The meaning of Australian citizenship: Part 1

What does Australian citizenship mean? Can it be bestowed? Can it be taken away? Can its full entitlements apply to some and not to others? Is there mutual obligation within citizenship? What is the obligation of the citizen to the state? What is obligation of the state to the citizen?

Under John Howard, there are continued attempts to promote and coerce 'Australian values'.

There was the aborted attempt to have such a preamble to the Constitution. Les Murray, perhaps our greatest living poet, was hired to right such a preamble. But that did not suit. There is now a test of sorts to be placed before applicants for citizenship.


Many years ago, under a conservative political regime, Australia refused a passport for 17 years to a controversial citizen, Wilfred Burchett.


Under John Howard, there has been an attempt to deprive those confined in prison of their right to vote. It has not succeeded but has reverted to the previous situation whereby prisoners serving beyond a certain minimum term are denied the right to vote. The High Court has not yet published its reasons.


However, the question needs to be reviewed and we need to ask again: should a citizen ever be denied the right to vote? If there is a case for denial, under what conditions should this be done? What does the limiting of citizens' rights in any regard mean? Can the State limit other rights of the citizen? But then we have to ask: as Australians how are our rights guaranteed without a specific charter, without a Bill of Rights? Are our rights to be held captive to politicized judicial appointments? But then are they to be held captive to the burden of lawyers' arguments?


On the matter of the State's obligation to citizens, Australia has seen its citizen, David Hicks, subjected to gross injustice at the hands of its powerful ally, the United States of America. We have cases in Australia where people who are convicted of crimes are deported to their country of birth. The highlighted cases are of of people who were born outside Australia but have lived here since infancy without formally taking out Australian citizenship. Australia has formed them. For good or for ill, their lives have been lived among us - in our society, under our government. Do we have no responsibility or recourse but to cast them forth to become strangers in a strange land, taking with them to a foreign land their troubles which were formed among us?


Citizenship can never be taken for granted. But the citizen must always hold the entitlement and obligation of citizenship up to the light. Unless this is done, encroachment on the liberty of any may mean encroachment on the liberty of all.

Supersizing me where I live - Part 2

I - as I am sure you do, dear Reader - sometimes daydream about living in another period of human history. For Miss Eagle, her daydream is about time travelling to live as an Edwardian. Not a poor Edwardian mind you - probably an upper middle class Edwardian. So many things were happening then. New ideas, a new century and clothes were s-o-o elegant. But my daydream is tempered by the quote from John Rawls: The best measure of a just society is whether you’d be willing to be thrown into it at random.

That, dear Reader, is the crunch - is it not? I certainly would not want to be thrown at random and willy-nilly into Edwardian society. Would you, dear Reader, wish to be thrown random and willy-nilly into the first decade of 21st century Australian society? Before you give an unthinking yes to that question or reply that if you could come back as a miner in the Pilbara, let's pause for thought. Perhaps randomness and willy-nillyness would see you come back as a traditional Aboriginal person in a remote community in the Northern Territory. Or you might come back as a woman of Islamic faith who wears a hajib speaking with a broad Australian westie accent. Or a young man of middle-eastern appearance in Lakemba with a similar accent. Are you still willing to subject yourself to such randomness and willy-nillyness?

If your answer is no then Australian society in the first decade of the 21st century is not living up to the best measure of a just society as defined by John Rawls, the great moral philosopher of the 20th century.

As Australia heads for an election and the possibility of electing John Howard (who is in his sixty-ninth year) as Prime Minister for a fifth term heading for twelve years in office (the President of the USA can only have two terms of four years each), the question we should ask - as we should always ask of our nation - is: is Australia a just and fair society?

And, Miss Eagle has discovered, we give ourselves away on the justice issue in one crucial and historically verifiable way: our height. Now I am not clear where Australians are on the height table in relation to other nations but take a look at this article about the height of Americans vis-a-vis Northern Europeans. It appears that we write our communal and national history in our bodies and we can transcribe that history through our measurements, our personal vital statistics. We can match those vital statistics to historical events, to economic data like GDP and we can see what we are doing and have done to ourselves and to others.

