Who is the unjust one in this scenario. The child that quickly takes the opportunity to eat? Or is it a greater injustice that the fat child refuses to offer two chocolates?
Now imagine the fat child is Australia, rich in resources, infrastructure and land. Imaging one of the hungry children is a refugee who did not have the opportunity to flee to Australia, and the other skinny child is an asylum seeker. Who is the unjust one in this scenario, and as a consequence, to blame for one child's continued stay in a refugee camp; the asylum seeker? Or does the finger of blame point squarely to the one who has the opportunity to give more, but declines.
I am not suggesting we give away the whole box of chocolates. All I want is for the blame to sit where it belongs; not with the poor asylum seeker who may have taken a visa from another poor soul waiting in a camp. But with Australia, who fails to accept more refugees despite their ability and responsibility to do so.
We don't have to give away the whole box of chocolates, or indeed any of the chocolates. But let's at least take responsibility for our decision to withhold the chocolates rather than pinning it on the 'queue jumper'.
Something to think about at least.
Note: the term 'queue jumper' has only been used to illustrate the current language in the media. Just Salvos acknowledges that the term queue jumper is not an accurate term.