MH370: Cooperation and Agitation

What the tragedy of MH370 has revealed about our global society...

The unexplained disappearance of flight MH370 continues to perplex the global community. The flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing, China, vanished from radar on the 8th March 2014. 18 days later and search teams have pinpointed a crash zone in the South Indian Ocean but the journey to this conclusion has been confused and chaotic. I'd like to consider some of the developments of the search for MH370 and what it has revealed about our global community.

I have included some twitter posts in italics because I think the world's reactions to MH370 has been fascinating and has revealed a lot about our social relations and perceptions.

1. Terrorism

For me one of the most horrifying moments in the search for information was the world's reaction to the revelation that the two men travelling on stolen passports were Iranian. Passengers travelling on stolen passports was naturally a cause for alarm but once it was announced that these men were Iranian world media and social networking instantly assumed terrorist activity solely because of their national identity. Just days later, however, it was revealed that neither had terror links and that one of the men, an 18 year old named Pouria Nour Mohammad Mehrdad, was attempting to migrate to Germany to join his mother for a better life. For those brief few days, however, both innocent men were villainized ruthlessly in some cases purely on the basis of their nation of origin. It serves to highlight some of the damaging and entirely incorrect stereotypes that have been forged particularly by Western society in a post 9/11 world.

Furthermore, the last few weeks have shown the world's disturbing love for conspiracy with thousands of individuals on blog and websites macabrely explaining step by step what they believe happened. Theories have ranged from various terrorist plots, calculated decompression and a fascination with the U.S. base Diego Garcia. Whilst speculation by authorities is of course necessary to help direct the investigative process, the sheer detail some irrelevant individuals' conspiracy theories have gone to is unnerving and also disrespectful to the families of those lost on the plane.

"Diego Garcia best military radar in the world but they missed an airliner who are they trying to kid not everyone in the world" - Fronteratech

"If only conspiracy theorists were as intelligent as they were paranoid" - Harold Itzkowitz

2. Media

MH370 has proved a challenge for global media. This is because MH370 is somewhat of a unique subject precisely because it is a news story centred around a vacuum. Unlike say unfolding events in the Ukraine, which is a present, apparent process, MH370 is a search for something lost in the past. The media are unsure how to deal with this, how can you report on the news that something has no news? The world of twitter has mocked CNN for interviewing almost every aviation expert on the planet and for reenacting MH370's flight with model planes. It is indeed amusing to see CNN's attempt to disguise the fact that there still is little/no news. There has been such a thirst for news on the subject that several times information has been reported only for it to be found false the following day as with several supposed 'debris' finds. 

Finally I think most people will agree that the media's insensitivity towards the families of those on board MH370 has been shocking. Close up pictures of people in the very depths of grief should never be taken and I find it very difficult to comprehend how anyone could do that. 

"One thing I learnt from this is it's difficult to be leaders. Everything you do is under scrutiny, by people who aren't even experts" - DRIZ

3. Global Cooperation

One of the positives of MH370 has been the cooperation and sharing of resources between different countries of the world. This infographic displays it quite well:



There are many countries here that have been working together who have past and continuing tensions but it has been nice to see that for a human tragedy these differences can be put aside. That's not to say there hasn't been some political finger pointing over the matter though. Malaysia and China in particular have bickered and criticised each other repeatedly over the search operation. Some have even suggested that the MH370 crisis could be a catalyst for political change in Malaysia.
(See: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/malaysia-airlines-catalyst-pol-2014326114154815905.html)

The tragedy has also been interesting for the comparisons between different countries' military technology and has shown some striking inequality. The Vietnamese for instance are still using helicopters from last century's war. It has been a fascinating and valuable focus on relations in a part of the world that is often neglected by Western media.

