Fleeing from 'Peace'? Try again, Tony.

An ad by atat.ch church campaigning for the abolish of torture.

Something shocking happened in my country recently, something that made every decent Australian sick to the stomach.

Two boats, carrying a total of 203 Tamil asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, were intercepted by the Australia Navy in Australian waters, near Christmas Island. That is not the shocking part, up until recently, when the then-Labor government inhumanely slammed the door on asylum seekers, and the incoming Liberals put in place new policies with the same outcome, this was a fairly regular occurrence. Mr. Tony Abbott, and his government, gleefully point out that, obviously, its policies have been effective, because not a one single asylum seeker boat has landed in Australia for six months. Effective these policies have been; they have effectively shown the Australian people the sickening, inhumane levels their government is willing to sink to in an effort to ‘protect our borders’.

When the Australian Navy intercepted these two boats, the people were transferred from their unseaworthy, leaking vessels, into customs boats, and put through an “enhanced” (Abbott’s word, not mine) screening process. Under standard procedure, when as asylum seeker boat is intercepted, the people on board are asked 19 questions, the Tamils on board these boats were asked a grand total of 4: name, country of origin, why they had left, and where they planned to disembark. Then the customs boats were turned around and, in an undisclosed location in international waters, these people were handed back to the Sri Lankan navy, representatives of the very regime they had fled.

Of course, Mr. Abbott and his government have refused to confirm this, instead calling it “speculation”, but journalists from The Age, a paper owned by media entity Fairfax Media, were able to connect with the asylum seekers briefly, via satellite phone on the 28th of June. Mysteriously, the phone was cut off that day, and no further attempts to contact the asylum seekers were successful. Big surprise. And, while Tony Abbott and his government were still refusing to confirm that the boats full of Tamils even existed, the United Nations was expressing “profound concern”.

In 2009, a 26-year long civil war in Sri Lanka, between the majority Sinhalese, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, in which atrocities on both sides were well documented, officially ended. Officially. So, if the civil war is over and, as Mr. Abbott claims, Sri Lanka is a peaceful country, why are boatloads of Tamils still fleeing internationally? Why are they telling tales of heinous tortures inflicted on innocent men, women and children, Tamil, all of them, but with no connection to the terrorist Tamil Tigers? Why did two Tamils on bridging visas in Victoria, who feared they would also be returned to their country of origin, attempt to immolate themselves - one successfully - rather than face the prospect of going ‘home’? What fate could be so terrible that you would rather burn yourself to death than face it?

Very few Australians could ever comprehend such a thing, and certainly not the ‘man’ at the head of their government. The UN has documented multiple human rights abuses against Tamils in Sri Lanka, and some of the refugees were able to tell their terrible stories to Fairfax Media before their communications were shut down. One man was forced to witness as Sri Lankan police stripped his friend naked, and inserted a PVC pipe through his anus; another was hung from the ceiling by his thumbs, and beaten with PVC pipes filled with sand, sometimes for up to six hours. Others were made to watch while their daughters, wives and sisters were brutally gang-raped, and a group of 35 Tamils, accused of being Tamil Tigers, were forced to sign confessions in Sinhala, a language they did not speak or understand.

On that note, while Tony Abbott claims Sri Lanka is a country “at peace”, Smart Traveller, a website run by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, warns Australians to “exercise a high degree of caution” if they plan on going there. At peace are they, Mr. Abbott? Peaceful enough for their own people, but too dangerous for yours? Forgive me if I suggest you are engaging in racially based double-standards.

But, Australia has an agreement with Sri Lanka, or, as Immigration Minister Scott Morrison called it an “arrangement”. The long and short of this arrangement is that all boats carrying Sri Lankan nationals will be intercepted, and returned to Sri Lanka. Never mind that 90% of the people on board will be found to be genuine refugees, never mind that they will be facing jail, and torture, and the terrifying prospect of ‘disappearing’, every last Sri Lankan who attempts to enter Australia by boat will be sent back. Period.

The Abbott government claims the agreement is of international importance, and will help stop the “curse” of people smuggling. To this end, when Sri Lanka hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in November 2013, Abbott gifted the country with two patrol boats, each worth about $2 billion Australian dollars (how about spending some of that money on your own people, Mr. Abbott?). Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper boycotted the event, to protest Sri Lanka’s failure to investigate war crimes committed by its troops during the final stages of its civil war, including the slaughter of as many as 40,000 civilians; while British Prime Minister David Cameron attended, but spoke on human rights issues. Two world leaders, both with close, international ties to Australia, were prepared to stand up, and show their people that they would not sit quietly while innocent people were being murdered and tortured. Australia’s leader, instead of taking a brave stance, handed the murderers $4 billion dollars worth of vessels with a specific purpose: war.

Of course, I’m sure Mr. Abbott wouldn’t put it that way. He would, no doubt, claim that the vessels were not war-time paraphernalia, but a genuine effort by Australia to help Sri Lanka tackle its next big issue, now that the civil war was over: people smuggling.

