Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 12:26:12 pm

Author Topic: 2018 AA Club - Week 20  (Read 1393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
2018 AA Club - Week 20
« on: September 03, 2018, 08:26:55 pm »
+4
Quote
Background: what is it with politics!

Dutton’s au pair drama shows hypocrisy of immigration policy

"As a discretionary and humanitarian act to an individual with ongoing needs, it is in the interests of Australia as a humane and generous society to grant this person a tourist visa."

That’s Peter Dutton, then immigration minister, in the official document by which he intervened to allow an au pair to enter the country.
And what an incredible sentence it is! A humanitarian act. An individual with ongoing needs. A humane and generous society. So … a tourist visa? What humanitarian situation serious enough to require intervention from the immigration minister himself can be relieved by a spot of tourism?



The story here isn’t that Dutton did a favour for a mate (or a mate’s mate, or a Liberal Party donor). It’s that in this tiny episode, Dutton revealed himself to be happy to violate the very principles on which he has based his entire position on immigration. Dutton's political trade is based squarely on being a tough, uncompromising applier of rules; a kind of maniacal preserver of order. He will not be bowed or be swayed except in the most extreme cases, and even then, probably not.
 
Sob stories tend to find their tears turned to ice upon making contact with him. You could be a suicidal 10-year-old kid on Nauru who desperately needed psychiatric care. Dutton would refuse to let you come to Australia to access it. Indeed, he’d spend plenty of taxpayer dollars fighting in court to stop it, until finally a judge ordered him to relent. You could even be an Aussie Digger, desperate to get an Afghan man who acted as your interpreter into Australia as a refugee because his life is now in danger after having helped Australian troops. Dutton won’t even meet you to talk about it.
 
In a perverse way, it’s the very heartlessness of it that’s the appeal. Dutton believes in the law. He believes in policing it harshly. It’s not humanitarian causes that move him. It’s people who don’t obey and respect our rules.
 
That’s why the key aspect of the au pair saga is the bit that’s receiving the least attention. Namely that Dutton has personally waved through someone who has broken our laws and was about to do so again. Moreover, he was told he was doing this. But he chose to ignore the advice of his own department. Don’t take my word for it. Here are the department’s: “There are clear indications that [name redacted] is intending to work in Australia and thus, the grant of a visitor visa is of high risk." What were these indications that she was about to work illegally under a tourist visa? “The ABF [Border Force] also notes that [name redacted] has been counselled previously with respect to work restrictions, when suspicions with respect to her intentions were aroused on her previous arrival. On 31OCT 2015 she also advised ABF officers of her intention to work during her intended stay in Australia on this occasion."

So, this au pair had clearly been flagged before. A source familiar with the case told my colleagues at The Project she had been warned over her previous tourist visa that she shouldn’t do paid work on that visa, and that, if she did, she would be banned from Australia for three years. That’s why she was detained when she tried to enter the country a few months later.

The source says the au pair simply told the Border Force about the arrangement: accommodation in exchange for babysitting, cooking and riding the family horses. The officers also found information on her devices confirming this, and making them strongly suspicious she was going to be paid money as well.

Separately, Dutton was told by email that there was detail "which does not support the minister intervening". Dutton nonetheless intervened. His insistence that all this is unremarkable because he has intervened in hundreds of immigration cases simply sidesteps the remarkable features of this case.

It ignores that it is actually very rare for a minister to intervene for the sake of a tourism visa. It ignores that this rare intervention was made for someone who had already flouted the law. And it ignores that it was for someone apparently determined to do so again. A source close to the Immigration Department told us it is utterly humiliating for staff to be put in the situation of allowing people who have broken the law back into the country. I’d imagine that’s especially true for staff working under someone like Dutton, who has them primed to regard that as the highest sin.

I don’t know the story of this woman. Maybe she really does have unique humanitarian circumstances that would melt my heart. After all, I have nothing against her. But is this what our humanitarian cases look like? Is the bar really set so that the Iranian asylum seeker nearing death who has broken no laws cannot even be allowed into the country to access medical treatment, but a French woman simply must be allowed to be an au pair if we are to be a “humane and generous society"?

...