"Highly ironic that Chinese are accusing Malaysian Government of being murderers and lacking transparency!" - Andrew J 

4. Technology vs. Nature

In our modern world we all feel invincible. MH370 however has illustrated a reality that is too often forgotten that at the end of the day, nature is our master, vaster in ways we cannot comprehend. The new search area in the South Indian Ocean is known as the "Roaring Forties" due to the frequently high winds. It is 4 hours flight away from land and the area to be searched is still 1.6km squared. The seabed is mountainous with an average depth of 4 km. This is no easy task.

The limitations of our technology has also been exposed with NASA and even the world's best military radar (U.S.) failing to quickly locate the plane. Additionally big questions have been asked about onboard technology, why does the black box only have a memory capable of recording the final two hours of the flight? And why are the pilots able to turn off commercial radar? And why haven't planes been upgraded to constantly transmit flight data to satellites rather than rely on the elusive black box?

"Uploading flight recorder data to cloud too expensive? No, what's expensive is sending dozens of planes to search for the black box" - Frank Scavo 

~

The search for MH370 has certainly been and continues to be a revealing and turbulent ride. I can only hope that answers are found soon for those families affected.

Two Proud Presidents and His Royal Highness History

"Putin is on the wrong side of history" - Obama

(See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-putin-is-on-the-wrong-side-of-history-says-president-obama-9166831.html)

I think if anything, history is laughing at both sides and the entangled, aggressive mess, driven by pride that constitutes the U.S. and Russia's relations and epitomises humanity’s flawed perception of existence.
To claim that history is on anybody’s side shows a foolish and dangerous accumulation of ego. History shows us that nobody can truly master the future; every rise is followed by a fall and all ‘greatness’ is relative to a time and a place.
Far too often, swept away by the confident moment of our existence, we forget our real insignificance on the wider spectrum of time; rather, we become overly self-absorbed in our ‘now’ and all its associated needs and wants we have to fight for.
Thus, upon achieving success to any degree, nations and individuals become easily convinced of their assumed stability and future victories and this confidence perpetuates the potential for conflict.
I'm not saying the U.S. is wrong to defend the Ukraine. Of course if a people’s land is threatened by a superior aggressor we should come to their aid. But I am questioning the basis of pride the U.S. and the West acts from. Obama’s warning and the media’s relishing revision of ‘cold war’ doom and gloom is volatile since it amplifies the atmosphere of conflict.
Overall, I'm pretty sure history, after all these tedious centuries, must be despairing at our continued incapacity to rein in our pride in order to prevent the further escalation of conflict.

The New Year's Post That Never Was...

So 2011 started with a bang.
Quite literally; the bang of gunfire.
Two hundred and nineteen dead, that's two hundred and nineteen.
It makes the London tuition fees protests look.... tame?

Let me introduce today's guest publication;
The Life and Death of Democracy - John Keane
It can be thoroughly recommended.
Though, in light of recent events, it would seem Mr. Keane will need to rethink, because right now democracy seems very, much, alive.

As the dēmos, in approximately 500BC, risked their lives to overthrow the powerful aristocracy in Athens, thousands of street protesters took to the streets in Tunisia, in a bid to topple the corrupt control of President Ben Ali. A revolution now commonly known as the Jasmine Revolution.

Unemployment, food inflation, presidential and governmental corruption, lack of freedom of speech and poor living conditions, all attributed to the explosion of protest that erupted in December 2010. The catalyst, however, was the shocking self immolation, on the 17th of December, of a Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. The wave of chaotic protest that followed, would result in Ben Ali fleeing to Saudi Arabia, on the 14th January 2011, leaving his post of 23 years and Tunisia in a 'state of national emergency'.

The exit saw the subsequent, rapid formation of a caretaker coalition government, with the promise of elections within 60days.
However, anger and unrest remained, as the coalition government contained members of President Ali's party, the Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD) so street protests continued; with new demands that the RCD should be disbanded and all members should be forbidden to stand in future governments.
As a result, on the 27th of January, the Prime Minister removed all former RCD ministers, other than himself from the government.

Events were already revolutionary; but things got even better...

Now, the cue for that wonderful and spontaneous occurrence, which has so often shaped the history of the world; the domino effect.

