In this age, it seems there are protests in many different countries. Some of the issues are worth fighting for. the corruption in Lebanon has been going on for years, and the people finally had too much, and protested. in Lebanon, the government has listened to the people and have relented, vowing to cut politicians wages, remove some nonsensical taxes and have said they will fight the corruption.
In Hong Kong, the people are protesting the so called autonomous rule of their region, which is overseen by the communist Chinese regime. The fact that they are communist makes me question the worth, or good of protesting. Historically, communist regimes do not listen to the people and do whatever they like. They broke a promise to keep their hands off the politics of Hong Kong, but communist regime are not to be trusted.
There have been protests all over the world about climate change, and the humans contribution to it. Now I am not an advocate of climate change, but I do think that we have a responsibility to care for the world in which we live. We cant expect a place to continue to provide shelter and food, if we do not help ourselves. So… recycle, cut down on waste, plant trees and grow vegies. There are policies that governments have that are not helping to care for our earth, and these should be protested against.
Immigration from refugees has been a reason to protest in Europe recently, most notably in France and The Netherlands to name two countries. While I have compassion for refugees, I can understand that people feel over whelmed by the sheer volume of people coming in, taking refuge from war and violence in their countries of origin. European countries can question whether their infrastructure can cope with the sudden influx of so many people. It is one reason that Britain is defecting from the European Union. Britain wants to control who comes into their region and the amount of people they allow to resettle in their countries. France has had man protests recently. The Yellow Vest protesters have been protesting the rise in fuel tax, while the red scarf group and the blue vests, protest against the violence and hate of the other protesters.
“The Red Scarves marched in Paris last Sunday in a “March for Republican Liberties” along with other allied groups, including the “Blue Vests,” or “Gilets Bleus.”
The Blue Vests also call for an end “to all forms of violence and hate” and the group’s founder Laurent Segnis wrote on the group’s Facebook page in late November that “we want to show that there are more and more of us refusing these blockages, refusing these violence, these obstacles to freedom, these attacks our freedom of opinion.” He argued that road blockages would only prompt more unemployment and insecurity.
“We denounce this insurrectional climate created by yellow vests,” he said.
It is important for people to have a voice, to be heard by the government and not to be ignored. In a democratic political system, the people are supposed to be represented by elected representatives chosen by the majority of people in that region. ( I wont go into the merits or problems with preferences). The first place we must protest then is through the member of parliament chosen to represent us. When this fails, then we have a right to take to the streets in protest. Voices of many can be heard when people protest. Protesters must concentrate on the message they wish to convey, using language that is respectful, and making sure the focus is on the problem, not attacking people personally.
I can understand some protests becoming violent, when people are fervent about the issue they are presenting. Violence occurs when the language of diplomacy fails. But when violence occurs, the issue is put to one side, and concentration on stemming the violence takes precedent. The sympathies of the world and onlookers are lost when violence is introduced, by either side… protesters or officials. All credibility is lost when people are hurt, or threatened, or when property is destroyed. When people are hurt or property destroyed, does it advance the cause of the protest? no. The officials do not look at the issues that started the protest, but focus on quashing the violence.
Hong Kong being a case in point. We agreed with the protesters that the communists needed to keep their promises of letting the region have autonomous rule, but they didn’t. And no amount of violence or protests will change their minds. They are communists, they don;t listen to reason.
Chile troubles me. People have lost their lives, been shot by the police. Curfews have been put in place, giving police the authority to arrest people who break the curfew. Does anyone in the world realise what the protests are about? We do not focus on the issue, but on the violence and the lives lost, without knowing the cause they are fighting for. The problem is, the issue is so minor, that protests should not have happened, and the violence is not justified. The issue is that a group of secondary school students were protesting at having to pay fares on public transport, and the rise in prices of that transport. I understand that there is inequality in Chile and that some people ar struggling, but violence is not the way. Now Chile is not considered to be a poor country. In fact the world bank rank it as a high income country and has said that it is South Americas most stable and prosperous nation. Chile is a democratic country, but was previously a dictatorship. Many of the policies of the current government have roots in the former dictatorship. There needs to be dialogue between people and government, and if the government is not listening, then vote them out,
I think we need to not sweat the small stuff, but vehemently protest the big stuff. Argue for the rights for everyone to live in a safe and healthy world, without war, violence or disease. Violence has no place in dialogue between the people and the officials who govern a country.
