Public Prejudice Towards Asylum Seekers in Australia

What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?

Many Australians feel the government should maintain a tough policy on asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
Hadi Zader/Flickr, CC BY

Anne Pedersen, Murdoch University and Lisa Hartley, Curtin University

According to a poll taken last December, 60% of those surveyed think the Australian government should “increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers”. What’s behind this negative sentiment (otherwise known as prejudice) towards asylum seekers in Australian society?“

One very important and consistent predictor of prejudice is the acceptance of inaccurate information, or myths, as true. A 2006 study, carried out by one of this article’s authors, identified three frequently cited myths that depicted asylum seekers as "queue jumpers”, “illegals” and not having a genuine reason to seek asylum. This study found that people who were high in prejudice were significantly more likely to accept these myths as being true.

These beliefs have been linked with government rhetoric about asylum seekers under the previous Howard government. Under the Abbott government, there has been no shortage of hostile rhetoric. The punitive asylum seeker policies of the Labor government under Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have also continued.

The ugly side of nationalism and perceptions of consensus

Some research links extreme levels of nationalism to prejudice towards asylum seekers. In one study into the phenomenon of flying Australian flags on one’s car for Australia Day, researchers from the University of Western Australia and Curtin University surveyed 501 people in public spaces in the week leading up to and on Australia Day in 2011.

The study found car-flag flyers rated more highly on measures of patriotism and nationalism and were significantly more likely to express prejudiced views against asylum seekers than non-flag flyers. Of those who flew flags, only 9.9% held positive views towards asylum seekers, compared to 24.7% of non-flag flyers.

Research suggests a correlation between nationalism and prejudice against asylum seekers.
Flickr/Brian Costelloe, CC BY

We have found that people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers are also notably more likely to over-estimate support in the community for these views compared with those more accepting of asylum seekers.

A 2008 study carried out by one of the authors found while both groups over-estimated their support in the community, the effect was much more pronounced among people holding prejudiced views.

This finding is of concern because other research finds people who see themselves as having a “majority voice” are more likely to be vocal and less flexible in their views than others who see themselves as having a “minority voice”.

People who seek to be tolerant and accepting of asylum seekers often find it difficult to speak out. This compounds the problem: prejudiced people’s influence can be disproportionate to their numbers.

The role of emotion

In addition to these cognitive factors that underlie prejudice, some studies indicate community views about asylum seekers are strongly linked with emotions. Research in 2010 found people who are positive towards asylum seekers are more likely to feel empathy for them, to feel moral outrage at their situation and to express disgust and embarrassment at Australia’s policy stance.

Hostile rhetoric from our politicians can build prejudice against asylum seekers.
AAP/Daniel Munoz

Our recent unpublished study found people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers were more likely to feel threatened by them. This was the case in regard to perceived threats to both security and “Australian values”.

Prejudiced participants were also more likely to be angry at asylum seekers for their mode of entry. Once emotions are involved, the issue becomes even more difficult to resolve.

Participants were significantly more prejudiced against asylum seekers who arrive by boat compared with refugees who were accepted offshore and resettled through Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program. So, although racism – prejudice based on race – is clearly involved, it is not the whole story.

Countering the myths that fuel prejudice

The fact our participants were more negative towards boat arrivals relates to a myth touched on above: “queue jumping”. The term queue implies that an orderly resettlement process exists, but this is far from reality.

It may also be the case many Australians are quite sensitive to what they see as rule-breaking. Our 2012 study on prejudice against Muslim Australians found a strong predictor of resentment was a perceived lack of conformity with Australian culture. Asylum seekers are often seen as Muslim even though they come from a range of religions, including Christianity and Hinduism.

Our finding also relates to the “not genuine” myth. Yet, over the last decade, more than 90% of boat arrivals have been found to be refugees. These myths, among others, need to be refuted if we are to reduce prejudice.

