Cautious hope for the world’s newest nation

RyaN says:

11:20am | 27/09/11

@Shane*: yet it didn’t stop Australia interfering in something they had no understanding of. Like that dropkick Malcolm Frasier and his racist stance on Rhodesia.
Now look at Zimbabwe, thanks Frasier, I hope the spirits of the 25000+ Matabele people murdered while Mugabe was receiving a knighthood will haunt your miserable life until you are gone. I for one will take great pleasure pissing on your grave.

Dave says:

12:07pm | 27/09/11

Ryan - ‘Frasier’ is a TV show. Care to amaze us with any more of your brilliance?  Or should we just laugh at your ridiculous comprehension (or lack of) the subject at hand?

James1 says:

01:12pm | 27/09/11

“Like that dropkick Malcolm Frasier and his racist stance on Rhodesia.”

That is not fair on Mr Fraser.  He had a choice between two sets of racists - one white, the other black.  Either way, people would make comments like yours.  In the end, he stood up for democracy rather than a racially defined autocracy.  Mr Fraser cannot be blamed for the situation deteriorating into another autocracy.

RyaN says:

03:38pm | 27/09/11

@James1: so insisting on a government based entirely on the colour of their skin lest was not racist?
Frasier knew full well what Mugabe was capable of and its not as if they hadn’t seen the likes of him before in Africa.

The blame for Mugabe being in power and the result lays squarely at the feet of Frasier and his English counterparts, regardless of the situation he should have kept his racist nose out of other peoples business.

RyaN says:

03:43pm | 27/09/11

@Dave: If you are going to try to make a smart assed comment, perhaps you should read my post instead of making yourself look like a complete imbecile.
If you don’t know who Malcolm Frasier is then perhaps you shouldn’t be trying to be smart about it, lest you are happy to face ridicule.

RyaN says:

03:53pm | 27/09/11

@James1: oh and contrary to popular belief, voting in Rhodesia was not racially based, there was a franchised vote system that represented those who had the most to lose by bad government, this was of course not enough for that racist Malcolm Frasier and his British mates, nope there was to be a government instilled ONLY on the colour of their skin, that was the criteria.
So clearly what you say is not true, he had a choice between letting a country get on with its own way of working out equality or racially instill a known genocidal communist chomping at the bit to get on with some killing. The Matabele men, women and children were just the beginning of the blood lust felt at the hands of the 5th Brigade, again Malcolm Frasier has their blood on his hands and I hope they haunt his dreams and those of his offspring for ever like the Nyami Nyami does the Zambezi river.

marley says:

04:47pm | 27/09/11

@RyaN - your “franchised” system of voting was very similar to the apartheid system in South Africa - everyone got to vote, but if you were white, your vote counted for much more.  Most democratic countries abolished property qualifications as a basis for the right to vote over a century ago.

Oh, and the man’s name is Fraser, not Frasier.

James1 says:

05:22pm | 27/09/11

RyaN, I explicitly said Mugabe is a racist in my post.  Also, I guess it is just a matter of convenience that the notorious racist Ian Smith designed the voting system to exlude 99% of blacks from the franchise.  Wrap it up in whatever pretty words you like, it was a racist electoral system, and was no more democratic than the situation now.  I’ve said this to you before and I will say it again - the fact that the government in Zimbabwe is bad now does not mean what preceded it was good or moral.

James1 says:

05:25pm | 27/09/11

To quote your hero Ian Smith himself: “Let me say it again. I don’t believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years.”

These are not the words of a democrat, these are the words of a racist.  The fact that Mugabe is also a racist does not detract from this.

RyaN says:

03:41pm | 28/09/11

@marley: do point out where it stated that the franchised voting system was racially based! Evidence please.

Dave says:

10:50am | 27/09/11

There is celebration for South Sudan statehood because it, unlike a potential Palestine state, does recognise the right of its neighbours to exist and it, unlike Palestine, is not calling for the destruction of any other nearby countries.

