I have a special request, please take a moment to read...

I am a new school teacher and have just comenced teaching a year four class with a high number of special needs children. Needs include Autism, Hearing Impairment, ESL, Behavioural problems and Intellectual impairment just to name a few. 

I have been doing allot of research into the use of iPhones/iPod touch education apps to improve engagement and results with special needs students. I am very keen to trial some of these approaches and believe they can make a huge difference in the lives of some really needy kids, however I am unable to get the funding for iPod Touches through the school I am working for. 

Not being one to give up that easily, I thought I'd ask if any of you have an old iPhone / iPod touch that you no longer use and might be willing to donate to education?

If you are able to help please message me to arrange details. Even if you can't help, please consider sharing this note with your friends to help spread the word. 

Thanks for taking the time to read to the end, I look forward to hearing from you.

Tarun

Has the god of the Christian faith been cast as another version of Santa Claus? Or is the god portrayed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, very different to the one most of us have been introduced to?

Just last week I was listening to my 6-year-old son walk around the house singing “Santa Claus is coming to Town”, a song that one can’t help but be familiar with at this time of the year. Although it is a song I’ve heard dozens of times before, something about the lyrics caught my attention this time. “He knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.” How is it that the incredibly inspiring story of the generous and caring St Nicholas - who gave a gift of fruit to the poor children of his town on Christmas Eve, (children who otherwise had very little to look forward to) - has been turned into a tool for parents to manipulate and scare their children into behaving? As I thought about this, only 2 days later my wife and I listened bemused as a parent in a shopping centre cajoled her misbehaving child with the words ” you know Santa is watching…”

Santa beliefs aside, it strikes me that this is exactly what we have done with the god of the Bible. The god* ‘Yahweh’ who is presented as the central character in the Judea-Christian Scriptures is consistently portrayed not as an angry god who is looking to punish humanity, but rather (unlike the many other gods of the surrounding culture) one who cares for and loves her** creation. A god who is relational, personal, patient and dare I say it accommodating of human failings. The Christian story continues this theme by introducing us to a god who so wants to relate to creation that he enters human existence in the person of Jesus, and shows us a ‘Way’ to live in connection with Yahweh, the world around us and each other, that is more in tune with the way she intended.

Somehow throughout history this incredibly inspiring story of the generous and caring god - who offers a gift of hope, and redemption in spite of the poverty of human existence - has been turned into a tool for the religious elite to manipulate and scare their children into behaving? A divine person who ‘knows when you’ve be bad or good…’ Who will reward the good and punish the bad.

Now before you start protesting about my peace and love hippy Jesus narrative, I want to acknowledge that yes, there are pictures and images of Yahweh/Jesus that convey anger and punishment, however this is not a picture of a merciless tyrant who hits you with a stick if you talk out of turn, or only gives gifts to the ‘good’ kids. Rather it is a picture of a loving parent who cares too much to let his children just do what ever they want, and as such places guides and boundaries on us for our own sake. In the same way that my children have to face the consequences of their choices at times it does not mean I don’t love them, in fact it’s quite the opposite, I love them too much to let them do what ever they want before they are able to make healthy choices for themselves. Although these images of an angry god have often dominated the Christian churches portrayal of “God” it is not the dominant image portrayed in scripture.

If you (like me) are someone who has been manipulated, abused or turned off the story of Yahweh/Jesus by over enthusiastic followers of an angry Santa Claus god, I want to invite you - as you consider the real meaning of Santa - to reconsider the story of Yahweh/Jesus. Not as the over commercialized, vindictive and partial “God” who only likes the good kids, but rather the generous and caring Yahweh/Jesus, who came to the physically, emotionally and spiritually poor of humanity, and offered the gift of hope, love and redemption. No matter who you are - good or bad.

May you encounter a new picture of the loving god in the scriptures at this time of Love, Peace and Joy. I look forward to hearing your questions, comments and thoughts….have a very Merry Christmas and Happy 2012 - Tarun

*In the traditional Hebrew Scriptures the word we translate as god is not a proper noun (name), it is a noun that describes the many divine beings referred to by each culture. The god character of the Judeo-Christian narrative is most often referred to as Lord or Yahweh. In the Christian narrative, Jesus is this god in human form. Without over complicating the discussion, I have tried to use the proper noun Yahweh or Jesus rather than the traditionally rendered ‘God’.

(Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. IVP Academic , July 23, 2004)

** The Judeo – Christian Scriptures do not teach that god Yahweh is either male or female exclusively, rather we find that the god of Judeo – Christian Scripture transcends gender designation. In an attempt to describe this god, the writers of the bible do most often use male nouns and pronouns such as He and Father, however there are many beautiful female images where God is likened to a mother (see the prophets). For many in today’s society, male images such as ‘father’ carry negative and harmful stereotypes, which render the loving god of the bible inaccessible. Where possible, I have tried to limit this impact and interchange male and female images regularly.

(For further discussion about the images of Yahweh/Jesus in the bible that I have eluded to here, Dr. John Goldingay’s Pentateuch lecture series on iTunes U is an excellent jumping off point: http://itunes.apple.com/au/itunes-u/ot501-pentateuch/id380159249)

I thought this was a fitting follow up to my post “Are Assylum Seekers Jumping the Que?”

Posted by Julien Burnside - Leading Australian Barrister and Human Rights activist. Get the facts and Ignore the Myths…

1. Boat people are illegal.

Asylum seekers who enter Australia by sea (or plane) without a valid visa are not illegal. They do not break any Australian law by coming here without papers and asking for protection.

The right to enter without prior authorisation is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which Australia helped to draft.

2. Boat people are queue jumpers.

There is no queue for asylum seekers to join.

Only 2% of the world’s refugees are in a queue. If all the millions of refugees worldwide were to join a queue, the wait for resettlement would be 135 years.

Australia is the only country where the term ‘queue-jumper’ is used.

Interestingly, the address of the Australian Embassy in Kabul is kept secret, for security reasons. Not much chance of queuing there! And it has no ‘visa function’ wither, so if you find it, you cannot apply for a visa. Some queue!

3. Boat arrivals are not genuine asylum seekers.

For obvious reasons, those who risk their lives in attempting the perilous journey by boat are more likely to be genuinely in need of protection.

While only around 20-40% of plane arrivals are found to be genuine refugees, the proportion for boat arrivals is 85-90%.


4. Boat arrivals present a security risk.

No boat arrival who could have been a potential threat to national security has ever gained entry into Australia.

A potential terrorist is more likely to arrive by plane because boat arrivals are subject to the most scrutinised security checks. The very act of arriving without documentation alerts authorities to undertake rigorous screening.

It is much easier and safer for a terrorist to arrive undetected in Australia by plane, either with a valid visa or false documentation.


5. Asylum seekers who can afford to come by boat are economic migrants.

A person who is rich and who is not persecuted is most unlikely to risk their life by trying to get to Australia on a leaky boat.

You can be wealthy and still be tortured. In some countries authorities are more likely to target the well-educated and wealthy as they are the greatest threat to an authoritarian regime. Remember the Jews who fled Germany in the 1930s: quite a few were rich, but they were still genuine refugees.

6. Australia is losing control of its borders.

No country in the world has greater control over its borders than Australia. Australia is an island continent with vast surrounding seas. This natural barrier makes irregular arrival very difficult.

Australia has around 4 million authorized arrivals each year: people coming for holidays, or business or study. The largest number of unauthorized arrivals in any one year was 7,100. In 2010, there were 6,502 unauthorized boat arrivals to Australia. So far in 2011, there have been around 2500. These are small numbers. The average over the past 30 years is 1000 per year.

7. Mandatory detention is necessary for border security.

Australia is one of few nations in the world which locks up asylum seekers who arrive without visas. Not only is the detention mandatory, it is indefinite as well. The detention lasts as long as the process takes - 6 months, a year, 2 years, 4 years – it varies. At present, it is averaging around 2-3 years.

Australian practice has shown that asylum seekers allowed to live in the community while their asylum claims are processed are highly unlikely to abscond. This is because they have a vested interest in cooperating in order to gain full protection rights.

In 2005, Australia introduced a community-based detention system which allowed some asylum seekers to live unsupervised in the community, supported by the Red Cross. Of the 244 people placed in this program between July 2005 and May 2009, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship reports that only two people had absconded.


8. We no longer have children in detention.

Whilst there are no children in high security detention centres today, as at the end of July 2011, there were still however 872 children in immigration detention of some kind.

446 were detained in the community under residence determinations.

329 were in alternative places of detention. People in this form of detention are still locked in secure facilities, kept under guard and have no freedom of movement. Many 5-15 year olds go to school, but not all of them, and for under 5s they do not go to pre-school and have very little recreation.

45 were in immigration residential housing and 52 were in immigration transit accommodation.


