Asylum deserved

re: "Malaysian trans woman arrested in Thailand says 'safe' in Australia" (BP, October 20, 2021)

 
Dear editor,

Australia often gets human rights wrong, as seen in its treatment of refugees on Manus Island and its centuries-long mistreatment of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, but in the case of Nur Sajat, my country has got it right. She should be granted asylum to escape religiously inspired persecution by morally wrong Malaysian law mindlessly bowing down before blind faith in a famously intolerant and punitive god.

Whilst some might take this sad case as yet another opportunity to bash religions for being primitive superstitions preaching fake claims about reality and dubious moral values, perhaps even going so far as to suggest that religions be banned, that temptation must be resisted. We must remain tolerant, even of what consistently proves itself intrinsically intolerant, as demonstrated in this case by Islam.

Freedom of religion is a human right as much as the right to choose freedom from persecution by religion. The right for religions to exist and even proselytize by advertising their wares and supernatural promises must also be respected. But religion should never be supported by the state, nor should religious arguments ever be accepted as a reason for forming any public policy. Religions may well have everything to say on supernatural matters not of this world, but they have nothing of solid, rational worth to say on matters of natural reality or of sound human morals.

If faith-driven adherents wish to faithfully hold the dogmas and practice the rites of some religion, that is strictly a personal matter, one best engaged in in private with other consenting adults, preferably behind closed doors with the blinds down, the sheets up, and the lights out.

 Felix Qui
 

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

 
The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 22, 2021, under the title "Asylum deserved" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2202159/report-responsibly
  

Chinese whispers

re: "'Craven cowardice': UNSW condemned for deleting posts critical of Beijing" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2020, August 3)

Respect for free speech, a founding principle of democracy as of good morals, requires that you support the right of others to say what you find offensive, hateful and false. If some Chinese students loyal to the repressive regime in Beijing demand that comments they deem offensive, hateful or false be suppressed, that proves only their failure to respect the basic moral basis of democracy. If UNSW caves to such anti-democratic demands, then the university administration also proves itself to fail to respect the right to free speech, which is also a cornerstone of academic excellence.

Australia deserves better of its universities. Its students deserve better of UNSW. The Chinese people of Hong Kong and elsewhere deserve better of UNSW.

If some feel that a mistake has been made, they are free to present their case. If the repressive authorities in Beijing think false reports have been made about Hong Kong, Xin Jiang or elsewhere, the obvious solution is to invite in more independent observers to investigate and report. By seeking to suppress reports that are unfavourable, they confirm the likely truth of those reports.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The Sydney Morning Herald article.

It is published there at https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/craven-cowardice-unsw-condemned-for-deleting-posts-critical-of-beijing-20200803-p55hy5.html#comments

  

Face the book of demons

re: "Facebook accounts for up to 60% of child abuse reports to AFP, data shows" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2020, July 24) 

Undermining the rights of people to hold private discussions, making it legally impossible to have assured privacy for good people to discuss personal issues, can only be remotely sane if you have absolute trust in the current and every possible future government and official authority. If you have that sort of unreasoning blind faith in all politicians past, present and future unknown, you are truly kooky.

Yes, there are real crimes that encryption can facilitate, but that cannot justify the state, unless you commit to the worst extremes of communism, interfering to disable basic protections for all. There are other solutions to criminal activity that focus on the criminals, not the innocent, and those are the options that a just society pursues, not a blanket dictate of distrust of all by all.

Also worth remembering is that after the famous Christian churches, it is families and family friends who hide the greatest numbers of paedophiles, and you don't need to invade everyone's privacy to get them. You just need to enable children to speak out against the vile relatives, family friends, teachers, priests and other abusive scum.  The way to do that is end blind faith in the traditional institutions beloved of conservative law and order types, the same type whose social consensus of silence to protect the undeserved reputations of traditional institutions enabled so much abuse to go on unspoken for so long.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The Sydney Morning Herald article.