Shane* says:

10:57am | 27/09/11

Dave, the Palestinian Authority removed all calls for the “destruction of Israel” from its charter in the mid-90s.

Perhaps relying on the tired cliches of alramist Zionists isn’t the best idea.

Leto says:

12:16pm | 27/09/11

Whilst the US retain their authority to veto UN resolutions, Palestinians won’t get the State they seek.

If Europe take a greater part, and they keep the US and their disgusting bias out of negotiations, we might see something happen.

Dave, the settlers (mainly the Gaza Strip settlers) are every bit as fanatical as your most committed Hamas soldier. They put themselves smack bang in the middle of Arab land because ‘God’ gave the land to them, and for them, there is no higher authority than God.

I don’t think Israel is serious about peace, and why should the be when the US and their cronies (Australia) will support them no matter what.

All the best Republic of South Sudan.

AdamC says:

01:00pm | 27/09/11

Leto, there are no Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip. Unfortunately, the only fanatics there are the Hamas ‘soldiers’.

PTom says:

03:43pm | 27/09/11

The US support Tawain but China oppose any hypocrisy there.

Jade (the other one) says:

12:03pm | 27/09/11

And does not Israel, through it’s constant demand to be recognised as a Jewish state, deny the right of Arab Muslims and Christians to exist within it’s borders? Or at the very least, seek to deny their equivalent claims to ownership and representation as part of their own country?

Dave says:

12:46pm | 27/09/11

Jade, Israel has never denied the right of Arab Muslims and Christians to reside within its borders. Arabs constitute approximately 20% of all Israelis and most of these people identify themselves as Muslim. There is no restriction on the practice of any religion in Israel. 76% of all Israelis are Jews, so why shouldn’t Israel call itself a Jewish state?

James1 says:

02:05pm | 27/09/11

Arabs have more rights in Israel than they do anywhere else in the region.

Shane* says:

02:24pm | 27/09/11

James1, that’s a useless argument. That’s like saying I should be allowed to discriminate against Sudanese immigrants here in Australia because at least it’s better than the deal they get back home.

Dave, any comment on the fact that the current Palestinian charter doesn’t call for the destruction of Israel, as you erroneously claimed in the first instance then danced around when I disputed?

James1 says:

02:58pm | 27/09/11

It was a reponse to the other Jade, Shane.  In particular, it was a response to the idea that because Israel identifies as a Jewish state Arabs have less rights and no representation.  After all, 20% of Knesset members are Arabs.

I know as well as you do what is and isn’t in Hamas’ charter.  I also know that is isn’t really that relevant to Fatah controlled West Bank.

Art says:

03:06pm | 27/09/11

Dave,  You are 100% correct.  Not only this Israel has a right to maintain its immigration policies to ensure this Jewish majority.  Just because Australia maintains a non-discriminatory immigration policy in relation to ethnicity, culture and religion doesn’t mean that other countries are required to.  No one is complaining about Singapore’s immigration policies which are obviously targeted at maintaining an ethnic Chinese majority of about 70-75%.  And I believe, neither should anybody criticise Singapore for this policy, just as Israel should not be criticiesed.  They have a view of ethnic and cultural stability in their countries that they believe works ( I think they are correct) and we should not try to impose our views on them, because ultimately they are the ones who are required to live in their countries.  If their countries become failed states because their society becomes unstable, they will be the ones who have to bear the consequences.

Shane* says:

03:16pm | 27/09/11

But it is relevant to the discussion about establishing a Palestinian state.

Misdirection abounds, and it’s enough to confuse most non-Arab non-Jewish people into siding with Israel. This complex issue is nowhere near as cut and dried as it is made out to be, but at the crux of it is the ongoing injustice of a people forcibly removed from their land for the establishment of a nation “handed down by God”, built on a foundation of self-entitlement and maintained through military allies.

Erick says:

02:32pm | 27/09/11

Alternately, we could be a bit more picky about who we allow to immigrate. Cultural groups with a record of greater violence and lesser integration with Australian society should be denied entry.

