Seeking refuge.

This is what refugees do – they seek refuge. In Australia the misleading and meaningless call to “Stop the boats” is reaching fever pitch in the distorted politics of Canberra. How is “stopping the boats” supposed to happen? Also, and more to the point – is it the humanitarian and ethical thing to do?

Let’s just take the emotion out of it and examine the case of “refugees”, “illegals”, “queue jumpers”, “asylum seekers” or whatever name is applied to these people.

First up look at where they are from – generally from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan – these are countries that have had serious “interventions” from Western countries. We, that is the “West”, which includes Australia, went in with “shock and awe” and blew them apart (except for Iran which in the 1950’s the “West” stuffed up by interfering with and forcing a change in leadership – the Shah). We – the West- by our actions, destroyed the millennia old community systems of village or tribal governance and insisted on trying to impose a centralised “democratic” form of government. This is something which was unknown and in many cases unwelcome.

What eventuated was a group of broken countries with broken infrastructure divided into “fiefdoms” ruled by sectarian warlords – Sunni against Shia - all reverting to a crude fundamentalist rendering of their interpretation of the Koran.

Is it any wonder that educated, moderate Muslims and other from these unfortunate countries will do all in their power to move to a place of safety?

I did when I brought my family to Australia (from what is now Zimbabwe) some thirty years ago because I could see what was coming. But then I had the means to apply for a visa and emigrate in the “proper” manner – also I am not a Muslim nor am I of Middle-Eastern origin.

All countries benefit from immigrants. Immigrants bring new energy, new ideas and new blood into “host” nations. Modern examples of this are America, Australia and New Zealand. Going further back in time one is reminded that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Normans, Vikings, Saxons, Moors (Arabs) and Mongols all brought benefits (admittedly often by force of arms) to the lands they invaded. These lands include most of what is now Great Britain, Europe, the Middle and Far East and India. Many of the invaders intermarried and stayed.

Australia wants to “control” the number of people who arrive. Why? Is there a fear that the Anglo-Saxon and Christian foundations of the country will be threatened? The threat, whatever it is perceived to be, is not going to go away – as King Canute found out – the tide cannot be commanded to retreat.

Let them come and be productive elements in our economy – let’s be welcoming and give them an Australian “fair go”.

Injustice is always the problem.

The thing about injustice is that it is not a “one size” fits all. What is perceived as just for you may not be seen as just by me. And then there is the added complexity of perceptions. Without knowing the full range of facts I may perceive something as just or unjust.

This emphasizes the importance of ethics because in these cases ethics is, sadly, often forgotten or ignored – which is why they are unethical (obviously).

Spend a moment to think about this. As a hypothetical - I may feel it is just that I am now a wealthy man because I worked hard all my life and built up a large organization that employs many people. Others may have views that differ. They may consider (or perceive) that I exploited my workers by paying them the lowest possible wage so as to maximize my profits; or that I used my economic “clout” to force suppliers to reduce their costs to me, again to maximize my profits.

It matters not who the suppliers or what the products – banks and financial products, miners and raw materials, manufacturers and semi-finished products, machine tools or whatever. Forcing my suppliers to reduce the cost of my “inputs” forces them to reduce the wages they pay their workers; it forces them to consider alternatives such as lowering the quality of what they make. To meet my demands and to maximize their profits (that, also, is what they are in business for) they may consider activities which are criminal; acts such as “sweat shop” conditions and/or employing child labour; acts such as prosthetic companies filling breast implants with industrial gel; acts such as butchers selling horse meat as beef; acts such as adding melamine to baby milk formula; acts such as pharmaceutical companies reducing the number of, or “adjusting”, test results for medical products, and so on and so on.

All this is done, often, without a thought for the purchaser or end user.  Either way it is a matter of perception – mine or yours, and ethics.

Then of course there is the greatest cause of unethical conduct and injustice ever known – the gender difference – male and female. Women, the female of the species, seem to have been discriminated against forever, certainly as far as we can confirm, at least since written records began. Why just because women, generally, are less physically strong are they discriminated against by men? Is it because women are the “gate keepers” of sexual union?  If any force is used against a woman for sexual favours it is considered rape, which in most societies is a crime. I don’t know why men have this perception that they are superior to women – but it seems strange that this discrimination exists at all, because every man was, of a certainty, born of a woman – and most sons hold their mothers in high esteem. So why denigrate, why abuse or discriminate against someone else’s mother or someone who will, in all probability, become a mother?

