By Tamsin Howse Current Affairs, Human Rights, News, PoliticsMarch 17, 2014

Our Country Is Going Down The Gurgler

I can’t do it. I can’t stay silent anymore. I’ve been burying my head in the sand too long, not wanting to know, not wanting to face it, thinking there was nothing I could do. But I have to say something, even if it does nothing at all, I have to say something: the way our country is being run right now is wrong.

The way we are treating refugees is abhorrant. The way we are behaving on a global stage is embarrassing. The way we are treating the elderly is disgusting. The way we are treating the disabled is sub-human.

What happened to common decency, to right, to caring about our fellow man? What happened to “boundless plains to share”? Are we just going to forget about that as we leave refugees in detention until they are willing to kill themselves just to get out? Are we going to ignore the freedom part of our anthem while we mandate who can and can’t get married? Are we going to pretend it’s OK that a man is the minister for women?

It makes me sick to think about what we are doing. I can’t even watch the news. I can’t even think about the idiot who is running our country right now.

At every turn I feel like Australia is falling more and more into an immoral black hole. And when the UN says we are guilty of 150 violations of international law, it’s no longer something that can be defended. It’s no longer something we can ignore.

It’s time to do something about it. What, I don’t know. Do we protest? Will March in March make a difference? Can we all agree this Tony Abbott business was a bit of a mistake, and all vote together on an alternative next election. Can it even wait that long?

This is not OK. It cannot go on. It’s time to take a stand.

What do you think?

Bio
Latest Posts

Tamsin Howse

Tamsin is the Editor in Chief at KiKi & Tea. She started blogging at The Undomestic Goddess in 2009 and founded KiKi & Tea in March, 2012. Tamsin is a redheaded conflux of calamity married to the Viking, stepmother of 1 and mother of 2 cats. Tamsin writes because she never runs out of things to say.

Latest Posts By Tamsin Howse

Dannie Wallace

I so agree with everything you are saying . He is the most (insert what ever word you want for abbot) He is a religious fruit cake all about him *sigh* still thinks its 1950’s he wants to be better then everyone he thinks he is too …. UM you are not by any means To him I’m in kirribilli house and won’t budge his smirk yuk he thinks he is all that and people think he is fab (um Tony you are so wrong)
Yes we all need to get rid of this tosser no gooder everytime he is interviewed he just stands there and nods dumb ass sod .
Lana (Sharpest Pencil)

I watch things like March in March with hope in my heart, I read my Twitter stream and am excited that people like you and I are not alone in the way that we feel, but then I read the results of elections in places like Hobart and South Australia (which may still be too close to call at this stage) and I see more people voting Liberal and I feel worse than ever
- Leah_loves
  
  I feel just as you do Lana. I am losing faith in the Australian public. Are we all really so uncaring about the environment, social justice, health and education? If indeed we are not then Murdoch and co have done an excellent job selling Abbott to those who were feeling disenchanted with Labor. I know many tradies and struggling families, who typically would be Labor voters, who voted for Abbot because they ‘didn’t like Julia’ or ‘wanted to stop the boats’ (infuriating!). Very sad that they don’t pay a bit more attention to policies!
  - https://kikiandtea.com/ Tamsin Howse
    
    I don’t really understand the “stop the boats” mentality. Shouldn’t we be working on a policy that allows for faster and more humane processing of refugees through legal means, therefore putting people smugglers out of business because people don’t need to resort to that? I know it’s not so simple, and I surely don’t have the policies myself, but that seems to be the way to go from my perspective.
    - Kris
      
      If they actually cared so much about stopping people risking their lives getting here on boats, they’d be upping quotas straight from camps- from the “queue” But they don’t. They’re full of shit.
Casey

I really agree with you here. It saddens me that most people in my orbit are just not interested in what our government is doing. It’s not even ignorance, it’s just disinterest. The Abbott government has been very good at keeping their stuff under wraps, which makes it easy to ignore the negative aspects of the government. Unfortunately it seems like so many of us are willing to accept spin as fact because life is easier that way.

But then I go online and read articles like this one and I can see that other people feel the way I do, which gives me some hope. I’m hoping for a one-term government but my pessimistic side thinks there’s not a chance of that happening.
Rhetoricischeap

Perhaps all the left could take an asylum seeker each and we can have the utopia everyone dreams of.

