Testament of Racism in Australia - Essay Example

Response to Asylum Seekers; a Testament of Racism in Australia Name Course Instructor’s name Date Table of Contents Introduction 3 The False Beliefs 6 Denial of racism 7 Conclusion 9 ‘The Australian response to asylum-seekers demonstrates that racism is alive and well in Australia.’ Do you agree? Introduction The realities of globalisation are now intertwined with the modern forms of racism. Castles (1996) argues that while the traditional targets and victims of racism persist. In Australia it is true that the policies towards asylum seekers are an obvious show of racism. Asylum seekers are people claiming refugee status with the eligibility of their cases yet to be determined. Australia accepts very limited number of asylum seekers and is in fact the country which accommodates the least number of asylum seekers in the world. This however should not be attributed to our racist nature but to the fact that Australia is detached from most world conflicts (Einfeld 2002). In the United Kingdom asylum seekers are given housing while in the United States they are released immediately. New Zealand allows asylum seekers under temporary visa permits until their claims are determined. Australian on the contrary has made several attempts at making policies that deter asylum seekers from finding refuge in the country. Australians are largely tolerant to cultural diversity this may be attributed to the increased interaction with other countries. According to a survey done by Dunn & Forrest (2004) many Australians are very positive about living in a multicultural country. They do not get the sense of insecurity and are not uncomfortable with cultural difference. In this survey it was also unearthed that many Australian still feel that racism is a major problem in their country. 41% of Australians view migrants as outsiders and unworthy of being accommodated. Only ten per cent of those interviewed found cultural diversity to be problematic (Dunn & Forrest, 2004). This group has the perception that some cultures are inferior while others are superior. They also believe that there is a grave need for segregation of social groups according to the superiority or lack thereof. This separatists and supremacists are the destructive minority that causes the generalisation of Australia as being a racist country. Successive Australian governments have implemented policies aimed at deterring asylum seekers. Mandatory detention is one such policy that has been aimed at reduction of the number of asylum seekers. In 2001 after the Tampa crisis the government enacted the pacific solution. This legislature allowed for accommodation of asylum seekers in the Nauru and Manus Island in New Guinea while their claims were being processed. 11 years later this was disbanded and the remaining asylum seekers were settled in Australia (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), 2002). In 2013 the government enacted a Regional Settlement Arrangement (RSA) which allowed for accommodation of asylum seekers who are found to be truly refugees. All others were relocated to their home countries where they had rights of residence. In 2012 a majority of asylum seekers was from Afghanistan, sri-lanka, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. In the same year 15,963 applications for asylum were made in Australia. This makes up about 2.2% of global applications for asylum seekers. This percentage constituted 7% of the national immigration intake and 4% of the population growth (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 2013). These policies have reduced asylum seekers to a statistical data without any rights. The policies have effectively removed the people’s ability of self-determination and self-efficacy. While in the detention asylum seekers are not referred to by their names but by their reference numbers. This has led to 20-25% of the asylum seekers suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (HREOC 2002). This results from the denial of their human right of expression and identity because of the fact that they are asylum seekers and are therefore inferior to other Australians. In Nauru detention most asylum seekers have exhibited signs of post-traumatic stress disorder. This is complicated by the torment they went through during the conflict in their countries and the lengthy detention they are now subjected to. In addition to the psychological problems, Marr and Wilkinson 2003 note that asylum seekers suffer serious medical problems. It is obvious from the argument above that the mannerism in which asylum seekers are very unpleasant situation. The most damaging aspect of the scenario is that the public is not trying to have its government change the policies against asylum seekers. This can only be taken to mean that they are in agreement with the government’s position. Betts (2001) review of the Australian situation indicated that the population is becoming more hostile towards asylum seekers. In a study by Pedersen et al (2002), a majority of Australians had negative or at least indecisive attitudes towards asylum seekers. The attitudes were related to the individualistic differences between the