And here's a Drash for Tonight, for Parashat Re'eh!

A Boatload of Australia-bound Refugees off Christmas Island

Strangers in the Land

We Jews often invoke our history when we make an ethical challenge to our fellow Jews.  And of course, this is completely appropriate.  If we as a people have in retrospect suffered at the hands of others, should that not guide our actions today and in prospect?  Of course it should, and in our Torah we read the all-important injunction to do this very thing:  learn from our history and let it be our guide.

Specifically, we read in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 19, verses 33 and 34:  “When strangers live with you in your land, you must not oppress them.  The strangers who live with you shall be to you like citizens, and you shall love them as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.  I, the Lord, am your God.”

We read these very words twice each year:  when we read the weekly sidra Kedoshim, and on Yom Kippur afternoon.  Most of us are familiar with the words, and they have become something of a mantra to us.  Perhaps more important, they have become a call to action for many Jews, who invoke the words in order to motivate Jews to work for social justice.

I’ve been thinking about this, because recently the Australian government began a media blitz telling refugees trying to reach Australia by boat:  If you arrive without a visa, you will not be resettled in Australia.  The message appears on domestic TV stations, but as I understand it is also broadcast to citizens in the countries that have recently been the source of refugee asylum-seekers.  To me this seems like a harsh decree, and many Australians would agree with that sentiment.

The government, faced with a groundswell of popular sentiment concerning asylum-seekers whose claims of oppression are in doubt, has begun diverting the passengers of refugee boats found on the high seas to Papua-New Guinea.  There, under the incentive of cash payments from Australia, the government there will offer the refugees asylum in PNG.  Once offered asylum, they are by definition no longer refugees.  Of course, asylum in PNG, a very poor land compared to Australia, is not what the refugees seek.  I’m sure the assumption is that, given such an offer, the refugees will largely go home.  The new policy would seem to be a subterfuge, a smokescreen for getting hordes of refugees to do that very thing.  But if it’s a subterfuge, is it a violation of Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention?  Or is it unethical?

Nobody I talk to seems to be happy with the new policy.  Many of those whose electoral preference normally lies with Labour and who believe that the Labour Party by nature behaves in a higher ethical realm than that of the opposition Liberals and Nationals, are critical of the party’s policy.  They believe that Kevin Rudd is overeager to act ‘like the opposition’ as a pre-election ruse for votes.  And to the opposition, the new policy is yet another example of the government’s speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

The week after the new policy was announced, there was discussion among the rabbis of the Moetzah – the Rabbinic Council of Progressive Rabbis of which I am vice-chair – as to whether we should make a public statement.  As could be predicted, too many members feared making a statement that would appear political, for there to be the agreement necessary for such a statement.  And I agreed with the sentiment of not making such a statement for that reason.  But it can’t be denied that there is an ethical dimension to the issue.  And that ethical dimension must be somehow addressed.

Not being Australian myself, I feel more than a little reticence to say anything about this issue.  This, because I’ve been here only a short time and understand that my knowledge of Australia’s history with regards to refugees is very incomplete.  Is the concern about the validity of the refugees’ claims of being oppressed and persecuted in their lands of origin, a valid concern or is it a smokescreen?  Is it perhaps really evidence of xenophobia toward people of colour, or perhaps specifically Muslims, wanting to live here and change the face and nature of Australia?  I have heard this charge more than once.  I’ve heard it as an indictment of the government’s policy regarding refugee resettlement.  But I have also heard it as a defence of the enterprise of not accepting at face value every claim of asylum.  So it may very well be that the popular sentiment over this issue is really an expression of fear of Muslim migrants.  But if so, I’m not going to call it Islamophobia.  Because a phobia by definition is an unfounded fear.  And the fear of a flood of Muslim immigration is not entirely unfounded.  It is unfortunate, but there are very real fears that this is a group which is difficult at best to assimilate into a Western, democratic, pluralistic society.  There are fears that there are forces in the Islamic world that are encouraging and even financing this flow of refugees to the West.  And it is most unfortunate for those Muslims who do wish to assimilate and become Australian.  Because Australia needs their energy, their enterprise, their gifts to enrich this country.

So the problem, as I see it, boils down to something about which I’ve spoken and written before.  About the inability to have an honest conversation about such matters.  About how there is a tendency to besmirch any expression of concern as racist or xenophobic from the get-go.  About the tyranny of ‘political correctness.’

Of course, if this is true then Australia is not the only place where PC makes honest conversations about tough issues, impossible.  We have the same problem in America.  Even with a black president.  The truth is, more so since we have a black president.  And many Americans voted for him precisely because they hoped that he would drive the conversation about race above ground and give Americans hope that together they could transcend old attitudes and prejudices.  But that is not what has happened.  And it isn’t happening here in Australia either.  So until Australians can have such an honest conversation, and give voice to their fears and concerns, the nation cannot expect its political leaders to come up with coherent policy to address those concerns.

I spoke last week about the problem of acting on our fears and not on our values.  Fears are fleeting, but values endure.  And since the consequences of our actions also endure, does it not follow that our motivator should be something that endures?  To me, this is self-evident.

But when we cannot give voice to our fears because of a climate of PC, then we cannot really address those fears.  And we cannot sort out the phobia – the baseless fear – from the fear that does have a valid base.  So we must find a way to escape from the tyranny of the culture of PC, of always being afraid to say what’s on our minds no matter how gently or diplomatically put, because there are unwritten rules as to which topics we can address and which we cannot.

Are we Jews guilty of perpetuating this climate of PC?  Unfortunately, I believe we are.  As there are in society generally, there are among us there are those who are ready to hurl invective toward those who express a view with which they disagree.  To say, ‘if you believe that, you are evil.’  This rather than saying, “I disagree with what you are saying, and here’s why.’  But if we could get to that place – if we could have ‘honest conversations’ about all the issues that beset us – then we truly could address our fears and sort out the real from the unfounded.  And then we could ‘unpack’ all these complex issues that face our society.  And we could separate the ‘political’ dimensions from the ethical ones.  And we could begin to join in with a national conversation about this country living up to its highest ideals.

“You shall love [the stranger] as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.  I the Lord am your God.”  The invocation of the Deity makes this statement, far more than just words.  But words are a good start.  And we must be able to share words if we are, at some point, to act.  Words of agreement or disagreement.  Words of compassion or fact.  Words of encouragement and inspiration.  Words of clarity.  Especially clarity.

How many refugees Australia lets in, and which ones, and under which circumstances, is an issue with an ethical dimension.  But it's ultimately a political issue, and ethics can not always be used to determine political decisions.  But ethics can and should determine the way we respond to others.  Even if the refugee issue is to complex to fully unpack in all its dimensions, we still need to see the refugees as human being with needs, aspirations...with feelings.  This, whether or not they are valid refugees in the sense of being able to make their case for political asylum here.  Let's remember this and, whatever the policy of the day, and whether well-advised or not, let's keep in mind the essential humanity of these people.  And that, God willing, will help bring the elusive clarity to the debate.

May our words be true.  And may our actions match our words.  Shabbat shalom.