Australia Day on 26 January is not for all Australians

Today is Australia Day, and I would like to be able to say “Happy Australia Day to all Australians, wherever you are, at home or overseas!”.  Unfortunately, I can’t do that because, for some of us, it would be in very poor taste.  The date of 26 January, which commemorates the arrival of the First Fleet in Botany Bay, in 1788, does not seem to me to be appropriate in XXIst Century post-“Apology” Australia.  (a Smudge)

To start with, the said Fleet was full of condemned criminals.  This includes the soldiers sent as guards, who had been given the choice between death and Australia.  And in spite of a few attempts at whitewashing this first lot of settlers, most of them were very real criminals and absolutely none of them, convict or guard, wanted to be in this country.  So why on Earth celebrate their arrival?  Surely we could have found a better date.  If this one is the best we can do, we are a very poor country indeed.  (another Smudge)

A second and, in my eyes, much more important reason for this date needing to be changed, is that it excludes our Aboriginal peoples from what is supposed to be a National Day of Celebration for all Australians.  Aboriginal Australians remember the 26 January 1788 as the first day of the invasion of their country by these uncouth British rejects and, if obliged to think of it at all, see it as a day of mourning rather than a day of celebration.

Aboriginals welcomed the First Fleet to Country, showed them where to find fresh water, showed them which berries were edible, and generally behaved toward these “visitors” just like any other civilized human being would in the presence of a guest who had travelled far.  Messages went back to Great Britain about “the natives” being “friendly”.  I think “courteous” would have been a better word, but it was impossible for these narrow-minded, pallid people to see a naked, dark-skinned person as civilized.  If you didn’t build a house and didn’t wear clothes (in 45 degrees Celsius heat), you were obviously some sort of inferior race, possibly not even really human.  (a Stain)

These British criminals brought not only their brutality and violence but also their illnesses.  Our Aboriginals started dropping like flies.  On top of this, as more and more of these disrespectful invaders arrived, sacred sites were violated and anger erupted.  From welcoming a guest as an equal to tolerating that he trample all over your customs and beliefs, there is a giant leap that, understandably, the First Australians refused to take.  Deaths occurred on both sides, but we all know who won the war.  (another Stain)

In 2008, Prime Minister Rudd apologised to our First Australians for previous governments forcibly removing their children from their families “for their own good”, thereby causing, not only the natural distress that can be imagined in such a situation, but also the break-down of cultural ties going back tens of thousands of years.  Adults were kept in what have been described as “concentration camps”.  Children were “educated” to become servants for “white” people.  The girls, and possibly even the boys, were often raped by their employers.  They were beaten.  They frequently didn’t receive their pay.  Some didn’t even know that they were supposed to be paid.  Until fairly recently, Aboriginals were not allowed to circulate in Australia without government permission.  This also includes going away to fight in both World Wars, where they were treated as equals by other soldiers, before returning to being… well, not even second-class citizens, when they came home, because they were not citizens of their own country at all, and obviously couldn’t vote.  (Stains)

Today, theoretically, Aboriginal Australians have the same rights as all other Australians.  However, all that they have suffered over the last couple of hundred years has made a lot of them prisoners of their own minds.  It takes a lot of courage and encouragement for our young Aboriginals to be able to take a deep breath and plunge into the waters of modern Australia, without drowning.  To succeed, they need to bathe in their different cultures, re-connect to Country, find their roots, and remember exactly who they are.  Some are now doing this.  Particularly in the Arts and Sports.  But there is still a long way to go.

Meanwhile, we must remember that Australia’s multiculturalism gives us the beauty of the Australian opal.  It is the multitude of our colours and cultures that makes us precious.  So why on Earth are we still using the commemoration of the arrival of the First Fleet as our National Day?  It means absolutely nothing to those Australians who do not have British roots (and the ones who do, like myself, are not particularly proud of those beginnings) while it is frankly insulting to our Aboriginal peoples.  It is definitely time for a change.  Any suggestions?

Human Rights and Asylum Seekers

Asylum seekers are not criminals.  They are people who have suffered violence, war, famine, torture and persecution.  They need our help, our compassion.  They want to be safe.  Seeking asylum is legal under international law.