two groups of the population. These same differences had been issues of concern in the case of racism against indigenous Australians and the torrent islanders. What exactly is the cause of these negative attitudes? Betts 2001 notes that the Tampa situation is a case of islamophobia. This was derived from the frequent rape cases by a small group of Lebanese youth which led to the generalisation of negative attitude toward the Middle Eastern people. The negative attitudes develop to complicate into three types of racism that Australians unanimously want to deny. The first type is the individualised racism against asylum seekers. On ‘Inside Woomera’ by Four Corners (2003), a guard can be heard yelling to an asylum seeker… “F*** you… you are a f***ing ugly Arab…” Secondly is institutional racism. Institutional racism is evident in the inaccessibility of essential social resources such as education to the asylum seekers in Australia. Australia is also the only country that implements mandatory detention to asylum seekers. Detention is mostly in camps located in rural areas and with deplorable conditions. This is the manner in which Australian government as an institution treats people who have not committed any crime against their laws. Einfeld (2002), notes that worse criminals are eligible to apply for bail or appeal but this is not the case for asylum seekers. The last form of racism is cultural racism. Vilification of Islam’s cultural aspect of women wearing hijab as being inferior to western clothing is a show of cultural racism. Cultural racism is the same type of racism that is applied to indigenous Australian (Jones, 1997). The False Beliefs In finding a suitable justification of the government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, false beliefs have been instilled in Australians. This has followed means such as main stream media and scholastic discourse. The beliefs are that the asylum seekers are queue jumpers in the immigration process. In a study by Pedersen et al (2002) it was found that 64.3% of Australians believed in this lie. The truth is that Australia has no diplomatic installations to handle immigration processes in countries with conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq (Edmund Rice Centre for Justice and Community Education (ERCJCE), 2002). The majority of asylum seekers are from these two countries. The second lie is that asylum seekers are rich and have to pay people smugglers to get to Australia. Pedersen et al (2002) indicates that 52.9% of Australians believed. ERCJCE, (2002) found that asylum seekers sacrifice and sell all their possession. Payment of money to save your own life in time of conflict has been occurring in all the major conflicts such as the World War 2. This does not illegitimise their position as asylum seekers. The third misconception is that the government provides all manner of incentives to asylum seekers. Pedersen et al (2002) revealed that 41.7% of Australians believed that their government provided asylum seekers with all necessary hand-outs. The actual case is that asylum seekers have very few entitlements (department of immigration and multicultural indigenous affairs, 2002). In an analysis of the relation of the misconceptions outlined above and the fear of asylum seekers, Pedersen found out a very strong correlation exists. Denial of racism While many democratic countries, Australia included, denounce racism and have enacted anti-discriminatory laws, there is a deafening silence about its existence and prevalence. This forms part of denial that racism exists. This denial is articulated in arguments such as “racism is a thing of the past” or “it only exists in the minority”. Other arguments only want to focus on what unites people and not on the fact that racism exists. The notion of racism as a social problem determines the production of information gathered about the problem. Critical race theorists identify it as a major issue in relation to research and knowledge. The minimal knowledge available is part of the denial of racism as a problem in Australia. This determines what people know, who exactly knows and how they know. The ultimate result is the assumption that racism is non-existent in Australia, of course until uproars by the victims erupts. Australians generally have scanty knowledge about the experiences of victims of racism. It is questionable why there needs to be so much silence about racism. Australia has a legacy of racism that it has not reconciled with. The asylum seekers aside, Australia is haunted by the racial controversies about the massacres of aboriginal people. It is by racism that social relations are structured. Racism determines the range of personal and institutional practices that serve to devalue, segregate or exploit people. Racism has been used for long as a tool for power and a way of maintaining privilege. The group that maintains privilege does not see the benefits it has or admits to the suffering of the under privileged people (Johnson, (2013). According to Castle (1996), it is the dismissal of everyday experiences of racism that results in denial and lack of validation of the subjective experiences of individuals. If the Australians