9. Australia has one of the most generous refugee intakes in the world.

Australia is the world’s 14th largest economy, yet in 2010, we accepted 0.03% of the world’s refugees. From over 40 million refugees globally, we took just 13,750.

In 2009, twenty industrialised countries accepted more asylum seekers per capita than Australia.

The overwhelming majority of the world’s refugees are situated in the developing world in countries neighbouring their own. Pakistan, Syria and Iran each host more than a million refugees and asylum seekers.


10. Asylum seekers coming to Australia could stop in another country along the way.

Asylum seekers who arrive from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia often travel through intermediary countries before arriving in Australia. However, there is nothing unjust or deceptive about this.

These countries are typically not signatories to the Refugee Convention and do not offer protection for refugees.

Indonesia has not signed the Refuges Convention. Asylum seekers in Indonesia are at risk of being jailed if they are found by the authorities. Even if they are assessed as refugees by UNHCR, they are not allowed to work or send their children to school, and they face a wait of 10 to 40 years before a western country offers to resettle them.

Faced with life in the shadows for decades, some of them are brave enough to get on a leaky boat in an attempt to reach safety in Australia. If you were in their shoes, what would you do?

11. Stopping the boats will save lives.

For people who are desperate, people smugglers are their only escape route. Cutting off a person’s last line of escape is no great favour.

And if you are killed by the Taliban, you are just as dead as if you drown.

Since there is no ‘queue’, refugees deterred from a boat trip are also effectively prevented from ever gaining resettlement in Australia. This is the real reason behind the ‘stop the boats’ mantra.

It’s not about saving the lives of asylum seekers. It’s about keeping them out of Australia.


12. Refugees do not contribute to society

By definition, refugees are survivors. They have survived because they have the courage and initiative to do so. These are exactly the qualities we value.

Refugees, who have fought for survival and overcome great traumas, have risked everything to make it to safety. They express immense gratitude and dedication to their new country.

The challenge for Australia is to help newly arrived refugees to rebuild their lives. If we do this, we will reap the benefit of the qualities and experiences they bring to Australia.

There are many refugees in this country who have gone on to do great things and have served us well in the fields of medicine, science, the arts, politics and much more.


Sources:
Refugee Council of Australia - Myths about refugees and asylum seekers
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre - Myths, facts and solutions
Uniting Justice Australia – Asylum seekers and refugees: myths and facts
Chilout (Children out of detention)
Department of Immigration and Citizenship

I was having a conversation with a pastor from the UK last year and he commented that Australia would have to be one of the most desirable countries in the world to live. Strong economy, fantastic weather, space, lifestyle yet we have the highest rate of male suicide per capiter in the world. What is it about Australian lifestyle, culture and society that has so many men despairing and giving up on life?

Our conversation took in a number of factors however the thing that really got me thinking is the kind of community that we seem to value in Australia. The social life is certainly lorded in Australia, and given our climate, it is often seen as desirable to spend significant amounts of time “out” with “friends”, but how many of these relationships that we have as men ever really go beyond arms length? Conversations around the BBQ frequently revolve around footy, work, fishing and in my case guitars and music. Do we ever truly let our guard down? Talk honestly about the challenges that we face

Now I’m not suggesting the old get bare chested in the woods, cry and sing Kumbya together, but what do we do about statistics that show:

- Around one in six Australian men suffer from depression at any given time.

- Four times more young men than young women commit suicide (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000) - Depression in men is associated with an increased risk of a variety of disorders, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

- The experience of male depression is complicated by the fact that men are more likely than women to shy away from medical treatment of any kind. Instead of discussing psychological problems, or seeking appropriate treatment, men may turn to alcohol or drugs when they are depressed or anxious.

- The statistics for teenage boys and young men are a concern. In the past 30 years, the suicide rate for males aged 15 to 24 years tripled.

- For older Australian men (aged 65 years and over) the suicide rate remains very high. Risk factors for depression and suicide for this age group include death of a spouse, isolation, physical illness and chronic pain.(www.beyondblue.com)

I’m no expert and can’t pretend that I have all the answers, but it seems clear that the quality of our connections and community in Australia need to improve if we are going to remedy the condition. Not just for us but for the many boys and young men who are watching us to learn how to do life…

As Psychologist Peter Janetzki Notes “a community of men is not a bunch of guys encouraging each other to behave badly” or sharing a common interest to escape the mundane routine of their life… It’s about authentic honest relationships that support each other through the challenges of life. Challenging each other to be the best they can be. Standing shoulder to shoulder in the trenches of life and facing the challenges together rather than in isolation. (paraphrased - Being a Bloke; Peter Janetzki p155)

Sound ridiculous!? Yeah maybe, but I think that if your anything like me it’s because we’re not familiar with this style of “mate-ship”, not because its not true. I do think he’s onto something and perhaps the more we talk about it, the closer we can get to breaking masculine stereotypes that push us into our worlds of isolation and silence.

