Cruel to be Kind, To be Cruel

9/5/2016

HENRY HL
Volume 9, Issue 10
Every day there is a new outrage. People set themselves on fire. Children are sexually abused. Self-harm is inflicted. Refugees are delivered back into the hands of their persecutors. Hopes of resettlement are crushed. People are killed by vicious mobs, or guards, if there is still a meaningful difference. This article could simply list such outrages, any of which should suffice to close the camps forever.

Illustration by Harley Ng

Yet the Liberals don’t close the camps. And Labor don’t demand them closed. Instead we get the same tired lines: ‘The most compassionate thing you can do is stop the boats. We have stopped the boats’ or perhaps ’The only way you can stop the deaths is to stop the people smuggling trade. The only way you can stop the deaths is in fact to stop the boats.’

We are told that instituting mandatory detention is necessary. It is implied that the appalling conditions are necessary too. These are all allegedly necessary to deter people from trying to come here, which will apparently stop them drowning along the way, which supposedly makes us tough but decent human beings instead of torturers of the world’s most vulnerable. We’ll see about that.

I’m still not convinced that anyone, deep-down, really believes that the camps are a compassionate venture by the Commonwealth. Least of all the people who support them. But this ‘compassion’ serves as a comforting lie, something to whisper to yourself when you see the latest human rights violation or self-immolation. Something you only half-way believe, but still does the job of deflecting the guilt. Lies like these are what allow good people to do so much evil in this world of ours. So let’s look at this ‘compassion’.

Firstly, has mandatory detention actually stopped that demand, and those journeys, and those drownings? This seems like a vital question, but we just don’t know. There have been no more reported boat arrivals. But that could just be because the government stopped reporting them, at about the same time they stopped reporting anything whatsoever about those mysterious ‘on-water operations’. Who knows?

But let’s say that you do deter people from coming to Australia. Does that mean they’re out of harm’s way? Where do they go? Do they stay home, in the country they are being persecuted in? Do they take a similarly dangerous journey to a different country, across the Mediterranean maybe? Do they stay in the squalid, dangerous conditions in a transit country? These aren’t safer options, and forcing people to choose them doesn’t save lives. It just lets us pretend that those lives aren't ours to save.

But let’s assume these camps really do save lives, and that saving lives is their only purpose. Shouldn’t we be investigating ways of saving those lives that don’t involve psychologically torturing children? Shouldn’t we be, say, using the billions of dollars poured into Nauru and Manus to ship those asylum seekers here ourselves? That would certainly break the people smugglers’ business model. Who would get on a leaky boat when you could get on a nice navy vessel? If this isn’t a feasible solution, something other than compassion has to be at play behind this policy.

But alright, let’s imagine that the camps stop the boats, saving lives, and in a way that nothing else could. What then makes the people in those camps so readily sacrifice-able for the greater good? Imagine that Malcolm plucked 631 random australians from their homes and into Nauru to stop the boats, because who would come to a country crazy enough to pull something like that? Imagine it worked, that it stopped the boats, ending any drownings. Would people support this policy? Meekly accept this as the price to be paid? Trumpet it is as ‘the most compassionate thing you can do’? No. These are human lives after all, not pawns to be sacrificed as the overall strategy requires. The outrage would be huge. Yet there is no outrage for asylum seekers. Are they not humans too though? For many, maybe not.

Don’t think that the suffering in these camps is for some greater good. Don’t think that your conscience is clear in supporting them. Don’t think that Malcolm is being cruel to be kind. Don’t think that the cruelty here is anything more than cruel.

Henry HL is a third-year JD student

The rest of this week's issue:

More articles like this:

10/5/2016 09:59:53 pm

Firstly, I want to say outright that I don't disagree with any of the points raised in this article, lest I be put in the same boat as the Australian government.

However, what I do want to emphasize is how utterly pointless this article is, both at raising awareness (which I think is this article's goal) and possible solutions (which it fails miserably).

Let's analyse some of the points made:

"There have been no more reported boat arrivals. But that could just be because the government stopped reporting them, at about the same time they stopped reporting anything whatsoever about those mysterious ‘on-water operations’. Who knows?"

Baseless and immature attack. I could also say there are reports of gross human rights violations at Nauru and Manus. But that could just be because all reports have been grossly exaggerated. We could speculate about this all day, but it leads us nowhere. Waste of time.

"Do they stay in the squalid, dangerous conditions in a transit country? These aren’t safer options, and forcing people to choose them doesn’t save lives. It just lets us pretend that those lives aren't ours to save."

