Missing the Boat.

Today’s world is constantly shrinking. Far off and remote countries are becoming easily accessible, be it through travel, or through vicarious experiences on the internet or TV. Therefore, it shouldn’t be a stretch that, as the globe shrinks, understanding and compassion between cultures increases. It shouldn’t be, but apparently it is a huge stretch. A gaping chasm, even. Instead of diminishing stereotypes, this close-knit global community just seems to create more stereotypes, giving them a vast, if not gullible, audience. So while the phenomenon of globalisation should, in theory, bring the peoples of the Earth closer together, it instead helps to magnify stereotypes and raise fear and intolerance. A pretty bold statement, to be sure, but often hyperbole is needed for illustration.

What has brought about this little rant of mine? Well, it has been in the news a lot recently, especially in Canada, and I think Australia as well. Asylum seekers seem to be getting a bad rap. Third world refugees in desperate search for asylum from turmoil and danger in their home countries try to find their way to first world nations, such as Canada and Australia, hoping for reprieve from the situations plaguing them in their home countries. It’s a shame that we tend to view these people as terrorists or liars without offering them compassion or the chance to make their case.

This discomfort with the common treatment of refugees was sparked by the news story in Canada of the boat coming from Sri Lanka full of Tamils. It was compounded when this video dealing with the asylum seeker issue in the Australian election was brought to my attention. If the world is shrinking into a global community, why are we becoming increasingly discriminatory? Is this sudden shrinking of the globe, the blurring of national identities scaring us so much that we have to face it with a greater force of stubborn prejudice and “national pride”?

In Australia many scholars have written on the subject, and especially in the past ten years, they have deplored and lamented how the Australian government has treated asylum seekers shamefully, undermining what they view as the dual purpose of Australia’s government, as it was set forth in the ‘70s and ‘80s. That is to atone and apologise for the sins of its past whilst acknowledging that the country must also open its doors as a refuge, a place of solace, for the oppressed of the world. Some scholars have gone as far as to call the Australian government’s treatment of refugees as “rotten”. This is illustrated by recent governments who have made a strong effort to make “Asylum Seeker” synonymous with “Illegal Immigrant” a notion that is blatantly false, and harmful to those people in genuine peril, fleeing their homes for a new sanctuary.

This villainous attack on refugees is made all the more lamentable when you look at the fact that, as of 2005, there were eight thousand community-based refugees in Australian. Most of these refugees tend to be Sri Lankan, which is interesting in that Canada is having problems with Tamils. Also in that it has been statistically illustrated that refugee recognition rates are lower for those that come from poorer countries. But I’m not Australian; so I won’t dwell on their asylum seekers, instead, let us turn to Canada! (Blame Canada.)

Canada has recently received a boatload of Tamils on our Vancouver port, and not for the first time. However, it seems that a second boatload in less than a decade have made us less than accepting. Instead of deploring the conditions in which these people came over, packed into the boat like sardines in a tin can, and offering these human beings a sort of welcoming comfort, we labelled them “terrorists” before they even arrived on our shores, and accused them of human trafficking. No one mourned the Tamil who died at sea. Overall, Canadians were rather hostile toward the Tamils. A poll showed that 70% of Canadians felt that we should force the Tamils to return to Sri Lanka and face persecution. In Alberta, Canada’s province of traditional conservatism, only 17% of those polled believed that the Tamils should be given the opportunity to stay.

And we call ourselves a multicultural nation? A proud mosaic, accepting of others’ cultural differences? Maybe on the paper-thin surface. Due to the sudden influx of refugees, which the government has labelled the “Mass Arrival,” Harper’s government is planning to put forth a motion to Parliament to increase the duration of a refugee’s detention from 48 hours to 2 weeks. What exactly will this accomplish? No, seriously, I missed the news story. What will this accomplish?

Maybe Canada and Australia have such a hard time accepting third world refugees because they’re following the examples set by Mother England? After all, the UK did not allow for the 1951 Geneva Convention on human rights to supersede national immigration laws until 1993. Isn’t that a long time to basically scoff at international law? Maybe I’m just being ridiculous to think that, in today’s world, we should be more welcoming and understanding of the plight of other human beings. Shouldn’t we be above blind witch hunts against “terrorists” just because of a person’s visible religion, culture, or nationality? I was taught not to judge a book by its cover, which I thought meant withholding judgement until you met or talked to someone. But I guess it is easier to make a snap judgement and then hand the onus over to proving you wrong. This doesn’t make sense to me. But then again, fear is more powerful, and more malleable, than understanding.