Levels of prejudice in Australian society can be reduced. Studies of both university students and older Australians in the community show attitudes can become more positive. This is important, as individuals can turn into a critical mass that can change social norms and government policy.

Anne Pedersen, Associate Professor in Psychology, Murdoch University and Lisa Hartley, Lecturer, Centre for Human Rights Education, Curtin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A Pet Peeve

Pet peeves are a normal characteristic in all human beings and everybody has one which others find irritating (Johnston). My personal pet peeve is when I get interrupted when talking and when such a thing happens, I tend to lose my temper. This has tended to bring me into conflict not only with my coworkers, but also with my family and friends as well. I still believe that my actions are justified because it is very rude to interrupt someone when he is speaking and instead one should listen until the other person has finished articulating his ideas. I think that this is an essential part of human associations. Interrupting someone when he is speaking is a sign of lack of a respect, an insult, and most of all, a personal challenge.

Interrupting someone when he is speaking is a sign of lack of respect and I think that my reaction towards people who do this is justified (Joyce). Not only is this a lack of respect but it shows how these people regard me. It brings out a feeling of inadequacy within me which I find very hard to ignore and my first instinctive reaction is to lose my temper. Everybody has a right to get angry when disrespected in anyway and I do not see the difference between me and them. I do not see why people should be offended by my reaction towards what I consider to be a disrespectful gesture because all these other people have their own peeves which they consider to be disrespectful towards them. I consider being interrupted to be a sign of disrespect towards me and if those around me do not like how I react, then it would be best if they did not interrupt me when I am talking.

I consider being interrupted when speaking, especially when making a very important point to be very insulting. This is due to the fact that the person who has interrupted me does not see the importance of what I am talking about or disagrees with it and instead chooses to do this insulting thing. I would prefer to be told to my face that what I am talking about is not important or that it is boring instead of my speech being dismissed in such an insulting way. I would not get angry if one were to tell me this and I am sure that we would afterwards come to a very amicable solution to what I was saying.

Being interrupted when speaking is a personal challenge to the speaker and should be answered with the severity it deserves. Interrupting a person when he is speaking especially on a subject that the person who has interrupted knows nothing about is very personal because he is casting doubt on the knowledge of the speaker (Bromann, 24 - 28). The speaker’s angry reaction towards this is very much justified and he deserves the apology of the person who has interrupted him. If such a thing were done, then there would be no need for conflict between people.

In conclusion, it is a normal thing for everybody to have at least one pet peeve. These pet peeves may be rational or irrational and should be met with understanding. People should be careful to learn what the pet peeves of others around them are and should try their utmost to avoid them. This will ensure that there is always a calm and sociable place where everybody can live and work in peace.

Invasion of Privacy, Missouri Revised Statute 565.253

The invasion of privacy is considered a crime in many countries and these countries have set up laws to ensure that those who are involved in such acts are punished by the law. The severity of these punishments range from country to country with those who are found guilty being fined, while others are given jail sentences (Davidson & Bryant, 2001). Privacy laws in the United States have their origins in the British common law which protected individuals from only the interference with their lives and with their property. This came to be further developed in the United States with the institution of state laws and statutes which further expanded this crime to include the interference of the emotional well being of a person. With the coming of and the continuous development of mass media, there seems to be very little privacy being left to individuals and this has ensured that the current state privacy laws continue to evolve to make sure that the privacy of individuals are protected (Sullivan, 2010). In this paper, we shall discuss the development of privacy laws in the states of America with specific reference to the state of Missouri.

The Missouri Revised Statute 565.253 states that a person will have committed the crime of the invasion of privacy in the second degree if such a person deliberately views, films, or takes another person’s photographs without the latter person’s awareness or permission (Missouri Revised Statutes, 2010). Moreover, this crime will be said to have been committed if the person being filmed or photographed is in a state of nakedness or partial nakedness and if this person is in a place where he or she would anticipate a reasonable belief of their own privacy. Furthermore, this statute states that a person shall be considered to have committed the crime of invasion of privacy if he secretly takes photographs or films another person using a concealed camera or camcorder without the latter’s consent.

