Boat people (illegals) - we treat animals better than this.

Animals on the farm; animals in zoos; animal at home – all are considered with care for their welfare and well-being. The various Animal Welfare organizations see to this and have the force of law behind them. But humans who we consider as “inferior” we treat with no respect, no compassion and with no dignity. Why?

When someone is so diminished that they are no longer considered human what happens? Slaves know that they have some value (they were either purchased by or work for someone who gives them some idea of what they are worth because they produce something of value) – judicial prisoners know that they have recourse to a legal system and generally there is limit to their incarceration; refugees - “boat people” (illegals) - in the Australian context, have nothing.

These people are desperate. To have it indicated to them, in no uncertain fashion by the Australian Government, that they may as well give up hope of  any help, assistance or compassionate regard would be devastating. To be so diminished as to be considered only as counters on a game board to be pushed about from country to country is similar to an annihilation of any ideas they may hold of their worth as human beings.

Again, in the Australian context refugees, “boat people” (illegals) are neither criminals nor are they deemed to have a value – they appear to be “non-people” and the Government wants nothing to do with them.  They are moved “off shore” to desperately poor or to micro-countries that Australia can pay off to accept this Australian “detritus”. They are a nuisance to the Government and should just go away.

This is an abrogation of what is decent; an abrogation of what is right and is neither ethical nor moral and is doing the image of Australia much harm. It is a fact – almost a “Law” that for every cause there is an effect. This cannot be codified, it cannot be quantified or qualified and there is no measure to gauge what the effect may be. But of a certainty there will be an effect and it may not be what anyone expects.

Always – repeat ALWAYS – treat people the way you would like to be treated. There is no other viable option. To act or behave in any other manner is to diminish oneself and a belief in the humanity we are all party to.

Duty

There are few things that get up my nose more than injustice and cruelty. These two words (and the activities they refer to) will overlap to a greater or lesser degree and in some instances they may equate to the same thing. A cruel act will almost certainly be unjust and in many instances an injustice may be cruel. And then there are the overriding aspects of morality and ethics. Of a certainty, whatever activity or behaviour is unjust or cruel cannot be either moral or ethical.

The other day Archie asked for my comments on activities which are often disguised as, or confounded with, “Duty”, but are really cruel and/or unjust.

Now ‘duty’ is an old word, certainly going back to Anglo-Norman times. But it is unfortunately, often misunderstood. I know “duty” gets mixed up with obeying orders (in the military or paramilitary forces and in judicial or extra-judicial matters). It also gets a bad rap from the appalling revelations about the actions of totalitarian or quasi-totalitarian governments, and unfortunately some “democratic” governments such as  “renditions” when Americans sent (send?) suspected terrorists to countries that are prepared to sanction torture to extract information – “I was just obeying orders”. In my lexicon, however, “duty” has an ethical basis. It has a basis in an action for the benefit of others; a duty of care – almost an obligation. My old stand-by the Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as, “That which is owed; a debt of money, goods or service; the action or behaviour due by moral or legal obligation; action required by one’s business, occupation or function.”

But and it is a big but, as has been said before by others, “duty is not only about doing things right, it is about doing the right thing.” Typically, the demands of justice, honour, and reputation are “imbedded” with duty.

Of course, historically, as mentioned above, totalitarian regimes – and it is a depressingly long list, all, under the guise of “keeping public order” and therefore their “duty”, maintain(ed) an appalling level of control and vicious retaliation against any dissent. Religious persecution also has a large part to play in this – excommunications; witch hunts; death by stoning for blasphemy and such other extremes.   

It is a proven fact that when the conditions are appropriate (if that is the correct word) we are all capable of involvement in such extreme activities - all of us – individuals, governments, corporations and businesses included. We all need “over sight” to ensure that we do not lose our sense of proportion; do not lose our humanity. Without a “duty of care” civilisation would not be what it is. Not everyone agrees, which is why we have laws, rules and regulations.

Free speech is the basic tenet of democracy – all other “rights” stand or fall on this one fundamental, (the freedom to worship and freedom to meet and congregate with whomsoever). The exceptions (there are always exceptions) are that child pornography, engaging in or depicting sexual violence, inciting criminal activity, defamation or slander or engaging in the persecution of any ethnic group are generally strictly forbidden and legislated against. Similarly activities that engage in or encourage corruption, malpractice or fraudulent behaviour are legislated as crimes.

Obeying orders and doing one’s Duty is no excuse for harming another person.