Racism. This phenomenon continues to baffle me in proportions unimaginable considering the many challenges I have personally faced in my entire childhood and adult life combined. As it is turning out, racism is indeed a ‘living monster’ – call it a ‘hydra’, if you wish. Indeed, racism is as much alive today just as terrorism is an emerging challenge in recent times. Probably the major contextual difference between racism and terrorism is that while terrorists are quick to claim responsibility for their inconsiderate acts wherever and whenever such acts occur, racists on their part always are unwilling to take responsibility for the aftermath of their racist acts. Whether this tendency by racists is due to a misleading acceptance among racist individuals that somehow racist acts are in conformity with some ‘way of life’ that is supposedly protected and propagated by a network of foot soldiers well tacked-in within the very fabric of institutions designed to offer universal protections to the general public, may perhaps be a debatable proposition. Undoubtedly though, the existence of presumed facelessness is increasingly corroborated by the unsuspecting and passive nature of acts executed by racists on their victims. This relationship between facelessness and passiveness appears to widely suggest existence of yet another confounding trend amongst racists: the need for subversive administrative subsystems to keenly sanitize racist acts. Sanitization in this context is, in my view and experience, carried out by ensuring acts of racism blend in with certain sections of and certainly loopholes within a country’s laws, including enactment of sporadic supplementary legislations whenever convenient. Within this perspective, it certainly is obvious the ‘claim of responsibility’ following clinical execution of racist acts isn’t part of ‘the bigger picture’ in the mindset of a racist vis-a-vis the need to act behind the scene. Racists simply do not take or claim responsibility for the aftermath of their prejudice in society.
Racism is insidious, atrocious, savagery. Racism is shamelessly irrational, ferocious, ruthless. Racism is degrading, unreasonable, deliberate. Racism isn’t spontaneous but ingrained, nurtured, and elaborate. Where it exists, racism runs in places and institutions no normal person would imagine. Of course racists are just as backward thinking and as sadistic as are terrorists. Racists are well established in society, unlike terrorists who while still in a transitioning phase – are trying hard to find acceptance so as to possibly establish their principles and beliefs as an alternative way of life in society. Racism has been allowed to flourish and gain momentum in the general public because it is largely protected in society by dogmas such as ‘see no evil, tell no evil’; ‘what happens here, stays here’; ‘mates do not snitch’; et cetera, et cetera. Indeed, much as racists believe racist acts are well camouflaged and therefore hard to trace and place a face on the perpetrators whenever racist acts are committed on unsuspecting individuals, the truth of the matter is that no racist can successfully fake their identity and prior disposition in relation to the devastating effects of such unacceptable, sadistic, psychologically injurious acts.
When I made the decision to seek asylum in Australia following adverse, behind the scene acts that had been systematically executed from 2006 when I first set foot on this subcontinent to 2008, I first approached the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in conformity with rules of diplomatic practice. It was clear to me acts of commission and omission by a certain ‘tripartite committee’ had constituted an instrument for collusive deliberations that ultimately led to loss of my employment hence loss of capacity for me to subsist had I returned to my motherland with my two children. It is at DFAT where I met one Colin Hill, Director/Immunity and Privileges Section of the wider Protocol Directorate. After a long session of discussion with him, details of which I will keep for now, Colin Hill referred me to the then Department of Immigration And Citizenship (DIAC) ACT Regional Office (ACTRO). When I presented my self at DIAC ACTRO, I was met and received by two officials who questioned me on the grounds of my seeking asylum in Australia. From there onwards, it dawned on me the process of formalizing my new status as an asylum seeker in Australia had started in earnest. I submitted to DIAC ACTRO all the relevant statutory documentation comprising an application for asylum in Australia in 2008. A date for the first interview was set but due to a question of logistics, I was to be interviewed by phone inter-state (tele interview) by a Delegate of the Minister for DIAC. This process also happened on the day and time set as agreed. At the end of the interview on the material day, the Delegate asked that I should hand over documentary evidence in support of my claims to officials at DIAC ACTRO, who were expected to forward these materials to DIAC Headquarters. This also I did as directed.
I was, however, so taken aback after expiry of the statutory period following an interview, to learn that a decision on my application for asylum had been made and finalized by the Delegate in the absence of the documentary evidence I had handed over to officials at DIAC ACTRO to transmit to DIAC Headquarters as demanded. This failure by commonwealth officials to transmit as required documentation that was so crucial in determining the veracity of my claims vis-a-vis fair determination of granting of asylum status in Australia, marked the biggest setback in the entire migration process. The failure also set in the beginning of traumatising events and systematic tribulations to my two children and I. It was clear service of justice had been denied to my two children and I the moment my documentary evidence was withheld by the very commonwealth officials I had trusted to do the right thing by the book. Remarks made to me by officials I later met on the corridors of DFAT while returning commonwealth material issued to me during my short tour of duty in Australia, left no doubt in my mind that the same officials who met and interviewed me at DIAC ACTRO upon referral from DFAT, had indeed been dispatched from DFAT ostensibly to present to me as immigration officers. It was clear from that point onwards, that officials from the Protective Service of the Australian Federal Police had interest in my application for asylum in Australia. They therefore actively attended to me at DIAC ACTRO while posing as case and/or compliance officers of the department. This involvement by the Protective Service of the Australian Federal Police aka the diplomatic police, whose mandate at the time fell under the Director/Immunity and Privileges at DFAT was so intense and elaborate. It later was to span across every other aspect of my personal and social life with such impunity and ferocity it beggars much disbelief.
