Go Back to Where You Came From - SBS

[matty_k]

Anyone else watching this?
It is amazing TV.

 

[bryce]

I've heard about this and I watched the preview on youtube. Looks great. The only problem is that it is on SBS, and therefore probably preaching to the converted, so to speak. It's a shame it isn't on a commercial network, as it would reach more people, and, let's face it, more of the kind of people it it seeking to influence. I guess it wouldn't really work on nine or seven though. I can't see them following up Today Tonight or A Current Affair with a show like Go Back to Where You Cam From.

 

[Empire]

The unemployed bogan that they have on the show is scarily ignorant. What's scarier is that she isn't the only one that I know that shares similar views. Compelling television.

 

[barbarian]

Paul Sheehan's take on the series:

You call this even-handed? Refugee series is strictly for the gullible

One of the most passionate and enduring debates in this country has been built on a falsity, a false choice that is being carefully recrafted, repackaged and re-presented on SBS this week, at taxpayer expense.

A comment that sums up the falsity at the centre of this debate and the three-part series Go Back to where You Came from came from one of the six manipulated participants in the show, Darren Hassan, who complained that the group was being subjected to enforced empathy.

He had seen the loaded dice at the centre of the progressive argument about boat people: that if you believe in stopping the small number of asylum seekers who arrive by boat, you are lacking in empathy, lacking in compassion, and probably anti-Muslim.

Advertisement: Story continues below The entire series is designed to enforce this maxim. The participants are lied to. The audience is lied to. This is an empathy forced march.

In the first part, on Tuesday night, the unseen narrator said the participants had just ''survived a sinking, burning boat''. In fact it was an obvious charade.

We were told that ''at the last minute, the stricken boat is spotted''. Again, only for the gullible. The rescue was as false as the emergency.

The narrator told us that only ''1 per cent of the world's refugees are resettled by the UN''. Again, a highly misleading statistic.

The empathy argument is easily turned on its head, something the producers carefully avoid doing. Far from lacking empathy, the decision to send a punitive signal to the people smugglers and their clients has been proven to stop the people-smuggling trade. Detention centres, instead of being opened all over the country, would empty out. Lives would not be lost at sea. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent on people instead of policing. More refugees could come to Australia under less stress and for less cost.

Because this debate is not about empathy. It is not about numbers. It is not about race. It is about principle: control the borders. The biggest beneficiaries of strict border control would be legitimate asylum seekers.

Much to the chagrin of the progressive side of politics, this argument is the one that has carried the day in Australia. After 15 years of being bashed over the head, especially by the ABC and SBS, the public has not budged. The Gillard Labor government could fall on this issue alone, given how badly it has been handled for almost four years. This year it will spend more than $750 million on illegal entries, an increase of 700 per cent over the final year of the Howard government.

The bedrock opposition of Australians to the empathy argument is quickly evident from the questions asked by some of the participants in Go Back to where You Came from.

Adam Hartup: Why didn't the boat people stay in Malaysia or Indonesia where they were in no danger?

Why do 99 per cent of them arrive with no papers?

Darren Hassan: Once they leave Malaysia, and then Indonesia, they become economic migrants. We need to send a tougher signal. People who are destroying documents, what are they trying to hide?

Raye Colbey (after visiting settled refugees from Africa who had come via the UN process): These are real refugees. They came the right way.

None of these basic questions were seriously addressed by the producers in their opening salvo. They had carefully sifted through 500 people before selecting the six for the program, and carefully chosen the refugees the participants would visit in Australia. But it would have been possible to randomly select six Australians, take them to a refugee camp, or to a newly arrived refugee's home, and see a ramp-up in empathy in most cases. This series is about something else.

While the quality of the filmmaking is good, the laudatory descriptions of the program as being even-handed are overstated. It is stacked with commentary, from the narration, to the structure, to the guide, Dr David Corlett, who is immersed in the refugee industry, is highly political, and in 2003 wrote a Quarterly Essay, ''Sending Them Home'', with Robert Manne. This is the producers' idea of dispassionate objectivity.