I’m not saying this is the scandal of the decade. I suspect this will all soon pass without much cost to Dutton and that’s probably fair enough. But if it passes without a clear verdict of hypocrisy, not just on Dutton but on the way we frame our public discussion of immigration, it will only be because we’ve long since abandoned any approach to the subject that has anything to do with principles.

-Waleed Aly is a Fairfax columnist and a presenter on The Project.
ATAR: 99.70

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 20
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2018, 02:17:55 pm »
0
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated ;D



Australia’s immigration policy has long been a polarising issue. Although many are outraged over an au pair receiving a tourists’ visa whilst refugees remain in detention, Waleed Aly argues that it is Peter Dutton’s hypocrisy that must be condemned. In his opinion piece, titled Dutton’s Au pair drama shows hypocrisy of immigration policy he passionately contends that Dutton’s explanation for his intervention was wildly inaccurate as Dutton doesn’t care about humanitarian issues. Instead he suggests that Dutton sees himself as the conveyor of justice, ignoring even his own department’s advice. Further, Aly suggests that regardless of this woman’s situation, Dutton’s actions must be condemned by the Australian public.

Aly appeals to readers’ compassion through sharing stories of true humanitarian issues that Dutton has ignored. Through the use of inclusive language Aly implores readers to consider that ‘[they] could…desperately need psychiatric care’ and would still be ignored. Through these alarming stories, Aly shares his observations of Dutton as a ‘tough, uncompromising applier of rules’ and positions his readers to view Dutton as a heartless man. He emphasises Dutton’s inability to ‘be bowed or be swayed except in the most extreme cases.’ Through this description, he sets Dutton up to be an uncompassionate man, furthering his later arguments as Aly reveals that Dutton has broken his own rules. This comparison is intended to evoke outrage in readers who may struggle to understand the reasons behind Dutton believing that intervening for the au pair was compassionate, whilst Aly demonstrates that he has previously ignored inhumane situations.

After having described Dutton’s inability to make exceptions on compassionate grounds, Aly further attacks Dutton’s reputation by insinuating that he believes himself to be the sole determiner of justice. Aly ridicules Dutton and isolates him as the sole problem through quoting sources from the ABF who had told Dutton that she ‘advised ABF officers of her intention to work’ and from Dutton’s own department who stated that ‘there are clear indications that [she] is intending to work in Australia.’ Thus, readers are led to believe that this is not a failure on behalf of the government, or sections of the government, but rather that it is the failure of one individual, Dutton. Aly uses these quotes as an expert opinion, reinforcing his own words, in a way that conveys that he is speaking on behalf of a majority of knowledgeable Australians. The image chosen to accompany the article reinforces the impression that Dutton believes himself to be administering justice. A caricature representing Dutton is pictured holding a set of scales, commonly associated with judicial proceedings and law. Both Dutton and the scales are on the same angle, indicating that from Dutton’s perspective the scales are level. Through this Aly implies that Dutton sees his own actions as being fair. However, the image is not set on a horizontal angle in the frame, so to viewers it appears as if the scales are not even. Aly uses this to suggest that the Australian public can see the situation for what it truly is, and therefore that they are the ones who must condemn it.

Aly declares that most people are not focusing on the real issue. He claims that he has ‘nothing against the woman,’ reinforcing his status as an authorative voice by not taking a side on the main debate. This is intended to make his opinion more valid in the eyes of the readers as he states that ‘if this passes without a clear verdict of hypocrisy…it will only be because we’ve long since abandoned…principles.’ This dire statement combined with Aly’s use of inclusive language is designed to inspire the audience to change the way they view this issue to consider the problem that Aly describes. They are then encouraged to see that condemning Dutton’s actions is vital to ensure that they continue this debate with principles. This also serves as a call to action by Aly who hopes that by convincing his readers that Dutton must be criticised, they may then go and spread his message by talking to their friends or by sharing his article.

Aly contends that it is Dutton’s hypocrisy that should be criticised. He intends to convince his readers of this by attacking Dutton’s character and outlining why this exception was hypocritical of his own policies. He further declares that if Australians do not condemn this action, it will only be because ‘we’ve long since abandoned…principles.’