Almost as soon as the media had returned from one country, it was straight onto the next.
This time to Egypt; where protests began on the 25th of January...

If this was top trumps, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak would win, as he resigned on the 11th of February, following a ridiculous thirty years in power. The protests, largest in Cairo and Alexandria, resulted due to long-term anger at governmental corruption, police oppression, minimum wages, inflation and state of emergency laws. Protesters fought for the resignation of Hosni Mubarak and for democratic reforms to the political system.
At its peak, over 1million protesters scoured the streets of Egypt, at least 365 deaths were reported and the capital city of Cairo was at one point described as being a 'war zone'.

...This wasn't just a bunch of students, with painted faces, waving defaced, mildly amusing posters of Nick Clegg.

Initially Mubarak attempted to cling to power through the use of Egypt's Security Forces, by instigating a curfew and by blocking off forms of communication, such as the Internet and mobile phone networks. But eventually, after days of tantalising 'Will he? Won't he?' moments, Mubarak finally dissolved government, appointed Omar Suleiman as Vice-President and asked the chief of Egypt's air force, Ahmed Shafik to from a new government. Defeat was finally acknowledged when, on the 11th of February, Omar Suleiman announced Mubarak would step down as President and power was to be handed over to the Supreme Council of the Junta, headed by Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. For me, this appears to be a slightly worrying situation as military rule can often spell trouble but Tantawi pledged elections would follow in 6months time.

So as Egypt and Tunisia, breathe a sigh of relief, for now...
Libya holds its breath as street protests begin to explode...
WATCH THIS SPACE.

P.S. Happy New Year!
Apologies for the lack of posts recently...
But not future promises made!

Embracing the Cold: Vince Cable goes Nuclear.

So he's not too old to give up the dancing, but clearly old enough to go senile...

"I have a nuclear option; it's like fighting a war. They know I have nuclear weapons, but I don't have any conventional weapons. If they push me too far then I can walk out and bring the government down and they know that. So it is a question of how you use that intelligently without getting involved in a war that destroys all of us. That is quite a difficult position to be in and I am picking my fights. Some of which you may have seen."

Oh that tragic day, where within just a few minutes, Vince, metaphorically speaking managed to turn the gun on himself.
In the ramble he revealed state secrets, launched war on the Tories, Murdoch and a dozen other senior political figures - all of this he managed to lace together with aggresive, nuclear terminology.
This has to be the perfect media candy.
"I don't expect you to quote this outside" he said.
Oh Vince, if only you knew... If only you knew...

"I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win".

Amongst the revelations, the most devestating seems to be the attack on Rupert Murdoch.
On this one, if I'm frank, I'm with Vince;
We're all at war with Murdoch a little bit.

But when you are the official who has been trusted with the quasi-judicial role on the situation; as Vince found out, it's maybe best not to voice such negative views against the matter so openly.

To clear things up, what is the Murdoch controversy?
In June 2010, News Corporation announced their intention to fully takeover BSkyB and it was believed the deal, devoid of difficultly, would go ahead, with only the price agreement posing a problem.
In many ways, BSkyB was already unofficially tagged as being part of the Murdoch empire, despite News Corporation only physically owning 39% of the shares. Furthermore, Murdoch himself had set up Sky in 1990, when he merged it with British Satellite Broadcasting.
Therefore, in June, the takeover didn't seem too radical.
But then maybe it was just kept quiet...

However, by September a campaign had begun to arise, in the press and parliament. A campaign which continues to this day.
This latest takeover would result in an even tighter, suffocating grip on the media, bringing with it considerable political influence. This would place disturbing power within the hands of the one individual; Rupert Murdoch. An idea naturally repelled by all those in favour of democracy. Additionally, there are concerns on the effect of plurality; choice for consumers within the market.

Ofcom must decide by 31st December whether to refer the bid to the Competition Commission. But with Vince Cable clearly not being the neutral judge needed, the final decision on whether the blocking goes ahead or not, will now rest with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, as will all future decisions of this nature.