Similar measures are outlined in the WHO Issues New Healthy Life Expectancy Rankings. Japan is top of the list and Australia is No. 2. The USA is not in the top ten. It rates 24th. Miss Eagle wonders if Australia might have topped Japan if mainstream Australia had been as concerned for Aboriginal health and well-being as it is for its own. Certainly, in the USA, efforts are poor at having an inclusive attitude to national health and well-being. Let's take a look:

1. You die earlier and spend more time disabled if you’re an American rather than a member of most other advanced countries.
2. Some groups, such as Native Americans, rural African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather than a rich industrialized one.
3. The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from female lives.
4. The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to tobacco, especially lung cancer. Tobacco use also causes chronic lung disease.
5. A high coronary heart disease rate, which has dropped in recent years but remains high.
6. Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when compared to other industrial countries.
7. Lack of universal access to medical insurance thus limiting access to health care.
8. Eight million Americans are without a job.
9. Forty million Americans are without health insurance.
10. Thirty-five million Americans live below the poverty line.

So, dear Reader, next time rich, famous, and infamous Americans catch your attention and life looks great over there, please remember these ten points. Next time an American celebrity gives away lots of money and looks good doing it, remember the unfairness of those ten points.

Ask yourself, dear Reader: if you were one of those people in the statistics quoted in these ten points, would you rather have fairness and equity brought to you by public policy voted on by every citizen entitled to vote or would you rather be one of the deserving poor dependent on the selectivity of a rich person?

Now look at the Australian picture:

1. 1.05 million households have been classified as having "low economic resources" by the Bureau of Statistics. To fall into that category households had to have low levels of both income and wealth.
2. More than 820,000 children aged under 14 live in the 1.05 million households that have been classified as having "low economic resources"
3. After adjustment for family size and composition, the disposable income for low economic resources households was $262, less than half that of middle-expenditure households.
4. One in every eight of people living in "low economic resources" households are saying they gone without meals in the previous 12 months because of a shortage of money.
5. Almost one-third of the households said they spent more than they earned, suggesting they were either running up debt or drawing on meagre savings to make ends meet.
6. The number of sole parents who receive a pension is on the decline for the first time since 1997.
7. The proportion of lone mothers in the labour force - either in work or looking for work - grew from 49 per cent in 1997 to 60 per cent last year

The last two items need to be look at more closely in relation to income, child care costs, who is looking after the kids and in what circumstances?

Our national government has neglected Aboriginal voices for more than a decade. State and Territory Governments records are not good either. And the Australian voter has not given a sufficiently high priority to Aboriginal health and well-being - instead focussing on its own income and tax-cuts - to impress politicians with a demand for urgent attention. There is a lot of goodwill out there towards Aboriginal people and their concerns but mainstream Australia is not prepared to forego its own financial well-being or do without a tax cut to bring others, black or white, into a position of equity. Please read this speech by Lieutenant General John Sanderson and have a big think.

And what evidence do I have that mainstream Australians are prepared to put themselves and their own well-being ahead of other citizens? I give you the saga of the Merseyside Hospital in Devonport, Tasmania. This is a town with a population of just over 20,000 souls which has access to two nearby hospitals within a half hour and an hour's drive yet has demanded that its own hospital be kept open to the tune of at least $45 million in spite of the difficulty of attracting highly skilled staff and maintaining their skills, in spite of the fact that the hospital itself may not be able to operate in a manner in which safety is guaranteed.

A venal Prime Minister desperate to advance his election prospects has met these demands and thus encouraged a queue of similar demands to form.

It is not only our bodies that are getting fatter and taller, our minds are becoming sloppy and unreasonable and more grandiose.

Supersize me, Prime Minister, some citizens are saying - and do it right where I live.

David Hicks: politicians get brickbats

Let's be blunt here. There are politicians in this nation who bleat about citizenship and Australian values and who have done nothing to increase the value of either. In fact, they have failed the mateship test. They have failed to show a duty of care towards a citizen - namely David Hicks. Although he is not the first - just the worst - case.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
There is the Black Trinity of John Howard, Philip Ruddock, and Alexander Downer.