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 20
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2018, 09:28:51 pm »
0
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated ;D

Australia’s immigration policy has long been a polarising issue. Although many are outraged over an au pair receiving a tourists’ visa whilst refugees remain in detention, Waleed Aly argues that it is Peter Dutton’s hypocrisy that must be condemned good. In his opinion piece, titled Dutton’s Au pair drama shows hypocrisy of immigration policy he passionately contends that Dutton’s explanation for his intervention was wildly inaccurate as Dutton doesn’t care about humanitarian issues. Instead he suggests that Dutton sees himself as the conveyor of justice, ignoring even his own department’s advice. Further, Aly suggests that regardless of this woman’s situation, Dutton’s actions must be condemned by the Australian public.

Aly appeals to readers’ compassion through sharing stories of true humanitarian issues that Dutton has ignored what's the argument. Through the use of inclusive language Aly implores readers to consider that ‘[they - who?] could…desperately need psychiatric care’ and would still be ignored. Through these alarming stories, Aly shares his observations of Dutton as a ‘tough, uncompromising applier of rules’ and positions his readers to view Dutton as a heartless man. He emphasises Dutton’s inability to ‘be bowed or be swayed except in the most extreme cases.’ Through this description, he sets Dutton up to be an uncompassionate man, furthering his later arguments as Aly reveals that Dutton has broken his own rules. This comparison is intended to evoke outrage in readers who may struggle to understand the reasons behind Dutton believing that intervening for the au pair was compassionate, whilst Aly demonstrates that he has previously ignored inhumane situations.

After having described Dutton’s inability to make exceptions on compassionate grounds, Aly further attacks Dutton’s reputation by insinuating that he believes himself to be the sole determiner of justice. Aly ridicules Dutton and isolates him as the sole problem through quoting sources from the ABF who had told Dutton that she ‘advised ABF officers of her intention to work’ and from Dutton’s own department who stated that ‘there are clear indications that [she] is intending to work in Australia.’ Thus, readers are led to believe that this is not a failure on behalf of the government, or sections of the government, but rather that it is the failure of one individual, Dutton yes... final step - link to contention?. Aly uses these quotes as an expert opinion, reinforcing his own words, in a way that conveys that he is speaking on behalf of a majority of knowledgeable Australians. The image chosen to accompany the article reinforces the impression that Dutton believes himself to be administering justice. A caricature representing Dutton is pictured holding a set of scales, commonly associated with judicial proceedings and law. Both Dutton and the scales are on the same angle, indicating that from Dutton’s perspective the scales are level. Through this Aly implies that Dutton sees his own actions as being fair good. However, the image is not set on a horizontal angle in the frame, so to viewers it appears as if the scales are not even. Aly uses this to suggest that the Australian public can see the situation for what it truly is, and therefore that they are the ones who must condemn it - elucidate this, to make your reasoning very clear .

Aly declares that most people are not focusing on the real issue. He claims that he has ‘nothing against the woman,’ reinforcing his status as an authorative authoritative voice by not taking a side on the main debate which debate? Because Aly is taking a side in this debate on whether Dutton acted wisely or not. This is intended to make his opinion more valid in the eyes of the readers as he states that ‘if this passes without a clear verdict of hypocrisy…it will only be because we’ve long since abandoned…principles.’ This dire statement combined with Aly’s use of inclusive language is designed to inspire the audience to change the way they view this issue to consider the problem that Aly describes. They are then encouraged to see that condemning Dutton’s actions is vital to ensure that they continue this debate with principles. This also serves as a call to action by Aly who hopes that by convincing his readers that Dutton must be criticised, they may then go and spread his message by talking to their friends or by sharing his article. analyse more stuff for this argument

Aly contends that it is Dutton’s hypocrisy that should be criticised. He intends to convince his readers of this by attacking Dutton’s character and outlining why this exception was hypocritical of his own policies. He further declares that if Australians do not condemn this action, it will only be because ‘we’ve long since abandoned…principles.’
ATAR: 99.70

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 20
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2018, 03:01:45 pm »
0
In the wake of the upheaval caused by Dutton's impromptu intervention into immigration policy, columnist Waleed Aly's articulates his viewpoint in a Fairfax opinion piece, that Dutton has violated not only the government policy that he's supposed to uphold but also the trust of the people, the central target of Aly's piece.