Unfortunately, it’s not that easy, the people least inclined to put there money where their mouth is are only interested in what they legally force others to do.

How about every person who believes in carte blanche asylum policy all have a whip around and pay for it?

Won’t happen, but why?
- http://diceofdoom.com RupertG
  
  This is an amazingly trite response to the issue. How could people organise a ‘whip-around’. Your comment also completely ignores the fact that we ARE paying for this through our taxes and we are willing for our taxes to be used in this way. In fact, people who disagree with the system in place are being forced to support it through allocations of government expenditure.
  
  Incidentally, please look up the term ‘straw man argument’ and ‘reductio ad absurdum’.
  - Et ratio vincit
    
    What’s amazing is your ability to see past the several logical fallacies in the article yet become “at fallacia” when presented with the points you don’t agree on.
    
    An assumption that the public purse is voluminous to complete the sustentation of the asylum seekers would be secondary to the opinion of the majority whom pay the tax, as to whether said assumption has viability. The fact that the government is conservative would give the initial impression that the taxpayers have spoken.
    
    What no one is doing is legally nor corporeally, is removing the right of you or the author to set up the transference of their personal wealth to ensure the expedition of better living conditions.
    
    When you get told that the food and pillows you donated were rejected, then you’d have a good case for further alacrity.
    
    It could well be argued that those who seek to change the world should be prepared to put their own money forward first; I’d be happy to debate any umbrage to the notion.
    
    I suggest the crude form in which the commentor made their point doesn’t detract from the validity of much of what was argued lest you make the fallacious leap to an ad logicam argument.
    - Cuchulain
      
      When my donated pillows are rejected then I become quicker? Sweet. Incidentally, what are the “logical fallacies” in the article exactly, or are we to assume your supercilious tone is sufficient for us to respect your opinion?
      - Et ratio vincit
        
        Well, yours is ad hominem for assuming my tone to be supercilious.
        
        …But very well…
        
        Appeal to pity (repeatedly) {argumentum ad nauseam}
        
        Argumentum ad ignorantiam
        
        Argumentum ad verecundiam
        
        Dicto simpliciter
        
        Just of the top of my head.
      - http://diceofdoom.com RupertG
        
        I am extremely amused that that list is presented in alphabetical order. It is the sort of thing, as an academic, that you look for in student papers. Not the top of your head then.
        
        The main problem I have with your argument (or lack there of) is that there only appears to be a combination of poor grammar and large words (some used improperly) intended to frighten people off. Nobody is frightened (except by the aforementioned grammar) by the arguments posited here. An argument that is largely made through the use of “Google Synonym” does not make itself valid through character or syllable count.
        
        You propose to say that rationality wins (I’ve nominated the username for Pretentious Username of the year award by the way), yet you make absolutely no clear rational statement. We are still waiting to hear what rational argument you propose to make.
      - Et ratio vincit
        
        “I am extremely amused that that list is presented in alphabetical order. It is the sort of thing, as an academic, that you look for in student papers. Not the top of your head then.”
        
        But they appear in alphabetical order, did you not look for that before you tried to refer to your own academic prowess and make an intellectual point?
        
        They also weren’t the only ones, did you check that too?
        
        “The main problem I have with your argument (or lack there of) is that there only appears to be a combination of poor grammar and large words (some used improperly) intended to frighten people off”
        
        Skitt’s law. Also, did you try to win the argument against the poster by resorting to highlighting their logical fallacies? Were you a little guilty of the very thing you accuse me of?
        
        Where is the reductio ad absurdum in the poster’s argument?
        
        Which words were used improperly in mine?
        
        The syllabic protractedness within a statement does not inherently make it wrong either.
        
        “allocations of government expenditure”. Ermagherd, you used 12 syllables in four words, iniquitous! Lets keep this tangent going.
        
        You attacked the structure of my argument, but made no attempt to explain why the individual points were wrong.
        
        1. Do you disagree with the logical fallacies I listed?
        
        2. Did you miss them?
        
        3. You did list two logical fallacies against the poster, but glossed over the many in the article because it didn’t support your position. Or, refer to #2.
        
        “Nobody is frightened (except by the aforementioned grammar) by the arguments posited here”
        
        Red Herring (logical fallacy).
        