For years, they have refused to lift a finger to gain the release of David Hicks from the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay used to circumvent the Geneva Convention. As the US Government conspired to avoid it human rights obligations, the Australian Government was complicit and these three men were the Australian activists who conspired to ensure the detention of David in this illicit hell hole.

Citizenship, mateship, Australian values. Forget it! These three devalue everything that Australians hold dear.

The duty of care towards a citizen. Forget it. Corruption at AWB gets more support and priority.

Mateship. Forget it. Just because Hicks is Australian did not make him a mate. He was evil - according to the demonisation antics of the Black Trinity. Australia had no law under which he could be convicted and imprisoned. So the Black Trinity took the most convenient option. Revenge, US style. Convict him in the United States. They have a law and, if it doesn't fit, they will make it fit to order.

Australian values. Forget it. Foreign governments - particularly and in particular the United States of America - can do anything they like with impunity to Australian citizens. Britain, however, values their protection of citizens more highly than this Australian government. Tony Blair got every last one of his people released from Guantanamo years ago.

THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

Ministers from Mike Rann down continue the demonisation begun by the Black Trinity. Wonderful how Labor and Liberal coalesce and merge into one another sometimes, isn't it?
Caught Kevin Foley briefly on the telly last night saying "he's not a celebrity, he's not a hero." Duh, Kevin!

No, David Hicks is not a celebrity. He is not a hero. He is more than that. He is one of us.

He has been misguided and foolish - as are all of us at some time in our lives, to a greater or lesser degree. But David Hicks is one of us who has been treated abominably. He is one of us who has been a victim of revenge from two governments - from the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave; and from his homeland, Australia, the land of mateship, the fair go and being fair dinkum.

Are South Australian politicians so used to law and order debates and upping the ante on who is the toughest on criminals, that they just automatically mouth off?

Have they never heard of mercy and compassion?

We know the Black Trinity does not understand mercy and compassion. Corruption and privilege and special pleading for people of privilege is what is understood best.

So Rann and Co - who like to appear non-partisan, who appoint a churchman to the halls of government - look no better. No mercy for Hicks. No compassion for Hicks. Demonise Hicks. Belittle Hicks. Kick Hicks while he is down. Feet of clay, Mike and Kevin, feet of clay!

Love is a challenge

I have to-day received an email from a friend. It is absolute drivel. I publish it below with my comments interpolated.

