On the 15th of September 2011, I hosted a special night to launch Ghassan Nakhoul’s book called ‘Overboard’ which asked the question, ‘What have we learned since the Pacific Solution?’ For a topic that, for the past ten years, has dominated the headlines more intensely than any other event in Australia’s political landscape, it seems that we have not learned a single thing. In view of the recent tragic loss of 70 lives off the coast of Java, I wondered if the 353 victims of SIEV-X had died in vain.

Dr Nour Dados. Senior Research Associate, World Market Society Project.

To explore the recent political machinations surrounding the on-going refugee debate, I invited Dr Nour Dados to shed some light on who’s doing what, to whom. Dr Nour Dados is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Education & Social Work at The University of Sydney. She is currently working with Professor Raewyn Connell on a project about the restructuring of social life under market regimes in the Global South, and pursuing her own research into the social, political, and economic conditions that have shaped Australia’s refugee policy in the last twenty years. Below is her article.

A WORLD WITHOUT REFUGE

The recent loss of a fishing vessel carrying seventy people off the coast of Java is a sombre reminder of the perils that go with seeking refuge in today’s world. The latest tragedy comes less than two weeks after the tenth anniversary of the sinking of SIEV-X in mysterious circumstances in October 2001. The details of that tragic event which claimed the lives of 353 people, almost half of them children, remain covered in whitewash. Among those who have kept-up the search for answers is SBS journalist Ghassan Nakhoul whose radio report ‘The Five Mysteries of SIEV-X’ won him a Walkley Award in 2002. When Nakhoul revisited those mysteries for a new commemorative documentary, the same questions kept coming back. To these he added another: ‘Ten years on, has Australia learnt anything?’

Former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie AC, launched Ghassan Nakhoul's book, 'Overboard'.

In September 2011, Nakhoul’s book ‘Overboard’ (Dar Meera) was launched by former Defence Force Chief, Admiral Chris Barrie AC. At the launch, Admiral Barrie emphasised the international dimension of war and displacement, and the escalating numbers of refugees fleeing persecution globally. By the time stories about refugees reach our television screens, the larger global context would have been obscured by the rhetoric of border-security. The history of suffering to board a boat bound for safety is reduced to a minor event. ‘Overboard’ is an important work of investigative journalism, not least because it reminds us that these stories are far from marginal, and that they in fact reflect the lives of the majority of the world’s population. In the process of recounting these narratives, Nakhoul delves courageously into Australia’s refugee policies and the politics of asylum; refusing to allocate the questions left unanswered for too long to the ‘too hard basket’. It is these questions that serve as an unsettling reminder that the horrific circumstances surrounding SIEV-X are far from resolved. As one of the first journalists to question the Coalition government’s official story following the sinking on 19 October 2001, Nakhoul returns to the glaring inconsistencies in ‘Overboard’: the unsubstantiated stories of maritime misadventures that preceded that fateful day; the passengers ferried at gunpoint onto the waiting ship; the vessel loaded to bursting, only half a meter above water, described by one of the passengers as a ‘carton’; and the unresponsive boats with their search lights that circled the survivors as they awaited help for hours in the water.

Former Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard

The sinking of the SIEV-X took place in the context of the Howard government’s refusal to allow the Norwegian MV Tampa to set down its rescued passengers in Australian territory — a move that led to the birth of the so-called ‘Pacific Solution’. Nakhoul asks whether this hitherto unprecedented response to boat arrivals may have come about as a response to a challenge issued on SBS Arabic Radio on 24 July 2001 by Keis Asfoor, later charged and convicted of people smuggling. During the eleven minute interview with Nakhoul, Asfoor insisted (sixteen times) that if the Australian Government sent back just one boat, then the boats would stop coming. The interview attracted the attention of the authorities, and Nakhoul found himself summoned to appear in court. Two years later Mr Phillip Ruddock was still quoting Asfoor in Parliament (‘Overboard’ p.99). Today, turning back boats remains part of the Liberal Party’s preferred response.

