It’s as though we’ve come back to where we began. After patting ourselves on the back for generously accepting 12,000 Syrian refugees, a disturbed segment now want to pull up the gangplank. Either we’re not accepting enough Christians, or we taking in too many Muslims. Some think that “Middle Eastern refugees or Islamic boat people” should be entirely turned back.
The Paris attacks have changed the west’s compassion equation. This could be seen most recently in the intensity of last weekend’s pro-immigration versus anti-Muslim demonstrations, or riots, in Australian cities – with Reclaim Australia types more flagged-up, tattooed and bellicose than ever.
In the United States, a majority of governors has come out in opposition to the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states. They are Republicans, bar one Democrat.
The US House of Representatives, with the support of 47 Democrats, has also supported a bill seeking to stop Syrian refugee resettlement, which amounts to a lousy 10,000 over the next year.
Republican presidential contenders have also been on the ramparts led, unsurprisingly, by Ted Cruz who wants persecuted Syrian Muslims sent to Muslin countries but, on the other hand, let’s provide safe haven for Christians.
This must be playing well in the boondocks because Jeb Bush was onboard with the same message. It doesn’t take much to imagine what Ben Carson, Donald Trump and Mark Rubio are posturing: don’t let in anyone from the Middle East.
Trump has floated the notion that all Muslims in America should be placed on a national register. New Jersey governor Chris Christie thinks even Syrian orphans under the age of five might pose a danger and should be banned from entry to the United States.
On Saturday we learned that Anthony Fisher, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Sydney, had written to the prime minister expressing concern that the bulk of the refugees to arrive in Australia would be Muslims rather than persecuted non-Muslims, such as Christians. This does not seem to be the situation at all, but why spoil a good story.
Local politicians are also milking it. Halal food expert Senator Cory Bernardi has heeded columnist Andrew Bolt’s warning that the arrival of Syrian refugees would be in the face of “rising fears of importing terrorism”.
The White House recently published an infographic showing the nine step vetting process for refugee entry into the US. Ours would not be dissimilar, but why bother with going into this when it’s more fun being alarmist.
It wasn’t all that long ago that Malcolm Turnbull was in step with Eric Abetz on the importance of giving Christian refugees priority.
In Britain, where the government has agreed to take 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020, much the same sort of reaction is underway, while in Europe borders are being entangled in barbed wire in the face of the human tide.
So, what gives? Does concern about the the proportion of non-Muslims and Muslims in the resettlement program make sense, let alone the even more contentious proposition that our borders should be entirely closed to people from the Middle East?
The central idea seems to be that the humanitarian response should be defined by religion and that endangered Christians, Yazidis, Zoroastrians and Jews make for a better quality refugee than Muslims.
It’s not as though Christians have a history devoid of terrorist activities, as the people of Northern Ireland know too well, so too the citizens of Oklahoma City or Charleston, who were violently attacked by good ol’ white boys.
FactCheck.org points to the UN figures that show a majority of Syrian refugees are women, and children under 12 account for nearly 40%.
The proposal that the policy should be dictated by a religious test raises more problems than it solves. Where do moderate Muslims fit in, or the Shiites and Alawites who have been targets of Isis? What about atheists, are they in or out? And, naturally, there would trouble determining who might be hiding their Muslim faith under a cloak of Christian opportunism.
However, the more objectionable aspect is that such a crude selection method would strengthen the message propagated by terrorists, that the west hates Muslims – as effective an Isis recruitment poster as you could hope to devise.
A Kurdish Iraqi refugee was reported in the Guardian from Washington a few days ago as saying that the refusal to take in refugees would feed the anti-US narrative Isis perpetuates. The same would apply with other intake countries.
On this basis, it can be argued that the solution is to take in more Syrian refugees, not fewer. It’s not as though our politicians haven’t been making self-basting remarks about our generosity. In September, the then prime minister Tony Abbott said: “We are a country which on a per capita basis, takes more refugees than any other. We take more refugees through the UNHCR on a per capita basis.”
A couple of things have got conflated and muddled in that sweeping statement.
The Refugee Council says the fairest comparison is to look at Australia’s total refugee and humanitarian program and see how it stacks up on a global basis. Accordingly, the 14,350 refugees recognised or resettled in Australia last year made up 0.43% of the global total.
That puts us at number 22 globally, 27th of a per capita basis and 46th relative to total national GDP.
We shouldn’t be too smug about accepting 12,000 Syrians because, comparatively, we’re way behind the eight ball when it comes to taking in asylum seekers. As for the idea of weeding out the Muslims, that idea has been politely labelled “highly unusual” by the UNHCR.
.png?w=600)