One humiliated, demoted Vince Cable... Two undercover telegraph reporters... And a ramble of loaded languge...The perfect gripping news story to plague the tabloids for a couple of weeks...

The Official Liberal Announcement: KEEP CALM and CARRY ON ?

You'd have to be a hermit of the St.Ossian scale not to have heard about the turmoil of tuition fees...

And now it is the eve of the vote. The spotlight is on.
So, what should the Liberal Democrats do?

1. The Vote Yes Campaign:
So, Clegg and Cable are frantically urging Lib Dem rebels to 'walk through the fire' and support the proposal. And it has been announced, by Clegg himself that all 17 Lib Dem Ministers will vote for the proposals. Obviously, one should do this if he/she believes the proposals will indeed create a 'significantly fairer and more progressive new system', and disregards U-Turning on a key manifesto promise as being a betrayal.

2. Abstain?
Splits weaken parties and sometimes destroy them.
Support for the Liberal Democrats is being undermined, as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless.
This is the argument that, the real damage to the party comes not from adjusting our course as a result of changed conditions, nor from rebellion by backbenchers on grounds of individual conscience, but from the impression we are now giving of being all over the place. Both abstaining and deferring the vote do just that.

Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat MEP (North West) describes how...

"In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke. I would rather us have a reputation for being tough (but fair) bastards than for being indecisive."

So, this argument looks to the fact that, if Liberal Democrats want to limit the damage done, there should be only two options for them to consider. Either they vote for the recommendations, or they vote against on grounds of individual conscience.

There is also the fact that abstaining, in this situation, is essentially the nice way of voting for the proposals. ven if all the Lib Dems abstained, the Tory majority would pull the vote through. Abstaining here is pointless and as proven above, signifies weakness to the Lib Dem image.

3. Rejection
They say no-one likes rejection but for once this seems to be untrue.
There was another protest in Lancaster today.
A majority of the public seem to be in uproar. And seeing as politicians are meant to reflect the views of the public, surely this is the sensible option?

Personally I believe, agreeing to the Browne Report, increasing tuition fees, not only by a bit but a ludicrous amount, is one compromise too far. The Browne Report does shine in the fact that it holds specific policies aiming to protect and encourage the poor to attend Universities but this conflicts with the huge increase in tuition fees, meaning now, even those of the middle class will struggle to pay off their debts.
Disillusioned Lib Dem supporters already feel betrayed by the government's involvement with the Tories and the increase in tuition fees does little to encourage disillusioned Lib Dems that the party is still a seperate, independent force within the coalition. Not simply, the majority makers.

Currently, it would appear around 20 Lib Dem MPs intend to vote against the proposals. This isn't good enough.
Here, twenty isn't plenty.
Tomorrow spells complete humiliation.

"Just because you don't take an interest in politics, it doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."

At least, Pericles believed so in 430B.C and I believe so now.
And finally, it would appear that the general public are realising the reality of this statement.

"What's the point in politics, it's boring, pointless and doesn't affect me."

It has been rather amusing to see the ignorance of individuals come crashing down, for them to suddenly be plunged into panic, thrown into the frenzy of numerous protests and, God help them, become politically active...

Pericles must be laughing in his grave...

Although, sadly, it would appear at my school this enlightenment is limited, self centered and poorly informed.

Will I lose my EMA?
How will the rise in tuition fees affect me?

Obviously, it is natural to care more about the issues that will affect oneself, as that is the selfish instinct of human nature although some interest is better than none.
However, perhaps if people had a broader political knowledge in the first place they would understand the situation better and perhaps we would not even be in the current situation.

I.e. My parents vote Conservative is not a valid reason for supporting the Conservatives alone.

So, what about Tuition Fees...?

As a Liberal Democrat, I find the proposed changes simply inexcusable.
The Browne Report has many positive points, but these are obscured by the suffocating black mark of the rise in tuition fees - and rightly so. It is humiliating to be a Lib Dem at the moment.

