Monday, May 27, 2002

BACK TO THE REFUGEES: and back to civil discourse, too.

Jack Robertson says (assuming he means it, and is not exaggerating for effect) that Australia has

no judicial, moral or intellectual grounds on which to urge others to embrace 'civilisation' in their own countries

since our laws here require that all persons here without authorisation be detained until their status is determined by suitably comprised tribunal. In other words, ANY deficiency in our laws, as assessed by Jack, negates our ability to press for greater human rights in other countries. No gay marriage? Hey, you’re as bad as him.
.
What’s that? Not enough women in your parliaments? Time for your re-education Boyo.
You mean to say you’re only taking in the second-highest rate of refugees per capita in the world? SECOND? How dare you lecture us!
By the look of it, Jack reckons that unless you are a nation newly born, with no blemish on your record of ever dealing with the vast array of scumbags that are in power, then keep your nose out of our internal affairs thank you very much.

I know insisting on perfection as the price of participation is a free ticket to that warm inner glow of righteous indignation, but it’s hardly helpful in a world where there are sucking black holes of humanity who HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH.

Is Jack incapable of recognising that a liberal democracy is EXACTLY who should be doing the lecturing on human rights, and has every right to do so, in fact has a certain level of duty to lecture? If not us, then who? Will anyone thank us if we smack ourselves in the forehead and say to the 20 million refugees in the world that will never come here “Sorry! I don’t know what we were thinking talking to your President for Life about his penchant for summary execution when we were detaining people for months, sometimes many months! We’ll leave you to it, shall we?”










Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?