Mr. Abbott obviously needs a newsflash. People smugglers can only operate where there are people desperate enough to hand over everything they have, put their own lives, and the lives of their families, in the hands of people who don’t give a sh*t about them, and climb on board an over-crowded, leaking boat, then set off for shores unknown. Certainly, the people smugglers outright lie to them, claiming there are jobs, and houses, and all other sorts of luxuries waiting for them when they step ashore but, it Tony Abbott would really like to fight people smuggling, he needs to start lending a hand to the third world, and funding programs to give these people housing, clean water, enough food, and education. Then the people will be able to start rebuilding their countries, the people won’t want to leave, because they’ll have safety and purpose, and the people smugglers will be out of work.

That future is, I admit, so far in the distance that it seems unattainable, but, if Tony Abbott’s long term goal is to stop people smuggling, then this is the path he needs to tread. With Australia’s finances slightly out of shape at the moment, and the Federal Budget having already been delivered for the 2014-15 financial year, it will not be possible for Mr. Abbott and his government to start making changes immediately, but, it is certainly not too much to ask that they consider the foreign aid spend in future budgets, and what they might put it towards.

People smuggling is a heinous crime, but the way to stamp it out is not through inhumane refugee policies, or sending asylum seekers back to the very people they have fled from. The way to stop it is to help people in the countries where the people smugglers operate feel they have a purpose, and a reason to stay. If we educate both majority and minority groups about their responsibilities, to themselves and each other, and stand up in the face of human rights abuses and torture, I believe that, in the future, we can create a world free of people smuggling and, eventually, a world where no one need ever feel displaced. Idealistic? Maybe, but, if we work hard enough, it might just be possible.

When Children Smile

Sometimes the world is bright and gay

And all’s well with each passing day

Under blue skies, green fields rest

Song bursts from birds with feathered breasts

But sometimes it all turns to grey

And raindrops fall where sunbeams played

Nature cowers, and thunders roars

But in these times, just stop and pause

Remember...

If things have been grey a while

Rainbows come when children smile

This is a poem I wrote for the 'Rainbows' writing prompt on my online writing community. I took a creative approach, rather than writing about a literal rainbow, I wrote about the little rainbows I see at work everyday: the smiles of the children.

10wk old baby being held by her daddy.

Note: This is not one of the children I work with, but the baby of my Literature teacher in 2010. I don't think she'd mind me using her photo to compliment my poem :) If you see this, Ms. Appleby, I hope you and your little family are doing well.

~ Jewels

In Loving Memory of Margaret Elizabeth Gibson Smith

I scattered flowers on the shore

And spoke a softly whispered prayer

That you’ll be here forevermore

I scattered flowers on the shore

But should you knock on heaven’s door

I will not hold you here, I swear

I scattered flowers on the shore

And spoke a softly whispered prayer

For Grandma: 6 December 1930 - 6 December 2013

NB: The photo is New Year's Dawn by Marc Dailo. I wrote the poem.

The Truth About Jaws (or In Defence of Sharks)

Last month, there were 2 fatal shark attacks in Australia; 1 in Western Australia, and 1 in New South Wales. As usual, the media hype surrounding the attacks has been sensational, and reignited calls for shark culls, and other acts of brutality against sharks.

Shark attacks are a rare event in Australia, and worldwide, at that. In fact, statistically, you’re more likely to be killed by a pig than a shark, but do you think twice before visiting a farm? If we bring it closer to home, on average, 121 people drown at Australian beaches every year, while, in the same time period, there is only 1 fatal shark attack. 2 attacks in one month is rare, and, in this case, the attacks were unrelated, with the Western Australian shark being a great white, and the one in New South Wales a tiger shark.

Great White Shark

But, why are shark attacks so named? Because, many of us would answer, the shark ‘attacks’ the person in question. Do they? ‘Attack’ is defined by the dictionary as ‘to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way.’ I would argue that a shark does none of these things, that they are not forceful, violent, hostile or aggressive, but rather, in many cases, are simply curious. Unlike us, sharks have no hands, with which to explore curious objects in their domain, so they must use their mouths which, unfortunately for the person or animal involved, are full of razor sharp teeth. In the majority of cases where a shark bites a human, they release the person when they discover that they are not a seal, or other prey. In the 220 years that shark attacks have been being recorded in Australia, there have been only 42 cases where a body was never found, and presumed eaten.

After a fatal shark encounter, a common public response is to call for the shark in question to be killed. Considering sharks are able to swim hundreds in kilometers a day, this is an unreasonable demand. In the wake of the latest two fatal encounters, however, there has been increasing demand for a shark cull to be carried out by the department of fisheries. Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia (where the first victim was killed), is among those in support of a cull. He justifies his position by saying that “the public is demanding that sharks, where they stay in popular swimming or surfing areas, should be destroyed.” While Mr. Barnett may be expressing the views of a largely uninformed public, he also states that this is his personal view - “I’m in that camp.” - at the end of the article.

