28 May 2012

A simple plea not to be stereotyped

Came across this on YouTube today. This is the sort of message that we want this blog to be able to send to the world. If you have any content like this that you would like to contribute as well please email me the link.




This young woman is likely to change the world one day.

22 May 2012

Critical thinking series

The Australian Government has produced a fantastic six part series of YouTube videos about critical thinking. These are really important aspects of thinking, arguments and analysis that we should all be aware of, and fit in nicely to helping you be a little more critical about your preconceptions, stereotypes and judgements. They are all less than 3 minutes but will really make you think about your critical thinking skills.














20 May 2012

The danger of stereotypes in the boat people debate


I'm going to start this with a caveat, which I shouldn't but... I don't often publicly enter debates around such volatile topics as the boat people debate in Australia. I have a very keen self-preservation gene and don't like to open myself up for attack on my personal beliefs, in case you haven't gathered that yourselves. But 30 days of preconceptions is a little different, so below is a description of the two stereotypes as I see them in the public space, I know that many people believe something in between but this is about the dangers of these two extremes and how the issue can never progress while these are the two public stories.

There are two stereotypes in the boat people debate inside Australia - or I should say in the "people who arrive by boat from our northern neighbours" debate. They are the right-wing "they're all illegal immigrants" and the left-wing "they are all refugees escaping persecution". I mentioned earlier that this was the first stereotype that I wanted to tackle, as it had come back up in the media, and I personally feel it is an important one for us as a nation.

The right-wing illegal immigrant
To the right-wing commentators, boat people are all illegal immigrants who are paying to jump the queue to get to Australia. Worse still, many of them are criminals who would never get into the country if they tried to do it by legal means.

They destroy all of their papers when the boats near Australia, so that our government can't verify their identities, or the stories that they tell about where they come from and their supposed refugee status. And this is why they should all be in detention, because they are "illegal immigrants".

The use of that phrase is extremely important. When a commentator uses that phrase to describe the people arriving by boat you know which side they stand on. It is an emotive descriptor that is meant to provoke the response of "well they are criminals", "they are queue jumpers" or "they are doing something wrong".

One of the far more vitriolic claims in recent times, that of the illegal immigrant as receiving more government money than Australian pensioners, is a great example of what this stereotype is meant to do. This was circulated around as an email that even had air time on current affairs programs. It adds to the negative image of them as sponges who are taking from our society, getting more money from the government than the aged pensioners who have worked hard their entire lives for this country - yes that is how this story went.

SANITY WARNING: If you want to be appalled by the really interesting "facts" and rhetoric of this debate try this site or this one, there are many more out there. Sometimes I am ashamed to be Australian.

The problem with this stereotype
This is a stereotype that depicts the scary, evil foreigners who come here by illegal means and are taking the food from our mouths. Over the last decade it is becoming more common for this to be followed by rhetoric around Muslim beliefs and wanting to turn our country into an Islamic state, just adding to the hype.

It is an awful argument that creates a culture of fear and loathing around all refugees in this country. And the big problem is, how do we distinguish people who have immigrated here through the "legal" channels when they are of the same ethnic background as the evil "illegal immigrants"? Well quite frankly we don't do we!

It feeds on the fear and concern that people might already have about the "other"; the different cultures, religions and ethnicities that are coming into our country. This is nothing new, the same thing happened when we turned away from the "White Australia" policy and again when we took Vietnamese refugees in the 70-80s.

The main problem is that it doesn't allow people to consider the individual situations of the human beings that are involved. They are all judged to be the same, and that judgement is of criminals who are out to suck our country dry and take over our way of life. It's particularly dangerous because it spreads insidious lies and half-truths to a population that is already concerned about not having enough for the future.

The left-wing asylum seekers
To the left-wing commentators, the boat people are all asylum seekers. They are all people who are fleeing from situations that are impossible to exist within, and they all deserve our sympathy and support. Every one of the asylum seekers is a legitimate refugee who is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and risk their lives to make it to Australia; to have a better life.

For this group there is no legitimate reason to keep these asylum seekers in detention, and they should all be brought into the community and processed in quick time so they have a level of certainty about their future here. Moreover, keeping them detained leads to mental illness, suicide attempts and riots, that will cause all of them further harm.

This rhetoric makes a big deal of the right-wing hatred and paints anyone not in their corner as being nasty people who have no concern for other human lives. At this far left side of the scale you are either totally in or inhumane, there is no middle ground.

The problems with this stereotype
A major problem about this stereotype is that it generally becomes more about the people promoting the stereotype and less about the people who they are trying to protect with it. This is probably due to the mainstream media depictions of the left-wing group - you know the commentary "tree hugging hippies" and the like. This means that the arguments that they might put forward are usually circumvented into personal attacks on their naivety and questioning their patriotism, the standard right-wing arguments it would seem.