What are your thoughts?

If you’re in Brisbane on the Sat 27/08 I’ll be speaking at a BLOKES BBQ BREAKY on the ‘importance in connecting as a man.’ - Mabel Park, Slacks Ck. 7.30am. There is no cost, a voluntary donation will be collected. For catering RSVP is a MUST, please sms RSVP to 0422015173

Love to have you along and hear what you think on this important topic.

For anyone else, please feel free to comment, like, RT and share if you feel as strongly about this topic as I do. www.tarunstevenson.com

In a recent Face book conversation with a friend about asylum seekers who arrive by boat, the question was raised as to whether the tag “queue jumpers” or “illegal immigrants” was a fair assessment of the “boat people” situation. Here is my response. It was a conversation and some of my discourse is in response to my friends comments. I’m hopeful you’ll be able to decipher the discussion from my side. I’ll see if my friend is happy for me to post his comments for context. Any-who, feel free to comment or question, I believe it is a really important discussion that Australians need to inform themselves about as the media and government are largely only telling one side of the story.

There is no actual queue that asylum seekers are in. Under the International Refugee Convention which Australia has signed, everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries freedom from persecution”. - Article 14, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is absolutely nothing illegal about claiming asylum, which is what the majority of boat people are. Incidentally 85 – 90% of boat people are approved for refugee status, yet only make up 5% of the total number of unauthorised persons coming into Australia. So to imply that there is some queue that they are bypassing or that they are illegal is in-fact the non sequitur argument here.

Add to that, the fact that the countries where most boat people are coming from (Iran, Afghanistan etc) do not have Australian Embassies or access to UNHCR to register their refugee status, so the only way they can, is to take a risky journey to a country that has signed the treaty. They are not breaking the law according to the agreements that Australia chooses to abide by.

Interestingly under Australian and international human rights law, it is illegal to incarcerate any individual indefinitely without trial, representation or charge. It is also against international human rights to lock up a child for any reason especially without charge. Most boat people are locked up for an average of 15months including children. I would certainly call this disgusting & inhumane and that is based on humanitarian standards that Australia agrees to and supposedly upholds. If you’d like to justify it by saying that we feed, house and look after them, well we do that for our mass murderers too. It’s still called imprisonment, and I really don’t think we need to spell out the difference.

Of the equal number of asylum seekers arriving by plane, none are locked up and only approximately 40 - 60% are found to be genuine. Seems alot of attention on a very small group of people who are mostly genuine, so maybe racism is not an appropriate description but discriminatory would be. It is a policy that is largely based on media hype and ignorant voter reactions. It is not about protecting Australia, it is completely politically motivated. Labour’s back flip on their boarder protection attitudes are a clear indication of that. As far as threats to the community, the Director general of ASIO reported in 2002 that there had not been 1 security risk detected amongst boat people.

So what of the other 50000 + illegal immigrants who the immigration dept reports enter the country legally and overstay their visa. According to immigration, most do not leave promptly but stay on an average of 1 year. Yes I revised my figure from 20000 to 50000 to include the over stayers from other non-western countries. So if you want to talk about queue jumpers or illegal immigrants then maybe we should get our terminology right.

As far as my comment about past practices, bringing Google and Facebook into the discussion has absolutely no correlation to what we are talking about and I’m pretty sure you know that. We currently allow asylum seekers in the community if they arrive by plane and traditionally that has been the practice in the past. I think we can learn from the past and that doesn’t mean “going back to the good old days” it just means acknowledging that not everything we do now is necessarily best practice.

As for policy being about protecting boat people from potential death, it is absolute nonsense. This is not an altruistic policy that is concerned for the well being of boat people. Research shows that most refugees who opt for people smuggling are not aware of any of the foreign policy of the destination country. They are desperate people taking desperate measures to escape a desperate situation. Sending them to another country that does not have refugee favourable policies, and is not in accordance with human rights treaties, is not going to “save more lives” or going to deter refugees. Its going to merely compound the human rights abuses that they suffer and extend their imprisonment for up to 10 years at a time - as is the case in Indonesia now. All that so that we can say “oh well they are not in Australia so it’s not our problem anymore!?” Well here’s the kicker, we’ll be footing the bill to sweep our dirty little secret under the Malaysian rug, so that uninformed voters believe that the government has done something to stop the tidal wave of illegal immigration. The government mean while is spending billions of dollars to hide the human rights abuses against a minority of people who are not coming here illegally but are responding to the refugee convention that we agreed to. This IS our problem!

