Philosophy and Politics [, Cambridge University Press] 2.
By Peter Mares Updated October 14, Unless we ground our responses to asylum seekers on a political level as a matter of addressing injustice, we risk faltering when emotions sway.
Mark Trenorden There has been a pause in boat arrivals but the asylum seeker issue hasn't gone away. Now is the time to outline a more just solution that accounts for past responses and international law, writes five experts.
Current policies to prevent and deter asylum seekers from reaching Australia by boat are justified by the assertion that these policies save lives. Yet forced and irregular migration is a global phenomenon, so tighter controls along some borders tend to increase the level of migration along other routes and across other frontiers.
If all borders are closed to them, they will continue to suffer the harm from which they would flee if they could. So, should Australia simply ignore the loss of life at sea and accept people-smuggling to our shores as inevitable?
That would amount to applying a survival-of-the-fittest filter to refugee protection - prioritising those who manage to raise the money for a perilous journey and then survive it. Such acceptance would also ignore the potential pull factor that successful journeys to Australia can create.
But nor should we accept the application of systematic cruelty to unauthorised arrivals in order to "send a message" to deter others from making a similar journey.
This is ethically indefensible. It is to use people as means, rather than to treat them as ends. It is also rank hypocrisy to claim to care for the wellbeing of asylum seekers, while inflicting extreme Unpopular essays 1950 outline of intellectual rubbish on those who actually come within our effective control.
A more humane and ultimately more effective way of addressing forced and irregular migration is to adopt long-term strategies that will reduce the number of asylum seekers wishing to get on boats in Indonesia or elsewhere. This approach requires us to engage with the issue of why people feel compelled to leave their home countries.
Inequalities lie at the heart of forced and irregular migration, and necessitate more sophisticated approaches to addressing its root causes. This is not to say that our response should be limited to addressing the root causes of displacement; but any response that does not tackle these root causes risks losing sight of the fact that forced and irregular migration is a symptom of broader problems.
Human mobility is the result of a complex mix of factors. The dichotomy that contrasts "genuine refugees" with "economic migrants" is misleading because it suggests that every individual falls into one category or the other. In fact, all migration derives to a greater or lesser extent from an uneven distribution of security the ability to live a safe, dignified life with a reliable livelihood and opportunity the capacity to flourish.
The fact that security and opportunity are generally more available to Australians than to, say, Hazaras in Afghanistan or Congolese is an accident of birth, rather than a matter of entitlement. However, those who lack security and opportunity will not inevitably seek to obtain it in Australia or other wealthy countries.
In fact most people are attached to their homes and loved ones and want to live well where they are or in close proximity to home. Nevertheless, inequalities lie at the heart of forced and irregular migration, and necessitate more sophisticated approaches to addressing its root causes.
In responding to forced and irregular migration, Australia may need to determine thresholds of security and opportunity that engage either our international legal obligations or our moral duties.
However, those thresholds should not be used to denigrate or victimise people who fall below what will always be an imperfectly drawn line. The current demonisation of "bogus" asylum seekers and "economic migrants" is unhelpful, as is the use of the term "illegals" to delegitimise those who may have good reasons to travel without prior authorisation.
Dehumanising non-citizen others those referred to as "aliens" not too long ago and subjecting them to state-sanctioned cruelty does long-term damage to citizens' relationships with each other. Much like the effect of colonialism in a previous era, a punitive policy of deterrence is likely to lead to a brutalisation of society.
There are thus profound civic and self-interested reasons to fundamentally rethink our response to asylum seekers and other irregular migrants.
The current policies directed at asylum seekers are wrong because they are unjust. They may also be characterised as disgraceful or shameful or heartless, but advocacy for a just policy cannot rely on fickle emotions such as anger or shame or pity.
Compassion towards asylum seekers and anger at policymakers who appear to lack compassion may be useful in prompting reflection. However, unless we ground our responses to asylum seekers on a political level as a matter of addressing injustice, we risk faltering when emotions sway.
Working within the laws At a minimum, Australia's response to forced and irregular migration must accord with its international legal obligations.
Since the continued existence of the international legal order is vital to Australia's own security and prosperity, it is in Australia's long-term interests to abide by the rules of that order independently of what we think about the rights or wrongs of particular aspects of it.
Asylum seekers are people seeking the protection of a state other than their own because their own state is unwilling or unable to fulfil the protective functions expected of a state. The Refugee Conventionas modified by the Refugee Protocolimposes obligations on Australia with respect to "refugees" as defined in those treaties.A classic collection of Bertrand Russell’s more controversial works, reaffirming his staunch liberal values, Unpopular Essays is one of Russell’s most characteristic and self-revealing books.
Written to "combat the growth in Dogmatism", on first publication in it met with critical. James Boyle The Public Domain Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. Copyright © by James Boyle. The author has made this online version available under a Creative.
Christianity considered as a slow, long-term injection of Jewish fiction into Europe, is new, at least to me: from this viewpoint, Christianity was a disaster, more or less comparable with modern-day effect of Jews as frauds, liars, and war-mongers, hating and trying to destroy Europe and benjaminpohle.coms, Popes and so on more or less correspond to 'politically correct' collaborators of Jews.
Unpopular Essays was published in by George Allen & Unwin; I will be using the Routledge paperback, which includes. an Introduction by Kirk Willis and a one-page preface by Russell. The Routledge edition first appeared in ; my copy is a reprint. Here is a list of the titles of the twelve chapters: 1.
Philosophy and Politics /5(1). 7.
An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish [, Haldeman-Julius] 8. The Functions of a Teacher [Jun , Harper's Magazine] 9. Ideas that Have Helped Mankind [, Haldeman-Julius] Ideas that Have Harmed Mankind [, Haldeman-Julius] Eminent Men I Have Known [c.
–49] /5(4). Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays (), "Outline of Intellectual Rubbish": Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.