Have you ever thought -- Is Australian Moslem really an oxymoron? Can a devout Moslem be an Australian and a loyal citizen?
I forwarded that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 >years. The following is his forwarded reply:
"Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Mmmmm..... Don't know about the moon god bit but how do we interpret Islamic acceptance of Abraham, Moses, Jesus? How do we tally this up against a God (whom Christians and Jews worship) who is known as God of the Mountains (El Shaddai) and Lord of Armies (that's what Lord of Hosts means - not to mention various warlike characteristics that can be drawn from the Old Testament).
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Jesus said: "I am the way, and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) So where are modern Christians in all this as they inhabit a pluralist society? How does this statement of Jesus' inform our discourse with Jews, Buddhists inter alia....and yes Muslims?
Scripturally, no Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, back in 1960, became the first Catholic elected to the US Presidency. Questions were asked during the campaign, (these same questions, I might add, had prevented previous Catholic hopefuls from running for the highest American office) concerning his allegiance to the Pope in Rome. Such questions by Christians have been used to discriminate against fellow Christians who own the name of Christ. Why should we believe, as we read this, that this statement is on any firmer ground than the Christian discriminators were.
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
And the sun doesn't set on the British empire; and every night at 7pm at the RSL a light shines and a little prayer is said; and some Christians stand to pray, some sit, some kneel; some join their hands, some raise their hands. and some fold their arms. I am reminded of a saying of an old Pentecostal lady who was a friend of mine in younger days: It's not the position. It's the disposition that counts. And, tell me again, what this has to do with citizenship?
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Well - one thing is for sure. We now know that the person who wrote this drivel has never travelled (even if he did work in S/Arabia for 20 years, it is clear he did not move beyond his European enclave) in Africa or Asia. There is a long history of Jews, Christians, and Moslems living peaceably in their communities. To give an indication of this, I have attached a document by the distinguished writer and historian William Dalrymple. Here is a link to William Dalrymple's home page. Here is the entry for William Dalrymple in Wikipedia.
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
As a Christian, I am required to submit to spiritual leadership.
Now can we know which mullah, which Moslem community, which Muslim denomination. Just like us peaceful, wise, and non-warlike Christians, there are many denominations/theological schools/communities within the Islamic tradition. Their teachings (unlike we unified Christians) are not universally the same.
Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Oh, you mean that, like the Patriachs of the Old Testament, they may have more than one wife not like men in Christian societies who have one wife, one mistress, and some one night stands. And you mean women are beaten there like in Christian societies - many of whom are killed along with their children. Oh, you forgot to mention, that unlike women in Christian societies until the late 20th century, women entering marriage under Islamic law have economic rights. In fact, the Islamic community in Australia would like to have the Family Court of Australia recognise this in family law. Not mentioning those facts was a bit of a slip up.
Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the Australian Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Well, I almost doubled up with laughter at this one. Because one thing that the writers of the Australian Constitution were very careful to do was to keep any hint, smell or taint of religion out of the document. In fact, it is clear that our informants have never read the Australian Constitution otherwise they would know that the major concerns of the document have to do with commerce and the balance of power between six colonies (for here think individual nations in all but name) in bringing them into one nation. In case any one hasn't noticed, the colonies still get really stroppy and their relationships and their relationship with the Commonwealth of Australia have to be sorted out by the High Court of Australia. I have never heard anybody suggest that the High Court is a biblical body or that its decisions are based on the Bible or that they interpret the Constitution with the Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other. In fact, I can think of a few decisions which were completely unbiblical.
Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co - exist.
Mmmm...Clearly all that lack of teaching of history that Australian schools are accused of is catching up. Christians have never been good on freedom of religion and expression until recent times. I am 62, was brought up in a pre-Vatican II Irish-Catholic-Australian tradition, and had a very Irish name which gave my religion away immediately. This does not raise an eyebrow these days. In fact, there's a certain cachet to such a heritage. But when I was growing up, religious bigotry was alive and well between Protestant and Catholics. Look at the history of the Queensland Police Force where there are historic divisions between Catholic and Masons. This was why Ray Whitrod had to leave the Qld Police Force. He was neither Catholic nor Mason : he was a Baptist. I could go on with the way Peter Hollingworth was vilified by the secular press when he accepted the appointment of Governor-General (keep this separate from what came later). And I am of the view that if the Chamberlains had been Anglican instead of Seventh Day Adventist their story would have been very different. As for democracy: well, democracy for whom? Could go on ad infinitum ad nauseam about this. Just suffice to say that The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills says it - even though it was written about the US of fifty years ago. It is a sociological classic about who controls what and how much and it informs the Australian milieu as well.
Every Moslem government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Yeah. I know some of them are not attractive - to say the least. And yes I would like to see democratic institutions and universal suffrage. But have a look around democracies and tell me if there is a complete absence of dictators and autocrats and dictatorial and autocratic actions. This will be a shoo-in for Queenslanders to answer.
Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names."
Now it becomes clear (as if it couldn't be figured out before this point). The answer is not from an Australian but from a citizen of the United States of America. You see only citizens of the USA refer to "one nation under God". SO-O-O please go back to the beginning and put this in your mind. As for the Christian's God being loving and kind - well there are a few other descriptions in the Bible. A reading of God - a biography by Jack Miles would shed a little light on this. Read about Jack Miles here and here.
Therefore after much study and deliberation.... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MOSLEMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Moslems and good Australians. Call it what you wish.....it's still The truth.
If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.The religious war is bigger and more complex than most Australians currently know or understand.

