Racsim sucks: and so do policies aimed at discriminate against refugees

Hey everyone


I given some thought at all the things that have been happening around refugees. Given the new position (outrageous) by the Rudd Government, I thought it would be time for a bit of a discussion about the way we see the world and our response to refugees.


Why this blog now? Because I am looking into the issue of racism as I prepare for a trip to Stockholm that a very unfriendly volcano seems to have thwarted. What I am researching is the way that the issue of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ is treated in our popular culture. The outcomes of that research are still coming and I am in the midst of writing a paper which I will hopefully publish in the not too distant future.


The motivations for this research have two distinct directions: the first was the underlying themes that emerged in Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy (that is, The girl with the dragon tattoo series, or in its original translation Men who hate women). One of these themes is the way that migrants are the target of violence and derision: ignored, violated, cheap labour and so on.


The second motivation for my research is the fact that Australian pop culture remains, essentially, colour blind. There are few positions for the non-white protagonist in Australian movies and television. Yes, there are exceptions but there is no way that the monochrome world of television reflects our multicultural society. Pop culture is such an important part of our society that we need to use it both as a mirror and as well as a significant guide towards attitudes: what does the lack of diversity tell us about Australian society.


Like I said, I will delve deeper into this at some future point - both with another blog and more formal publishing because now I want to highlight some aspects of refugees and amazing anti-racist activists that are responding to Australia’s stance on refugees – which I believe is deeply problematic and essentially racist.


To begin with, we should note that a refugee, according to the 1951 UN Convention, is:

Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

It is surprisingly easy to identify who is a genuine refugee: it is hard for someone to pretend to speak another language or fake a religion. If someone claims that they are from somewhere, then it is quite easy to ask them some questions to confirm this.


A few facts from the Edmund Rice Centre that confirm that Australia does not have a refugee problem. Australia remains down the bottom of countries that see both refugee arrivals and those seeking asylum. Let's look at some of the statistics:

• Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 Tanzanian people (1:76)
• Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British people. (1:530)
• Australia hosts one refugee for every 1583 Australian people. (1:1583)

There are many myths about refugees which there is no reason to list here but I recommend you check out the Refugee Council of Australia website where some are listed and responded to.


I can only think what I would do if that was me and my family and we were forced to leave a country or persecuted: I would do anything to protect them. What drives refugees are push factors (that is, things happening back in the home country) not pull factors, such as Australia’s policies on refugees (see http://www.smh.com.au/national/oceans-apart-over-brutal-reality-20100402-rjy2.html).


I fear that the Australian Government’s position, along with the Opposition and the trashy newspapers, radio stations and tv stations is aggravating a sense of concern and unease that Australians are feeling. This sense of unease is being used for political purposes and real leadership should be shown by the Federal Government rather than pandering to the racist posturing by the federal opposition. Both parties need to come together and take a humanitarian stance: we should not be playing with people’s lives.


This is made clear in a recent campaign undertaken by Amnesty International titled Don’t use asylum seekers as political footballs. There is a petition there that over 110,000 people had signed (including me). If you are passionate about this issue or simply want people’s rights and dignity to be respected, I encourage you to sign it.


In addition, there is a very cool group that has been set up celebrating Australia’s diversity: The anti-bogan website which states that ‘True Blue is not Skin Deep’. I like these guys – and they have an awesome facebook page! Join up and support their work through their petitions and also spreading the word.


If you want to see the human story about refugees, here is a story featuring a friend of mine. He is interviewed by the voice of America about Afghan refugee and recent Australian government policy to suspend cases of asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. You can follow watch it here.


I think this remains a key issue for Australia and we need to show everyone that tolerance, peace and humanity over rules hate and ignorance: don’t hate my friends, marinate! This week in Queensland the Hammered music festival was held and it is co-sponsored by the Southern Cross Hammer Skinheads. This is an international race-hate group banned in Germany for spreading Nazi messages! A group of activists stood up to them by holding their own peace festival.


By standing up and refusing to accept racism, we can help blunt those who use it for their own ends. We can also change the political culture of this country!

Cheers, james

Socio-logic this week - 14 April 2010

Hey everyone


This week we had a pretty big week on socio-logic with so many things happening…


The f-word conference


This conference was held in Sydney over the weekend of 10-11 April 2010 to discuss contemporary feminist issues - something we should all be interested in.


Over the years I have found that many of my students feel that feminism has become an dirty word: something that they cannot relate to or is relevant to them.


This is deeply problematic as many of the issues that have faced women remain in our society. Sure, we have a female deputy prime minister as well as a female CEO at Westpac Banking Corporation but there are some fundamental inequalities that remain that we must confront as well as new issues that have emerged.


For example, women are still the primary carers for children and elderly parents and do more housework. They tend to do this while balancing careers or simply casual/part-time work. We still have a small percentage of women in executive/senior positions and women earn about 60 percent of what men do in the same positions: these issues have been raised repeatedly by some impressive and successful women including Ann Summer, Eva Cox and Jane Caro.


There are also some new issues that need to be confronted. The rise of cosmetic surgery and the pressure on women to remain looking young is incredible.