At the forefront of his argument is his derision for the incongruency between Dutton's supposed act of generosity and its true outcome. In using positively connoted word pairings such as "incredible… humane and generous" to predispose Australians to Dutton's implications of a "humanitarian act", the audience is left to wallow in disappointment when Dutton offers a visa instead. Through placing rhetorical questions thereafter, Aly encourages the audience to be more receptive to his own feelings of incredulity in Dutton offer a "spot of tourism" rather than safety. Building on this negative aura, he posits readers to view Dutton "not as a mate", not as an Australian, in claiming that he's "happy to violate" all that he stands for, a juxtaposing phrase that nullifies not only whatever good intentions he aims to project but also the amicable feelings of his followers. This portrayal of him is coupled with a his own caricature, depicting small ears to emphasize his inability to listen and big lips to illustrate him talking big but not being able to deliver reinforces within the audience of Dutton's compromised morality. The transactional nature of this debacle is also present in the business-like attire, and the unbalanced scales in which he withholds the more profitable political trade, due to one scale being on higher ground than the other. The two tonal colours used also enhance the blackness within himself and his intentions, and the lack of white only acts to implicate the lack of purity in himself. In imitating a tree like stance, that  won't be "bowed or be swayed", Aly draws the audience's attentions to his black roots and the fruits of his labour, of which are most unsavoury in their blackness. Having imbued his interpretation of Dutton, Aly goes on to predict Dutton's course of action, or lack thereof in the face of hypothetical situations that are highly emotive, using automatic sympathy within the audience for the young - a "suicide 10 year old kid", the sick, who need "psychiatric care" and the indefensible - "refugee" to imply his non reaction in the "most extreme cases". If that wasn't enough, he focuses on people's hip pocket nerve, by revealing that all this is done through "taxpayer dollars". Through this Aly paints Dutton as a person who doesn't suit words with actions and insinuates towards the audience that he shouldn't be trusted.

In also appealing to his more positive outlook of his behaviour, and thereby applauding Dutton for "[believing] in the law" Aly then makes the proclamation that Dutton responds preferentially to "people who don't obey and respect our rules", to undermine Dutton's character as a whole. In repeating Dutton's knowledge of the couple's consistent law breaking tendencies, audiences are either shocked into agreement or at least predisposed to "not take [his] word for it". Knowing this he follows up with that of "the department" and ABF's far more reputable source that backs up his ideas, in which the quote draws attention to alarmist phrases such as "high risk" and "suspicions… aroused" to instil fear within audiences of the consequences that Dutton has opened up to in allowing them visas. In doing so, Aly has conditioned the audience to view Dutton's own words with a grain of salt, and from there enlightens the audiences of the wider context leading up to this mayhem, to provide them with an omniscient view so that they can come to a conclusion with all the facts, not under the influence of the words of a man in power. Having revealed that the au pair were "going to be paid money", the reiterations of "paid work" are emphasised alongside not only the au pair's own words but also that of The Project and ABF, which act to illustrate the same point of view of the violators, the authorities and the news station. Having established the general consensus that what couple were acting outside of the law, in which the sentiment is more likely to be echoed in the audience, Aly draws back to Dutton's selecting ignorance of the email warning against "minister [intervention]", to eradicate the foundations of any moral conduct in his political judgement, to which the many Australian citizens should've been desensitised to at this point or at the very least find irksome. Relying on stating on numerous occasions that Dutton "ignores" the rationality that should come with upholding the law instead of "[flouting] the law" as the tourists had done. By including the reactions of those closest to him and who know him the best, the audience is led to trust their judgement, and so Aly aims to replicate this feeling of "[utter humiliation]… and primed to regard that as the highest sin". As such, Aly's criticism of the au pair lack of respect for the law then also extends onto Dutton, a progression that the audience is likely to accept without complaint following the irrefutable evidence, Aly infers that Dutton is no different from them, but worst still, as he's a hypocrite of the highest order.

While Aly pursues condemning Dutton to his actions, he also wishes to inspire a more thorough debate from the audience, with all the facts and void of any preconceived notions, that will hopefully draw attention to the wider issue at hand, that is, blatant hypocrisy in politics.

If possible, please give this a mark out of 10. Thanks in advance.

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 20
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2018, 11:14:40 am »
0
In the wake of the upheaval caused by Dutton's impromptu intervention into immigration policy, columnist Waleed Aly's articulates his viewpoint in a Fairfax opinion piece, that Dutton has violated not only the government policy that he's supposed to uphold but also the trust of the people, the central target of Aly's piece good.