(written after my course ended but still relevant to the course, so I have included it under the subject of American Writing in the menu,)
Recently I studied Allen Ginsberg, Kerouac and other beatnik poems. Ginsberg called himself a pacifist. I questioned this. I believe I have the same protesting spirit as Ginsberg and others, however I do not call myself a pacifist.
a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind. 2. a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service. Compare conscientious objector.
A passivist is something quite different. It means being submissive in nature, particularly in a sexual situation.
I am not sure which Allen Ginsberg was referring to, I don’t want to think about the second. I do believe he was a lover of peace, however was not a true pacifist in the sense of the word.
My words, writing my mind can be a weapon against an oppressive, corrupt or unjust government, rulers or laws. As a protest poet, I shoot my literary arrow deep into the hearts of leaders, and others who can make a difference, until their hearts bleed empathy. I do not stop until I wound. I am not to kill with my words (as a famous song does), but to heal. Where one was running into battle as an oppressor, he now limps away, with his heart changed and fights for the opposition to the oppressive.
My words, my art and my photos are not meant to leave you comfortable if I am working on a social justice or human rights issue. They will not give you warm and fuzzy feelings. They are meant to make it feel like you are sitting on granite, something hard and uncomfortable enough to make you want to move.
I just watched the movie I am not your Negro on the suggestion of my Literature teacher.It is an amazing movie which highlights the struggle that negro people, and other have had at the hands of white people for over 400 years.
Negro people did not ask to come to America. They were brought to America to serve white people. They were slaves to the white man until 1865, but still considered inferior to white man until very recently… well some white people still consider anyone different from themselves as inferior. Negroes were not able to go to school with white children until 1957 following the civil rights protest at Little Rock High School.
Although the 15th Amendment of the Constitution allowed black men to vote from 1896, many states discouraged negro men from voting by including clauses which stated that black men had to be literate to be allowed to vote, and some states also put a tax on voting for negro men. It wasn’t until the 24th amendment in 1965 that Lyndon B Johnson removed all barriers to allow negro men AND WOMEN, the right to vote, thereby treating them as equal citizens.
Black people were shown in advertising from the 1890’s but the images were generally shown in subservient roles, such as Rastus and Aunt Jemima. It wasn’t until the Civil Rights movement that black people appeared as equals in advertising. It seems then that the nation was starting to come around.
Progressively the nation has included many different skin tones and racial diversions in all walks of life. In 1968 Robert Kennedy announced that America could even have a black president in 40 years. That proved to be true with the inauguration of Barack Obama 40 years later.
The movie showed the rise and fall of such civil rights leaders as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jnr and Medgar Evers. These three leaders were strong voices in the civil rights movement which dared to say that blacks were equal to whites. Malcolm X was a black Muslim leader who thought that peaceful protest was useless. Martin Luther King Jnr was a leader who was a Christian who believed in peaceful protests through negotiation. Medgar Evans was a leader who was promoting desegregation primarily in the public school system. Because these men dared to buck the system, they were all assassinated. The idea was ‘to keep the blacks in their place’.
Its not only in America where white people think they are superior to other races. We look at Apartheid in South Africa. We can look at the colonisation of various countries including Australia and India to name but 2. The treatment of native peoples at colonisation or invasion is appalling. White America does not have a good record here either. The treatment of Native Americans, including Indian nations and Inuits still continues today.
The line that stood out for me in the movie was “White is a metaphor for power”. This is true the whole world over. James Baldwin equates it with Chase Manhattan bank. That is to say that White man considers themselves far superior to any other race on Earth,
I saw a sign held up in a protest in the movie that said “Don’t you wish you were white?” No. I am ashamed of my skin colour and what it stands for. I don’t look at skin colour as a difference between people. However, I can see how other people, in suppressed minorities might look at me, as a white man, and be scared, even hate what I represent.
James Baldwin says in his movie that he doesn’t want to be a Christian, as he believes that in America at least, the Christians haven’t yet learnt the golden rule “Love One Another”.
Mark Twain has been called “the Father of American Literature” and his work Huckleberry Finn the Great American Novel.
Samuel Clements was his real name. He took the name Mark Twain after his time as a riverboat captain on the Mississippi river; Mark Twain meaning deep water, of a safe place to passage.
Mark Twain is taken, on face value, as a humourist. He was the master of colloquial language. This is what brought him success as a writer.