Questions would of course linger for long around the preceding circumstances, and to ask I would without hesitation. I reckon answers to my questions would very much be perfectly in order as well, preposterous posturing by these officials notwithstanding. First; why have commonwealth officers stationed at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, specifically from the Protective Service of the Australian Federal Police elaborately and unfairly targeted my two children and I since 2006, through use of behind the scene, unorthodox, and largely unlawful means as those I have described herein so far? Is it because a black man’s perspective on pertinent issues of life is considered ‘irrelevant’ – as previously asserted in an earlier decision statement – and therefore inconsequential under the circumstances? or is it because under some ‘privacy law’ founded only in Australia, this branch of the Australian Federal Police isn’t obliged to give reasons for its choice, scope, and mode of operation? or still; did the Mau Mau narrative contribute in any way to the hostilities I have encountered since 2006 to date given the numerous occasions a few individuals from the public have narrated memories of experiences by their folks in Kenya in the 1960s; did it? or did members of the Australian Federal Police find any contraband items aka weapons of mass destruction in my suitcase at any given time since the start of unprocedural confiscation of my luggage every time I was on active duty out of Canberra during my short stint as a diplomat; did they? Is there any reason at all to explain why the officials concerned still haven’t released the same suitcase confiscated in 2013 in which are amongst other documents, three expired Kenyan diplomatic passports, my original degree certificate as well as original university coursework transcripts; my personal effects including household items I bought in Australia; trophies belonging to my son and daughter, respectively earned from their participation in sporting activities; and other documents most of which are evidentiary material I am supposed to produce as supporting affidavits in what appears to be an unending cycle of one interview after another.
Well, know what…it is prudent that I get sensible and timely responses. This is because I am not the type of person that would shy away from burning issues, especially where the welfare of my children becomes a matter of principle rather than a game of thoughtless rhetoric. I need answers to these matters and need them expeditiously because holding me in perpetual limbo for whatever reason won’t be helpful. Indeed, one has only to scrutinize the comments on the document appended below to understand my bewilderment in some of these uncouth encounters.
This document beneath was presented to me for my signature by two officers on 22 January 2016 when I presented myself as required to report at the department on fortnight basis. After I demanded that the issuing officer(s) should provide their details as scripted, I was told ‘privacy law’ prohibits these officers from doing so – before the officers concerned left for good with the document without making and giving me a copy. I was made to wait for more than four hours from 10.45 a.m. after which two different officials came back to attend to me ostensibly because they were about to close the office for the weekend. One of them scribbled the last line as appears on the document and signed as indicated . If I may pose a question: does this appended printout constitute an authorised document/form of the department with all its inherent redundancies?
Nonetheless, when I reported on 5 February 2016 as directed explicitly on the document, it was recorded in statement of record, I ‘voluntarily presented’ at the department as a BVE holder – whatever the insinuation!
Definitely there comes a point in time when enough of injustice and complicity becomes just that: Enough. This is in spite of my earlier decision to exercise restraint for obvious reasons for a decade. That these matters are increasingly becoming and attracting public interest through engagement by concerned commonwealth officials in what appears to be a fishing expedition to find fault and where there’s none create some, I would rightly expect those involved to now take courage, step forward in earnest, and create genuine email accounts so as to respond to matters I have raised so far through this site. This is because I surely would be raising sooner than later similar issues and questions relating to my tribulations in Australia without fear, favour, or bias. If only to correct a wrong in society and to reassure more souls that have gone through and still are going through similar experiences within and elsewhere, that all isn’t lost. This is obviously the path chosen by the concerned Australian commonwealth officials. My challenge to these officials is this: now is the time to walk that path boldly as you’ve always done behind the scenes through blackmail and covert write-ups about my two children and I. Not to mention the hostility created, propagated, and executed through manipulation of facts resulting to extended prejudice towards my children and I.
In my next write up regarding my tribulations, I would discuss the involvement of and question the disposition of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, followed shortly by former Chief Minister/Minister for Health of the ACT and current Senator, Katy Gallagher. Other prominent members involved in my predicament would as well follow suit. Get ready to provide sensible answers when your turn comes because I believe what happened under the attendant dockets, played a bigger role in subverting the course for justice.
As it’s now become the norm in my case under these circumstances, I would certainly continue on this journey and narrate my tribulations should I live to see another day.