So many rhetorical questions made (which when used in this way, has extremely little impact on the reader) but that's not what's wrong with this paragraph. You have not provided a single reason why those lives are ours to save. Indeed, from a nationalist point of view, they are certainly not our lives to save.

"Shouldn’t we be investigating ways of saving those lives that don’t involve psychologically torturing children?"

The first thing you wrote which has merit.

"Shouldn’t we be, say, using the billions of dollars poured into Nauru and Manus to ship those asylum seekers here ourselves? That would certainly break the people smugglers’ business model. Who would get on a leaky boat when you could get on a nice navy vessel? If this isn’t a feasible solution, something other than compassion has to be at play behind this policy."

Clearly you have not studied simple economics and do not understand the concept of limited resources. If we ship all those asylum seekers into Australia, not only does this increase our population, but it also provides an incentive for other asylum seekers to come to Australia as well. Do we have the resources to sustain this many people, and those that will inevitably arrive on our shores in the future?

"Don’t think that the suffering in these camps is for some greater good. Don’t think that your conscience is clear in supporting them. Don’t think that Malcolm is being cruel to be kind. Don’t think that the cruelty here is anything more than cruel."

Cruel, yes. But I think everyone knows this, no? Anybody with half a brain studying at Melbourne Law School, which is the audience for this article, surely would. You even highlighted earlier, that you're "not convinced that anyone, deep-down, really believes that the camps are a compassionate venture by the Commonwealth." So what point are you trying to get across then? What are you telling us that we don't know already?

Articles such as yours are trash because they are just rants which do not educate, serve no purpose and most importantly present no viable solutions.

I, in my own rant, will provide two.

1. Instead of sitting comfortably behind a computer screen, get off your high horse and travel abroad to poverty-stricken lands and help those in crisis. Instead of using your hands to type on a keyboard, use it to create a better and brighter future for the refugees you support.

2. If you're not willing to do the above, at least donate money from your own pocket to charities and organisations which work tirelessly to promote the welfare of asylum seekers and others in need. That money you spent on law ball or the price you paid for your ski ticket could have made a tangible difference in someone's life.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Henry HL

10/5/2016 10:49:25 pm

Hahahahah. For someone who doesn't 'disagree with any of the points raised in this article', you sure disagree with a lot of the points raised in this article

Duncan

10/5/2016 11:03:53 pm

LOL. Nice viable solutions man!

The refugees are coming from countries which we bombed recently, or else, in the case of Sri Lanka, from places where we supported a genocidal dictatership.

I.e. the Australian government had a big hand in creating the refugees who attempt to reach Australia by boat.

The best thing Henry could do is to act to stop our government creating refugees oversees. Writing articles like this is an excellent contribution to such an endeavour.

11/5/2016 02:00:13 pm

You are correct that the best thing Henry could do is to act to stop our government creating refugees overseas. In fact, this is the BEST possible solution.

Can I ask how does writing an article meant for the eyes of law students an 'excellent contribution' to such an endeavour? You applaud and praise his effort, yet laugh at my solutions (which I appreciate you scoffing at by the way, shows me that you clearly will only fight for refugees and others less fortunate than you only when it's convenient/comfortable/no investment involved on your behalf) which ACTUALLY make a difference, albeit small, in someone's life.

I do not have the capacity to change the views of the government at this current moment in time. I am unsure whether I ever will have that capacity. Nevertheless, I will strive to do what IS within my power to further the lives of those less unfortunate in a tangible and measurable way. If you truly believe that writing articles behind a computer screen for law students is the way to achieve that, I have no more to say to you.

12/5/2016 08:30:26 pm

Duncan,

Australia and the Australian government did not support Mahinda Rakapaksa as a genocidal dictator you claim. There has been bipartisan support for cooperation with Sri Lankan governments following the 2009 end of the civil war across a wide range of areas. These include contentious areas such as Tamils fleeing persecution, retribution or in some instances the criminal justice system, as well as less contentious areas such as agriculture, trade and healthcare.

The Sri Lankan Civil War was a particularly brutal war. There remains many outstanding allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes from that conflict, including several serious and credible allegations against Rajapaksa; however, suggesting that Australia "supported" a genocidal dictator by maintaining an intergovernmental relationship firstly ignores the electoral process in Sri Lanka and secondly ignores the need for cooperation to rehabilitate the country to provide a lasting peace.

That peace will require the issues surrounding the alleged crimes being addressed as part of a healing process. But bandying around throwaway lines doesn't provide a meaningful contribution and probably antagonises the situation unnecessarily.

If this is a field you wish to work in then accepting that perfection should not be the enemy of good is a necessary precondition to success, including when one is presented with crimes such as genocide.