Indeed, the issue of boat arrivals, despite the far smaller number of refugees arriving by boat than by plane, continues to dominate the headlines and the polls. Although the current Labor Government has not led in the two-party preferred vote since October 2010 (Nielsen Poll), it seems convinced, if the last twelve months tells us anything, that the only way to get back on top is to echo the Opposition’s populist tune to ‘Stop the boats’. Worse, those who have led the march have claimed to be able to ‘stop the boats’ more efficiently than Mr John Howard’s imperious Pacific Solution. At the height of the Tampa Crisis, Howard’s approval-rating was at seventy-seven percent (Nielsen Poll, 4 September 2001), a number etched into memory by Australian band ‘The Herd’ in their song ‘77%’ that begins by sampling that announcement that aired on talk-back radio.

Prime Minister of Australia, Ms Julia Gillard MP

Ten years later, and despite Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s efforts to keep the boats at a clear distance from the Australian mainland, Labor’s crisis has no end in sight. Despite Labor’s improvement in the latest Newspoll (November 2011), the Coalition is still well ahead. Forty-four percent of respondents surveyed last month (Newspoll, October 2011) said they supported the Coalition’s stance on boat arrivals compared to seventeen percent for Labor. The common sense narrative that equates Howard’s popularity with his stance on the Tampa (and attributes that position to his rising political fortunes) fails to explain why a tougher-than-Howard Gillard is falling behind. Gillard, and indeed the Labor ministers who were peddling the Malaysia solution, went out of their way to present it as efficient and effective in the hope of winning the voters’ approval. Perhaps though, they forgot, that the voters they were trying to woo may not have cared for the language of efficiency so much as the vibrant language of ‘them and us’, and that without throwing that pot of crackle-and-pop into the mix, no ‘solution’ raises an eyebrow. All this reminds us that Howard didn’t sell the ‘Pacific Solution’ by labeling it as ‘efficient’ but by rendering the unwanted as so thoroughly contaminated that no-one would want them near. Only then did efficiency count in their removal.

The Hon Phillip Ruddock MP

Any ‘solution’ that begins by closing the borders in the face of suffering and misery must first convince those whose approval counts, in this case the voters, that those whom they turn away are less than human. If electoral consent for our current refugee policies begins with the dehumanisation of the victims, and ends in their incarceration in mandatory detention, it is hardly surprising that so many of the protests in detention centres — hunger strikes, lip sewing, and detainees burying themselves — have focused on the body. In characterising lip sewing as ‘a practice unknown in our culture’ and one that offended the ‘sensitivities of Australians’, former Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock emphasised the extent to which such acts of desperation failed to register as such because those who were participating in them had already been dispossessed of their humanity. Their actions could signify only as an offense to ‘us’. What he, and those he spoke for, failed to see, is that the refugees who protested through their bodies had long ago stopped being human in the eyes of those who demanded and justified their incarceration.

Despite the disgrace of the proposed ‘Malaysia Solution’, Gillard’s Labor Government has fallen short on this account and stands to gain little from playing the ‘boat people’ card. Yet in trying to pass bad policy off as a ‘solution’ they only till the soil for more dangerous ‘solutions’ to take hold. Let us not forget that had it not been for the 1992 amendments to the Migration Act that authorised the detention of those seeking asylum on the premise of deterring others, an amendment that came into force under a Labor Government, Howard’s ‘Pacific Solution’ may have been unthinkable. There are clear international obligations, but whether or not these are met today depends almost entirely on the surrounding political climate. In trying to sell bad policies as ‘solutions’, the current Government only undermines the campaign for justice and increases the risk that we will see a future ‘solution’ that is more brutal and more inhumane than the one that set its sights on the Pacific.

My guest this week will  be Admiral Chris Barrie AC — the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force who served during the Howard Government amidst the controversial Children Overboard Affair, will speak-up! In this rare public appearance, Admiral Barrie will reveal the amazing truth about what happened, by exposing the other side of a story that few people knew. If you live in Sydney, you are invited to the launch of a book that will make you doubt the headlines that mesmerised a nation. The author, Mr Ghassan Nakhoul, warns, ‘You would not believe what really triggered Australia’s controversial policy on Boat People.’

