OddThinking

The Speech

Last Thursday, the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, made a speech, titled “Worth Promoting, Worth Defending: Australian Citizenship, what it means and how to nurture it.” The speech got some play on the media. I found the speech to be disappointing and mildly terrifying. (I recommend reading the original before forming your own opinion.)

The thesis of the speech is that immigrants who come to Australia and become citizens should be sure to adopt Australian beliefs and values. If they don’t (and they are still citizens of another nation) they should have their Australian citizenship revoked.

I think there were several flaws in his argument, and I am annoyed enough to want to address them here.

Inconsistency in Treatment of Incoming and Outgoing

Costello starts by admiring a couple of Australian expatriates, who lived overseas but were seen as patriotic Australians. He explained that Australians who live overseas have not “turned their back on their country”, and that they can “demonstrate the warm hearted nature of the Australian character”.

Yet, he denigrates some immigrants for demonstrating the exact same behaviour – loyalty to another country. “To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first:- loyalty to Australia.”

Mutual Obligation Goes Both Ways

Costello argues that there are some obligations that fall on new Australian citizens. I would argue that there are equally some obligations on the Australian government.

If a new Australian gets a job, they should pay taxes. It is part of being Australian.

If a new Australian gets sick, the Australian government should provide medical assistance. It is part of being Australian.

If a new Australian breaks an Olympic record, they should let the Australian government gloat. It is part of being Australian.

If a new Australian breaks the law (not just expresses opposing views, but breaks the law), the Australian government should provide appropriate prison facilities. It is part of being Australian.

It is not acceptable to simply fob off the trouble-makers to another country; especially if it is a poorer country that has enough of its own trouble-makers to deal with. I believe it is the Australian goverment’s responsibility to deal justice to their own citizens.

Inconsistency between Single and Dual Citizenships

Costello seems to realise that he can’t strip just anyone of citizenship. He can’t kick out people who only have Australian citizenship.

Denial of Citizenship (leading to statelessness – people with no nationality) is a serious problem. A UN report last year suggested that one of the causes might be:

Weak states or failed states may chose (sic) to pursue exclusionary policies in order to cope with an ailing social, political or economic system and reinforce national unity and mobilise support for the country’s leadership

I am sure even Costello would never let that happen.

Costello’s speech does deal with single citizenship Australians who don’t share his Australian values – even if he is inflammatory in emphasising that they might be second-generation Australians, rather than acknowledging that this is a more widespread issue. (Would it be too clumsy to mention Martin Bryant here?)

His method of dealing with these people is rather unclear – dare I say, “mushy”? He plans to:

“explain our values, explain why they are important, and engage leadership they respect to assist us in this process. Ultimately however it is important that they know that there is only one law and it is going to be enforced whether they acknowledge its legitimacy or not.”

Whatever this procedure means, if it is effective, then why not apply it equally to dual citizens as other Australians?

Basic Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains a few relevant clauses.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. […]

That’s right. Human Rights apply even to people who disagree with you!

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

I am no lawyer, but surely stripping you of citizenship, and kicking you out of the country could be considered “exile”. (I’ll address the “arbitrary” part in the next section.)

Article 14: (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

The General Assembly of the UN obviously forgot to include a clause that said “but only if they agree with the government.”

Article 15:

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

There’s that “arbitrary/arbitrarily” issue again… I’ll get to that.

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I wonder if “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” includes “freedom of values and loyalties”. I would suggest it does.

I don’t know if the Universal Charter on Human Rights is binding on the Australian government… but we should act as though it is!

What are the Australian Values?

Costello threatens to kick people out if they don’t hold Australian values.

So what are Australian values? I hate to think…

Fourth Bruce: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules: Rule One!

Everybruce: No Poofters!

Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abos in any way at all — if there’s anybody watching. Rule Three?

Everybruce: No Poofters!!

— Monty Python’s The Bruces

Perhaps I am being unfair to Costello now. He does try to explain. He just doesn’t do a very good job.

According to different parts of his speech, Australian values are:

“Loyalty, democracy, tolerance, the rule of law”

“democratic beliefs; to respect the rights and liberty of others; and to respect the rule of law.”

