Refugees are people too!

First up I would like to state, as boldly as I can, that refugees – however they are portrayed – are actually PEOPLE. Never forget they are people, as I am a person; as are you, the reader. As people, individuals, we all suffer – physical and emotional pain, stress, anguish and anxiety and we all have a desire to be treated justly and without prejudice. This is as it should be and this has been recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is a noble document and Australia (rightly so) is a signatory to this Declaration.

When some people, citizens of Australia, and others, denigrate and demonise refugees as “boat people”, as “illegal immigrants”, as “queue jumpers” or as “criminals”, I wonder just how many of them have actually put themselves in the position of these “refugees” and have reflected on what they would do had they experienced a similar background of poverty, injustice and discrimination. And I wonder, also, how many Australians have actually read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Some Australians (the Federal Government included) in violation of the Declaration actually, do nothing to prevent prejudice and discrimination, not to say violence against these individuals, ignoring the fact that, for instance:-    

 Article 7 states that: 

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protec­tion of the law. All are entitled to equal pro­tection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

And Article 9 seeks to ensure that: 

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

And then Article 14 which rightfully proclaims: 
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

By keeping the refugees/boat people/illegals - whatever - in detention for years Australia is, I believe, in breach of the very Declaration they signed and are hypocritical when they castigate others for not upholding the same Declaration.

And what about charity? This is a quality which is woven into the fabric of every culture and society.
In term of Christianity (and Australia is nominally a Christian country) charity implies love of one's fellow men (from the OED - Oxford English Dictionary). It means 'Love; kindness; natural affection; spontaneous goodness; a disposition to think favourably of others and to make allowances for their shortcomings; beneficence; liberality to or the provision for this in need or distress'.

Is this how we are treating these people who are desperate and in need of succour?

And there is the adverb 'charitable' which, again in Christian terms, means charity or the love of God and man; tender hearted; loving; benevolent; generous in giving to the poor.

Again I ask are we, as Australian, displaying these virtues and giving assistance to those who ask for our help?

There should be no need for a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If we treat people the way we would like to be treated we are applying the universal principles, so powerfully declared. We don't do this because politicians, for political reasons, and a few mischievous individuals, for personal reason, use terms which portray these refugees as "different" - they are illegal immigrants; they are queue jumpers; they are disparaged as 'boat people' as if this is something to be despised. 

Once this term enters the public consciousness it is easy to assume that because they are considered "different" it doesn't matter if they are treated differently. This is "scapegoating". This is a dangerous step which leads to a slippery slope of persecution - and history has provided many unfortunate examples of what this means.

To avoid the accusation of breaching the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all applications for refugee status should be considered carefully in the true spirit of the Declaration.

Another day has passed.

Some things, like memories, are not easy to write about. I know that memory is a wonderful thing yet it can be quite frightening in its scope. My memories seem to be activated at random, as I presume happens to others. All of a sudden a memory is there without seemingly being called. While others have to be dragged from wherever they reside. 

While the time spent without Magucha has not been easy, time can be kind. It dulls the pain. Sort of. But the ache remains, as do the memories. They always will. 

But the curious in me wants to know so many things. One thing has bothered me, even though I think I have worked it out – why we/I grieve. Grief hurts in many ways but it’s all about me! It’s about my hurt; my loss; my feelings. 

I should be glad that Magucha no longer suffers; I should be glad that she is no longer burdened by the trappings and necessities of life, as we live it. I am - but it is not easy!

That her love; that her emotional strength; that her mischievous sense of humour; that her deep and sensitive knowledge of the needs of others; that all this has just disappeared into "nothing" is beyond my understanding. 

Of course it is a given that I have absolutely no idea what has "happened" to her. I have the strong conviction though, that when we die we still “exist”, obviously without the bodily form we used when “alive”. The essence that was/is us continues. That essence, that “Life”, has returned to wherever it came from.

All I know is that (in the words of the song) “Loving her was easier than anything I’ll ever do again”.

Never touch save out of love.

In today's world with many people, who should know better, being accused of domestic violence and inappropriate sexual behavior it maybe worthwhile to take some time and read what follows:-

Some of my readers may know that I find solace in poetry. Some time ago I “discovered” the American poet Max Ehrmann. He wrote with great depth, pathos and understanding of the human condition.

For instance, take the lines of the title of this post – from a poem called “Her Acceptance” – the last two lines are:

“Still let us both be owners of ourselves,

And never touch save out of love. – Kiss me.”

Those last words are so, so important – “never touch save out of love”. Here a woman accepts a proposal of marriage from a man – but she comes with nothing. No inheritance; nothing except her love (these line were written I think in the early 1900s). And she warns him that there has to be more that attracts him than her youth, which will fade with the years and she reminds him that with young children she will be a burden on him. Seeing him work long hours in sad drudgery will “pierce me to the soul”, and that she will suffer with him because she knows that she “Shall be a weight upon his back”.

Even with all this she understands that love is what will hold them together and advocates that they “never touch save out of love”.

These are wonderful words with a sentiment that, while many adhere to, quite a few, unfortunately and tragically, do not.

.