A federal election campaign always seems to be marred with controversial debates surrounding the Australian way of life. In 2010, that debate involves the so- called “boat people”, and a need to “stop the boats”. Indeed in the 2010 Federal election debate there are 9 references made to “stopping the boats”.
This phrase, "stop the boats", embodies both the current government and opposition opinions on the matter of asylum seekers. That is, that they [the boat people] should not be allowed to come to
However, in so saying, it should be acknowledged that it is not illegal to seek asylum. An asylum seeker is someone who has fled their country and applies to the government of another country for protection as a refugee, and this applies regardless of the mode of entry.
The continued construction of asylum seekers as deviant in nature has seen the debate in the 2010 election framed in the question of “where do we put the boat people?". Such a construction belies the real issues at hand. Boat people are not illegal immigrants as some people would have us believe. They are not committing a crime in arriving on our shores. Yet the government is intent on framing the issue as one of national security, rather than a humanitarian one. The categorisation of asylum seekers as a national security threat became particularly prominent in the 2001 Federal election. Arguably the 2001 election is the point where the issues of asylum seekers were irrevocably and erroneously intertwined with the threat of terrorism. It is through the labeling and criminalization of asylum seekers, that politicians can justify the detention of innocent individuals.
Perhaps the answer can be found within a racial analysis. According the Refugee council of
Thus, the matter of asylum seekers can be seen now in 2010, as it was in the White Australia era, as a policy shaped by
Great post Merinda. Would be good to maybe see a few references to some of the data you give, just to support your argument. The construction of asylum seekers as deviant is a very interesting topic. Sharon Pickering, a criminologist from Monash Uni, has written a fair bit about asylum seekers and detention, if you are interested in reading any more about it. What role do you think the media play in constructing this image or representing this depiction of asylum seekers to the public? Do you think the media paint them as 'folk devils'? This would be an interesting angle to bring to the discussion, letting you really draw out that crime-politics-media nexus.
ReplyDeleteAlyce
I would like to deconstruct the phrase ‘stopping the boats’, which Merinda writes the media has ruthlessly covered and in fact, has become endemic to the current federal election coverage. Melinda’s blog does well to highlight the complexities which surround the relationship that exists between politics and the media. The media have created an artificial hysteria (moral panic) due to over reporting of asylum seekers, this than places intense downward pressure on the federal government to remedy the issue to appease the electorate. This elixir takes the form of a knee jerk, bandaid solution that subscribes to the maxim of; ‘more law equals more order’ and an increase in punitive justice, which ignores the much more complicated problems concerning the socio political factors in which the refugee problem is born from (the media have done well to simplify, frame and dichotomize the story into an ‘us versus them’ rhetoric, which lends itself to news values). This highlights the ability that media possess to both influence policy and being able to place certain issues on the political agenda, after all, not many of us would have had a direct contact with the refugee’s, we instead rely on the media.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of asylum seekers could indeed be branded a signal crime, as the reporting of the issue has created a social reaction, which signals change and demands tougher law and order responses. Stories containing asylum seekers also satisfy many of the news values criteria as identified by Jewkes (I don’t have space to deconstruct them here) which could be used to explain the constant coverage of the story (it is newsworthy!).
Thanks for the comments guys :)
ReplyDeleteI think the media's role in this debate is huge! particularly in the creation of the moral panic surrounding asylum seekers and the portrayal of them as a threat to our society and "other" (Jewkes). The media's role seems to go hand in hand with that of the government in creating a deviance amplification whereby the asylum seekers appear more and more deviant. Indeed, as Alyce points out, "folk devils" (Cohen). The characterisation of this "crisis" is certainly adequately described as a moral panic, considering its disproportionate media attention during a Federal Election campaign. The scrutiny of which seems to end almost as quickly as it begins.
A secondary, though related issue, which I endeavour to point out, is the media's ( and the politician's) incorrect use of terminology . It is not only erroneous for the media to portray the so-called boat people as being “illegal” and to use the term asylum seeker interchangeably with “illegal migrant”, but it is bordering on unethical. Indeed the Australian Press Council Guideline 288 recognises the issue; “ The descriptor… is very often inaccurate and connotes criminality” (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/activities/guides/guide288.html)