        “An argument that is largely made through the use of “Google Synonym” does not make itself valid through character or syllable count.”
        
        Now, did anyone make the claim that it was? Ignoratio elenchi (logical fallacy).
        
        Straw man, because your implication is not accurate, but you’re attacking it.
        
        “You propose to say that rationality wins (I’ve nominated the username for Pretentious Username of the year award by the way), yet you make absolutely no clear rational statement.”
        
        Ad hominem.
        
        Your ability to perceive or agree with what is written has no bearing on the validity of the message.
        
        “We are still waiting to hear what rational argument you propose to make.”
        
        Truly amazing. Have you read both your antecedent posts? They aren’t exactly brimming with your stance on anything other than correcting others.
        
        Perhaps you could answer your own question.
        
        There is a clear enough indication that my position is stop asking the government to do everything and use your own finances to help causes that appeal.
        
        Before you possibly contest the subject of refugee entry, nowhere have I spoken about this, merely the ability to increase their welfare with your own money.
        
        I do agree rhetoricischeap’s statement that people who want to let stateless people into the country, should be prepared to house them. If not, then should people in disagreement with your position be morally obligated to bear the financial burden?
        
        Notice there is no name calling or insults from me.
      - http://diceofdoom.com RupertG
        
        Using the username ‘Et ratio vincit’ in an online debate is like putting a ‘kick me’ sign on your back. I am sorry that I complied.
        
        I wasn’t addressing all the points in the article with my response. You keep bringing the rest of the article up for some reason?
        
        Boiled down, my argument would be:
        
        1. Suggesting a whip-around is ridiculous and trivialises the topic.
        2. The power to change policy should not be tied to the ability to pay for it. Since when have we said that policy change should be a privilege of the rich only? Asking people to ‘front up’ is not a valid argument against wanting to see a change in the way that a government treats asylum seekers as there are a myriad of complicated side issues associated with it. (For example, who would handle the processing? Do we get security clearance and access to ASIO databases?)
        3. If you read through the other comments here you would see that the author DID start the process of seeking to house asylum seekers in her own home.
        4. Just because a government is elected to power does not mean:
        a) that it is always doing the right thing, and,
        b) that everyone agrees with every policy that was announced as part of their platform, or,
        c) that their ‘mandate’ cannot be questioned through their time in office.
        5. If we, for the sake of argument, state that a leader’s ability to act is unquestioned after their election, do we need to take into consideration where they sit in the opinion polls? Are we not supposed to act in vigorous opposition to policies that we don’t believe in? That is part of the democratic process, is it not? It keeps everyone honest (or, at least, it is supposed to).
      - Et ratio vincit
        
        I think the phrase whip around might be a little rough around the edges, but there’s nothing wrong with imploring people to get on board with their own dough.
        
        I never argued personally that the asylum seekers shouldn’t somehow be on the end of a more efficient policy, but the well being of them could very fast be changed with a charitable push from people who are most concerned and yes, Tamsin put her money where her mouth is, which is commendable, but is she representative of the majority, because I don’t believe that to be the case.
        
        I don’t think federal investigation level access would be needed to make a change. Sometimes hoops need to jumped through, but that’s not reason enough to avoid the effort, especially if the subject has even a modicum of importance.
        
        Agree on number 4.
        
        Yes, it’s almost natural to opposed any government strategy one opposes.
        
        “2. The power to change policy should not be tied to the ability to pay for it. Since when have we said that policy change should be a privilege of the rich only?”
        
        I think the ability to implement a policy is completely contingent on the ability to pay for it.
        
        No, policy shouldn’t submit to the will of the rich, but in democracy, people who produce nothing, do nothing and achieve nothing have an awful amount of power en masse to remove the productive capabilities and the wherewithal of those who create a lot more for society.
        
        Which ever side of the fence you sit on.
        
        It seems to make sense that the litmus test of how much someone cares for a cause could be tested by exactly how much they are willing to give up for it, but in certain circles, some faux activists expect it to come from the public coffers, which amazingly, they rarely themselves contribute to.
        
        I certainly don’t charge the author of the article with this, she appears to “put up”.
        