13/5/2016 12:12:46 pm

Hi C. Australia, admittedly, is less complicit than the US and the UK:

"In the recent decision of the Permanent Peoples Tribunal, an independent international group focussed on human rights violantion, both Britain and the United States were found to be complicit in the genocide that continues to occur in Sri Lanka.

The verdict regarding the UK reads: “The Tribunal found that UK complicity in the genocide against the Eelam Tamils during the period of the armed struggle and its repression was overt and explicit and qualifies as ‘aid or assistance’ furnished by one State for the commission of a wrongful act by another State", under Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility.

“Further, the Tribunal views the events of 2009 as the logical manifestation of the structural genocide that had been put in place during the colonial period and in the construction of the newly independent unitary Sri Lankan state.”

And on the United States: “Active US complicity in the genocide arises not only from its sustained efforts to increase the power and effectiveness of the Sri Lankan military, the direct perpetrator of the genocidal acts taking place in the last months of the war, but perhaps even more significantly from its role in blocking and even reversing political and diplomatic initiatives to implement the peace process and in blacking out information on the unfolding critical situation and the unprecedented worldwide protests by Tamil communities in the diaspora.

“These military and non-military actions constitute ‘the provision of means to enable or facilitate the commission of the crime’, as determined to be included in ‘complicity’ in genocide by the International Court of Justice in February 2007.”" (from https://newmatilda.com/2014/06/29/shining-light-australias-role-tamil-genocide/).

Australia supported Rajapaksa's dictatorship after the civil war: see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/australia-secured-asylum-deal-by-staying-silent-on-rights-abuses-sri-lanka-pm and https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/42822.

I've used the word dictatorship which you'll contest. He was, after all, voted out recently. Before the election, however, he was running a nepotistic regime with one of the worst free media records in the world (https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2011/sri-lanka). It was not at all clear before the election that he was going to accept being voted out and it was a surprise, ultimately, that he did.

15/5/2016 11:03:15 am

Duncan,

You've basically cut and pasted 90% of your reply from sources such as questionable media outlets, a partisan international organisation passing itself as a quasi-judicial body, and a communist newspaper. I know you're capable of a better response than this despite the pressures of the semester.

What I find most frustrating is that in between the appeals to emotion and authority fallacies these authors provide is the variable use of terms which once had a well-defined meaning. Saying we "supported" a "dictator" by entering into international agreements is intellectually dishonest. By that flawed logic the US was complicit in the Soviet Union's socialist dictatorship when it engaged in détente many years ago. Secondly, the Left's habit of labeling leaders as dictators whenever they don't like their politics is both shallow and dangerous. I'll be quite clear on this, there is more that a prima facie case against Rajapaksa regarding his role in the most serious of crimes during that war. However, he was elected, he relied upon the electoral and parliamentary process for authority and he did not have total power. Yes he abused his constitutional powers on many occasions, attempted to silence the media, and he used the State's apparatus to persecute his political opponents, but he lacked the unchecked and total power dictators have. If we adopt a lesser standard then where does that place us when faced with an actual dictator?

The next difficulty is that the abuses of power I listed above are all tactics Obama has used in the US. Are when then complicit in supporting his dictatorship?

16/5/2016 04:40:00 pm

C.

The sources I used are reputable. Sometimes sources I use are from capitalist journals; sometimes from communist. Perhaps Amnesty international is more to your liking. In case it is: http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/27123/

Whether entering into agreements with regimes constitutes support depends on the type of agreement. That's elementary. The point I was making is the type of agreements entered are just one piece of evidence showing Australian support for the Rajapksa regime. I didn't mean to give you the impression I was reducing all agreements to shows of support.

Okay, I'll withdraw my use of dictator. As you point out, Rajapaksa was showing distinct dictatorial tendencies, but I shouldn't have used the term dictator. I was being provocative. Nevertheless, I don't think the terminology I used was entirely misleading.

Yes Obama has shown those same tendencies, though to a lesser extreme. He's certainly set a dangerous precedent for extensive executive powers; just in time for a megalomaniac to give himself a good chance of take advantage of them. And yes we are complicit in supporting Obama's regime. In particular, his unconstitutional drone program which is run our of Pine Gap in the NT.

10/5/2016 11:16:55 pm

Ya know, believe it or not, I was concerned about this article being pointless re it's audience already being convinced of its truth. I would like to thank you, Y (if that is your real name), for letting me know that I wasn't writing in vain after all.

11/5/2016 02:01:40 pm

If you believing that helps you sleep better at night, then you're welcome.

Comments are closed.

Cruel to be Kind, To be Cruel

Archives