Letter sent to Warren Entch and Radio National 16th June 2005.


Looking out for the underdog was once a characteristic held in the highest regard as a fundamental aspect of our character as a people. It was part of our identity.
No longer, is this the case.
It has been made desperately apparent in recent years that the underdog is no longer a priority in our increasingly mercenary culture.
In the face of profit and economic gain, the underdog is a liability, an un-needed distraction which must be dealt with as a burden to be shed at the first opportunity.
It is with this new relationship to the 'worse off', that we have approached, amongst many other things, the current fiasco of the Chinese defectors whose lives are currently in our hands.
It would be paranoid to think the fuss surrounding this issue is a smoke screen to keep our eyes off a more important ball. Therefore we must assume there is substance to the story.
That in mind then, we must acknowledge a few simple facts.
Three high ranking officials from a notoriously oppressive, Juggernaut regime, come forth with a plea that we protect them from the inevitably terminal repercussions of their decision to step forward with matching accounts of an assortment of nefarious activities directed towards this nation.
In response to their provisioning us with this information and the full knowledge of their unpleasant fate if returned, we have all but given them or driven them to the very forces they have sought to evade.
This is a new low point in our status as a supposedly civilized people.
Are the stories of the bureaucratic nightmare inflicted on these men true? If they are, I am calling for every executive in the relevant departments to be immediately sacked for criminal ineptitude and a flagrant disregard for the safety of those whose lives are literally in their hands. Not that this issue is the only, or even best, example of the same kind of ingrained incompetence from the same names and faces.
If a foreign diplomat on our soil seeks protection from their own government, there is a very good chance that they are in serious risk of persecution. If they are made to feel compelled to seek refuge in the civilian world because of their treatment by our administration, then we have a very deep problem that has to be analyzed at the level of the personalities making the decisions.
This is because the decision to feed a man who is pleading for the help that only you can give, to what all evidence suggests is his persecutor, requires a special kind of black eyed callousness which must be recognized and apprehended. It must be removed from any executive positions which place it in command of situations where morality and honesty are required.
There exists then, a moral responsibility for those who are capable recognizing the amoral, to do their best to expose them. The actions or inaction of an executive are a reflection of their moral code and character. The actions of readily nameable members of the government and public service have revealed them to be without the moral fibre that should be requisite of anyone placed in the positions they currently hold. Start at the top and work your way down defense and immigration to start with. They must be removed immediately or risk dissolving in the minds of the impressionable public, any sense of need for the values upon which civil society is built.