As stated above, the early development of privacy laws started with the British common law and the purpose of these laws was originally to protect individuals from interference with their lives and property. However, these laws were further developed to include the protection of the spiritual nature of man as well as his feelings and intellect. These laws were later broadened to include the right of a person to be left alone and property was further defined as comprising of all forms of possessions, both tangible and intangible. Some scholars believe that the historical common law concerning privacy can still be applied today especially in situations where the right to privacy cannot be clearly defined by the current laws (Thaemert, 2002). They believe that the common law is much broader than current laws and that it would be best if it were to be taken seriously in matters concerning privacy and not disregarded as it is today. Common law privacy torts are very rarely used today and in fact, they are not applicable in cases where the affected person is considered to be newsworthy despite the fact that they provide a broader range of options that the Fourth Amendment does.

In the United States, the protection against the invasion of privacy varies from state to state and the American constitution itself does not provide strong penalties against it. Some states have a high level of protection against the invasion of privacy while some are more relaxed and a suspect may get off the hook easily (Siegel et al, 2009). This is not the case with common law which not only protects the right of individuals to be left alone but it also ensures that their property if protected. The common law is more specific in its application because it protects an individual from the invasion of their privacy from both the government and private citizens (Clapman, 2003). The evolution of the current laws and statutes has been largely influenced by the advent of mass media all over the world and the hunger that many people have for sensational news. Most of this highly demanded news requires that those pursuing it invade the privacy of the individuals who they are targeting in order to get the information that they need (De Reza, 2002). It is in such cases that statutes such as the Missouri Revised Statute 565.253 comes in as a way of controlling such behavior in society as well as ensuring that the right to privacy of individuals is protected. State statutes are created to deal with specific issues concerning privacy and are not as generalized as those of the common law. This means that state statutes do not cover everything concerning privacy and they instead make people feel insecure in matters involving their privacy. It would therefore be better if common law were given a little more priority when making decisions in matters concerning the invasion of privacy.

Many changes have taken place in privacy laws from historical common law to the state laws that are mostly used today. Most of these changes have come about as government attempts to put a definition to the various types of privacy invasions (Judge, 2002). Furthermore, the emergence of the media in the world today has made it necessary to make privacy laws which depend on the specific situations within which such media has invaded the privacy of individuals (Elizabeth, 1998). This has not only made privacy laws more complex but it has also ensured that there is a very thin line between whether one has indeed invaded the privacy of an individual or not. These new laws have created a scenario where one is never certain of ever getting justice if one’s privacy has been invaded and in fact, they actually have the opposite effect to what they are intended to do (Volkert, 2005). This is unlike the historical common law which tended to tackle matters directly and often pointed out that a violation of privacy had occurred no matter what the circumstances were. Moreover, the laws against the invasion of privacy in common law were not very complex and this ensured that they got straight to the point without the need of getting into complexities which would distort the entire case.

There are many ways through which this statute can be changed to ensure that matters concerning the invasion of privacy are swiftly dealt with. The first thing that should be done is to ensure that the complexity of the existing statute is reduced so that the public can better understand them and in the process have more confidence in them. Furthermore, there should be equal usage of both this statute and historical common privacy laws to provide stability to the decision making in invasion of privacy cases. The statute should be made to cover a broader range of invasion of privacy crimes than it currently does in order to reduce the number of statutes that have to be instituted to cover the same type of crime. The statute should be meant not only to deal with crimes of invasion of privacy involving the use of modern technology but should also be used to deal with other types of similar cases. To do this, some features of the common law should be included within this statute to enable it to complement the evolving needs that people have to protect the little privacy that they have left to them. This statute should not only target individuals who commit this crime, but it should also target the government and other powerful institutions which invade the privacy of individuals within the state of Missouri. This will not only ensure the efficiency of the law when dealing with such cases, but it will also discourage many who would have committed this crime from doing it.