There is a real problem with the stereotype though, it does not allow for any discussion or possibility that the asylum seekers might not what they claim to be. This stereotype promotes the single story that all asylum seekers are nice, honest people who are fleeing persecution, and there needs to be an acknowledgement that this might not always be the case.

What this stereotype fails to take into account are the two minority groups of asylum seekers. These are the people that may not actually be seeking refuge from persecution (those subsequently not found to be legitimate refugees); and more importantly the refugees who aren't necessarily nice, honest people, or aren't of the right "character". And as long as this group fails to acknowledge the fears of the right-wing, there can never be a middle ground.

What does all of this mean?
The left-wing accuse the right of promoting inhumane treatment (UNHCR do much the same I should add) and the right-wing accuse the left of being naive tree huggers who are blind to the reality that we are being overrun by criminals and terrorists.

The major issue is that the stereotype debate stops people from thinking about the individual refugees and their own stories. This was why the SBS show, Go back to where you came from, was such a powerful interjection into the refugee debate. It shifted the conversation from the faceless 'boat person', humanised it with individual stories, and helped us understand that the average refugee story is more than the stereotypes that we see in the media. Rather they are personal stories of loss, fear, pain and isolation; they are stories that break the stereotypes and humanise the refugees for us.

And personally, once that veneer is broken down I don't believe that the majority of Australians would support mandatory detention or offshore processing. We need to discuss the real stories, the complex mix of issues around these people and allow the people leaning to the right to see the large number of positive refugee stories that exist in our culturally diverse country.

What is still missing?
The biggest issue with this stereotype and the fear mongering around us being overtaken by boat people is that the vast majority of our asylum seekers do not come on the boats! This is probably the most shocking fact that really does not get enough air time in the media. And yet, it is the most important fact that could shatter the stereotypes of "illegal immigration", and destroy to constant political debate in this country about the absolute importance and priority to stop the boats.

The fact is that the vast majority of our asylum seekers come on planes, on average 95% fly into the country on legitimate visas. They come into the country on visitor, business or student visas and they claim asylum once they are in the country. And, according to a number of sources, asylum seekers arriving by boat are considerably more successful in their claims for refugee status than the ones arriving by plane.

So the fuss made over people arriving by boat from our northern neighbours would seem to be blown out of all proportion. They constitute an incredible small percent of the number of asylum seekers we get and they are more often found to be genuine refugees (well over 80% in all the statistics I've read).

To paraphrase FDR, we have nothing to fear but fear itself people. There are far more pressing issues in our country than the small number of people willing to risk their lives in a boat to come here. The likelihood of them not being what they claim to be, or not being of sound character is extremely low, so we need to come up with a better way of dealing with them.

The processes aren't working, and a lot of people are hurting because of it. Do I think we just open the borders? Of course not. But we need a real debate about the issues that is not based on the single stories that currently dominate the media. Maybe the outcomes of the recent federal inquiry into our detention centres will lead a more balanced debate about this topic, who knows.

Factual sources about immigration, refugees and asylum seekers in Australia can be found on these sites, among many others: Refugee Council of AustraliaAustralian Human Rights Commission and Refugee Action Coalition Sydney. The Australian Human Rights Commission is a particularly good resource.

19 May 2012

Challenge your preconceptions


To support the ideas around this blog I have started a Challenge Your Preconceptions movement. The handout below explains this in more detail.

The idea is that in June 2012 we are encouraging everyone to do two things:

  1. be aware of the preconceptions and stereotypes that you are applying to people, including being aware of whether your actions are impacted by these judgements, and
  2. pick one of your preconceptions or stereotypes and challenge it during the month.

You could challenge your preconceptions by researching the issue, reading or listening to a source of information that you would not normally consider or getting to know someone who falls into the group that you have the preconception about, so you can understand that they are more than a single story.

We would also encourage you to share any stories or revelations about this on the blog via the iamnotjusta@gmail.com email address, through the Challenge your preconceptions page on Facebook or by using the #iamnotjusta tag in Twitter. This includes stories where you are discriminated against because of a particular preconception people hold about you, and why that is not true.

Stories refuting stereotypes are particularly encouraged, so that people who might be challenging that preconception have somewhere to start understanding the counter argument, if that makes sense.

Even if you don't contribute, please share this idea with other people in your life. It really is an eye opening activity to undertake, I did it for 30 days recently and realised just how judgemental I am.








Download the Challenge your preconceptions handout here

03 May 2012

Atheism does not equal immoral

On Good Friday the Q&A show on the ABC had Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell on talking about religion and atheism – what else would they be talking about. A member of the audience asked the age old question around where atheists get their morals from if they don’t believe in the bible. This irritates crap out of me and is a stereotype I would like to deal with once and for all. I will cover this off from as an argument from a Christian, as I have never had a person from another religion ask me this question and it is the dominant religion of Australian society so it makes sense to approach it from this angle.