        I suspect we don’t disagree on as much as you might expect, but I’m pretty sure if everyone sympathetic to the asylum seeker cause gave money tomorrow, they’d (the refugees) see improved living conditions fairly quickly in detention or otherwise.
        
        Foolhardy would be the government who tried to quell that alacricity.
- https://kikiandtea.com/ Tamsin Howse
  
  We are all paying. That’s what our taxes are for.
  
  And, for the record, I have looked quite seriously into the option of housing asylum seekers in our spare room which is being trialled. I also believe the Scandinavian system of community processing is far more humane and allows those seeking asylum to contribute to society (and even pay more taxes! Shock!) while they are being processed, which reduces the government costs involved.
- Bek
  
  You do realise that the government’s current method of processing asylum seekers costs so much more than it would to process them in the community ($339 a day per asylum seeker currently, $39 a day if processed in the community): http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-economic-cost-of-our-asylum-seeker-policy/.
  
  Also, various church organisations have offered to take over the cost and the effort of housing and taking care of the asylum seekers, but the governments refuses.
  
  There is no good reason for our current methods.
  - Kris
    
    When I was a kid, we had kids at school who were straight off the boat from Vietnam, often living with a couple of families in a two bedroom unit. Not ideal, but they were able to go to school, Mum and Dad (often highly educated) could work, usually as cleaners or similar, and they could have a life and contribute to society. This was under Malcolm Fraser who is now dissociating himself from Abbott and co for their policies. Far better way to do things than the disgrace that is Manus and offshore processing where asylum seekers are being treated as criminals for wanting a better life for them and their kids.
Sharna

Thank you, Tamsin. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Maryann

Well what we really need is a good, coherent oppositon party or the mad monk will be elected for another term. The Labor Party need to get thier act together and be seen as an electable oppostion. Until the press barons (eg Murdoch) stop the biased reporting of politics in this country Abbot can get away with almost anything
- Kris
  
  I marched in March on Sunday, because if I don’t do it, nobody’s going
  to do it for me. I’ve been arguing with Labor faithful about the WA
  senate election coming up, saying that a vote not for labor is a vote
  for the LNP. What Labor seem to be missing is that there’s a reason
  people are disenchanted with them. And it’s because they’re not an
  alternative – they’re bastards lite. Everyone expects the LNP to be
  bastards. But they get sick of the ALP purporting to represent the left,
  when they have been creeping to the right for a long time now.They argued that people should stay in the party and hold the parliamentary guys accountable, but why would you stay in a party that doesn’t represent you? If people are deserting them for the Greens, it’s a protest vote they should be listening to and trying to win back. But they only seem to be interested in pandering to the Lib/Lab swinging voters with their, as I said, Liberal lite policies.
  
  They’re not an alternative.
26 Years & Counting

I’ve never protested because honestly I’m not sure what it achieves. I wish I knew what the answer was to any of this.
Bradley

I seem to hear the same emotive comments every time a Labor government is not in power. If Labor has all of the answers, why do the societal problems you’ve identified exist when they have been swept from power.
I’ve just read that it has been over 80 days since an asylum seeker has drowned at sea. But it appears that it is better to profess some style of open borders policy that sees 1500 pay people smugglers to take them to their death.
It is all good and well to complain about what might be losing government funding. Why do the very same people remain tight lipped when public money is wasted ? The spending spree that the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government went on during it’s term has left the piggy bank a bit empty. How do you suggest that the country pays for social programs ?
As for your suggestion that Australians are not regarded very highly overseas, I question your assertion.
- https://kikiandtea.com/ Tamsin Howse
  
  Honestly, Bradley, I’m not convinced Labor are the answer. But I’m convinced there’s a problem.
Jen

I think its great to be talking about politics but I also think this is a bit over-dramatic. I really don’t believe we’re in an immoral black hole, but will agree there is room for improvement. I wish we could focus on policies rather than people though
- https://kikiandtea.com/ Tamsin Howse
  
  I feel dramatically about this. I think it’s wrong.
  
  Take your point about picking on policies not the person, however, and I do primarily do that. I dislike Abbott in addition to hating the policies.
Pingback: We should keep searching for Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370()

More Stories

Two time loser, Kevin Rudd.

Ruddy Hell

And so, five days after all this began, we are back to where we were. Julia Gillard is still Prime Minister, and Kevin Rudd…