Each day, journalists dive into the middle of life’s drama. Although they are not supposed to get caught-up in the stories, there comes a time when even the toughest of reporters succumb to an event so powerful, that it changes their life. This is what happened to Walkley-Award winning journalist Ghassan Nakhoul. For the first time in a 30-year career that included front-line war-zone reporting, he was overwhelmed. The incidents were so devastating, he felt compelled to write a book in order to share the plight of anguished souls: the asylum seekers and those who perished at sea. The book uncovers rorts in the refugee system, and it sheds light on government tactics designed to scare away the boat-people. Ultimately, the book reveals that the controversial ‘Pacific Solution’ might have been instigated not by politicians or government strategists, but by the person whom you would least suspect! The 10th anniversary of the Tampa crisis, the Pacific Solution, and the sinking of SIEV-X that killed 353 people, makes this book even more relevant & timely, as we ponder: What have we learned?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ghassan Nakhoul is the first journalist from SBS Radio and the Arabic-speaking community in Australia to receive the prestigious Walkley Award. His career spans three decades. He has been with SBS Radio for twenty years and has contributed to Australian newspapers and magazines. Ghassan is also a lecturer at The University of Sydney.

DATE THURSDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 2011
VENUE HOLROYD CENTRE 17 MILLER STREET MERRYLANDS
TIME 6:00 PM REFRESHMENTS. 6:30 PM PRESENTATIONS
BOOK REVIEWED BY DR AL JABIRI
ENTRY NO CHARGE
PARKING FREE OFF NEWMAN STREET
ENQUIRIES 02 8569 0671 OR MARY at LOSEFRIENDS.COM
SALES THE BOOK WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR CASH PURCHASE ON THE NIGHT
HOSTED BY JONAR NADER, THE AUTHOR OF ‘HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS & INFURIATE PEOPLE’
OTHER GUESTS INCLUDE MR SAM ALMALIKI.

POST EVENT

The book launch was a huge success. Approximately 200 people attended this event to hear the keynote speech by Admiral Chris Barrie AC who was later interviewed by SBS Radio. The interview can be heard at this link for Ghassan Nakhoul’s website, where copies of the book ‘Overboard’ can also be purchased.

The entire world is ripped apart by the ‘Them and us’ syndrome. If you sit down with Palestinian families, you can’t help but weep at the horrific situation in which they find themselves. If you look into the eyes of a mother who saw her children burn alive, you would have no words with which to console her. Then, travel to Israel and sit with a broken mother whose sons were kidnapped and tortured for weeks on end, and whose severed limbs were sent back to her in a bloody box, you would feel ashamed at how humans can inflict such unfathomable cruelty upon each other.

Fold away the national flags, and bring the women together, and they will lament at the sheer agony of loss. They will both understand the emptiness that haunts their shattered spirit. Irrespective of language or creed, they will hold hands as they ache at the incomprehensible barbaric behaviour whose result is never anything more than pain and suffering. There can be no victory. These women will tell you that nothing was worth the loss. No act of revenge has ever soothed a stolen life. Nothing good has ever come from bullets and bombs. What is worse, is the perpetual lies that fuel endless misery for both sides. There can be no victors where there is no justice. Land, geography, money, and sovereignty do not provide prosperity. Real wealth grows in the hearts of children. Real peace comes from shared fruits. Real happiness comes from common toil that concludes with the setting-sun around a dinner table where neighbours and strangers are just as welcome as family members.

Talk is cheap. Tough talk is pathetic. With mighty weapons, people can’t think straight. With lop-sided power, people can’t be just. Putridity dominates our world, and it gallops fast when humans are hell-bent on blaming ‘them over the border’. It is never us. It is always them. They killed our children, so we will kill their children. Has anyone stopped to ask the children what they think?

It is pathetic that we speak about the troubles of the Middles East in terms of religion and politics. I’ll tell you what fuels it: greed and stupidity. And the one ingredient that keeps greed and stupidity in full flight is lies!

And the worst lie is not the one that we spin for others to believe. Rather, it is the lie that we fashion and swallow ourselves.

