Words matter:
Corrosive narratives dehumanise refugees
Dr Claire Loughnan and Prof Philomena Murray
December 2023
The way we talk about other human beings matters. We may use hurtful language. We may deny them their identity by giving them numbers or names that are not their own names. We can assign them identities based on the name of the boat that arrived in, seeking refugee protection. We may decide to draw on stereotypes that negate the personhood of individuals or groups. Such stereotypes then are utilised to deny their humanity and rights as human beings. Or we can choose to be principled and stand up for those who are demonised by politicians. We can decide to avoid negative tropes in the media. We can question policies based on cruelty. One such policy is that of indefinite detention.
In this article, we consider how narratives can be adopted that become harmful. This article stems from our concern about the use of language that targets some refugees and people in detention, especially those people who were released in the wake of the recent decision of the High Court of Australia.
There has been trenchant criticism of Australia for its indefinite detention regime for over two decades. When, in a 2004 challenge to this regime, the High Court of Australia determined in Al Kateb v Godwin that indefinite immigration detention was lawful, many people seeking asylum and those supporting them were devastated. The High Court interpreted the Migration Act as granting authority to the Australian government to indefinitely detain people, even where it was evident that release was not foreseeable. The indefinite detention of refugees has consequently been a long-standing policy of successive Australian governments since that decision, although many refugees had been indefinitely detained for years even prior to the 2004 ruling.
This indefinite detention of thousands of people, including children, was cruel. It was not based on human rights protection. There is incontrovertible evidence over the last two decades that prolonged, indefinite, detention has an adverse impact on a person’s mental health. Over the last 20 years, Australia’s system of mandatory and indefinite immigration detention has cruelly affected the lives of tens of thousands of people, the majority of whom came to Australia seeking protection as refugees.
However there has been relatively little parliamentary and media debate about this detention, and certainly minimal criticism by politicians of the Al Kateb 2004 decision. When it was finally overturned on 8 November 2023 by the High Court of Australia in NZYQ v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs it marked a significant moment reassess Australia’s practice of refugee detention and, indeed, its policies regarding refugees. Now might also be an opportune time to consider the corrosive narratives applied to refugees and asylum-seekers over many years. Yet, instead, both the Government and the Opposition parties have engaged in fearmongering by painting a picture of all those to be released as murderers, rapists or paedophiles. What is absent from these narratives – and much media reporting - is that most of them did not fall into this category, and that the small number of those who had been convicted had already served their time. If they were to re-offend it was to be expected that they would be subject to the laws of Australia.
The Federal Government’s rushed legislation to ensure that all those released are subject to curfews and to police surveillance through the use of electronic monitoring devices feeds a perception that those who had been indefinitely detained are, indeed, all criminals. These laws may also subject people to preventative detention, including to ‘re-detain’ people.
The language utilised in Parliament was not measured or balanced, for the most part. It was sensationalist and fuelled the impression that all those released are criminals. Although there were some exceptions in the media (notably Julia Baird’s reflections in the Sydney Morning Herald), many media outlets quickly adopted this harmful narrative. Headlines such as Horrific list of crimes committed by asylum seeker freed onto the streets of Sydney - as he's charged days after being released; violent sex offender released were common, as were: ‘Detainees' crimes of violence revealed’; ‘Wife killer could now be released’; Undesirable' detainees to be released within days’ (The Age) ‘Sex fiends and killers’; ‘Evil crim in bid for freedom’ (Herald Sun), ‘Freed detainees’ criminal past revealed’; ‘Evil minds’ let loose’ and ‘Defiant detainee set loose’ (Herald Sun).
Some refugees have been ‘re-detained’ in recent days, effectively being held in preventive detention. In a country that would not countenance detention without trial for its citizens, some of those people have, in fact, indeed been detained without criminal allegations being proven in a court of law. The allegations of criminal behaviour should be dealt with in the legal system. What must be avoided are the criminalising narratives that have flourished since the High Court decision. It is to be expected that the rule of law applies as it does to anyone else in Australia. It should also be expected that assumptions of criminality be avoided, especially given Australia’s history of damaging and cruel policies towards refugees who were often denied a voice. The dominant voices have been dehumanising, denying of humanity.