Possibly the second greatest cause of unethical conduct is skin colour. There is no known way of choosing your own skin colour - you are born with it. No one is born superior to anyone else. It is, again, a matter of perception. Just because someone may look “different” is no reason for discrimination or abuse. To discriminate against someone, or to abuse them because of the colour of their skin is not only unjust but also unethical.

The other major cause of injustice and unethical conduct is religion. Why in God’s name (quite literally) this should be so is beyond my comprehension. There is – as I believe – only one God. So to me it matter not what He, She, It is called and I cannot think of any good reason why He, She, It would care what name we humans use; we humans who live on a miniscule speck of rock at the edge of a very ordinary galaxy that is one of billions of galaxies in a incomprehensibly large universe which He, She, It presumable created (the big bang?). I mean really, does it matter what name we use? Anyway how would anyone know what He, She, It thinks or feels about the issue of a name – or anything else for that matter?

All these are matters of perception – about gender, skin colour and religion – just a person’s opinion. And yet millions have died; millions have been abused; millions have been tortured all because of perceptions which, inevitably lead to injustice.

But then has injustice of any kind - force, abuse, discrimination, torture, cruelty - ever changed anyone’s opinion or perception? I doubt it!

Syria – don’t add fuel to the fire!

It is a very dangerous course of action to try a pick a winner in a war zone. Particularly in a civil war and even more dangerous when to opposing sides are divided by religious beliefs.

I am not a Syrian, I have never knowingly met a Syrian – nor am I a Muslim. I strongly believe that no person, group or country that is neither Muslim nor Syrian should interfere in Syria. Bashar al-Assad may not be a very nice person – but look at who his father was and look at what his father did to the Syrian people many years ago. He killed thousands. So his son, the current Syrian president, has not had a particularly good role model to emulate.

The Syrians started this “war” two years ago (Amended Feb 22, 2018:- actually started March 15, 2011, so now seven years ago) and while I am appalled at the violence and the escalation into neighbouring countries I strongly disagree with any attempt to “support” any of the warring parties by supplying them with weapons. The Russians are wrong; the EU is wrong and the Americans are wrong in offering support to either side – in other words trying to pick a winner. (Added Feb 22, 2018:- Also  don't forget the religious side of this war Shia - the Alawite ruling minority and Shia majority in Iran vs the Sunni majority opposition allied to the Turks and others in the region).

Picking winners in a civil conflict never works. The Russians and the Western Coalition tried it in Afghanistan; the French and the Americans (and allies) tried it in Vietnam; the Americans and their allies tried it in Iraq and there are many other examples to draw on (Palestine?) – history is littered with such attempts - all failed or are failing. The Americans themselves should know better than to interfere in someone else’s civil war – each side resisted interference from the French and/or British in their various "home grown" conflicts hundreds of years ago.

Now the Russians are ramping up their supply of weapons to Syria. This will inevitably be matched by the “West” and by Israel. To what end? Such actions will just add fuel to the fire. This Syrian civil conflict – as in all such conflicts - has its origins in injustice (Palestine?). And injustice can never resolved by violence. Violence just creates more injustice, as we have already witnessed, this in turn will promote more violence to “redress” the additional injustices and so a vortex of violence and injustice will ensue. No one benefits – except arms dealers and weapons manufacturers and suppliers.

By all means provide humanitarian aid to the millions of Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and to support these countries in their efforts to assist the refugees  - this is  fair and just. But not to supply weapons.

Violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.   

Now we have to pay to vote!!

The “Lucky Country” – Australia – has lost its political marbles and its politicians are quite frankly acting in a grotesque and extraordinarily self-serving manner. They have now approved a payment, by the Australian Government, to their respective political parties, of $1.00 for everyone who votes for them.