Why doesn’t the Australian Government, led by Julia Gillard, acknowledge this?  A smudge.  Why is the Opposition Coalition, led by Tony Abbott, spreading misinformation about these desperate people?  A blot.

Australia has obligations under United Nations Conventions on Human Rights and Refugees.  Why is it hesitating about living up to them?  A blot.

No asylum seeker should be sent back to any place that puts his or her life in danger, or exposes him or her to persecution, torture, or any other harm.

The process of assessing claims to asylum should be open to public scrutiny.  The temporary detention of asylum seekers on Australia’s mainland, for the purposes of health and security assessment, should also be open to public scrutiny.  These detention centres should be open to NGO scrutiny and monitoring of living standards as well as of compliance with Human Rights.

Asylum seekers should be moved to community based accommodation as soon as their assessment shows no danger from health or security, to wait for their claims to be finalized.  While there, they should benefit from financial and case work assistance.

A transparent appeals system should be put in place for those asylum seekers wishing to appeal against a refusal of their claim to refugee status.

Legitimate refugees should be given adequate financial and resettlement support.

What’s all this mucking around?  All this “boat” talk is just trying to drown the fish.  It’s not going to happen.  Deal with it!

Note to voters:  the Australian Democrats have a comprehensive Human Rights policy which englobes the above.  In the absence of anything concrete vaguely resembling Human Rights for asylum seekers coming from either the Government or the Opposition Coalition, I would suggest seriously thinking about getting a few ADs back into the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Someone has to get on with something constructive that respects Human Rights.

Random Drug Testing law breaches Human Rights Act

The Australian Capital Territory has a Human Rights Act.  A good one.  The Federal Government should look at it.  It might learn something.

Why did the ACT blot its copy?  Why did it vote a law ignoring Human Rights?

Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Watchirs, says that Random Drug Testing could be incompatible with our Act.  In a 2008 speech, she particularly raised concerns about

arbitrary detention/arrest of the individual, subjecting people to have medical treatment without free consent, an arbitrary interference with their privacy, arguably creating problems of an unfair trial, negatively impacting on children’s rights”.

In 2010, she says the same thing.  And that it would fail a legal challenge in the Supreme Court.

So it might.  I don’t know.  That bit isn’t my problem.  My problem is that it was voted.

Why do we have a Human Rights Commissioner?  No-one listens to her.

So, now we have this law.  No “intent” clause.  Not connected to driving safety.

I walk down the street.  I mind my own business.  And bang!  A few burly policemen want my blood.  To test.  For what?  “Drugs” is a bit vague.  What sort of drugs?  The ones my doctor prescribed?  Or just illegal ones?  Is a trace enough?  How long do they stay in my blood?

Or, I’m a car passenger.  Not even at the wheel.  No danger on the road.  Doesn’t matter.  Blood!  How many times can I be tested per day?  Should I carry iron tablets?  Anaemia could set in.  And is the policeman (or woman) with the needle qualified to use it?  On me?  What if I’m haemophilic?

My test is positive.  For something.  I’m a car passenger.  I can be charged.  The law has no “intent”.  I don’t have to be dangerous to road safety.  I’m sleeping.  In the back seat.  Tranquillizers in the blood.  Guilty!

OK.  I’m driving.  Tested positive.  How much “drug” impairs my judgement?  We don’t know.  How am I going to be charged?  What is the alcohol equivalent of whatever it is I’ve taken?  We don’t know.  There is no Standardised Field Sobriety Test.  I’ll never get to trial.

No extra police officers for all this.  How much overtime will they do?  I want my needle-wielder to be fully awake.

Privacy campaigner Darren Churchill says

This law should be repealed, and should not be re-introduced until there is a proven, scientific method of measuring the relationship between different quantities and types of drugs and the level of impairment to driving associated with them for a legislated drug-induced impairment equivalent to 0.05 Blood Alcohol Concentration, scientifically established.

The law must also be written to conform with our excellent Human Rights Act 2004.”

Hear!  Hear!  I think.

Anyway.  Now we have a big blot.  Fix it.  Fast.  Before it stains.