A lot of his writing comes from his own experiences. While looking at his biography, I was amazed at how much he did during his life. Twain tells us to write what we know. It is because twain had a lot of life experience that his writing could be so diverse and plentiful.
Twain knew what it was like to be poor, he knew what it was like to have plenty…and then to lose it all again. He started life as a poor boy who had to leave school at 10 to work in the mines. He made a lot of money with his works and with his lectures and essays. Twain was a master in the newspaper and magazine world while he was still working in the area. Then he lost it all when he invested in a printing or typesetting machine that was too complex to run.
Mark Twain became outspoken in his later years and spoke greatly against Imperialism. America was going to war with Spain to make the Phillipines an American territory. Twain thought at first that America was trying to liberate the Phillipines to create a new republic with their own government. It was when he discovered that the Phillipines were not to be free but come under the power of an Imperialist American government, he penned a short prose entitled The War Prayer.
This is a dramatised version of that short story.
Mark Twain was saying to us, to think before we act or even pray. For praying for victory in battle is to pray that some fellow humans lose, not only their battle, but their lives.
Twain accomplished something that I too wish to do with my writing. While my main mission remains the same… “to bring beauty to those who cannot see it for themselves”, I choose also to highlight the atrocities of war, of cruelty and injustice done to all people of the world, in hopes that by highlighting, people who in a position to stop the abhorrent acts committed against fellow human beings, may read my words and be persuaded to act.
Twain told us that in remaining silent, we perpetuate the lie that all is well. To ignore atrocities is to endorse them. Let us act with compassion towards our fellow humans. If we as single voices cannot cause change in the hearts of a regime who promotes injustice and inhumane acts, then we as a collective can do more by uniting our voices, in protest against those acts. We need to make our voices public.
Twain by writing the War Prayer was voicing his disgust at the senseless violence of war. By writing Huckleberry Finn, he was using sarcasm and irony to voice his opinion about slavery. The novel is in fact about freedom. Freedom not only of the slave Tom, but freedom for Huck, from people who would bind him, cause him to conform to society and their practices.
I recently completed a philosophy course on Ethical perspectives. It was hard going. We were asked to look at an issue that is current and discuss the ethical perspective of the people involved. In other words… “What makes them think its OK to do what they do?”.
Below is the essay I submitted on the ethical perspectives on Asylum seekers. While the subject is not enjoyable, and may cause you to squirm in your seats, I do hope you will enjoy being enlightened and informed.
The Australian Government is not alone in their inhumane treatment of those seeking to become citizens of a more preferred country. I hope my international readers will take a look at your countries treatment of displaced persons and protest, even peacefully at the treatment of fellow human beings.
That the Australian Government use all means possible to stop unauthorized people entering Australian territorial waters (borders).
The purpose of this preface is to show a learning outcome of studying ethics, and in particular my writing of this paper on the ethics behind the topic. This preface is not to be considered as part of the essay but is purely one student’s reflection of the course studied.
That the Australian Government use all means possible to stop unauthorised people entering Australian territorial waters (borders).
This issue is alive. It is not an issue on which we can look back with hindsight and think “how could we have done it better”. It is an issue which is daily evolving as the problem of forced migration will remain with us as long as we have inhumane governments preying on vulnerable people.
I have been greatly impacted by all the information surrounding asylum seekers and the Australian Government policy concerning it. Until now, I have been unaware of all the issues surrounding asylum seekers and like others believed the rhetoric that the spin doctors spun.
Previously I had made assumptions that all that was told to me through the media and by politicians was true, call me naïve. Now I am aware that I don’t know the true motivations behind certain policies or what ethical perspective people are coming from. It causes me to research and ‘dig deeply’ to find the true motivation behind the rhetoric.
Researching the issues covered in this essay has opened my eyes not only to the motivations behind the policies but also to the concerns surrounding the people who are desperate enough to risk life and limb to get away from the dangers of remaining in their home country.
I have become passionate whereas prior to studying ethics, I was blissfully ignorant. If it didn’t affect me, then I wasn’t concerned. I guess studying ethics has awakened within me the ethics of care that was sleeping within. I now feel the need to research for myself topics before becoming a staunch advocate of one side or another purely on one newspaper report or one point of view.
This course has ruined me for life. I can no longer read a news article or watch the news and accept things at face value. I am no longer content in my ignorance, but must be informed before I make a decision on an issue.