"Say no to tuition fees."

That aim, has now become a distant dream of the Liberal memory, as much as Asquith and the grip of ‘Cleggmania’ during the General Election have become.
The appalling U-Turn on tuition fees was the final push, the acceptance of my status as not a Lib Dem but a disillusioned Lib Dem; I still hold the belief that the 2010 manifesto was, on the whole, an innovative, progressive masterpiece yet I am struggling to support, defend and agree with the recent actions of the party within coalition. I always knew there would be compromises but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Admittedly, scrapping tuition fees altogether within the current economic climate was perhaps rather too idealistic.
However, a promise was made and if the promise cannot be kept, the Lib Dems should certainly feel obliged to prevent the complete opposite from occurring.
Abolishing the cap on tuition fees was just that – the opposite.

Thankfully, that aspect of the Browne report has been altered, nevertheless current plans aim to implement a basic threshold cap of £6000 and an absolute limit of £9000 per annum.

This is both outrageously insane, insanely outrageous and outrageously high.

The result will be a crippling 30-year debt trap for graduates, a decline in the numbers attending Universities and in a typically loathsome Tory-type fashion; the favouring of the rich over the poor.

The new basic threshold of £6,000 is almost double the current fee of £3,290 that students pay each year, that's £17,210 per year or £51,630 over three years. The maximum government loan is likely to be £43,500 and the interest rate would be inflation plus 2.2%...

Any graduate earning over £21,000 a year would be losing 45p for every £1 they earn, how is this fair?

This will be a shattering blow to the 'knowledge economy' which will fuel England's economic future. A devastating blow to the Liberal Democrats. And a humiliating betrayal by Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers, in particular Business Secretary, Vince Cable who helped write the proposals.

Students nationwide have embraced their revolutionary spirit, indeed even here, within the sleepy town of Lancaster.
However, even if all the Lib Dems abstain, the small Tory majority will ensure the bill will be passed.
The only hope is that, as Tim Farron has promised, other Lib Dem MPs will join Farron, see sense and outright reject the proposal; perhaps, damaging the coalition but more importantly protecting the generations of the future.
Sadly, this seems highly unlikely.

Will EMA be scrapped?
Yes and No.
You see, if you only listen to the deafening drone of the media then you will believe that yes, EMA is being completely scrapped and thousands of helpless teenagers are going to be plunged into an all consuming writhing pit of poverty.
BUT, if you read the official Comprehensive Spending Review Green Paper, it says this:

"The Spending Review will replace EMA with a locally managed discretionary fund to target support, which will focus the support currently provided by EMA on the most disadvantaged children."

Replacement is not the same as complete destruction.
Instead, the enhanced learner support fund will be introduced...

"Decisions about which young people should receive financial support from the Discretionary Learner Support Fund will be made by schools, colleges and training organisations, who are in a better position than Government to determine the needs of individual students. They will target support to those young people who most need it to continue in learning.£26 million has been invested in 2010-11 in a discretionary learner support fund. With the ending of the EMA, this fund will be increased. We anticipate that in 2014-15 this enhanced fund will be three times greater than current funds."

Evidence and recent research suggests that around 90% of current recipients of EMA would have stayed on at school after the age of 16 even if they did not receive EMA, therefore this system is not affordable in the current economic climate.

Instead, the government hopes the new scheme will be more efficient. To achieve this schools and colleges will administer the funds. They know the young person on a personal level and so are better placed, compared to the distant force of government. It will also enable the school more power to remove the funds should a pupil misbehave or lack attendance.

What exactly the enhanced learner support funds will mean on an individual level remains a grey area as schools, pupils and parents remain in waiting for more details from the coalition government.

Receiving £30 of EMA a week myself, I have personally greatly benefited from the allowance as it funds travel, clothing and equipment for school. I am therefore concerned as to what the new scheme will bring, for instance it is not clear as to whether it will take the form of a frequent payment (e.g. weekly or monthly) or whether it will rather be one-off contributions towards school trips e.t.c. or whether I will even qualify for the new scheme.

