In aus.religion.christian Joan <> wrote: > "Chris Ho-Stuart" <> wrote in message

> .

[snip]

>> I do not believe for a minute that consideration or care for

>> legal applicants is the motivation behind the popular support

>> for refusing the tanker permission to land.

>

> Neither do I.

>

> However, before we say "it is important for us to be kind" we need to

> consider if kindness is always kind.

In this case, I believe kindness is kind, to all concerned. The kindness I would have liked to see is not actually all that kind; the detention centers are no bed of roses.

>> However, you still ask a good question, which deserves an answer.

>>

>> My answer is: no; it would not be unfair on people making legal

>> applications for us to allow these people to land and be processed.

>> It is not as if we are proposing to give them immediate residency.

>

> I doubt those making legal applications will see it that way. How long is

> the wait?

Neither did the people in Jesus' parable see it his way. That is the risk with using Jesus as an example. He often sees things differently.

In any case, note two things. First: I am not proposing we simply give the asylum seekers residency. I am saying we should have allowed the Tampa to land and taken the asylum seekers into the same custody as we would do for other illegal arrivals, rather than attempt to wash our hands of the matter and leave 460 people languish on a container ship. (But I would like to see improvments in the detention centers generally.)

Similarly, we should not leave illegal arrivals to swim for it if one of these little boats actually founders without a compassionate freighter nearby willing to answer a mayday. It is worth mentioning that already we have a case now of a vessel deciding NOT to answer a request from Australian Search and Rescue to proceed to assist with a mayday call; and this is directly attributed to the shoddy treatment we gave the Tampa after her rescue.

Second: if there is a problem with long waits for legal applicants (and I think there is a problem!) then the solution is to try and speed up that process -- not to use that as an excuse for refusing to accept a responsibility of care for illegal arrivals on our shores.

>> But it would be unfair, unkind, and uncompassionate for Australia

>> to reduce or limit normal processing of legal applications based

>> on handling of these the boat people.

>>

>> Recall Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard -- all were

>> paid the same wage, whether they worked all day, or just for a few

>> hours towards the end of the day. Was this unfair on those who did

>> the full day's work? Jesus suggests not: those who worked all day

>> were paid in full the fair and agreed wage.

>

> This isn't a good parable to use as an example for us to ignore illegal

> activity and disregard for our laws.

I am not proposing we ignore illegal activity. I am not proposing we disregard any laws.

I am proposing we treat these people like we treat all other illegal arrivals. But I am not in favour of a blanket refusal to consider the possibility that illegal arrivals are genuine refugees that merit compassion and support and help to find a new home. Being illegal in this case does not automatically make people bad, or unworthy of our compassion.

I think there is a tension here between being legalistic, and being compassionate. I'd rather we were compassionate. I think the Tampa is a special case: it was not one of the ferries carrying illegals. It was a freighter than had conducted a rescue on the high seas: and I wish we were the kind of people who looked first at the immediate needs of the people and *then* worried about the legalities.

I think it would be entirely reasonable (albeit expensive!) to have patrols to find and turn back illegal shiploads of people attempting to land on Australian territory. But once they have landed it is another matter; and when they have been rescued from a sinking vessel at our request it is also another matter.

Once they have landed, I think we should accept responsibility for people (in fact, we are legally obliged to do so); and I think we should have applauded and backed up the master of the Tampa for his actions in taking responsibility for vessels in distress at sea, which he did at our request. I do not think allowing the Tampa to land would be setting a precedent for welcoming illegal ships (the Tampa is not illegal).

I think Jesus' parable is a very good example for dealing with the matter of "fairness". Frankly, I think fairness is a red herring, that is part of the message of the parable.

Fairness was not the motivation for turning away the Tampa, and I think we agree on this point. Being fair to our legal applicants means handling their applications as quickly as possible. Fairness to our legal applications does not imply refusing to give any consideration to the case of people who arrive illegally.

>> Similarly, we should establish fair and reasonable procedures and

>> quotas for legal applications, and stick to them: regardless of

>> what is happening to others. That is fair.

>

> "Fair" would be letting the laws of this land take place.

We would have broken no laws by allowing the Tampa to land, and taking the illegal arrivals into detention.

>> The Tampa is a special case, and we should consider what is fair

>> and right in that case as well; and if we want to be the best

>> people we can be we should also consider what is compassionate.

>

> The only reason the Tampa is a special case is because it got world

> coverage. Where was compassion when the other boats were turned away.

The Tampa is a special case because it was a perfectly legal ship which came to the rescue of another ship in distress, at our request.

>> The downside for allowing the Tampa to land and discharge the

>> people she rescued is that we incur expenses in looking after them,

>> and that we potentially encourage more people to try and make the

>> illegal journey to Australia.

>>

>> I grant these downsides, but I am surprised (actually, I am not

>> really surprised) that they carry much weight in this newsgroup.