Furthermore, and this sticks in the craw, democratic Australia (note that carefully) has a compulsory voting system wherein people are fined for NOT voting. So not only are we compelled to vote, we now have spectacle of seeing our taxation money (money we have no option but to pay to the Government) being paid to the very people we are forced (under threat of penalties) to vote for! So in effect they are being paid twice.

As it stands now, in this democratic Australia, I am forced to vote; I  am forced to pay my taxes (this is just and fair); my taxes pay politicians (also, I suppose, just and fair); without my agreement my taxes will now pay political parties because I am forced to cast my vote (not just and not fair); if by any chance I don’t vote, because I am uninterested in their policies or because I neither like nor trust them, I am penalised and fined (also not just and not fair)! Is this democratic?

If the politicians got off their fat butts, took their snouts out of the money trough and actually WORKED for their votes; actually door knocked and stumped their electorates; actually found out personally what their constituents needed, they might, just might, have a higher rating in the public esteem rates than they do.

As it is they totally rely on opinion polls with a sample base of around one thousand people.

A pox on the politicians I am forced to vote for (and pay for – twice).

Addendum: One major political party in Australia (the Liberal Party) has now bowed to public pressure and reluctantly decided to withdraw support for this payment and the respective legislation - even though they had previously indicated, in writing, that they would support it. Oh well! 

Ethics, People and Reputation – or money?

The callousness displayed and the venal attitude of the international apparel companies that use the Bangladeshi sweat-shops to produce their goods is almost beyond belief. I say “almost” because when money is involved most people, most companies and most organisations, will do almost anything to keep the profits rolling in; companies will do almost anything to maintain the value of their shares. Now, only now, after hundreds have died are they worried about their business ethics and their reputations! I say, “What ethics and what reputations?”

Loblaw, Benetton, Primark and many other clothing companies are now apparently prepared to compensate victims of the South Asian country's worst industrial accident. Is this supposed to earn them “brownie points” and be a salve for their conscience?

It is to be hoped that the many other companies that sell low cost clothing manufactured in Bangladesh will revise their manuals on ethical business practice and only buy their products from companies that not only pay reasonable wages but also ensure the workers employed have a safe environment.

As has been stressed in these posts time and time again – apparently to deaf ears – commerce and industry is, without exception, in business to SERVE people, that is people such as you and I. It is people who buy or use the products no matter what the product is – coal, chip-board, iron ore, satellites, paint brushes, robots, clothing or whatever – the end users are always and only people. And people are involved in the process of manufacture – always and only people. And it is the labour of people which creates money and wealth – always and only people.

It is NOT the “economy” that is paramount – it is people who are paramount - always and only people. Without people there would be no money, no business and no “economy”. It should therefore be obvious to any thinking person that if any company wants people to buy their products they need to provide a SERVICE that satisfies people, their customers. It is only customers, only people, who will buy (with money) what they are selling – always and only people. Reputations depend on people – always and only people.

It is unfortunate that this has to be repeated again and again - provide a good service and people will return and spread the word about the SERVICE. Money and wealth always follow SERVICE, never the other way around – service will never follow money. And a SERVICE can only be provided by people to people – always and only people. A good reputation will develop only as a result of service to people – always and only people.

It is therefore obvious that people, all people, should be cared for – because it is people, you and I, who are labourers, workers and customers. This is the ethical way. By being ethical, in all dealings, such unfortunate events as occurred in Bangladesh would possibly have been avoided or at least ameliorated.

Never forget that the “law” of cause and effect will always apply. This “law” is unwritten and not codified but applies in every situation – it cannot be avoided and is forgotten or ignored only at great cost. This law incorporates the profoundly realistic doctrines of “Hubris” and “Nemesis”. Whenever there is any kind of over-weening and excess; whenever people or societies go too far either in dominating others or exploiting them, or exploiting nature, for their own advantage this unseemly exhibition of pride has to be paid for. Hubris seems to invite Nemesis and the “Goddess” Nemesis is implacable in the pursuit of her cause, to track every wrong back to its doer. The old saying applies to all – “pride comes before a fall” and no one can foretell what the effects of this “fall” will be.

I repeat what has been said countless time over the centuries – “always treat others the way you would like to be treated”.  There is no other viable option.

What is so difficult to understand about this?