My thanks go to the staff for their guidance in this topic and to my fellow students for their insight and opinions on such a variety of issues. Also I think that the Mission Australia sponsored learning partners are an invaluable resource which as a student I am greatly appreciative.
21 May 2014
That the Australian Government use all means possible to stop unauthorised people entering Australian territorial waters (borders).
I have compassion for the people that try to enter our borders, going to extreme lengths to ensure they arrive to Australia. I come from an ethics of care perspective. I believe the Australian Government should actually care for all people equally, showing no bias to current citizens over potential future citizens. Australia has responsibility to care for displaced persons under international treaties (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1951) and as a global citizen.
The Australian Government espouses an ethics of care in its Sovereign Borders policy (Liberal National Coalition, 2013). If this were truly the case, then it is to be applauded, as it would be doing its duty as a global citizen and also what is morally right. If this were truly the case, then caring for the asylum seekers once they arrived within our sovereign borders would be the priority, not turning them back, detaining the people within detention centres or processing them offshore where their welfare is not best served. This essay will argue that it is not an ethics of care that the Australian Government is coming from; but rather a consequentialist ethic on so many levels.
In the Sovereign Borders policy, the Liberal Government states a key objective is to protect asylum seekers aboard the boats that come primarily from Indonesia (Liberal-National Coalition, 2013). Many have drowned or risked their lives by attempting to travel to Australia in unseaworthy boats provided or captained by people smugglers. I will endeavour to prove that the true outcome of such a consequentialist policy is that “it is not a question of stopping people dying at sea (the ends), it is just that this Australian Government just wants these people to die somewhere else” (pers.comm. Michael Foley quoting Phil Glendenning’s 2014 Palm Sunday speech, 26 March 2014 ). I will show that Kant’s categorical imperative should apply: at all times people should not be seen as a means to an end, but should be valued as individuals in themselves (Burgh and Freakly, 2000, p. 114).
The Australian Government has an ulterior motive. The Australian Government has adopted a policy with a utilitarian or consequentialism perspective towards asylum seekers coming by sea and justifies this as necessary in order to protect Australia’s ‘national interest’ and to preserve the relationship between the Government and the people it serves. This consequentialist approach is encapsulated by Minister Scott Morrison in his statement:
What the people smugglers and anyone trying to get on a boat need to understand is that this Australian Government will take the actions necessary to protect Australian sovereignty and stop the boats. (Morrison, 2014)
A Minister in the Howard Liberal-National Government expressed similar views:
The protection of our sovereignty, including Australia’s sovereign right to determine who shall enter Australia, is a matter for the Australian Government and this Parliament.
This means the Australian Government uses the definition of sovereignty as ‘the right to exclude’ (Gelber and McDonald, 2006). It will decide who is worthy of humanitarian aid and whose visa is granted on humanitarian grounds.
The policies and attitudes of the Australian Government create an ‘us and them’ mentality. Instead of embracing those coming from countries where safety and even life cannot be guaranteed, it forms in the mind of current citizens that, since these asylum seekers are perhaps different culturally from us, then they should not be permitted to cross our borders. It marginalises people who have fled these countries with little more than the clothes on their back, branding them as criminals and a potential threat to our safety without any evidence of this.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship statistics show that on average over 93% of asylum seekers asylum seekers are granted visas (after appeal) to remain in Australia in the period 2008 – 2013 (Cited by Refugee Council of Australia, 2014). These people have proved to be genuine refugees and enrich the lives of communities who choose to embrace them often opening restaurants and various retail outlets reflecting their culture. Such diversity can also be found in the different religions in communities settled by immigrants.
Three former asylum seekers serve as notable examples of this. Ahn Do, the famous comedian, was an asylum seeker who arrived by boat from Vietnam in 1981. He came with his mother and little brother Khoa Do who was named Young Australian of the year in 2005. Accepting his Young Australian of the Year award, Khoa Do said, ‘I hope it might just inspire young people from other backgrounds to find their own way in life and maybe make a difference.’ (Do, 2005). Tan Le was named Young Australian of the year in 1998. She arrived by boat with her family in 1982 when just 4 years old.
The asylum seekers are not permitted to work while on Temporary Protection Orders. It is not until they have obtained a permanent Protection Order (or granted asylum seeker status) that they are able to work, have access to medical assistance and social security. The asylum seekers are not going to take jobs that could have gone to Australian Citizens. Often asylum seekers will do work that no one else wants.