It is published there at https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/facebook-accounts-for-up-to-60-percent-of-child-abuse-reports-to-afp-data-shows-20200723-p55ep7.html#comments

Proof before law

re: "Religious 'freedom' bill will divide Australians, not unite us" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2020, February 27) 

Well reasoned and well said Michael Kirby. Religion is perfectly OK for determining how they choose to act in matters that concern only believers. As soon as others are affected, religious belief is not acceptable until its claims are solidly founded on objective, verifiable evidence. We allow the belief that life evolves to inform policy because that belief is solidly proven beyond any reasonable doubt, as are facts relating to the spread of viruses, which are relevant to restricting the right to free movement when a pandemic threatens.  But belief in ghosts, souls, gods, afterlives and the like should be totally ignored by the law unless and until such time as those beliefs are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The last time I checked, no such supernatural belief had any solid supporting evidence at all, absolutely zero, and in most cases it was hard to see how it could even make sense; nonsense, whatever religious zealots might hold to to be obvious, is not in fact a sound basis for making law that governs a society. 

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The Sydney Morning Herald article.

It is published there at https://www.smh.com.au/national/religious-freedom-bill-will-divide-australians-not-unite-us-20200225-p544bz.html#comments

  

Abbott knows worst

re: "Abbott calls for middle class women to have more children" (The Sydney Morning Herald, January 28, 2020)

Perhaps educated, middle-class women make the mature, rational, moral decision to refrain from having children because they see where the human species is driving itself.

Is it quite right to be forcing life on innocent persons without their consent given what might be just around the corner? 

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The Sydney Morning Herald article.

It is published there at https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abbott-calls-for-middle-class-women-to-have-more-children-20200128-p53vkx.html#comments

  

'Lesser bad' still bad

re: "Faulty comparison" (BP, PostBag, October 23, 2019)

Dear editor,

Thank you Whale ("Faulty comparison", PostBag, October 23) for the thoughtful response to my letter on the foundational role of a free media, but a couple of points left me confused.

First, after explicitly agreeing with me that "free media may be essential" to a democracy and any other society that aspires to good morals, you seem to disagree with regard to both Thailand and Australia.

It is certainly true that Australia's prime minister says that he "supports the free press," but it is less obvious that he does in fact support the free press. Just because someone says they support X does not in fact mean that they support X. The evidence for or against the claimed support is their acts, including the laws that they support or have made, and his acts based on Australian law to stop the Australian press investigating and reporting on matters of national concern to Australians suggest grave lapses in my PM's support for a free press.

The same is more so for Thailand, where the wording of sections 34 through 36 of the latest permanent constitution of the Thai nation seems written with intent to enable easy suppression of both free speech for Thai citizens on Thai affairs and a free press investigating to report truths and honest opinion on those matters of Thai national concern. This leads to the strange situation where foreign media can be a better basis for informed opinion of worth on Thai affairs.

You also repeat a common failure of critical thinking. Merely because someone else is worse, even much worse, cannot justify a lesser bad. Yes, Myanmar and Cambodia are worse than Thailand when it comes to censoring the press to enforce ignorance of national affairs. China is even worse at censoring to impose ignorance of Chinese concerns on its citizens. But this is no reason to accept the lesser wrongs. Would you similarly argue that Mr X should be let off because he only committed one murder while Ms B committed ten?

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 24, 2019, under the title "'Lesser bad' still bad" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1778719/case-closed
  

Free media essential

re: "Australian papers censor front pages in press freedom campaign" (BP, October 21, 2019)

Dear editor,

Well done Aussie newspapers. A free media, ready, willing and able to publish deeply embarrassing truths about society, politics, political leaders, and leaders  of society is essential to a free, morally healthy society. Just look at Thailand over at least the past seven decades to see how corrupt, unequal and unjust, how sick, society and politics becomes when the media fails to honestly embarrass and heartily mock the fake pretensions of those who think themselves owed trust and esteem for no good reason except a title, a position, or inherited wealth.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on October 22, 2019, under the title "Free media essential" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1777414/lead-from-the-front
  

Knowing right

Re: "'Workers and consumers are the ultimate losers': Consumer advocates back press freedom campaign" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2019, October 22)

Free speech and a free press are both foundational to a healthy democracy. If people cannot seek and speak ugly truths about those who rule them, if citizens cannot mock and burst the pretensions of those who think themselves high and mighty, if some are denied the chance of an equal voice in forming not only their government, but the form of their society, its laws and institutions, then democracy is in danger of becoming a tyranny.

