Media, myths and racism

Last week the ASRC published a blog revealing how the The Sunday Telegraph was fuelling myths that asylum seekers were unlawful queue jumpers who cheat Australia’s otherwise generous and orderly refugee program.  The Telegraph was at it again last weekend (06 Nov 2010) with an article by Piers Akerman who wrote,

“Gillard has been forced to scramble to house the thousands who want to jump the queue of UN-approved refugees and take advantage of our generosity…  [she] has no idea what, if anything, her government can do to rein in the numbers of people who will pay people-smugglers to bring them to our waters simply because they wish to live here… Under John Howard… those who chose to break the rules were penalised… We no longer decide who can come here; we accept whoever arrives…”

Asylum seekers do not choose Australia “simply because they wish to live here” but because they are forced to as a result of persecution in their home countries – they don’t run to, they run from. Furthermore, undocumented boat arrivals break no Australian laws in seeking asylum and there is no orderly queue which they jump to get here. Only genuine refugees are allowed to remain, not “whoever arrives” as Akerman claims. He goes on to write,

“The stream of boats would indicate that the people-smugglers… on reaching Australian waters, they [sic] can promise their clients housing, medical treatment, welfare payments, schooling and every other benefit available to an Australian citizen.”

Akerman knows very well that asylum seekers do not have access to Centrelink or other benefits eligible to Australian citizens “on reaching Australian waters” as this was already pointed out to him in a letter from DIAC on a previous occasion where he had repeated a similar falsehood. He unashamedly fuels these myths with racist undertones by asserting that “globally, the West is under siege from Muslim immigrants,” many of whom “do not accept the culture of their chosen country.”

The Daily Telegraph wasn’t the only media publication fuelling myths last weekend. In an opinion piece titled “Consultation a key to ensuring reason rules in refugee debate,” (8 Nov 2010) The West Australian wrote,

“There are legitimate concerns about asylum seekers who jump the immigration queue and pay people smugglers to deliver them to our doorstep.”

While criticising those who direct their anger at refugees, the same article fuels greater intolerance by spurring more myths as it poses the following question:

“More than half the boat people who have arrived this year were from Afghanistan. It is reasonable to ask why the young men among them should be abandoning their country when Australian soldiers are putting their lives at risk to protect it from the Taliban. Fleeing from war is understandable but should they not be prepared to help defend their people?”

The notion that Australian soldiers, but not Afghan asylum seekers, are willing to die to defend the peoples of Afghanistan while those who end up on our shores “abandon their country” is a direct attack on the moral integrity of the victims of Taliban cruelty. The implication is that brave Australian soldiers are dying while cowardly Afghans flee to Australia.

Commentators in the blogosphere have picked up on these same sentiments with comments like this one by Godfrey Saint who remarks that, “it is absurd that Australia is fighting for these people in Afghanistan but they do not want to fight for themselves.” Or this one by Louise who writes, “these fit and able men should be helping the US and its allies to win the war in Afghanistan and bring peace to their country. If they want the freedom and democracy that we have, they should stand and fight for it in their own country just like we have.”

Apart from the fact that such options are unlikely to be available to those who are forced to flee persecution, no human being is under any obligation to engage in warfare as a response to maltreatment. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to suggest that every able-bodied member of the Afghan civilian population could or should enlist in the national army and mobilise for war. It is implausible and undesirable as a solution to the deep sectarian divisions and destruction inflicted after decades of war and occupation for which the reconstruction of civil society is of vital importance. Finally, there are plenty of good reasons for Afghans not to join the security forces in support of the government of Hamid Karzai given it is largely dominated by fundamentalist and corrupt warlords who have no interest in a free and democratic Afghanistan.

Furthermore, in contrast to these popular beliefs, the most up to date official statistics indicate that the Hazara population (the group who constitute the majority of Afghan asylum seekers in Australia) are in fact overrepresented in the Afghan National Army (ANA) relative to their population size. While they make up approximately 10% of the population, they represent approximately 20% of the national army, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction Quarterly Report to Congress (30 October 2009, p. 59). Furthermore, Hazaras have enthusiastically participated in the Presidential and Parliamentary elections and fully cooperated with the security forces of the newly established government along with foreign forces. In the south of Afghanistan, the Hazara peoples have fought ferociously with the ANA against the Taliban. Altogether then, the allegations that Afghan asylum seekers have “abandoned their country” are not only baseless and inflammatory but wholly inaccurate.

Time after time, dominant voices in the media continue to pedal unsubstantiated myths about asylum seekers despite the facts being well documented. Unfortunately, much of the Australian public seem to acquiesce to these misconceptions. The latest opinion poll reveals that 63% of Australian’s think the government is too soft on asylum seekers, while only 7% think it’s too tough. Meanwhile, many Afghans continue to suffer in Australia and abroad.