Last August, the ABC's Four Corners presented a searing program, ''Smugglers' Paradise'', which presented a far more accurate and confronting picture of the people smuggling trade to Australia. It was reality TV that was real. This new series has real people in real places, but it remains an exercise in manipulation for everyone involved.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...he-gullible-20110622-1gfav.html#ixzz1Q3RSROyH

I have not seen the series so cannot really make informed comment, but from the ads I ahve seen it seems to lay the guilt on pretty thick. For me it confuses the issue on so-called 'boat people', I have plenty of sympathy for what they go through, and for that very reason would like to stop the boats. People smuggling is a horrible trade and we should do whatever we can to stop it.

 

[matty_k]

You can watch it online. http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/goback/watchonline/page/i/1/h/Watch-Online/

 

[lily]

If I have to hear David Koch refer to them as Queue jumpers again I think my head will explode. I'd like to ask him where his fictional queue starts in Gagon for instance?
I know I could watch some hing else but for some reason my wife likes Beretta, Denyer, Nat and Nelson so I am stuck with Mel who is condescending and Kochie who is so blatant in his love of the LLibs and especially Joe Hockey it makes me want to remind him that he is becoming the Australian version of Bill O'Reilly. And can someone tell him to stop all the references to his family. We dont care.
I know this is a little off topic but whilst the main stream media ignores the asylum issue the ignorant people will never learn the real story of the plight of refugees.

 

[barbarian]

It is sad that the term 'queue jumpers' is used, as it misses the point of the debate entirely. There are plenty of legitimate questions to ask about asylum-seekers who come here by boat. The one that I always come back to is if you are desperately fleeing Afghanistan or Iraq, how do you get to Indonesia? This in turn raises two more issues- firstly if you could afford to travel all the way to Indonesia (and then pay a people smuggler) then why couldn't you afford to travel by plane to Australia, and secondly the concept of asylum revolves around desperately fleeing persecution and looking for a safehaven ANYWHERE. If you have travelled all the way down to Indonesia then you presumably stopped being in imminent danger a long time ago, so why did you keep travelling?

I am sure there may be legitimate answers for these, and please answer if you know them. And I don't mean to generalise all asylum-seekers experiences, but considering what applying for refugee status implies I think they are fair questions.

In my eyes these are legitimate questions that get lost in the talk of 'queue jumpers' or terrorists.

 

[Ruggo]

Here, here Ba ba. Some questions need to be raised but I feel sickened that peoples human circustance is used aas a political football. I also feel sickened when a political party takes the moral high ground only to lower its conviction on the issue in the name of political survival.

Lily, I despise Kochie. He strikes me as the sort of grub that cares more for the price of coffee than he does for his fello man.

This is off topic but every important issue is being fucked up by the current political situation, whether it be immigration, climate change, indiginous affairs ect. Forget political alliences for a moment as they are ALL too blame. If the Labor government was not in this turmoil, a coalition one would be. They BOTH made their attempts to buy political survival. The only party that stands by their convictions is the Greens but unfortunatly their policies are a bit radical to be implemented into mainstream. Power has also gone too thier heads it can be argued. I am just one bloke having a rant but quite frankly I am getting fucking sick of it. I am sure their are others that feel the same.

 

[Blue]

It is sad that the term 'queue jumpers' is used, as it misses the point of the debate entirely. There are plenty of legitimate questions to ask about asylum-seekers who come here by boat. The one that I always come back to is if you are desperately fleeing Afghanistan or Iraq, how do you get to Indonesia? This in turn raises two more issues- firstly if you could afford to travel all the way to Indonesia (and then pay a people smuggler) then why couldn't you afford to travel by plane to Australia, and secondly the concept of asylum revolves around desperately fleeing persecution and looking for a safehaven ANYWHERE. If you have travelled all the way down to Indonesia then you presumably stopped being in imminent danger a long time ago, so why did you keep travelling?

I am sure there may be legitimate answers for these, and please answer if you know them. And I don't mean to generalise all asylum-seekers experiences, but considering what applying for refugee status implies I think they are fair questions.

In my eyes these are legitimate questions that get lost in the talk of 'queue jumpers' or terrorists.

Two comments:

While I see Paul Sheehan's point I think the program chooses an angle and is not about a rounded debate. It shows the absolute desparation of people's lives and why they seek to come to places like Australia. It just tries to give some perspective.

Your question about why they do not stop is not a simple one and I don't think the answer is either. All I can imagine is that whilst being in danger / living in desperate circumstances people see Australia as their end destination because it's the first world and a prosperous place (for many the closest).