There is a cumulative effect to this: words matter and when imprecise and harmful words are filling the front-page headlines of media, television and news reports, they combine to construct an undifferentiated, simplistic image of all of those detained as dangerous, and an unacceptable risk to the Australian public. Further, it feeds a perception that refugees are not trustworthy. There is a danger that this assessment could be applied to refugees across Australia and not simply those targeted in the current legislation. In parts of Europe, the United States and South America, populist anti-refugee rhetoric has tended to centre on three false narratives: that refugees pose a risk to national security; that they are a drain on the economies of asylum states; and that they are incapable of assimilating into the cultures of their host countries. We know that Australia is not immune to these false narratives. These narratives have facilitated tough border protection policies that result in practices such as indefinite detention and systemic breaches of human rights in a liberal democratic state.
Recommendations
Language matters in determining public and political debate and in influencing policies and societal responses. Like any other sector of society, some refugees have criminal records and have served their time. The media reporting often fails to acknowledge this. Recidivism by a small number of people does not warrant a kneejerk response to all of those people released, regardless of their conduct and behaviour. Dehumanising narratives about refugees undermine connections and relations within society.
Our warnings about the effects of such harmful rhetoric are not new. Last year, we circulated a policy report to every member of the Australian Federal Parliament, pointing out the implications of corrosive narratives about refugees. Stories about refugees are either distorted or erased by media and by political debates that frame them either as vulnerable victims or as undeserving criminals. It is disappointing that we again observe that such inaccurate depictions lead to the erosion of human rights. We urge politicians and the media to desist from the use of dehumanising language.
A new political recalibration is required. There is a need for politicians and some in the media to critically reconsider and transform the language they use about refugees. We recommend that:
Governments take a leadership role in countering negative rhetoric about those seeking refuge.
Political parties, in consultation with refugees, should work towards a shift away from harmful representations about refugees, including in legislation. This should include confronting the risks associated with negative stereotypes.
Politicians should ensure that policies and laws are applied in ways that uphold the human rights of refugees.
Media and politicians should challenge the false narratives that dominate much public debate.
It is worth reiterating that people seeking refuge can be a benefit to society and not a drain on domestic resources. Many refugees have a positive impact in terms of demography; the contribution to the economy; payment of taxes; innovation and investment in business; and contribution to a richer culture and diversity.
Now is the time for politicians and media to step up and shun narratives which rely on stereotypes and dehumanising language. There are risks in kneejerk responses to the decision of the High Court of Australia. This is the right time for Australia to reject policies and practices that demonise refugees and to commit to just and fair practices that reflect respect for all human beings in Australian society.
Prof Philomena Murray, Jean Monnet Chair ad personam, is Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne. She holds honorary positions at Trinity College Dublin and the United Nations University Institute for Comparative Regional Integration Studies, Bruges. She was Director of the Comparative Network on Refugee Externalisation Policies (CONREP), a four-year EU-funded Jean Monnet Network that examines the externalisation of the refugee policies within the EU and Australia. She is a founder of Academics for Refugees. Research interests include refugee externalisation policies; EU legitimacy; comparative regionalism; EU-Asia and EU-Australia relations.
Dr Claire Loughnan is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Melbourne, in the School of Social and Political Sciences. Her first monograph, on the institutional effects of mandatory immigration detention, is under contract with Routledge. Claire is a member of the Comparative Network on Refugee Externalisation Policies (CONREP), a four-year EU-funded Jean Monnet Network that examines the externalisation of the refugee policies within the EU and Australia. She is also a co-convenor of the University of Melbourne branch of Academics for Refugees, and editorial board member, Decolonization of Criminology and Justice and, Criminological Encounters . Her research focuses on diverse sites of confinement, including immigration detention, and on critical analyses of border violence.