Again, this does not dismiss the amazing achievements by many women or the changes in our society, but does return us to why feminism is so important: structural inequalities and discrimination remains in our society – and women often suffer from these.


It is for this reason that feminism is as relevant today as it has ever been.


Unfortunately the f.word conference blog has not been updated but please keep an eye out on some of the amazing things that are happening with this group and I am sure there are more to come: though this article appeard today in the SMH by Nina Funnell.



2. The decline of western civilisation?


The Sydney Morning Herald’s Phillip Coorey reported on a get together over the weekend of conservative thinkers including former Prime Minister John Howard and Arch Bishop Cardinal George Pell.


This is part of a broader trend of conservative thinkers who have been raising concerns about the ‘direction’ in which our society is heading.


I too hold some concerns – mostly to do with the fact that we seem to worship economic growth and progress ahead of everything. Authors such as Ronald Wright and Jarred Diamond have raised such issues: both authors I recommend you read.

This was not the focus of this group. Rather their concerns revolved around issues such as:

• - The collapse of Judeo-Christian values;
  - The rise of secularism;
  - The emergence of a strong green movement;
  - Loss of the family unit; and
  - The influence of Islam in our society.
  
  

These types of concerns are nothing new and have emerged throughout Europe and the USA. The issue of the direction of society is important but I found their concerns miss the mark. For example, why would a religious ethic be more important that a secular ethic? We should not dismiss one, nor the other.

Further, we are not been over run by other religions but are a multicultural society: and many young Muslims are adopting secular values as much as Christians are.

The family unit is important – but there is no reason that non-traditional family units including same sex couples are not just as important.

Rather than being concerned about these issues, these incredibly influential and bright men (and some women) should focus on tackling some fundamental structural issues in our society: poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, displacement of people, racism and so on.

If we could sort these issues out then we would live in a better world and no matter your religion, you cannot disagree with that.

Refugees

Over the last few months the Rudd Government has been under increasing pressure by the Abbott Opposition to respond to the number of refugee boast arriving in Australia. This resulted in a freeze in processing applications from those seeking refugee status from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

Australian migration has a long and problematic history based around the fear of invasion. I do not have the time to write about this now but it I worth check out Ben Eltham’s piece on this from New Matilda.

We are part of a global humanity and to take this position on the most vulnerable shames us as Australians. There are better ways to do things and we should expect more from the Rudd Government.

Screw light bulbs: real climate change solutions

Can we have a clean, green future? Yes we can! This is the message from a new nook by Dr Donna Green and Liz Minchin. Their book is being launched at Gleebooks this Thursday evening – come along if you can – as well as buy the book to see some of the solutions they offer.

That is all from me… remember to email me at askjames@fbiradio.com if you have any questions or leave a comment below.

Cheers, james

Climate change denial: who are the big hitters

As I have seen the Australian government grow indifferent about the issue of climate change, I have started to reflect on which people have been driving this trend...

The election of Tony Abbott as the leader of the Opposition coupled with the massive failure of the Copenhagen negotiations means that action on climate change lost momentum. This has been also driven by some influential figures who have helped confuse the issues...

In the NewMatilda article I recently published, I list five influential climate change deniers in Australia... it is worth a read... as well as some of the interesting comments that follow

Cheers, james

Dont hate, marinate: help end homophobic violence!

Hey everyone

A friend of mine works on an anti-violence project with the aim of stopping homophobic violence.

You can help by taking part in designing the campaign...

Please votehttp://www.facebook.com/l/bc100;www.thisisoz.com.au - don't hate, marinate!

Cheers, james

Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons

Following on from my last blog on climate change fallacies and nuclear power, I had some emails thanking me and asking me some more questions. I am not an expert in this area but a recent article by Mark Diesendorf, where I am sourcing these fallacies from, can give you more details. So fallacy 6 is about spent fuel from nuclear reactors…

Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons

That is, spent fuel from nuclear power stations cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by noting that this is one of the most frequent falsities uttered by the nuclear industry and its supporters. This fallacy has been refuted by many experts including Dr Theodore Taylor, commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

MD presents the following information: a standard 1000 megawatt nuclear power station produces about 200 kilograms of “reactor-grade plutonium annually”. This, according to MD, is enough for 20 nuclear bombs. They reactor grade quality is below weapons-grade, it still has an amazing amount of destructive capability.

Attached to this fallacy is that nuclear power stations based on thorium rather than uranium cannot produce a nuclear explosion. MD says, ‘not true’: to use thorium as a fuel it must first be converted to uranium-233 which is ‘fissile’. This means that it can undergo nuclear fission and can be used as either a fuel or as an explosive in a bomb!

MD also reminds us that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intimately linked: each nation with power ambitions moves pretty quickly into establishing bombs… the more nuclear stations the more likely we are to see more nuclear weapons - something that no-one should be comfortable with.

Confronting climate change deniers 5: Nuclear is part of the answer

Given the recent election of Tony Abbott as Opposition leader who supports a nuclear solution to global warming (and who has been supported as such by some sections of the media), it is time to consider the nuclear equation. As such, I turn back to Mark Diesendorf’s book, Climate Action, to reflect on this. As the title of this blog suggests, this is the fifth fallacy that those concerned about climate change must be prepared to confront.