James1 says:

03:25pm | 27/09/11

That’s more of an issue with our unconditional welfare system than it is with our immigration policies.  Put a top limit on increases in dole payments due to additional children, and an end-date for dole payments, and those problems will cease to exist.

Targetting ethnic groups misses the point - you need to target the social class that subjects itself to these problems.  In that sense, Marx was right that class is the real social divide.  He was just wrong about its implications.

marley says:

04:33pm | 27/09/11

@Avoid Future Problems -  if you look at the DIAC report on humanitarian settlement in Australia (the one Bolt commented on a few months ago) you might find some surprises.

For one thing, the highest levels of employment among the refugee component are found among Sierra Leoneans and West and Central Africans, followed by Ethiopians, Sudanese,  Burmese and Sri Lankans in that order. Iraqis and Afghans trail the pack (even though Iraqis are among the best educated arrivals). 

As to under-education, well,  Iraqis, Iranians, Congolese, Sierra Leoneans and Sri Lankans either arrive with good qualifications or get them here. So I’m not sure that under-education is an across the board problem.  We seem to be encouraging at least some refugee groups to improve their qualifications (which is one of the reasons for comparatively low employment rates - a lot of them are in school).  There are certainly issues with Burmese, Sudanese and Afghans, but the first two have much higher employment rates than the third. 

The group that seems to be struggling the most, according to the report, is the Afghans.  They have the lowest level of education on arrival and are least likely to get further qualifications, they have poor English and don’t improve it much, and are not surprisingly the least likely to find employment,  Yet, they are reasonably happy to be here, whereas the better education Iranians and Iraqis are not.  Go figure.

What I’m saying is that there are mechanisms to bring refugee communities into the mainstream, and the Sudanese are benefiting from those measures.  It may take a generation or two, but it’s not impossible. I don’t think we need to be all doom and gloom about it.

marley says:

06:32pm | 27/09/11

@AVF - oh, I know there are issues there.  I was saying, though, that I think that we, and the countries which have actual planned immigration policies (that would be the US and Canada - forget Europe on this) have had and maintain a better capacity to manage integration.  We have more experience, we’ve got better government and NGO support for refugees, and we give citizenship more willingly.  The Germans took in Turks as “gastarbeiter” but treated them always as temporary residents (even after 30 years) basically creating an underclass.  The Brits and the French took in “colonials” from the West Indies and North Africa respectively, but again, treated them as second class citizens.  The results of massive disengagement of the next generation aren’t too surprising. 

While we need to do a lot of things a lot better, I don’t believe we should use experiences of non-assimilation/integration elsewhere will necessarily be replicated here.

Avoid Future Problems says:

12:39am | 28/09/11

@ Marley

I think Canada and the USA probably already have significant problems in this area, namely African American disadvantage and the large scale positive discrimination policies that have been required to put in place in an attempt to head this off.

This is our future:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/affirmative-action-takes-the-cake-california-student-protest/story-e6frgcjx-1226147721635
The African Americans think that they still need the positive discrimination and the other Americans are sick and tired of being disadvantaged and think enough is enough.

Unless we think carefully about this concept of ethnicity and disadvantage particularly in relation to our humanitarian immigration intake, which is the population most at risk, and put sensible, achievable policies in place to minimize, prevent these problems we will be creating future problems.

marley says:

08:06am | 28/09/11

@AvoidFutureProblems - well, that’s an article about the US, not Canada.  And it’s about people who have been in the country for several hundred years, not about new migrants.  The issues are completely different.

If you want new migrants, especially refugees, to integrate, you get them language training and education.  You provide interpreters and support services so they can access medical care, assistance with employment and housing, and financial support - to the level that any citizen would get.  You help them.  That’s got nothing to do with affirmative action.

There are plenty of studies to show that birth rates of what were high birth rate ethnic communities drop when they move to more prosperous countries, and when the women get access to education, especially about reproduction. 

And my point really was, we don’t know which ethnic communities are going to adapt best over time - Canada has issues with Jamaicans, but not with Lebanese, for example.  The Chileans didn’t adapt well, but the Asians from Kenya did.