The Forum > Article Comments > The demon of Transfield: sponsorship, the arts and detention centres > Comments
The demon of Transfield: sponsorship, the arts and detention centres : Comments
By Binoy Kampmark, published 3/3/2014I was faced with a clear choice: could I support an event funded by profits of mandatory detention, a policy slammed by the UNHCR as inhumane and non-compliant with international law? My answer: emphatically no.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
How about support for an event funded by profits of mandatory confiscations based on threat of mandatory detention - tax?
Bit of hypocrisy there?
"It is bureaucracy by privatised fiat."
The fiat is all governmental. The decision whether an asylum-seeker has refugee status is made by the PNG government whose case-officers are trained by Australian Immigration officers, not by Transfield.
Does that make it okay? What makes you think that is any less corrupt?
" In its response last Friday, members decided to side step the messiness of Manus and extol the sponsorship, soiled as it might be."
You raise a real issue about artists being sponsored by the rich and powerful.
But the same artists would love nothing better than a big bucket of money from the federal government, and we would hear no objection based on the feds' part in blowing up shepherds and bridal parties in Afghanistan then would we?