Tiger Shark

The interesting thing about the calls for a cull, is that those demanding the department of fishers take this brutal step, are not likely to be found in the water in the first place. People who regularly use the ocean for recreation, such as swimmers, surfers, and kayakers, often profess a great love and respect for the sea, and all its creatures, including sharks. In fact, many surfers who survive an encounter with a shark say that they want to “get back on the board”. But, if I may return to Mr. Barnett’s comment for a moment, in particular, the part where he talks about sharks “staying” in “popular swimming [and] surfing areas”. It may come as a surprise to Mr. Barnett and his like, but sharks evolved to live in the ocean, and have more right to be there than any of us do. They live, eat, sleep, breed and die in the ocean, and are not able to come on land and survive there. Humans, like many land going mammals, have the ability to swim, however we are not amphibious, and have not evolved to live for long periods of time in the water. In short, Mr. Barnett is suggesting that sharks be killed simply because they happen to be swimming in their ocean when we want to use it.

Any large animal, on the land or in the sea, can pose a risk to humans. An adult, male Red Kangaroo, which can grow up to two meters in height, has sharp claws that can leave deep wounds, and packs a kick that can break a person’s ribs and/or fatally injure them. However, most of us do not think of Red Kangaroos as dangerous, rather, we respect them, and keep our distance if we encounter one in the wild. Sharks, on the other hand, and immediately lumped into the ‘dangerous’ category, and I’m not saying that this is wrong. Sharks are dangerous, and encounters between sharks and humans often involve serious injury, however, sharks, like the majestic Red Kangaroo, deserve our respect. In a climate like Australia, where summer temperatures can climb to more that forty degree celsius (104 degrees fahrenheit), its natural to want to cool off in the ocean after a hot’s days work. However, we don’t belong there, just like we don’t belong on the grasslands with the Red Kangaroo. Once we go into the ocean, we enter the territory of the shark, and must accept the risk, low as it is (1 in 292, 525), that we may have an encounter with a shark.

Hammerhead Sharks

There is still much we don’t know about sharks, but, one thing we have conclusively proven, is that sharks do not regularly prey on humans. Fatal shark encounters, like any death, leave holes in the lives of the victim’s friends, family and community, and it’s easy to blame the shark. But the shark did not deliberately attack that person, in all likelihood, they were investigating a strange, unfamiliar object in their territory. As tragic as it is when someone dies as the result of a shark encounter, I think it would be equally tragic to launch an offensive against the shark population, already in decline because of overfishing, simply for doing what they do in their ocean. It is time for people like Mr. Barnett to come down from their cloud, and acknowledge that a shark cull would only see these majestic and mysterious animals disappear from our oceans, which could have catastrophic long-term consequences for our marine life. As the apex predator, sharks regulate and control life in the ocean, ensuring that sea-life can continue on just as nature intended it, and they have been doing this for millions of years.

While these two recent fatalities, and the ones that have come before them, are tragedies, both men who were killed entered the water at their own risk. They did not deserve to have a fatal encounter with a shark, but nor do the sharks of Australia need to die. They have done nothing wrong. The only time shark hunting and culling should ever be condoned is when the sharks grow legs, and start to invade our natural habitat. Fortunately, I don’t see this happening in the near future and, until it does, there is no excuse for killing the sharks, in their own ocean, simply because we fear them.

(Taronga Conservation Society Australia, 2013, Taronga Zoo, viewed 29 November 2013, <http://taronga.org.au/animals-conservation/conservation-science/australian-shark-attack-file/australian-shark-attack-file>)

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 05

I forgot to post my movie challenge again and, this time, I'm four days late! So, rather than bombard you with four movie trailers at once, I'll pick up where I left off, and final the challenge a few days late. After all, who's counting?

~ Jewels

Day 05: Your Favourite Drama Movie
Little Women (1978)

'When your 7-Year-Old son says, "I want to be gay"' - Daily Life

I just read a beautiful, inspiring article from The Daily Life section of The Age, with the same title as this post. If you want to, you can read the article here, and I hope it brings as much of a smile to your face as it did mine. This is an example of acceptance and unconditional love within a family unit, and if every child was raised in such a loving, non-judgemental environment, society as a whole would benefit.

~ Jewels

30 Day Movie Challenge: Day 03 + 04

Forgot to post for the 30 Day Movie Challenge yesterday, so, once again, two trailers of some of my favourite movies, presented for your enjoyment.

Day 03: Your Favourite Action/Adventure Movie
The Avengers (2012)

Day 04: Your Favourite Horror Movie
Jaws (1975)

Note: This is actually the only 'horror' movie I've seen. I have no stomach for the terror that modern day horror audiences are subjected to. I watched this movie in my Year 10 Media Class, as my teacher wanted to show us what 'scary' movies were like when she was growing up. Also, I want to make it clear that the portrayal of the Great White Shark in Jaws is false, and as far removed from scientific fact as possible. Sharks are fearsome predators, yes, and they deserve our respect, but they're not 'mindless eating machines'.