So whilst yes, Indonesia is safer than their home, their minds are set on Australia because although safety is their first concern and prosperity the next. They feel they can make a better life here than they can in Indonesia (that's pretty much common sense). The argument of why they don't stop is pretty much irrelevant. I can 100% see the logic. People will also have relatives and friends here or will have heard a lot about it. It's not a case of "I'll keep going till I'm safe".

As for being able to afford the cost of a smuggler vs an air ticket. Well I would imagine that for most people they can't waltz into the airport and buy a ticket. In places like Iraq, Afghanistan and some African countries they would be captured (assuming there is an airport). Smugglers offer them an escape and do not underestimate the fact that when some is that vulnerable they are soft targets. Every refugee will tell a story of their first impression of the smugglers was a sense of relief. Here is someone who can help you. It is more than often the one and only option. Little do they know.

I have met quite a few North Africans here and their stores of getting out of their country are harrowing to say the least. It's often a case of grabbing a few belongings and running. A bloke who works in a local greencrocer up the road from where I live ran out of his village with soldiers chasing him into the night. Airport was not a good move and he had no passport anyway. He had some money and knew of a "guy".

I lived near an asylum centre in Germany for a few years and got to know a few of the guys and every one of them had friends and relatives who got killed trying to get out from where they came. Each and every one of them wanted to go to the UK or the US. And they were 100% safe right there in Germany. I remember the queues at the US consulate of people who were perfectly safe right there but they had their minds set on somewhere else.

The whole thing seems a lot more complex to me than what a three part series can hope to explain but I think it was a brave and very well made TV series.

OK that's more than two comments

 

[Aussie D]

This is off topic but every important issue is being fucked up by the current political situation, whether it be immigration, climate change, indiginous affairs ect. Forget political alliences for a moment as they are ALL too blame. If the Labor government was not in this turmoil, a coalition one would be. They BOTH made their attempts to buy political survival. The only party that stands by their convictions is the Greens but unfortunatly their policies are a bit radical to be implemented into mainstream. Power has also gone too thier heads it can be argued. I am just one bloke having a rant but quite frankly I am getting fucking sick of it. I am sure their are others that feel the same.

Totally in agreement with you Ruggo, though I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the media and we the voters. Not asking tough questions of Rudd or Abbott when in opposition and not keeping the government to account, solely in the interest of the 24-hour news cycle. Simply regurgitating government announcements without investigating detail is lazy and serves no purpose to the Australian public. The 'dumbing' down of the population over the previous 20 years is also worrying.
The voters who simply vote because so and so looks good on tele or believe media portrayals rather than investigating policies and voting with conviction. Hopefully we can have voluntary voting at some point in the near future which should sort the wheat from the chaff (ie those that use their heads when voting vote whilst those that see it as a chore can stay at home and watch reruns of Two and a Half Men on tv).

 

[barbarian]

Thanks for that Blue, was a great read.

 

[chasmac]

Here, here Ba ba. Some questions need to be raised but I feel sickened that peoples human circustance is used aas a political football. I also feel sickened when a political party takes the moral high ground only to lower its conviction on the issue in the name of political survival.

Lily, I despise Kochie. He strikes me as the sort of grub that cares more for the price of coffee than he does for his fello man.

This is off topic but every important issue is being fucked up by the current political situation, whether it be immigration, climate change, indiginous affairs ect. Forget political alliences for a moment as they are ALL too blame. If the Labor government was not in this turmoil, a coalition one would be. They BOTH made their attempts to buy political survival. The only party that stands by their convictions is the Greens but unfortunatly their policies are a bit radical to be implemented into mainstream. Power has also gone too thier heads it can be argued. I am just one bloke having a rant but quite frankly I am getting fucking sick of it. I am sure their are others that feel the same.

I think we need an election to at least get a gov't with a consensus. This is ridiculous

 

[ACT Crusader]

And things in the parliament just got a little more "messy". The band of 10 from the Greens, a new DLP Senator. The Govt is going to be even more cautious on issues because once these controversial Bills hit the Parliament then it really could be anyone's guess what comes out the other side.

Consensus even amongst the new Greens Senators and the existing ones is going to be an issue in itself. I wonder how much of it will get a play in the public arena, because it is definitely there, and with increased numbers comes an increased need for party discipline.