I am an atheist, it means I do not believe in any gods or the organised religions that have been created around those beliefs. This does not make me evil or bad, and I resent the implication that you cannot be a good person with some religious direction.
Moral: n. 1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
What does your Bible actually teach you?The concept that you require the bible to get morality is a very narrow-minded view that is often pushed by the church, but think about it people, what morals do you actually take from the bible? Do you believe adulterers should be stoned or that conquering armies should be allowed to plunder the population for slaves and wives? Do you take the morality that women are effectively chattels that are handed over from parents to husbands with no rights? And don’t get me started with what morals you actually take from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, what father would offer his two virgin daughters to a marauding crowd? It’s all in there, along with a myriad of other ambiguous morals on gender, rape, slavery etc.

Or are you talking about the ten commandments? That’s really interesting because apparently it is as important to remember the Sabbath (which I’m sure you all do) as it is to not Kill and to Honour your parents. And apart from the biggies about not killing, stealing, lying, coveting or committing adultery – there isn’t a lot of other ‘moral’ teachings in the ten commandments that would give you clear direction on how to be a good person.

Maybe we should move into the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus then, you know the stuff, turning the other cheek, caring for the poor and sick, not judging others, and generally being nice to people. Is this the stuff you are talking about? Because this sounds more like the sort of morality I think Christians are referring to, and they are the sort of things I also practice.

Compassion doesn’t belong to religion
If so, this is the stuff that can generally be referred to as the ‘golden rule’. It is the basis of compassion and it exists in some form in pretty much EVERY religion, philosophy and culture that I’m aware of. It is an evolutionary imperative to be like this, since the anti-social behaviour that is contrary to this rule would result in you being ostracised from the tribe, and that usually led to death.

Further to this, I think that I learnt more morals from reading Aesop’s Fables than I remember learning from scripture. Yes I was forced to endure scripture in primary school, until I learned that I didn’t have to any longer, not something they openly shared with me.

The reason this annoys me so much is that I believe that I am fundamentally a good person. I am a pretty law-abiding citizen (some slight road rules aside at times), I donate money to charity and medical research, I am very polite to strangers and will help them out if asked, I feel compassion and empathy, we rescued an RSPCA dog when we decided to get one, I sign petitions to make the world a fairer place and I do try to be compassionate in my dealings with other people.

And I don’t require some fear of future judgement to make me toe the line. I do these things and act this way because I believe that we are all in this together, and this is how I want other people to be towards me and everyone else in the world. Yes I can be selfish, jealous, envious and inconsiderate; I am by no means a paragon of virtue. But I do not believe that I am any more prone to these outbursts than religious people, and I am reassured by the fact that I don’t practice the hypocrisy of calling myself a “good Christian” as I’m judging people for their sexuality, religion, culture or any other random feature.

And that’s another thing, I am generally accepting of these differences between people. As long as you are not oppressing or hurting me or other people in your sexuality, religion or cultural practices then why should I be bothered? I might find what you do strange and I may even be uncomfortable when initially confronted by it, but who am I to say whether it’s right or wrong?

This is my only chance at happiness
The fact that I don’t believe that there is an afterlife that I will be judged to enter does not make me careless or feel that life is pointless either. Rather, it means that I cherish the life that I live, the people I share it with and the experiences that I have because I believe that this is all there is. And why would I want to spend my only chance at life being nasty and mean, effectively isolating myself from other people, and moaning that there is nothing after the 70-90 years I get to spend on the planet, when I could spend those years getting the most out of my existence and sharing it with people I care about? Surely you can appreciate how counterintuitive this argument is?

Don’t get me wrong, I think that faith must be an incredibly powerful thing to have. And if your faith supports you and helps you get through this life then more power to you. I don’t get it, but there are a lot of things that I don’t understand so that is nothing new. All I’m saying is that you should take a leaf out of your own religion and not judge those who don’t believe what you do.

"But Hitler was an atheist…"
Another audience member, and I think from memory Cardinal Pell mentioned this too, said that Hitler and Stalin were both atheists – so this apparently proves the point that we’re all evil. For starters, Hitler was a Christian and for much of his life a very devout one apparently - own it people! Stalin was an atheist as this aligned with the philosophy behind Communism. Neither of these men did the things they did because of their religious beliefs, they did them out of fear, a thirst for power and some ill-informed judgement calls about the greater good.

So I guess this rant is just to say, being an atheist does not make me evil, immoral, amoral or even nasty and selfish for that matter. I’m sure there are atheists that fall into this category, just like there are theists that fall into this category.  Whether I believe in a god, your god or no god is not the defining factor of whether I am a good person who is good to others, we’re all far more complex than that.