“Economic opportunity […] Security […] Democracy […] Personal Freedom […] The Physical Environment […] Strong Physical and Social
Infrastructure”

So which of these are the official Australian values? Maybe he should tell his boss.

His boss who wanted the Australian constitution to state “We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.” and “In every generation immigrants have brought great enrichment to our nation’s life.”

His boss, who was interviewed on radio on Friday and avoided repeated questions about what “our” values are, and claimed “I’m not trying to impose values on anybody.”

These Australian values seem to move around a bit; they are rather arbitrary. Arguing that you must agree to them or risk deportation is, I claim, also rather arbitrary.

In any case, I am rather dubious of being told by politicians what my values are. In fact, I am quite proud to report that my values do not always coincide with those of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Resistance to Change

Values change. It wasn’t that long ago that our values were very different: equal opportunity for women, equal opportunity for races, drink-driving, smoking… the list goes on. We’ve even made some good ground in revoking The Bruces’ Rules One, Two and Three, although there is still plenty of room to improve.

One way in which our values can change and mature is by having our viewpoints broadened by people who have seen different alternatives.

Suppose an immigrant comes to Australia, and loves the environment, the people and all of their values… except one. Perhaps they feel that we treat Australian Aborigines too poorly? Perhaps they feel that we need to give animals more rights? Perhaps they feel that Australians would get to Heaven more easily if they wore different clothing?

Is that person expected to hold their tongue for fear of being deported? How can we forbid them from trying to persuade us to improve? Trying to blinker our values to those of our childhood is not the solution. Insisting that all changes to values need to spontaneously appear from within the Australian-born population is arbitrary.

Cruel and Unusual

In the USA they have (used to have?) a particularly harsh law regarding the deportation of (legal) non-citizens who commit certain crimes. The impact of this law on people’s lives has been horrific. This American Life allowed some of the people affected by the law describe the impact it had on their lives. Their voices can describe the injustice better than I ever could.

One show (13-Oct-2000) included people who still don’t know whether they will be deported after building a life and family in the USA, families of the people who were deported, legislators who didn’t appreciate the impact of the laws and inmates who have done their time, but remain in jail because the country they are to be deported to won’t accept them.

Another show (21-May-1999) followed the life of a young man – a kid – who was deported to El Salvador, a country he could barely remember, and where he knew no-one.

I accept that the US law being discussed was particularly inhumane. I accept it was applying to non-citizens. I also accept that some of the people involved carried out quite despicable acts. However, I think this should be a huge warning to Australia not to follow the States’ lead in this horrific experiment.

I am particularly concerned where immigrants came to Australia to flee repressive regimes.

Fear for My Own Safety

I have a personal angle here too. Depending on how you count it, I am a first-, second- or third-generation Australian.

I was born in England to Australian parents; part of the Australian diaspora wanting to “stretch themselves and their abilities” that Costello is so proud. I came to Australia as a toddler.

All of my grand-parents and one of my parents came to Australia over 50 years ago.

All of us became Australian citizens and built a life here. All of us have adopted many Australian traits, attitudes and values.

The idea that, by disagreeing with arbitrary Australian values that the government might conjure up, I – or any of my family – might be deported to countries that we no longer know – Hell, even if we do happen to commit a crime against Australian society – is a ridiculous one. I really don’t appreciate being threatened by it, especially by a would-be Prime Minister who is supposed to represent all of the people in Australia.

Conclusion

You’ll notice that none of the arguments here have even touched on the question of Islam, racism or terrorism. It simply isn’t necessary to question the real motives of Costello in order to shoot down this ridiculous and offensive idea.

I don’t fear being attacked by terrorists. It is not something that keeps me awake at night.

I don’t fear being attacked by gangs of alienated citizens. I guess I don’t listen enough to talkback radio.

I do, however, worry about my liberties being threatened by my own government, apparently for my own good. Enough to get political on a generally politics-free blog.

Costello and Howard should be censured for promoting the idea of such an unjust law.

(p.s. Meanwhile, don’t let yourself be distracted from also paying attention to other news, e.g. the Australian Wheat Board scandal.)