>> Since this is a supposedly a newsgroup for discussing Christianity,

>> I think it appropriate to ask what Jesus would have done. This does

>> not give a final answer to the questions for me (since I am not

>> a Christian) but I find it interesting that no-one else has asked

>> this question.

>>

>> I suspect the reason is that Jesus' answer -- as is often the

>> case in many issues -- would be unpopular.

>>

>> There is only one credible answer to the question of what Jesus

>> would do. He would have taken in the boat people, cared for them,

>> and worried about the costs and consequences later, if at all.

>

> So as not to offend or start 'world war 3' ... I won't comment on that.

>

>> Frankly, Jesus' teaching is fine for a single man or woman; but I have

>> noted previously that it is not always completely appropriate for

>> someone with a family. Same goes for a government; Jesus' individual

>> example is not always a good guide for a national policy. Christians

>> may disagree; but if so I would expect them to oppose the hardline

>> policy supported by secular Australia right now.

>>

>> I will proceed to consider some aspects of this one specific

>> case, of the 434 asylum-seekers aboard the Tampa.

>>

>> First of all, it should be noted that the master of the Tampa

>> picked up the asylum seekers at the request of Australian

>> search and rescue authorities. He diverted, guided by Australian

>> aircraft, and rescued a large number of people from an unseaworthy

>> vessel. Regardless of who they were, or why they were traveling,

>> or how foolhardy their trip; surely everyone at least agrees that

>> a rescue was appropriate.

>>

>> Next, the Tampa started to sail for Indonesia. This was the right

>> thing to do. The sinking ferry was from Indonesia, and they were in

>> the Indonesian sea rescue zone (though the actual rescue was requested

>> and co-ordinated by Australia). However there were several problems.

>> Indonesia did not want them; and threatened to fire on the ship if

>> it approached. The asylum seekers did not want to go back, and asked

>> to go to Christmas Island instead. And also Christmas Island was the

>> nearest port.

>>

>> Someone here spoke of "piracy", as if the captain was forced to go

>> to Christmas Island, and Ruddock has spoken of "duress".

>>

>> No doubt the asylum seekers argued aggressively against a return to

>> Indonesia, and apparently some threatened to jump overboard. But

>> shouting and tantrums are not piracy, and neither are they truly

>> duress. The captain remained in control, and he made the decision.

>

> The captain was reported as being under a great deal of duress.

By Ruddock. His crew put it rather differently. They said he was calm and collected throughout, and acted at all times as he saw fit for the safety of his ship and people she carried.

There is no suggestion that the captain was actually forced to do anything. Desperate people threatening to jump overboard is certainly a way of applying pressure; but calling it "duress" is Ruddock's little excess. The captain was also pressured by Indonesia apparently threatening to actively repulse any attempt to land. Quite likely he thought Australia would be more sympathetic.

We used to have that reputation.

In comparison with Indonesia, I think we still do, but only just.

>> Faced with a difficult choice, he headed for Christmas Island:

>> and it was four hours away rather than ten to Indonesia. Neither

>> nation was going to make him welcome.

>>

>> I consider that Indonesia is the worst villain in this drama; they

>> had a clear obligation to allow the Tampa to dock. The rescue was

>> in their zone of responsibility; the people had obviously come from

>> Indonesia; and Indonesia was the nearest suitable port for a large

>> freighter.

>>

>> However, Indonesia's dereliction does not absolve Australia of all

>> moral responsibility.

>>

>> Australia requested the Tampa to make the rescue, and I believe

>> that gives us some moral responsibility to support the captain in

>> subsequent events. Australia (Christmas Island) was also the nearest

>> port of call, and 438 extra people on a container freighter is

>> (IMO) grounds for immediate response to the people involved.

>>

>> Indonesia should certainly have been the ones to accept the

>> rescued people. Their refusal to do so put the captain in a

>> very difficult position. I wish we could have been more helpful;

>> and I do not think the expenses, costs or consequences are so

>> terrible that they would outweigh in the balance the concern

>> we could have shown.

>

> Consider the long-term, when does the line get drawn?

Somewhere on the other side of refusing to let a freighter unload people she rescued on the high seas at our request.

I think the major effort needs to be diplomacy with Indonesia, and attempting to set up co-operative actions to deal with the flow at the source, before they set to sea. A more expensive and much less efficient method is unilateral patrols to turn back ships at sea.

But I don't think we should actually sink ships, or refuse to aid vessels in distress, or be anything less than enthusiastically magnanimous to those who have effected rescues on our behalf.

Once a ship lands in Australia, legal or illegal, I would like compassion to take precedence, and for us to accept responsibility for the people on our shores. This does not mean simply granting residency. The flow of refugees involved is not large, by international standards; and it never will be.

I also think the line should not be drawn against all illegals; some of the people who arrive illegally on our shores are people who need and deserve our help to find a new home.

Thanks for a calm response: I trust I have responded in kind!

Best wishes