Under an ethics of care, which is an agent based approach; all people have an intrinsic value. Each life is valuable and one should not place greater importance of one life over another.
According to the 2014 Australian National Budget, the desired end of a consequentialist policy is to save money. It costs less to turn back boats, to process asylum seekers offshore, to return them to countries of origin than it does to house and care for people physically, mentally, socially and spiritually within our borders. Money continues to be spent on ‘managing the legacy’ of Labor’s border control failures (Australia’s 2014 National Budget cited in Lyon, Daily Telegraph, May 14, 2014).
Meeting the needs of a growing population absorbs and saps our political energy. It requires a lot of money – money for transport infrastructure, money for new electricity and energy infrastructure, money for water infrastructure like desalination plants. And building these things requires effort – effort from the private sector, effort from public servants, effort from politicians. There are decisions to be made, conflicts to be resolved. (Thomson, 2010)
The desired end for marginalising people who attempt to arrive by boat is to garner support from voters. To not provide aid to people is to save money, therefore no changes to taxes are needed. To embrace asylum seekers and provide assistance in the forms of housing, health, jobs etc. all costs money that the voters need to supply. This while not getting voter support from asylum seekers themselves; these people have no right to vote.
There was a substantial increase in people attempting to arrive in Australia by boat, known in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection as ‘unauthorised maritime arrivals or UMAs, over the last decade. Between 2003 and 2013 the number rose from 53 to 20,587. This may seem large on a national level but on a global level Australia absorbs a relatively small number of people seeking asylum. In 2012 10.5 million refugees were hosted by countries around the world. Australia ranked 49th in the world hosting just 30,083, or 0.29% of the world’s refugees (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2012). The need is certainly there. Each day brings more news of countries in strife and Australia, along with Canada, are desired destinations for those fleeing such countries.
The current Liberal National Coalition Australian Government, along with the previous Labour government, is determined to enforce its sovereign borders by all means possible. This includes turning boats back or towing them back to Indonesia, detaining people seeking asylum in inhumane conditions; most in offshore detention centres, returning people to countries of origin despite the danger that these people will be persecuted or even killed and firing across the bow of boats to deter them from entering the Australian territorial waters.
Turning the boats back to Indonesia, towing them, or providing other safe passage back to Indonesia puts those people on board at risk of persecution, imprisonment and inhumane conditions. They are not welcome in Indonesia and are either imprisoned or sent back to their country of origin. Returning these people to Indonesia or sending them to other countries for processing creates an underclass of people not wanted and therefore persecuted and treated inhumanely until they can be returned to the countries of origin. They will not be granted citizenship or refugee status by Indonesia as Indonesia is not a signatory to the treating concerning displaced or stateless persons. While this is a utilitarian or ‘useful’ approach (consequentialist) it does not address ethical obligations that arise if an ethics of care (or even non-consequentialist approach) was used.
The Australian Government is currently working on having agreements in place with Papua New Guinea to resettle people from Manus Island detention centre and Cambodia to house refugees currently residing on Nauru. Australia is ‘fobbing off’ its responsibilities as a signatory of the convention concerning refugees and stateless persons to third world nations, sometimes without that capacity to assist. Failed compliance with international standards include placing people in arbitrary and compulsory detention, not providing fair or efficient procedures for asylum claims, not providing safe, humane conditions (UNHCR, 2013). This can be seen as unethical from an ‘ethic of care’ perspective.
Detaining people in refugee camps or detention centres either in Australia or in third party countries has proved to be detrimental to the mental and physical health of those detained. The Australian Government provides mental health workers to detention centres to minimise the effects, but this does not stop people detained from sewing their lips together or going on hunger strikes as a protest to the their treatment. It has come to light recently that although mental health nurses and psychologists are employed on Manus Island, there is not a fulltime psychiatrist.
In his film, ‘A Well Founded Fear’, Phil Glendenning and his team from the Edmund Rice Centre research the fate or demise of those rejected as refugees by Australia. This film and the associated report found that many people returned to their supposed country of origin were persecuted or killed as a result of returning to a hostile country.
Glendenning also learned that Australia has been deporting people to Syria on short-term visas who aren’t Syrian. When their Syrian visas run out they must go into hiding. Equally disturbing is evidence that Australia has been knowingly using false passports to deport people (cited in Film Finance Corporation Australia & November Films, 2008).
