|
|
We Will Be Remembered for This
Reviewed by Emma Hughes
Monash Law student, Jessie Taylor has produced this documentary about a group of young people’s responses upon visiting the Baxter Detention Centre. With a film promising to be a “clear, rational and non-politicised look at the human issues of Australia’s mandatory immigration detention policy” I thought I’d definitely have to take a look.
Basically the format of the film is a road trip, taking a “group of young people of different nationalities, backgrounds, attitudes and political views” on a journey into the detention centre, allowing for comment by activist lawyer Julian Burnside, QC and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser along the way.
The production values are noteworthy, with scenes being artistically shot and edited in post-production. The soundtrack is also commanding with songs from Justin Grounds often providing the backdrop. The concept is also commendable and Taylor tries to steer clear of blatant Howard-hatred (although Burnside and Fraser seem to need no encouragement in that area). There were disappointing aspects about the pace of the film; however, as it didn’t seem to hit a climax and felt like it was winding down for the last half hour, basically repeating the same sentiments over and over against the poignant soundtrack. Another criticism was that I often got the sensation of watching Big Brother, with a group of young people sitting around in front of a camera, making conversation and broad statements about policy issues and motivations of political leaders without much perspective or understanding.
The problem with the documentary is that it isn’t the neutral offering it promises. A common hallmark of a more ‘left’ (for want of a better word) approach to issues is a micro, emotional one. Explained this basically means that those adhering to such a philosophical commitment tend to view issues idealistically and connect with people and faces who are affected (think David Hicks, Cornelia Rau etc). This is then extrapolated out into policy recommendations with the thought in the back of one’s mind that there are thousands others like these people, all deserving of government help and assistance. The political right is often criticised for it’s ‘clinical’ approach to issues such as these (including refugees, war, approach to terrorism, and poverty) and accused of not caring about the people, only the broad policy, or economics/security at the expense of civil liberties. The approach of the right also tends to emphasise personal responsibility over corporate/government action in contrast with the left.
Why did I just spend a paragraph on the distinctions? Basically because I found the documentary to be an example of the former approach. The young adults on the journey were confronted with the reality of human suffering and predictably changed their opinion about the broader issue of refugees because to fail to do so would be seen as heartless. It made me wish someone was there to ask some critical questions such as ‘is the answer an open door policy?’, ‘if 8% of asylum seekers are not found to be genuine how would you propose we isolate these people?’, ‘if our policy is not to treat asylum seekers seriously will this result in that percentage increasing?’, ‘if Australia has to make a choice between poverty stricken refugees waiting in UN camps to be sent here or between those who are able to arrange boat passage on their own all the way down to our island, which should we prefer?’ and ‘who will take care of the refugees if they are not placed in detention centres?’ The sentiment expressed in the documentary was that those who do ask the questions are motivated by fear, selfishness, greed and ignorance rather than a genuine concern for all facets of the issue.
So can one still view the human suffering and remain committed to refugee quotas and opposed to the encouragement of the black market of refugee transportation? The documentary appears to say ‘no’, but is this too simplistic? On the website FAQ section the question is raised: ‘Why doesn’t the film include any interviews or viewpoints from Liberals, or people who actively support the current policy?’ The answer to this is that they searched high and low for someone to defend the Government’s position but that no one would rise to the challenge, even after they promised not to demonise their viewpoints, and even offered them final right of veto on the interview footage!
The sad thing here is that people are too afraid to speak up in defense of an unpopular perspective. There is no illusion for those who support the Government’s policy; they know that they will be demonised, no matter how politely they put their case. Why? Because the debate ultimately turns on emotion. This is painfully clear in Burnside and Fraser’s part of the documentary. Burnside in particular asks people to imagine how they would feel if they had to flee a war-torn country and fight to protect their children’s lives. With all due respect this simply isn’t a helpful question. Anyone would be devastated to be in the situation of an asylum seeker or refugee but to limit the debate to that sentiment is to miss out on all the other perspectives and policy considerations that are also important.
On reflecting back and addressing this issue for Christians, perhaps the questions we should be asking ourselves first are: ‘what am I personally doing to help out with refugees that are already in our midst?’, and ‘am I living in a way that is consistent with my concerns?’ To merely see our response as attempting to change government policy rather than take personal responsibility for the matter misses the mark somewhat. To give credit where it is due the website does reveal a broader approach and emphasises the need for individuals to get involved and do something themselves providing links to like organisations. The film however leaves the viewer with the impression that a caring person cannot hold a view that favours border control and that those who do are either ignorant or selfish. Limiting the debate in this way is not helpful for such an issue and may in fact hinder the cause rather than further it.
|
|
|