However, I will admit that in the absence of EMA, it is highly likely that I would have continued in education, although perhaps not as comfortably.

Therefore I can see the sense in introducing a more efficient scheme as a result of the change in the country's financial situation; cuts have to be made somewhere and I would far rather lose that £30 a week to enable the government to continue paying someone who is terminally disabled through benefits.

I guess the point of this post was to prove that politics shapes everything, now more than ever.
You cannot afford to ignore it.

Banished at the Border: Retreating from Human Rights

The Political Hot Potato; The Treatment of Asylum Seekers.
Well, George Osborne may potentially have caused the unemployment of 490,000 people...
But at least you're not Sylvia...

"Sylvia first arrived at the Refugee Council aged 19, she was extremely distressed and confused. She had been living in a refugee camp in Burundi for many years after her entire family was killed in the civil war. The refugee camp was raided and Sylvia was detained, where she was repeatedly raped and tortured. As a result of her trauma, she suffered from vomiting, back pains, severe headaches and difficulty sleeping."

If you could give just £2 a month, you could...
Don't worry, I'm not here to scrounge for money but rather to ask for your time and thought...
I attended a Lecture at Lancaster University led by Linda Briskman on the violation of human rights through asylum policies and government action against asylum seekers.
This lecture could not have been more well placed for two reasons...
Firstly, the recent tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga, an asylum seeker who lost his life under the weight of three security guards on a BA Flight 77 to Angola.
"They are going to kill me..." He screamed.
Fellow passengers refused to intervene, preferring to blank the situation, most likely through the blissful world of 'Shrek' or some other this-is-great-I-don't-have-to-think-at-all movie...
Secondly, because of the Spending Review.
I think it is important to remember that although we may be in the midst of Osborne's economic crackdown, we are not running away from the horrors of war, having lost all our family within conflict. Flitting endlessly from country to country in search of asylum...

You are not one of the 353 asylum seekers who perished en route as their boat SIEV X sunk on 19th October 2001, or indeed are you one of the 77 asylum seekers dead as a result of harsh governmental asylum policies. These are just two shocking examples out of many. Of course, asylum is a worldwide issue but within this post I aim to focus mainly on Australia and the UK...

The first event was an Australian embarrassment and disaster.
In the early afternoon of October 19, 2001, the boat’s passengers, fleeing mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan, perished in international waters between Indonesia and Australia. They were travelling in a hopelessly overcrowded refugee boat, which sank while trying to reach Christmas Island.
The area was under heavy surveillance by the Australian air force and navy yet they failed to actively search for the sinking vessel, to rescue the asylum seekers aboard. As a result, 353 people died including 150 children, it was grotesquely described how "children floated on the water like petals..."
The distinct lack of action was undoubtedly a disgrace. Yet violations of human rights similar to the tragedy of SIEV X are being committed on a day to day basis in many different forms...
Asylum is a human right - this should not be forgotten.

Australian asylum policies include:

1. Indefinite Long Term Detention. Australia has 11 different detention centres, the most notorious of which is Christmas Island, whose isolated and private situation ensures asylum seekers remain as far out from the public eye as possible. Asylum Seekers are often kept in poor conditions and treated badly.

2. Temporary Protection Visas. One of the controversial problems with these is that they ban family unions between asylum seekers, causing the separation of brother and sister; children and mother.

3.Excision Legislation.

4.Offshore Processing.

5. Bribing of Indonesia. To run detention centre's on the Australian Government's behalf, to keep asylum seekers away from Australia itself.

6.Penalties for People Movers.

7.Charging for detention costs for those granted visas. Those refugees granted a visa are often forced to pay their own captivity money, often these bills are of large amounts, leaving them in high debt to the government.

As in the UK, asylum seekers also have to pass a Citizenship Test, asking seekers questions on Australian cricket that a majority of Australian citizens would not know themselves...

