid
regime. The Australian government resorted to the same arguments, the same
vilification.
“But people have been resisting, and the resistance has grown. It's
been a remarkable 12 months.”
GLW asked Andrew Hall, initiator of Public Servants for Refugees,
why he thought the Howard government's campaign has been so effective in
winning support for some of the most vicious policies. Hall explained:
“People are feeling powerless after years of cutbacks and austerity, where
the real queues are getting longer and longer — at the banks, in hospital
waiting rooms, for welfare assistance.
“This has fostered support for the misguided belief that stopping refugees
‘jumping queues' will somehow improve their own situation. And there has
been no real opposition from the traditional political parties, peak bodies
and trade unions. They've been unwilling or unable to raise alternatives
to the scapegoating of refugees for social problems. It is only now, when
more opposition is coming from the grassroots, that things are starting
to change.”
Arun Pradhan, an activist with Melbourne's Refugee Action Collective,
commented: “Australian racism is one of the most consciously built and
effectively constructed in the Western world. From the declaration of terra
nullius to the White Australia policy, to the foundations of the Labor
Party, racism is what this country was built on. What's happened since
Tampa has just been the latest instalment.”
Julian Burnside, a Melbourne lawyer, is one of the relative newcomers
to the movement. He told GLW: “Tampa moved me to get involved.
Like everyone else, I saw what was happening and was shocked. The treatment
of asylum seekers is an affront to the conscience of humanity. I was upset
about the absurdity, the inhumanity of it.”
Burnside donated his services to the legal challenge during the Tampa
crisis. “Then I became aware of the larger problem of refugees. I was troubled
by the waterfront dispute in 1998, but I had an even stronger reaction
when I found out what was going on with refugees. The unequal power relations
were much more exaggerated. Since then, I've been simply unable to let
go of the subject. Another great strange development was that I found myself
speaking at public meetings everywhere, when I'd done no public speaking
before. I think I can do more good like that than by going to court, because
the law is so bad.
“There are only two explanations for what's going on — either people
don't have any idea what the government is doing in our name, or the majority
of Australians are prepared to regard asylum seekers as non-human, and
not deserving of the basic human decency we would expect for our friends,
even our enemies.
“It's more than just a fear of strangers. It starts with the government's
attempts to demonise them, calling them ‘illegals', ‘queue-jumpers', the
sort of people who would throw their children into the ocean, all of which
are a way of discounting their right to normal human decency. It's the
same process as the holocaust — first you dehumanise a group of people,
then you can treat them as you wish.”
Explaining the success of Howard's campaign against asylum seekers,
Steel noted: “The government knew it had bipartisan support. Labor has
been too cowardly to stand up on the issue. On every point they can't make
up their minds; they're not prepared to support or condemn the government.
Opinion is totally manufactured by political debate, and for Labor not
to realise that is disingenuous; they are fully aware of it. They're just
gutless.”
Referring to the example of public support for the 4000 Kosovar refugees
taken in on temporary visas in 1999, Steel argued that “the public was
behind them 100% because the government made the effort to explain their
suffering, explaining why we should help them. Yet when the government
scare-mongers and says that people are terrorists, that they will rape
our women, people tend to think that maybe the government is right, maybe
we shouldn't
let them in.”
Asked if she thought the movement had made advances in the past 12 months,
Reynolds replied: “What impresses me is the way in which so many caring
Australians have responded to the plight of those in detention as well
as those released on temporary protection visas. Ordinary Australians have
‘adopted' detainees [by] writing letters and sending gifts. Rallies, meetings,
concerts and a diverse range of media commentary have ensured that Australians
cannot hide from facing the effect of reactive policy. So as we mark Tampa
Day — a day of national shame — we should also retain pride in the magnificent
efforts of so many Australians whose humanity will ensure that justice
will eventually prevail.”
Describing what he thinks sets the refugee rights movement apart from
other social movements of the past few decades, Hall explained that it
“seems fresher and bolder, and much less constrained by some of the forces
that dominated and restrained movements only a decade ago”.
“The movement has been remarkably successful in bringing evidence to
the Australian community”, Steel argued. “For example, the movement has
been responsible for ensuring that every medical and health professional
organisation has released statements condemning mandatory detention”, pointing
out that this included some relatively conservative organisations.
Pradhan remarked: “I was totally shocked and very impressed at how fast
the movement recovered after huge ideological attacks — first the government's
response to the Tampa, then September 11. At that time, I felt the debate
had shifted significantly to the right. The seeds of this movement, growing
in that context, are a real testament to people's compassion and determination.”