The lame cry of "national security" is too often a lie, and must also be subject to healthy skepticism and rejected unless sufficiently specific support is given to substantiate every such claim to impose ignorance by censoring the free investigation and reporting of national affairs. That something will piss of a communist dictatorship is not a national security reason to stifle the flow of information about the nation. That something will embarrass an official is not a national security issue, which appears to need a strict and transparent definition to prevent abuse. 

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The Sydney Morning Herald article.

It is published there at https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/workers-and-consumers-are-the-ultimate-losers-consumer-advocates-back-press-freedom-campaign-20191021-p532s9.html#comments
  

Greta's v. Christian PM's fearmongering.

re: Seriously, Scott, are Greta's warnings any scarier than your church's? (SMH, September 29, 2019)

Well said Mr. FitzSimons. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has, of course, every right to his ancient beliefs founded on nothing but unmitigated fantasy. If he wants to pray to the pixie king that lives on the green cheese that makes up the dark side of the moon, that would be as rational and as well-founded a belief, one that he would be equally welcome to hold. But he has no right not to be called out for holding such irrational, indeed anti-rational, beliefs. Nor does he have any right not to have the moral shortcomings of his chosen ideology bluntly stated.

The ugly fact is that his Christian beliefs from the despotic ancient Middle East reflect the primitive moral thinking of those times with their command theories of ethics: "Do what I command, or suffer." That is the ideology of absolute monarchs who brook no dissent, and that mindset of absolute, blind obedience to autocracy remains the moral compass of the Middle Eastern monotheisms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is why Abraham is admired because he was willing to murder his own son on his god's command. That is why popes torture and murder heretics, witches and blasphemers (but not loyal paedophile priests and bishops) on their god's command. That is why Islamic jihadis fly planes into buildings on their god's command, and the incredible promises of sex and joy eternal thereafter.

This is Scott Morrison's faith based on nothing but blind faith and a morally corrupt moral ideology that modern societies should have ditched centuries ago, that in fact the Western world was ditching well before the Christian invasion of Western civilization that set us back into a millennia-long dark age.

_______________________________

  

Migrants work harder

re: "Playing the ‘racist’ card" (PostBag, July 30)

Dear editor,
Peter Atkinson's defence of Barry Wallace and the like-minded against the charge that their attitudes are racist is doubtless sincere, as are the attitudes themselves. However, sincerity of belief guarantees neither truth nor decency. The Jim Crowe segregationists of 1950s America were doubtless also sincere in their beliefs about African Americans, which nonetheless remained racist and false. The same is true of Barry's claim that "if you look at the people who come to Australia, most only come to get money from the government, and many don't work and form conclaves. Also, they don't mix into Australian society."

To avoid the charge of racist prejudice prompting such accusations, they would have to be backed up by facts. The relevant facts are the statistics comparing Australian born citizens with immigrants and their children, which show Barry and his sincerely like-minded mates to be wrong. First, immigrants to Australia have higher education levels than the Australian born, with 9.2% having postgraduate degree compared to only 4.8 for the Aussie born. More tellingly, the children of migrants have consistently higher educational expectations than those of home born Australians: 60% of the children of migrants complete at least year 12, compared with only 53% of the children of parents born in Australia. Almost 50% of the children of migrants complete at least a bachelor degree, compared a low 36% for those with both parents born in Australia. These are not the statistics for a group who “only come to get money from the government.”

Naturally, this high motivation to build a better life for themselves and their children is reflected in substantial contributions to the Australian economy and to Australian society more generally. Australia and its non-immigrant population would be much worse off culturally and economically without the boons that migrants and their children bring with them.

Although racist prejudices certainly continue to exist in Australia, with 27% of Australian citizens (Yes, citizens) having experienced personal abuse or discrimination "because of their ethnicity," 86.8% of Australians report that they think it "a good thing for a society to be made up of people from different cultures."

The readily available facts, such as those cited above from The Place of Migrants in Contemporary Australia (Executive Summary), published by the Department of Immigration and Border Control, 2014, flatly contradict the sincerely believed falsehoods of Mr. Atkinson and those he would defend. To recklessly assume the truth of such false beliefs without bothering to check them is to indulge a prejudice which should properly be called racist.

Happily, at least for now in Australia, the racists continue to be losers.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on July 31, 2018, under the title "Migrants work harder" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1512962/identity-crisis