This drivel smells very much of stuff that comes from the Australia First Party and its associates. . You will note their involvement in the Cronulla riots and, more recently, drumming up racism against refugees in Tamworth. Moslems are like Christians. Each has their share of those who we would rather not own as citizens. In fact, most Moslems do not share the above views. Not all Moslems have plural marriage and nor do they all scourge their wives. One could go on. I would draw people's attention to a book that has been on must read lists for a while now A Short History of Islam by Karen Armstrong. You can read about Armstrong here and here.
We serve a risen Lord. His way is straight and narrow and we are to follow in His footsteps. He has given us two commandments. How does the above tally up with these. Where is the love? Where is the mercy? Where is "yourself"?
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

David Hicks: citizenship and freedom

The stage is set for Australian David Hicks to become a British citizen. Hicks has been left by the Howard Government and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock to moulder in Guantanomo Bay. Currently he is being punished in solitary confinement by the vengeful United States Government.

Press Tony Blair - particularly while he is under political pressure on many fronts - to expedite the citizenship of David Hicks and, as a consequence, work to set him free as, previously, other British citizens have been. Contact details are here.

David Hicks: a step closer to justice or a step away from it?

The Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom has to-day dismissed a Home Office appeal against the granting of citizenship to David Hicks. Miss Eagle has written about Hicks's situation here, here, and here. The Home office has still two further opportunities of appeal. The first is an appeal to the House of Lords which requires the approval of the Court of Appeal to proceed. If this appeal fails, the Home Office may choose to petition directly the House of Lords. So David Hicks remains in limbo in respect of being granted British citizenship and being removed from the possibility of being sent before the kangaroo court known as a military commission.

Valuing our birthright

Peter Costello is to-day sounding off about Australian values and citizenship. There is much in what he says - but it has a singular point of reference: those who do not accept the secular rule of law in a pluralist democratic society. Costello says, amongst other things:

No one is going to respect a citizenship that is so undemanding that it
asks nothing. In fact our citizenship is quite a demanding obligation.

I think this is the heart of the matter: that by and large there has been little or no respect in Australia for citizenship - and I am not singling out terrorists or any ethnic group. I just do not believe we truly value what we hold. Look at the track record: the number of people who live here as permanent residents, who could take out Australian citizenship, who reap the benefits of living here and expect to cherry-pick what they want from our society - but they don't take out citizenship. How many British and New Zealand citizens are in this group? Look too at the teaching of civics in our schools. Look at the erosion of so many things that we have taken for granted:

1. The attempts by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Nick Minchin, to take away compulsory voting. Does he really want Australia to be like the USA where the President almost never receives the votes of the majority of Americans?
2. Attempts - and in some areas of the law this has already occurred - to do away with trial by a jury of twelve with unanimous verdicts to supplant it with hearings by a judge or a jury of fewer people or majority verdicts.
3. The rights of all citizens to access the law - when access to the law has become more a right of the rich.
4. The right to have government assistance when abroad. Things may have improved in this regard but it is still a hit and miss afair and if you fall foul of the politics of the Australian government as David Hicks has done, forget it. Blair and the Brits can extricate their citizens from the madness of Guantanamo Bay, the US takes umbrage if any of their citizens are threatened, and yet we leave a young citizen to rot with none of the legal rights that Australians take for granted - and certainly no access to rights under the Geneva Convention.

We Australians also need to recognise our historic exclusion of people - Aborigines from civil rights until 1967, selectivity in immigration under the White Australia Policy, and continuing selectivity by herding some immigrants into concentration camps known as immigration detention centres. We are happy to control and/or manipulate access of some to Australian law.

Our right to free speech and the democratic hallmark of transparent governemnt is limited when major social organisations in Australia are forced, if they want to receive any government funding, into silence as a condition of funding and when governments can indulge themselves in secret dealings of dubious nature and claim commercial-in-confidence dealings.

Lastly, we won't look to closely at flawed business and educational immigration programs where we have been only to happy to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage allowing criminal elements to infiltrate and unqualified people to conjure up Mickey Mouse courses while our own students are increasingly priced and placed out of university places.

Citizenship. I'm in favour of it. I am a sixth, possibly seventh, generation Australian. I am proud of the place. I just wish I saw governments, both state and federal, value it as much as I do.