“Maybe 30% of people oppose the government”, said Burnside. “But they
oppose the government passionately. The other 70% support the government,
but indifferently — out of habit, out of misinformation. Their ideas are
not firmly held or based on a strong grasp of reality, which is what happens
when you throw misinformation into a pool of prejudice. If we're going
to win, it will be due to the passion of the minority.”
“I think the strengths of the movement are the localised initiatives
that are happening”, said Pradhan, citing as examples the public servants
for refugees network, high school students initiating Ruddock-free zones
and councils declaring themselves refugee safe-havens.
“Another strength is our ability to begin to disseminate information
and give people the facts, which is beginning to expose the barrage of
government lies.
“There are a number of things, though, that we've yet to see develop.
“Within the trade union movement, some leaderships have taken a courageous
stand and publicly supported the refugee campaign. Notable unions to do
so in Victoria are the CFMEU and the AMWU, whose rank and file are traditionally
hostile to such issues. Winning their membership away from a century of
racist Laborism is a long process.
“Churches and religious organisations were among the first to take a
public stand, yet with the exception of Palm Sunday demonstrations, they
haven't flexed their considerable muscle in a way that could really threaten
the government. Their support remains, but it is often passive.
“Young people are often the motor force behind social movements, but
in the refugee campaign their involvement has been surprisingly slow to
develop. The notable exception is on high schools; but the malaise of campus
politics has had an impact on the involvement of university students. Without
turning this around, the movement will not move forward.
“During the anti-Hanson demonstrations, migrant communities initiated
protests and self-organised, linking in with broader anti-racist campaigners
on a mass scale. That sentiment has not been recaptured in the refugee
campaign. We've seen support from some sectors, but the migrant communities
themselves are yet to mobilise in a consistent way.”
Coombs pointed out that “the movement has a long way to go to turn [the
government's] policies around, but it has made considerable gains in informing
the public, the first step. Turning around public opinion is the only thing
that will have an impact on the government.
“Twelve months ago, many Australians who opposed the government's handling
of Tampa were afraid to speak out. We were told we were overwhelmingly
in a minority, and this made us feel voiceless, powerless and hopeless.
Coming together has given us the courage to speak out. Discovering we are
not alone, that thousands of our neighbours feel the same way, has inspired
us to do what we can to turn around this government's bizarre and inhumane
policies.”
Hall said he thought the refugees' rights movement needed to reach out
to those who are still convinced that the government is doing the right
thing through a “combination of large public protests across the country,
and thousands of smaller actions in our workplaces, schools, churches and
campuses, that raise dissent against government policies as well as having
the discussions that raise the political and personal issues involved”.
Steel added: “I think we should look at the experience of apartheid
and resistance to it because it is very similar. There is a complete polarisation
of views, and pressure [on the government] is mounting. We exposed what
was happening in the desert camps, we proved that it was possible to bridge
their isolation by getting on buses. Now things will have to shift.
“People worked on the assumption that if we were able to show the harm
that was being done, things would change. They initially gave the government
the benefit of the doubt — maybe they didn't know what the consequences
of their actions were. It's clear now that the government doesn't actually
care what the public damage is. Harm is being done wilfully. Our strategy
needs to change to take that into account.
“It's now a clear moral battle. It's not just about bringing things
to the government's attention. It has to be more courageous, including
the use of civil disobedience. We need to keep building up pressure, in
particular not letting Labor get away with it.
“Ruddock has been pushed more and more into a corner to make more outlandish,
nonsensical statements. Our task is to uncover their real motives, and
not let them get away with their Orwellian doublespeak. In South Africa,
[apartheid] simply became unsustainable, and collapsed because it could
no longer continue to justify itself.”
Pradhan said: “The movement hasn't yet been able to manifest itself
as a growing public opposition. It's still largely a sentiment,
an untapped sentiment. A powerful mass movement around this issue will
rapidly change Labor's policy, and that hasn't happened yet. The party
is caught between their business masters on the one hand, and trying to
provide an acceptable face to the movement, which they haven't had to do
for a while.
“The weakness of the refugee movement is that people don't know their
own power. Although Australia has a history of struggles and short-lived
campaigns, people haven't had real experience of an ongoing movement. Disempowerment
has led to people not prioritising a unified and public struggle. Within
the movement and among campaigners it often leads to `politics of frustration'
— short-lived acts of desperation without a view to building a broader
movement. There's not a sense of confidence that a broader movement is
possible, or that it can win. To develop that confidence, you need both
an international perspective an ability to look at the process of change
in other countries and the way it is brought about — and a broader historical
perspective, to look at experiences throughout the whole span of Australian
history.”
From Green Left Weekly, August 21, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
