Who the hell is Peter Qasim? Well that depends on who you ask.
On Wednesday evening’s Late Line program on the ABC, Amanda Vanstone kept up the line started by her predecessor, Philip Ruddock. That is, as far as the Department of Immigration is concerned, Peter Qasim is anything but whatever it is he really is.
In true Orwellian fashion and with a straight face Her Tentness told Tony Jones that "we're a compassionate government" and then declared that "we keep in touch with the community". What she was really saying was that government ministers won’t own up to their culpability in the suffering of those in detention and that as a populist government they swing where ever they believe public opinion is pushing them.
When asked specifically about Peter Qasim, who has been detained for over six years without any formal process of describing his imprisonment, Her Rotundness said, "The information that I have at the moment is that Mr Qasim has not cooperated". In reality what the Minister for Imprisonment was saying was that Peter Qasim has become a headache because a vast number of people have rallied to his cause. This has exposed again the inhumane treatment of people in detention.
When challenged about the impression that Peter Qasim has become something of an embarrassment for the government and that by holding to this ‘tough’ line the government was being perceived as hiding something, the Minister, in a surreal display of total incredulity exclaimed, "It's not a case of holding something against Mr Qasim. Honestly, Tony, do you really think the government wants someone in detention for this long? Heavens above!"
When Tony Jones put it to the Minister that it did seem like the government was either hiding something or had nothing to demonstrate why this man has been held without access to the evidence against him, Her Ministerial Circumference replied, "…the problem at this point is… in fact, his identity. It's easy to just sprout a name and say, "That's Mr Qasim" …".
The conversation then descended into farce with the Minister raising all sorts of excuses as to why we should not believe that after six years the government is really holding this man as a tool to bargain with. Who they wish to bargain with is, well, anyone’s guess.
Nonetheless, she went on to give us a quick update on her ability to name a few Australian geographical highlights. She told us, "Everything Mr Qasim can tell us … he should tell us, because when we can resolve that Mr Qasim is Mr Qasim or resolve who Mr Qasim is, then if he is who he says he is, I presume the Indian Government will, in fact, take him. And he says he wants to go there, so there won't be a problem".
Now at the heart of the problem is that Peter Qasim is from the Indian occupied area of Kashmir and claims to have been tortured by Indian government agents or sympathisers prior to him fleeing. When he arrived here, like all those seeking refuge, his claims were heard by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Oh, and by the way as in many cases Peter’s tribunal hearing was before a panel of one. And that one person dismissed his claims thus landing him in the limbo he has endured for almost seven years.
Despite his pitiful treatment here, Peter has stated that he would rather return to India and take his chances than die in captivity, locked up like a prize exhibit in a zoo.
How did we allow this to occur? We are all responsible for the cases like Peter Qasim. We gave up something. We allowed something to be taken from us and in so doing we have let down our potential. Many people talk about our great Aussie heritage of the fair go. The "she’ll be right mate" way in which we supposedly approach life and the "fair crack of the whip" expectation we have of justice. Yet when we examine the Peter Qasim case and those of hundreds of others locked up in desert or outer urban concentration camps, we can only conclude that we have abandoned completely any semblance of "the fair go", the "she’ll be right" and the "fair crack of the whip" approach to being Australian.
In evidence I point to Her Portliness comment that the current government is a "compassionate government". That comment is repeated ad nauseam to the point that it, like the phrase "bringing democracy to the Middle East", has lost any relationship to reality or practice.
These comments can be made with straight faces by our erstwhile leaders because collectively we have given up the will to resist. To hold them to no account. We have swallowed their line that if we didn’t have them, we would descend into some form barbarity. All the while they continue their acts of barbarity and depravity in our name and report to us they do so on our behalf to keep us "safe" and "secure".
We are engaged in a battle. Her Expandedness said so when she signed off with Tony Jones the other night. She told us that trying to win our hearts and minds was "sometimes a battle, but always a pleasure". Only someone who was holding the big guns would say that a battle was a pleasure. Only someone who thrives on demeaning, humiliating or destroying humanity would say something so obscene.
"Oh, Shane, you’re being a little precious. The Minister was only saying she enjoys the cut and thrust of debating politics," you might say. I would reply … exactly. For the political class the reality of everyday life is some abstracted theory. Peter Qasim becomes an "interesting" or "challenging" or even a "fascinating case". The humanity of the situation is removed and the person is abstracted into oblivion well before he or she is physically debilitated or killed. The term "collateral damage" was devised, no doubt, by someone who enjoyed the "pleasure" of the battle.
Who Peter Qasim is, will depend on whether justice, mercy and compassion prevail. Unless they do, we will have consigned him to the history books and his entry will be recorded as "destroyed by those who didn’t bother to hear his story".
Peter Qasim is not only a person, but also a symbol of what ails us. It has been said that we are a sick society in need of healing. I agree. Any society that is content to allow it’s government to incarcerate individuals without formal processes or allows their government to consistently fail to follow processes, is in need of healing.
While we may think our lives are hard and losing meaning, spare a thought for Peter and the hundreds of others just like him. Think of the wasting they have endured while we allow debate over the minutiae of political battles and point scoring to go on.
Until we, as the collective we call society, are ready to demonstrate justice, compassion and mercy in real and material ways, then the only response we can collectively abide by to the question, "Who the hell is Peter Qasim?" is, "Who gives a damn?" because it’s obvious the vast majority of us don’t. Until we do, we will never find the peace and healing we so desperately seek.