Response: In his book, Mark Diesendorf (MD) begins by noting that high grade uranium ore will, at current rates of use, only last several more decades. When this is all used up, we will have to revert to low grade ore.


What does this mean? Well, according to MD, for every 1 kilogram of yellowcake (a type of uranium concentrate), some ten tonnes of rock will need to be mined – a process which uses massive amounts of fossil fuels. The carbon emissions of this process will be significant. MD argues that the result would be no different to running a gas-fired power station.


Some pro-nuclear commentators have argued that this can be overcome using ‘fast breeder reactors’: which have the potential to increase the original uranium fuel by a factor of 50 to 1. In response, MD notes that the world’s last large such reactor was in France and only functioned for 276 days in its 10 years of operation, and was closed in 1998 after countless problems and cost eu9 million. Only one other such reactor is currently operating and is also unreliable. Even if this was not a problem and such reactors were reliable, they require large-scale processing of spent fuel which is intensely radioactive – which involves serious hazards and costs.


There are also economic reasons why nuclear power is not the answer. MD also explains that three commercial reactors have been built in the USA, but all have failed to be economically viable and been closed.


Then there is the waste issue. Overall, MD notes that while there are a handful of non-military plants operating successfully, there is only a small fraction of plutonium produced globally in nuclear power stations is being ‘recycled’: the rest is unseparated in high-level waste and stored temporarily next to the stations that produced it. How temporary: in some cases temporary has meant 50 years!


Another limitation of the nuclear option is the long planning and construction time – especially for new entrants into this industry. In Australia, MD notes, it would 15 years to get one up and running even if there was no public opposition (which is unlikely). Further, such dangerous technologies should never be rushed or things can easily go wrong (as we have seen various spills in Australian mines and English power plants).


Even in the UK, which produces about 19 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, there have been constant problems and a need to change the type of station being built: a process that has meant construction times have been long and the costs always much higher than predicted. A new station being built in Finland is experiencing similar problems: by December 2008 is two years behind schedule and its costs had escalated by about eu1.5 billion.


MD concludes that based on current technology, nuclear power is neither a short-term nor long-term solution to global warming. The so-called Generation 4 plants are at least 30 years away: if they ever arrive. In other words, nuclear power is a distraction from genuine solutions to global warming.

If you want more information on this issue, check out the article by Prof. Ian Lowe from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Confronting climate change deniers 4: CCS is the sole answer

Fallacy 4: We can solve everything using carbon capture and sequestration

Continuing my review of fallacies offered by climate change deniers discussed by Mark Diesondorf in his latest book, I now turn to a shorty but a goody! The fallacy is simply this: coal power with CO2 (carbon) capture and sequestration (or CCS) is the principle greenhouse solution.

Response: Big Mark D begins by note that a while a few components of this solution exist, it remains largely an unproven technology.

The federal government is pouring $2 billion into this technology in an effort to save the coal industry (yes kids, Mark does say $2 billion). Despite this, pilot plants will only be built in about 10 years with no commercial production possible until long after that.

In contrast to the Australian position, the US Government terminated funding to a power station with CCS technology because of the out of control costs. In addition, there are substantial risks that the carbon captured will escape – which adds to the cost and liability!

Despite this, Mark D does not dismiss the technology, but quotes the Future of Coal study that indicates it is possible that CCS can make a contribution but not before 2025. So rather than dismissing, Mark argues we should not put all our eggs into this unreliable and unproven basket. Rather, we should also be investing in renewable technologies that are ready to go (wind, solar and so on) as well as the ones that are close to fruition (such as rock geothermal)

Hard to argue against that one!

Cheers, james

Confronting Climate Change Deniers Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable

Continuing my review of Mark Diesendorf’s new book, Climate Action, I know move to look at the next fallacy…


Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable

This is a simple one - climate change is happening and is unstoppable, so why waste money on mitigation and spend it on adaptation.

Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by explaining the difference between mitigation (which means reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (which is reducing the impacts of climate change while doing nothing about reducing emissions).

The underlying assumptions for this position include that Australia is too small to have any impact on emissions (something that he repudiates in fallacy 2).

The second assumption is that expenditure on mitigation is expensive and ineffective and will not reduce the cost of adaptation. Big MD responds as follows: if the global mitigation effort is sufficient enough to avoid catastrophic tipping points, some mitigation is much better than no mitigation. That is, a 2 degrees rise in temperature will have a significantly smaller impact on the earth than a 3 degrees rise - so why just go with the worst possible outcome?

The third assumption is that the cost of adaptation will be below that of mitigation. For Big MD this is a ridiculous argument - and I have to say, I agree with him. He uses the following example to make the point:

One strategy of adaptation is building more dams in areas where droughts happen; as MD points out, however, what good is a dam if there is not rain brought on by climate change?

MD also quotes the Stern Review: where it notes that the cost of adaptation if climate change continues unabated, the cost of adaptation will be much more expensive.

The solution is quite simple: for some countries to take the lead and make changes. For them, they will be in a better position to take advantage of new clean industries that are going to emerge. In other words, time to show some leadership!