At the forefront of his argument is his derision for the incongruency between Dutton's supposed act of generosity and its true outcome. In using positively connoted word pairings such as "incredible… humane and generous" to predispose Australians to be open to Dutton's implications of a "humanitarian act", the audience is left to wallow in disappointment when Dutton offers a visa instead. Through placing rhetorical questions thereafter, Aly encourages the audience to be more receptive to his own feelings of incredulity in Dutton offer a "spot of tourism" rather than safety. Building on this negative aura, he posits positions readers to view Dutton "not as a mate", not as an Australian, in claiming that he's "happy to violate" all that he stands for, a juxtaposing phrase that nullifies not only whatever good intentions he aims to project but also the amicable feelings of his followers. This portrayal of him is coupled with a his own caricature, depicting small ears to emphasize his inability to listen and big lips to illustrate him talking big but not being able to deliver, which reinforces within the audience of Dutton's compromised morality. The transactional nature of this debacle is also present in the business-like attire excellent, and the unbalanced scales in which he withholds the more profitable political trade, due to one scale being on higher ground than the other. The two tonal colours used also enhance the blackness within himself and his intentions, and the lack of white only acts to implicate the lack of purity in himself. In imitating a tree like stance, that  won't be "bowed or be swayed", Aly draws the audience's attentions to his black roots and the fruits of his labour, of which are most unsavoury in their blackness. Having imbued his interpretation of Dutton, Aly goes on to predict Dutton's course of action, or lack thereof in the face of hypothetical situations that are highly emotive, using automatic sympathy within the audience for the young - a "suicide 10 year old kid", the sick, who need "psychiatric care" and the indefensible - "refugee" to imply his non reaction in the "most extreme cases" analyse this collection of quotes further. If that wasn't enough, he focuses on people's hip pocket nerve, by revealing that all this is done through "taxpayer dollars". Through this Aly paints Dutton as a person who doesn't suit words with actions and insinuates towards to the audience that he shouldn't be trusted.

In also appealing to his more positive outlook of his behaviour, and thereby applauding Dutton for "[believing] in the law" Aly then makes the proclamation that Dutton responds preferentially to "people who don't obey and respect our rules", to undermine Dutton's character as a whole. In repeating Dutton's knowledge of the couple's consistent law breaking tendencies, audiences are either shocked into agreement or at least predisposed to "not take [his] word for it". Knowing this he follows up with that of "the department" and ABF's far more reputable source that backs up his ideas, in which the quote draws attention to alarmist phrases such as "high risk" and "suspicions… aroused" to instil fear within audiences of the consequences that Dutton has opened up to in allowing them visas. In doing so, Aly has conditioned the audience to view Dutton's own words with a grain of salt, and from there enlightens the audiences of the wider context leading up to this mayhem, to provide them with an omniscient view so that they can come to a conclusion with all the facts, not under the influence of the words of a man in power. Having revealed that the au pair were "going to be paid money", the reiterations of "paid work" are emphasised alongside not only the au pair's own words but also that of The Project and ABF, which act to illustrate the same point of view of the violators, the authorities and the news station. Having established the general consensus that what couple were acting outside of the law, in which the sentiment is more likely to be echoed in the audience, Aly draws back to Dutton's selecting ignorance of the email warning against "minister [intervention]", to eradicate the foundations of any moral conduct in his political judgement, to which the many Australian citizens should've been desensitised to at this point or which the audience should at the very least find irksome, relying on stating on numerous occasions that Dutton "ignores" the rationality that should come with upholding the law instead of "[flouting] the law" as the tourists had done. By including the reactions of those closest to him and who know him the best, the audience is led to trust their judgement, and so Aly aims to replicate this feeling of "[utter humiliation]… and primed to regard that as the highest sin". As such, Aly's criticism of the au pair lack of respect for the law then also extends onto Dutton, a progression that the audience is likely to accept without complaint following the irrefutable evidence, Aly infers that Dutton is no different from them, but worst still, as he's a hypocrite of the highest order.

While Aly pursues condemning Dutton to his actions, he also wishes to inspire a more thorough debate from the audience, with all the facts and void of any preconceived notions, that will hopefully draw attention to the wider issue at hand, that is, blatant hypocrisy in politics.

ATAR: 99.70