The use of force in the laws of the sea is acceptable in times of conflict. Are we at war with asylum seekers? Under the 1982 Convention on the Laws of the Sea (LOSC), of which Australia is a signatory, forcing a boat to halt or change course” must be avoided as far as possible. Where force is unavoidable, it must not go beyond what is ‘reasonable and necessary’. Turning back the boats therefore does not meet our obligations under this treaty and is therefore not in keeping with an ethics of care.
The Australian Government is coming from a consequential or utilitarian ethical perspective. The end justifies the means. The aim or end result sought is to have the borders protected and the means of entry into Australia by boat stopped. The Sovereign Borders policy seems to have been successful, in that fewer boat arrivals are reported in the media.
It has now been 95 days since the last successful people smuggling venture. For the same time period last year the number of IMAs that arrived was 3,116. The number of SIEVs during that same period was 55. (Operation Sovereign Borders Joint Agency Taskforce Spokesperson, 24 March 2014 cited in Leslie & Corcoran, 2014)
It is clear from the statistics that while the Labor Government was in power, the number of boat and asylum seekers increased dramatically. Something needed to be done in stemming the tide of people arriving by boat. The current government policy is that anyone arriving by boat will not be processed on Australian soil and will not be granted a visa to live in Australia, whatever the situation.
The percentage of asylum seekers who are successful in their bid is over 90% with very few people refused entry. The total immigration for 2012/2013 is over 200,000 people. The 200,000 places granted includes over 20,000 immigrants from England, New Zealand and India. That is 20,000 from each of these countries, not as a total. Yet we are concerned with the comparative few who arrive by boat.
Many asylum seekers are even prepared to be detained in processing centres for the privilege to be able to settle in Australia after fleeing a country where persecution, war, torture and murder are the norm.
Concluding, the aim of the sovereign borders policy is to stop boats containing asylum seekers from entering Australian waters; thereby protecting the lives and lifestyle of people already citizens of Australia. In that sense, being a utilitarian ethical perspective, it has been a successful operation as the flow of boats has seemingly slowed or even ceased by information released to the media and passed onto us, the citizens.
It is my belief that if the government was coming from an ethics of care, it would increase the immigration places allocated to humanitarian causes, granting quick visas to those who are desperate enough to come by leaky boats and decreasing the immigration to others who are not under any threat of harm in their country of origin. The Australian government could further show an ethic of care by quickly processing those already in detention centres and thereby reducing the need for such centres. Those people arriving under desperate conditions should be housed and cared for in the community and processed quickly, so they are able to gain employment, access health care and everything else a citizen enjoys in Australia.
Many articles under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1958), The United Nations on the Law of the Sea (1982) and Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees (2010) are being totally ignored or flagrantly broken by Australia. Coming from an ethics of care perspective, the question needs to be asked is; “Why does Australia remain a signatory of these agreements if it has no intention of upholding these treaties?”
Burgh, G and Freakly,M (2000) Engaging in Ethics. Ethical perspectives. Katoomba NSW: Social Science Press, 95-140
Gelber,K. and McDonald, M (2006) Ethics and exclusion: representations of sovereignty in Australia’s approach to asylum seekers. Review of International Studies, 32, 269-289. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0260210506007029
Glendenning, Phillip (2008) In Film Finance Corporation Australia & November Films (2008) Press Kit for the film ‘A well-founded fear’. Retrieved from http://www.novemberfilms.com.au/assets/inline/AWFF_Press_k it_FINAL.pdfGlendenning, P. Speech given to Palm Sunday Rally and March ‘Declare Peace on Refugees’, Hyde Park, Sydney on 13 March 2014. Pers.comm., Foley, Michael, Australian Catholic University, 26 March 2014.
Ruddock, Phillip (2001) Member of Australian Parliament, House of Representatives Hansard, 18 September 2001, 30869-72.
Thomson, Kelvin (2010), MP for Wills, Population growth and the democratic deficit. Address to the Australian Capital Territory Branch of Sustainable Population Australia, Wednesday 10 February 2010. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Sue/Downloads/100210%20population%20and %20democratic.pdf
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2013) UNHCR monitoring visit to Manus Island, Papua New Guinea 23 to 25 October 2013. Retrieved from http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/images/2013-11- 26%20Report%20of%20UNHCR%20Visit%20to%20Manus%2 0Island%20PNG%2023-25%20October%202013.pdf