In 2008, Liam Byrne the previous UK Immigration Minister proudly boasted; "We're now removing an immigration offender every 8 minutes but our target is to move more and faster." Here is a classic example of the negative attitude we, like Australia, also hold. Indeed, deportation has increased from 30,000 cases in 1997 and 60,000 cases in 2007 - but is this something to be proud of?
Would you experience a feeling of pride knowing that you had been responsible for sending Sylvia back to a land wrought with civil war and where she might be hunted down and killed? Does it make you feel proud to be part of a nation who has killed 77 asylum seekers in the last year, either indirectly through suicide or directly through not providing health care when needed?

Linda Briskman identified 5 main strategies governments use to try and justify their violation of the asylum right to the public. Obviously, many of these strategies are not made obvious but rather are underlying processes, she specifically linked Australia to all 5:
1.Criminalisation and Dehumanisation. Asylum seekers are made to be seen as criminals, whereas in fact, to apply for asylum is a recognised human right. They are dehumanised whether though being assigned a number, or the neglect of their life stories. The public are made to forget many of them are fleeing from conflict or death threats as a result of political situations.
2. Resources and Disease. Having neglected the real-life stories, governments try to suggest that Asylum seekers are only seeking the country to take advantage of the high standards of living, fair enough, a minority do attempt to do this but on the whole, most are fleeing serious danger. Secondly, disease is exploited and the idea that Asylum seekers are filthy and contaminated. This is even exploited to to the extent that in some detention centres, visitors must wash their hands after leaving the company of Asylum seekers.
3. Out of Zone Belonging. Here, governments exploit the 'stranger danger' idea. Basically, they subliminally promote racism towards outsiders. This is strongest in Australia, where its secluded location successfully parallels this idea.
4. Depiction as Terrorists. This idea is strong in Australia, which is ironic especially as Australia has not yet received a major terrorist attack as both America and the UK have.
5. The Demonisation of Islam. Muslims are treated with suspicion and doubt and upon entering society are expected to become like us, casting aside their religion and traditions.


The 5 above, seem rather ironic when we think of how governments aim to reduce racism.
However, behind the scenes there is clearly a different story with countries simply aiming to take in as few Asylum seekers as possible, seeing them as an unwelcome burden.
As well as being a Scholar, Linda Briskman has also been a successful human rights activist and campaigner and so she ended the talk by suggesting her 'remedy' to help resolve the situation...

1.International Law. An International Law should be passed to help guarantee the protection of Asylum seekers, even those who are waiting to be deported again.
2. Emphasize Human instead of Border Security. Instead of just being about facts and figures, the real life stories of the Asylum Seekers need to be brought into the public view, so they are aware of the people who are being turned away.
3. Open Borders? In an ideological situation, this would be the solution. Linda favoured the view as she claimed only a small percentage of the world's population are on the move at once, personally I do not approve of this idea and she recognised that it would pose some problems and isn't a very popular solution.
4. Expenditure. If Politicians have failed to be convinced through being brought to awareness of the tragic human costs of their decisions, then perhaps the economic cost should be exploited?
5. Growth in Social Movements. Social movements should form coalitions and put pressure on the government, naturally Amnesty was mentioned as the key human rights group.

Asylum Seeking remains one of those areas where negative attitudes as a result of ignorance prevails.
As a responsible, democratic country, we should be more open to those in need. I accept that we cannot take everyone - we simply don't have the resources. But even those who will have to be deported should be better cared for whilst it is important the negative stereotypes are eliminated so those who are free to stay can lead the simple, ordinary life that they yearn.

"After initially refusing Sylvia's asylum application, the Home Office eventually recognised her as a refugee. The Refugee Council found Sylvia a place on an English and Computer Course and organised a work placement for her so that she could gain office experience. Sylvia hopes one day to manage her own business..."

This is the type of care we should strive to achieve.
Remember - Asylum is a Human Right.