There have been errors, horrors, and atrocities on both sides. Left, right, and centre. We have all erred. We have all suffered. Sad indeed that the Arabs have so quickly forgotten that they were the leaders in the fields of science. The Arabs were the forefathers of mathematics. They were the trend-setters for hospitality and generosity. They have so much going for them, they could dominate the world, and teach it about how to live a joyous and zestful life. Sadly, the Arabs have allowed themselves to be distracted by wider, jealous enemies who know how to divide and conquer.

The history of the torment in the Middle East would require billions of pages to document. How can we ever tell all the stories? And there is always one more story… have I told you what his grandfather did to my grandfather… However, those billions of stories can be summed-up in one word: Debauchery!

So, where to from here?

Corrupted souls do not know how to reason. They only understand the language of hate. Their only currency is blood. Their only mantra is power. And we still invite them to peace talks? There can be no peace while we trade in lies. There can be no respite while justice is suffocated at every opportunity.

We are left with one solution: the sane amongst us must pray for ‘magnanimity’. All of us, young and old, the pained and the troubled, the guilty and the pure, must come to the village-square and say, ‘I have made terrible mistakes. The only way for me to repent is to be magnanimous. Please dear enemy, will you allow me to be magnanimous? May I do something to show you that I am sorry about my past mistakes?’ And as one party says this to another, you will find people embracing each other and saying, ‘My enemy, my friend, there is nothing I need from you. I just want us to stop this madness. The moon is nice tonight, shall we toast the moon as we bathe in its light? Look, the stars have begun to sparkle. Please break this bread with me. The angels are watching. Let us not disappointment them on this blessed night.’

This kind of solution is only possible if we can mature. But that is unlikely. It can only happen if we are ready to forgive. But that is unlikely. It can only come to fruition if we can love, but the anger sill burns in our heart, and the rage still consumes our mind. Therefore, sadly, love is still a long way off. And this begs the desperate question, ‘What can we do?’

We can expose the lies. Not so that we can swing back and forth and take sides. Not so that we can pretend that they are at fault and we are pure. But so that we can let it all out, in the light of day. So that we can stand naked in front of each other, both ‘Them’ and ‘Us’ called to account to open our black books and place them out in the open for us all to see that neither one is blameless, and neither one is without a blemish. We both have blood on our hands. We are both guilty of atrocities. We both have troubled pasts. We both could do better. We both deserve better. We happen to be temporary guests on Planet Earth. Is this the way guests are supposed to behave?

The videos below are by Dr David Duke. At the end of it, please do not take sides. Just see that no one is blameless. Only when we can blow the whistle and halt the game, can we have any hope of coming together as two guilty parties with our heads bowed down in shame, and say, my enemy my friend, we can both do better. So much has happened, that it can never be corrected. So many lives have been ripped apart, that we can never raise our head and utter another word. Shame on us all.

Let this be an era for silence. Speak no more. Consult no more. Shout no more. Promise no more. Demand no more. Hush. We have said too much. We have hurt too much. We have lied too much.

The children will turn to us and curse our existence. Let us not fail them. Can we create the turning point? Can we halt the madness? Can we stem the tide of absurdity? Our only mission now is to be magnanimous so that the children don’t despise us. On our watch, we must arrest the barbaric behaviour.

What can we do about it? First, let us not point the finger. Let us not raise our fist in anger. It is all too pathetic for anymore posturing. You and I can do something. Any little thing. Whatever you think you can. But please do it. However small. Please do it. Something. Anything. Please do what you can. It might take no more than seven minutes of your life. Can you afford that much?

Enough with the lies. Both parties are guilty. The children are suffering. This is not the smart way to live. We can do better! How do we win the war? By stopping the lies. In the absence of lies, we can win together.

When will the healing start?

When the children play together.

This made me think that as large as Google is, it has more code to write. Its software needs some modifications. I would have thought that advertisers should be able to stipulate where their ads go. I know that it is all one big pot, but in this case, it would make sense for the ad not to have been associated with this damning article about the company’s misconduct.