can admit to racism, this will raise debate on power sharing between Australians and the asylum seekers. Racism predominant features include the power to represent, negative evaluation of others and to make the representation prevalent in the public domain. Challenging the silence on racism is a difficult task particularly since the dominant group hold all the power. There always is resistance when instances of racism are voiced. The beneficiaries of racism do not want to accept that they have invested in racism and have fear of being accountable. Considering they hold power and dominance the discussions on racism face a lot of difficulties. Denial of racism in Australia is further complicated by the impact of discourse on human perception. The scanty discourse and misdirection of the available sources creates a sense of denial in the victims of racism themselves. Some researchers may however hold the stance that the government’s position towards asylum seekers is not a show of racism. They argue that this stance is caused by a passionate sense of nationalism which makes them protect their borders against asylum seekers. Other counter arguments pose the fact that Australia has never experienced conflicts and therefore have no sense of understanding towards the asylum seekers (Jupp 2003). Regardless of the origin of the negative attitude, it is imperative to note that the negativity is very difficult to change once instilled in the population. Conclusion The attitudes of Australians to asylum seekers are similar to the case of indigenous Australians. There is however dearth of information comparing attitudes of Australians towards with most being directed to indigenous Australians. Australians compliance with human rights obligations is majorly dependent on a robust refugee determination system. The current system is a show of modernised racism and negates arguments that Australia is a racially accommodative country. Policies enacted to control illegal immigrants have in effect led to discriminatory tendencies that orchestrate into acts of racism in the general population. The government has not effectively accommodated asylum seekers in a manner that uphold their human rights. They have also managed to control information to portray a positive image of their strategies as aspects of nationalism. The asylum seekers are portrayed in negative light as queue jumpers and free riders on government allocations. Arguments that Australia is not racists are in effect a way of denying the actual facts. Denial of racism effectively justifies acts of racism. Denial of racism may appear as less harmful compared to slavery and segregation. The hidden power of denying racism lies in the normalising and sanitising the belief system of the superior race while demonising the belief of the inferior group. Denying racist nature of Australian is in a way advocating for acts of racism as it means that there will not be any reprimand. This explains the ineffectiveness of the anti-discrimination legislation. Racism denial has consequences for both the targets and the racists. References Betts, K. (2001). “Boatpeople and public opinion in Australia”. People and Place, 9, 34 – 48. Castles, S 1996, ‗The racisms of globalisations‘, in E Vasta & S Castles (eds), The Teeth Are Smiling: The Persistence of Racism in Multicultural Australia, St Leonards, NSW, Allen & Unwin, pp. 17–45 Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) (2002), Fact sheet on temporary protection visas. Dunn, K & Forrest, J 2004, ‘Constructing racism in Australia’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 409–30. Edmund Rice Centre for Justice and Community Education (2002). Debunking the myths about asylum seekers. In J. Healey (Ed.), Australia’s Immigration Debate: Issues in Society (pp. 29 – 31). Rozelle: The Spinney Press. Einfeld, M. (2002). The Great Australian Brain Robbery: The hijacking of the Australian conscience. Paper presented at the Annual Human Rights and Social Justice Lecture. Australia: University of Newcastle, Callaghan. Four Corners (2003). Inside Woomera. 19 May 2003 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) (2002). A report on visits to immigration detention facilities by the Human Rights Commissioner. Sydney: HREOC. Johnson, C. (2013) ‘Winning hearts and minds’ (draft chapter for forthcoming book on 2013 election campaign) in folder entitled ‘Manuscript resources’ Jones, J. J. (1997). Prejudice and racism. Sydney: McGraw-Hill. Jupp, J. (2002). From white Australia to Woomera: The story of Australian immigration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marr, D., & Wilkinson, M. (2003). Dark victory. Sydney: Allen & Unwin Pedersen, A., Contos, N., Griffiths, B., Bishop, B., & Walker, I. (2000). ‘Attitudes toward Aboriginal Australians in city and country settings’. Australian Psychologist, 35, 109 – 17. Refugee Council of Australia (2003). Myths about refugees. Available at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/html/facts_and_stats/ facts.html. Accessed 14 May 2003 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (19 June 2013), UNHCR Global trends 2012, Displacement: The New 21st Century Challenge, UNHCR, p 3. Read More