Getting tough on boat people will not stem the tide. Numbers of boat people are affected world wide by conflicts of the time. The spike we experienced recently was not because the Labour government got soft, it was a spike experienced by all nations who accept refugees and it was largely due to the rise in conflict in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. Conflicts in the world ebb and flow and as such will effect the numbers of refugees attempting to enter the country. Interestingly, of all the developed countries that have signed the International refugee Convention, Australia is the only country that uses mandatory detention as a means of processing asylum claims.

Sure people smuggling is a heinous business that exploits vunerable people, so punish the people smugglers, they are the criminals. Not the refugees. If we actually give a damn about the plight of these people as you suggest, we should be setting up methods of processing them expediently and restoring some of their dignity as quickly as possible, not finding solutions that prolong the suffering that they have already endured.

As for saying its Un-Australian, well I’m going to stand by my claim. I agree that the term Un-Australian is over used for just about anything, however If Australia has chosen to 1. Sign a refugee Convention allowing asylum seekers to come here and apply for asylum (even if they don’t have the correct documentation) then that forms a part of who we are as a country. Not all countries have signed the convention. We have chosen to portray our country as one that is willing to welcome refugees.2. We have also chosen to abide by the International Human rights agreements, again not something all countries do. IF this is how we want the world to view us then I Do believe that the way in which we respond to refugees and human rights IS part of our identity as a nation. If we choose not to abide by the conventions that we have agreed to, then I would argue we are not presenting an Australia that we would have the rest of the world believe we are. YES it is Un-Australian. If we want to continue like this, well we best withdraw our support from the International human rights treaties and refugee conventions. Refugees will know not to come here because they will not be protected or cared for. That’ll fix the problem, and then we can proudly call ourselves Australian all we like, because at least we won’t be trading in hypocrisy.

I believe Australia truly is a great nation and I’ll be damned if I sit by silently and let the tabloid media and reactionist government policy turn us into a country that no longer values the rights of a human being.

Are boat people queue jumpers? No I think we can clearly see that they are not. They are not in direct competition with residency and migration applicants from other parts of the world. Illegal immigrants? No that is a tag that does not apply, it is not illegal to seek asylum. If we are going to tackle illegal immigration and queue jumping, well lets tackle the real problem, not politicise a small minority who mostly do not fit into either of those categories, for the sake of votes. That my friend is disgusting!

Some additional facts that might interest:

The UNHCR, who handles the processing of refugees worldwide, reports that only 0.5% of global asylum applications are made to Australia

Australia is ranked 47^th in the world for taking in refugees. The top countries are Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and Germany.

We’re ranked 91^st in relation to the nation’s wealth… those which can afford to take in refugees.

Australia has an annual immigration program of 200 000, but takes less than 4000 asylum seekers.

90% of ‘boat people’ are eventually found to be legitimate asylum seekers, fleeing persecution and death in their home country. This is who Abbott wants to just ‘turn around’.

In 2009, South Africa took in 222,324 asylum seekers. France took 42,118. Australia took 3,441.

But we did resettle 11,080 refugees from overseas.

Australia was one of the first nations in the world to sign the UNHCR’s convention for Refugees, which agrees to accept asylum seekers without refusal.

Australia has an army deployed in Iraq but is refusing to recognise the refugee status of Iraqi asylum seekers.

97% of illegal immigrants arrive in Australia through airports on a tourist visa and then overstay

Some reading to give a truer perspective about boat people…:

http://www.novafm.com.au/nova1069/Audio_The-truth-about-seeking-asylum_99178?s=9

http://www.kochie.com.au/20100707165/avoid-the-political-spin-some-facts-on-asylum-seekers

http://www.ajustaustralia.com/informationandresources_factsandstatistics.php

http://www.nowuc.com.au/2011/04/05/illegal-immigration-proves-tough-topic-for-youth/

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

http://www.news.com.au/national/asylum-seekers-arrive-by-plane-not-boat/story-e6frfkvr-1225790981775

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2809

Post Comments below and follow me on twitter @tarunstevenson @makesomenoize2