Anyway, IHRB and Sam Cohen always bag Shane Warne and Advance Hair Studio. After investigating Sam Cohen and his methods, I have found that his practices leave a lot to be desired. A full report is now filed at this site dedicated to Sam Cohen and IHRB. The site is designed to assist people who are experiencing hair loss and who are contemplating wasting their money with Sam Cohen and the Institute of Hair Regrowth and Beauty, also known as I.H.R.B at Pitt Street Sydney. If you are planning on spending money with IHRB, you would be well served to visit that site. I am sure you will change your mind and be grateful that you did not waste your money.

Update: Since writing this, I have created a new site that is dedicated to Sam Cohen and IHRB’s hair loss nonsense at www.IHRB-Story.com.

You can see the Ads by Google, promoting Advance Hair Studio, in this online article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The report speaks about the misleading conduct by the company that resulted in the ad being banned.

Did Professor Fels really say that? If he did, then let me say that this is an example of spin. The average Australian will remember Professor Allan Fels from the time that he was the head of the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and they might presume that he is an authority on consumer-related matters, and they might hold him and his opinion in high regard. As a result, they might believe his statement, and therefore adopt his views.

It is reported by ‘The Age’ that he refers to the ‘uneducated clamour of a few authors who are driven by publisher interests’.

1) Authors have enough to worry about, trying to survive in a fickle market. They have no misplaced affection towards publishers.

2) If professional authors are uneducated, then there’s no hope for the world.

3) To which clamour is Professor Fels referring? The entire country was asked to submit its views to the Productivity Commission, which has informed us that 272 submissions were received prior to the Commission’s discussion draft, and a further 288 submissions were received in response to the draft. I read some of those submissions. It is neither democratic or sporting to seek submissions, and then refer to those submissions as ‘clamour’.

4) When Professor Allan Fels says, ‘a few authors’, what is the average reader going to imagine? Two or three authors? Seven or ten authors? There were dozens. From the humble beginners to the biggest names in Australia.

I had submitted my views to the Productivity Commission’s Chairman, and here is a copy of my letter. Perhaps you can read my note, and then count me amongst the few of the uneducated clamourous authors.

Dear Committee

It is not for me to say whether or not we should allow the importation of books. I trust that you will make the best decision. I would be willing to assist you in any way, and I would welcome your call at any time.

May I please urge you to ask the correct probing questions. So far, I have researched some of the arguments, and as an author and publisher, I fear that there have been one-sided arguments designed to mislead.

Some people say that importing books will not harm authors. This is incorrect. Let us look at typical publishers’ contracts. From my experience, as an author who has signed contracts with Prentice Hall/Simon & Schuster, Penguin, Pearson Education, ABC Enterprises, HarperCollins, Ink Group, and a host of other international organisations, I know that the percentages and the loopholes within the contracts will mean that the royalties received by authors will be magnificently reduced. Contracts state that international sales are a fraction of the domestic amounts.

Also, people say that importing books will make them cheaper. These people compare typical wholesale prices across regions. They do not seem to calculate freight, storage, customs, etc. So they are insulting your Committee by their calculations.

They denounce the idea that remaindered books will flood the market. Having been in business for over 30 years, and having worked for retailers plus multinationals such as IBM, I have seen how the world of commerce operates. I fear that your Committee might be misled about how remainders really work, and what triggers them. The loopholes in these areas are so huge, that authors might not only never receive royalties, but also have to actually PAY to have their books shipped to Australia. The argument is laughable and complex for those who are not well versed with how this industry works.

What will happen when, due to freight and long lead times, the retailers start to e-print titles? The contracts for e-prints are again amazingly unfair. Author will not only receive miniscule royalties, they might also be charged for marketing and advertising subsidies. I can show you signed contracts from large operators who actually thrust their unfair practices onto authors.

My submission to you could easily turn into fifty pages and cover a raft of areas. I shall pause here to invite you to contact me if you would like additional information so that you can arrest people whose illogical arguments are designed to baffle you and the public.

I shall support your decision. I am not trying to sway you either way. However, I cannot abide unethical self-serving conduct by business people. I do not mind any corporation making a submission that brazenly seeks higher profit and control. My abhorrence relates to organisations who twist half-truths to seek sympathy via a back door. They should deal in facts, not propaganda.

I wish you every success.

Yours faithfully

Jonar Nader

Here is a copy of the text from ‘The Age’: