Oxfam Australia welcomes Australia’s UN vote on the…

Oxfam Australia Media Release Oxfam Australia welcomes the Australian Government's decision to vote…

Monash experts: South Korea's political crisis

Monash University South Korea was plunged into political chaos overnight when President Yoon Suk…

Billions of people to benefit from technology breakthrough…

University of South Australia Media Release A novel approach to make seawater evaporate…

A Global Crisis and Australia’s Unique Opportunity

How Community Independents Are Redefining Democracy and Offering Australia a Path Away…

Political Challenges: More Progressive Responses to Ongoing Culture…

By Denis Bright The LNP certainly knows how to frame its commitments to…

Neocolonialism is alive and flourishing. The human cost……

My People When you gonna leave My People Give them room to breathe My People Stop…

Albanese Government leaves skilled construction machinery workers in…

Master Builders Australia Media Release After the long-awaited release of the Federal Government’s…

Australia’s War History: From Britain’s Wars to Neutrality

By Denis Hay Description Australia’s war history. Explore our history of supporting Britain’s wars…

«
»
Facebook

Is Andrew Laming in parliament today?

I’m a teacher myself but I’m not angry about Andrew Laming’s bizarre attack on my profession.

A common cliché teachers and parents use when someone fails to show the expected responsibility or maturity is to say “I’m not angry, I’m disappointed,” but I’m not even disappointed. It is not like I expect a greater level of maturity and responsibility in his social media usage. Not after Laming’s previous forays including his ill-informed comments on an outbreak of street violence in 2013 and his Facebook feud with a group called The Simpsons against the Liberals (he is pretty much following the trump playbook now that I think of it).

So I wasn’t angry or even disappointed. But I did find it bewildering, especially along with its quick retraction and replacement with a post about the importance of self-care in the workplace and teacher burnout. That’s the sort of inconsistency that David Leyonhjelm would be proud of.

All sorts of comments about the status of teachers seem to float through public discourse from time to time. Some people say teachers should be paid more. Others will argue that teachers have too many holidays. I’m just going to say I love being a teacher. It is a tremendously rewarding job, as well as being challenging and tiring. I know burnout is a problem in the profession and I think teachers who are experiencing the beginnings of this are less effective in their job. However I wouldn’t do my job any better if I was paid more.

But back to Mr Laming and some of the responses. Did I feel ‘bullied’ by his comments as some of the responses described it? Certainly not. As I said in discussing Ruth Forrest, I feel that term is often used more for impact than accuracy and would prefer to see it reserved for severe or persistent behaviours. We don’t always have to take offence at the things people say about us, even when they are unfair. It depends how much we respect the speaker. I certainly don’t have to justify myself or my profession to the man who appears intent on taking over Peter Dutton’s role as chief dog whistler for this abhorrent government and its state counterparts. There are far too many good things in life to worry about what people like Laming say about me.

It was strange and somewhat unseemly though, even for a man with Laming’s track record. Against a backdrop of expense scandals and a growing dissatisfaction over how out of touch our politicians are, he seemed to spontaneously question teacher holiday periods. And within 24 hours the post was removed and replaced with something implicitly contradictory to the connotations of his original post. I just can’t understand what he was trying to do.

Was this meant to distract us from the Centrelink fiasco or the Ley-buy scandal, which I suspect will not only be the end of the Health Minister, but will grow to focus on many others of our profligate politicians? If so, it seemed counterproductive. By questioning how many days teachers are at work, Laming begs the question of how many days politicians like himself are officially at work. I had always assumed there weren’t many sitting days for politicians, this prompted me to research the exact statistics. According to the Queensland government website, politicians like Mr Laming had to be at work for less than 50 days in 2016. That’s not a typo. The man who questioned teachers’ holidays is at work for less than a quarter of that time!

Sorry, Mr Laming, that isn’t going to shift any attention from politicians and their entitled ways. If anything, it is another moment that sharpens the focus.

This article was originally published on Quietblog.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Steve Price: that poor, hard done by old white man

It has been a pretty busy couple of weeks leading up to Christmas and I was going to leave off the overt political commentary for a while, but since Peter Dutton and Steve Price aren’t going to, it would be remiss of me to stop correcting their ignorance.

The odious Peter Dutton’s disingenuous call for Australians to rise up and fight for a Christmas that was never under threat was disgustingly cynical, even for a man as morally decrepit as he. Unfortunately for our reptilian Minister for Immigration, his attempt to politicise a major holiday celebration came across as pretty transparent and was widely criticised, so I won’t repeat what others have written.

But my attention was caught by the headline that Steve Price felt that “Old white men need to be heard too”. Now ignoring my disappointment that this was even considered worthy of being a headline – as I have said elsewhere there are far better spokesmen for conservative politics than Price – I just couldn’t let these comments go without a response.

But let’s consider these words as if they didn’t come from a belligerent alt-right cheerleader like Price. What if someone I respected said the same thing? First of all, there is a point that Price almost misses in his delivery, and one that could largely be ignored by progressive responses to his latest idiocy. There are many in our society who justifiably feel increasingly marginalised and disempowered as a result of the ongoing process of globalisation. And you don’t need to be part of a disadvantaged minority to find life difficult or to feel that society’s odds are stacked against you. White males and their families are a segment of this group of battlers who are struggling with increasing unemployment and underemployment (anyone still want to tell me the Coalition is better at handling the economy?), rising house prices, the predatory gambling industry and continued cuts to services and welfare.

Quite fairly, many people in these circumstances feel their concerns are not important to a political class that seems far more concerned about pleasing its political donors. Many will also feel that their struggle is not given the same status or sympathy as that of recognised minority groups and that their immediate problems are a greater concern than climate change or the ASX. The resentment of feeling like an ‘invisible minority’ is dangerous because it can be channelled by nativist politicians as evidenced by Brexit and Donald Trump (and Adolph Hitler for that matter). So in amidst Price’s bristling self-entitlement there is a kernel of truth. The disenfranchisement of the poor needs to be addressed and if were to be addressed through engagement and inclusive policies without the cynical scaremongering our politicians lazily resort to, we would probably have less idiots like Malcolm Roberts elected and a better functioning democracy.

But Price isn’t actually concerned about that, since appealing to people’s resentment seems to be part of his business model. Sounding a bit like George Brandis defending people’s right to be bigots, the shock jock argued that the views of older white men deserved greater prominence in Australian society, suggesting that thanks to ‘lefties’ you had to be a feminist or member of the LGBTI community to be taken seriously.

Is he for real? The only time LBTI advocates are heard from is on LGBTI issues such as marriage equality (and then the old white men in government still ignore them), whereas old white men are heard all the time. They hold the majority of positions of power in government, the public service, the media and major corporations. You see them interviewed in positions of assumed expertise and status every day. Even more than they are heard, their actions are felt for it is they that hold the positions of power and whose decisions affect thousands of less fortunate Australians.

Sadly for the disenfranchised Anglo Saxon, the old white men whose words and actions take such precedence in our world do little to help them. The cost-cutting, tax evasion, property speculation and use of offshore labour that our elite make regular use of are part of the reason there is such inequality and resentment within Australian society.

Old white men are heard alright. The fact that Price’s statement was newsworthy makes it pretty much self-contradictory to begin with. And I can’t go a day without hearing complaints on social media that being a white man isn’t quite as advantageous as it used to be. Being heard isn’t your problem Steve, nor is being taken seriously. Your problem is that when you are taken seriously, people think about what you are saying and you are being heard for what you are, so many of us react with appropriate disdain.

This isn’t to say we can’t be tolerant of conflicting opinions in public debate (although if Price is calling for this, that is a level of extreme hypocrisy few people even attempt), so I agree with the premise that people shouldn’t be judged and condemned for holding outdated conservative views. For some people it takes time and, as I said earlier, constructive engagement, for those views to shift. We don’t change their mind by ostracising them from the conversation or ridiculing them. However, when their views lead to behaviour that affects others unfairly, then people are open to justifiable criticism.

Steve, when you start presenting evidence that old white men are disproportionately represented in mortality statistics, incarceration rates or unemployment statistics, then I will be every bit as sympathetic as I am to the plight of other disadvantaged groups; but if you just complain that your conservative throwback opinions are not being given the same uncritical respect they once enjoyed in the good old days when you were more free to racially and sexually vilify minorities, you will continue to be heard and mocked for your bigotry. You won’t get the respect you crave from those of us who take you seriously enough to consider your claims through a critical lens.

This article was originally published as ‘Steve Price‘ on Quietblog.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Malcolm is a lot more tolerant of fools these days

I wonder how Jamie Briggs is feeling right now. Don’t get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the guy. He sounded like a bit of a creep and a poor choice for a minister. Still, he must be feeling a little hard done by.

Many things in life are all about timing and in this respect Briggs’ sexual harassment scandal was as far removed from a well-struck David Warner pull shot as you can get.

You may not believe this, but not so long ago, the Prime Minister appeared to be demanding higher standards of behaviour from his Cabinet. That’s not a joke. When Turnbull first took over the leadership – to massive personal approval ratings – he looked ready to put his stamp on the government. After the dinosaurs like Abbott, Andrews and Abetz were stripped of their portfolios and exiled to the back bench on day one, those who were publicly caught out in the following months such as Brough, Robert and Briggs himself were asked to step down as well.

Fast forward 12 months or even less. Donald Trump’s similar views on sexually assaulting women seem to be a lot less limiting to one’s ability to hold public office in the eyes of Briggs’ own party (many of whom have been openly cheerleading for Trump and revelling in his victory).

Moreover, as the spectacle of the slowly imploding George Brandis, the ongoing incompetence by our Treasurer and the blatantly improper pork-barrelling of Barnaby Joyce show, our straight-jacketed Prime Minister has rather lost his appetite for enforcing any standards of behaviour or competency.

It is actually hard to imagine what kind of scandal or criminal wrongdoing it would actually take for Turnbull to ask a minister to resign. Obviously making the mistake of showing compassion would be dealt with harshly but his Cabinet has few who would be in danger of making that mistake.

So if poor old Jamie (I use that phrase rather loosely) had been able to keep his hands to himself for another 12 months or so, would he have still been asked to resign?

This article was originally published as ‘Jamie Briggs‘ on Quietblog.

 

Such outrage

“Prime Minister slams Human Rights Commission,” was the headline for an article today. Wasn’t that a shock after the courts dismissed a case against three Queensland University students? In comments in a radio interview, the PM also indicated his stance against repealing race hate laws was softening. I kid you not – Malcolm Turnbull may have actually changed his opinion to (coincidentally I’m sure) more fully abase himself before the hard right bigots he refuses to stand up to.

Much as I am against changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, I couldn’t get too worked up about this latest backsliding. There was nothing surprising about it. Just Turnbull being Turnbull for the most part. However, I was struck by how cheerfully – and without any apparent embarrassment at the contradictions involved – he extended his criticism to the commission’s waste of public money.

Take a breath, Malcolm. The Australian people would love you to take the expenditure of taxpayer funds seriously. I imagine you are equally furious about the huge amount of taxpayer money frivolously wasted by George Brandis fighting legal battles to keep his ministerial diary private. I look forward to your response to your Deputy PM’s plan to relocate the Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority into his own electorate whilst refusing to release costings of this blatant pork-barrelling. On the subject of wasting taxpayer money, shall we again talk about your push for a 170 million dollar (conservative estimate) plebiscite over marriage equality, which no one wants (including you)? How about the billions of dollars we spend on an inhumane offshore detention policy that is condemned globally?

I get that government MP’s never miss a chance to take a shot at Gillian Triggs, but this is more like shooting yourself in the foot.

This article was originally published on Quietblog.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Anthony Mundine

I have never been much of a fan of Anthony Mundine and I don’t really agree with his call to boycott the national anthem, but I do see where it comes from. Issues of inequality for Indigenous Australians are not being addressed with any urgency, despite repeated shocking findings by NGOs, government committees and the UN. And aside from a momentary outcry over youth justice facilities in the Northern Territory, it does seem difficult for these issues to get much cut through with mainstream society.

And whilst I accept that perhaps Australia needs to be shaken out of its complacency, I don’t see this having the desired effect. I have said before that I believe attacking institutions that many Australians treasure, such as the national anthem, the flag or Australia Day, is not going to hasten reconciliation processes. It puts many Australians on the defensive and it is hard to actually change someone’s perspective when they are in this state.

The vitriolic backlash Mundine received from many corners was hardly surprising, with the outspoken boxer described as being ‘un-Australian, racist and attention-seeking alongside many more personal attacks. However, Mundine’s comments were not even close to the stupidest public statement I have heard recently. It is not like he suggested that renewable energy was to blame for the South Australian blackouts for example, but the energy and belligerence of the response to Mundine outweighed the responses to much stupider statements by Malcolm Roberts and government ministers in the same week. This isn’t a surprise though. The Adam Goodes saga showed how aggressively reactive a significant section of the population is to Indigenous Australians bringing up the issue of race.

No stranger to polarising opinions and criticism, I doubt it phased Mundine much – perhaps he was happy to have the issue being talked about more widely. He certainly wasn’t the first person to suggest boycotting the anthem, but his support for the idea brought it much more publicity.

I would say, some of the criticism of Mundine is certainly valid. I have spoken about freedom of speech and I have said it cuts both ways. He is entitled to state his opinion and others are entitled to critique it. But this situation raises a scenario for some of Mundine’s critics that I found interesting.

Only a few months ago, Sonia Kruger came out with a much more inflammatory, factually incorrect statement. Quite rightly, her comments were the subject of much ridicule, but many of her apologists reacted with self-righteous indignation towards this criticism, claiming it somehow was against freedom of speech.

It obviously isn’t, but those who made that argument have made an interesting ideological position for themselves.

How many of the same people who argued Kruger should not be criticised for exercising her freedom of speech, ripped into Mundine’s use of freedom of speech without a second thought? Any that did are blatant hypocrites.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Islamic terrorism and the cynical exploitation of our fears

Do I really want to tackle this?

I am going to have to go. I find it quite a difficult subject to fully get my head around, with a lot of emotional responses. More than normal, I would ask that readers keep the words from this article in context and read the whole piece before making a judgement. Perhaps understandably this topic tends to get grossly oversimplified for the most part. I am going to try to treat the issue (and by extension those of you reading this) with a bit more respect. But it is a really big topic too, so apologies if I don’t go into full detail with a few areas or omit a few elements of the debate that I think of as a bit more peripheral.

Whilst I abhor the Islamaphobic rhetoric that spews from far right mouthpieces like Andrew Bolt, I am not going to try to claim that there isn’t a problem with violent extremist groups and Islam at this point in time. The number of attacks sponsored or inspired by Muslim extremist groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram is too great to be waved off flippantly and I would argue it is not racist or irrational to be concerned about the possibility of terrorism by Islamic extremists in this country. Much as it is an admission I don’t like making, in order to maintain credibility in a complex issue like this, it is vital one consider all facts fairly, not focus on just the ones that support your preferred narrative (someone should really mention this to Pauline Hanson).

And even though millions of Muslims have publicly stated that groups like ISIS are not true Muslims and 70000 Islamic imams have issued a fatwa against terrorist groups including IS, if the groups perpetuating many of these attacks are identifying themselves as such then it becomes a common factor that people will look at.

So yes, I am saying there appears to be a problem of violence and extremism associated with Islam, but don’t group me with Sonia Kruger. There are a number of aspects to this debate that need to be looked at this more closely.

Is Islam an inherently violent religion?
It seems like right now a week doesn’t go by without a shooting, stabbing or suicide bomb somewhere in the world. And a lot of them are reported as either financed, executed or at least inspired by groups like ISIS. This is not sufficient evidence alone to conclude that Islam is a violent religion. As Barnaby Joyce, of all people pointed out, Islam doesn’t have the mortgage on terrorism. In the recent past, the world has suffered the existence of many terrorist groups of diverse ideologies, including the IRA (Catholics), The Stern Gang (Zionists), Bahder-Meinhoff (Marxists) and ETA (Basque separatists). To say Islam is a religion that promotes violence based solely on the actions of an extremist minority is as nonsensical as anyone making the same claim about Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism.

Given the carnage and violence we see so regularly, I would consider any well-structured argument that there is an inherent bias for violence in the teachings of Islam. But I haven’t seen any yet. If you want to convince me there is, you will have to do better than cherry-picking passages from the Quran. As a number of people have demonstrated in some detail, if the same approach was taken with the Bible we could just as easily brand Christianity a violent religion. There is, of course, more to any religion than its book of faith. The interpretation of the ancient writings by its senior custodians is what guides most followers. And while Islam has its share of high profile hate-preachers, so too does Christianity. Let me again repeat the statement about the 70000 imams that signed a fatwa against terrorism. I’m quite happy to overemphasise this point, as our irresponsible media has given it almost no coverage.

The Media
It is also worth noting the role our somewhat parasitic media organisations have on this debate with their cynical exploitation of our fears. There are hundreds more shootings, stabbings and other brutal crimes happening all over the world that get very little or no attention, but the moment one occurs with a perpetrator who can be connected with Islam or the Middle East in particular, it is big news. This gives a completely false and exaggerated impression about the threat posed by Muslims within a society compared to other religious or ethnic groups.

Moreover, their perversely detailed coverage of the carnage is not only an advertisement and almost a celebration of the terrorists’ strength. It also feeds the disproportionate fears, (which leads to anger and hate in what Yoda would describe as a clear path to the dark side) in western communities. Star Wars jokes aside, it is pretty obvious that a more mature coverage of these atrocities would reduce the level of racial hatred in the community.

Inequality
The elephant in the room in any discussion of this issue (unless George Christenson is in the room, in which case it’s him – I’m not usually one for personal jokes like that one, but Christensen has made it quite clear that he thinks bullying is fine with his comments on the Safe Schools debate, so now he is fair game as far as I am concerned) is inequality. I am a big believer in individual accountability, so I am a little cautious making this point. I would hate for this to be interpreted as any kind of tacit condonation of the violence of terrorism. Nonetheless, inequality, ghettoization and radicalisation go hand in hand all over the world so have to be recognised.

Every insurgent militant group in history has probably viewed itself as being oppressed and disadvantaged. This is where religion does become a problem because a perversion of religion is being used so successfully to offer solace to many who are unhappy (oddly enough, by recruiting heavily from the disadvantaged, the uneducated and the fearful, Islamic terrorists have more in common with far right conservatives than either group would admit). Having little to lose and, in their minds, a noble cause and a purpose can inspire a powerful resolve. It also connects those looking for a cause with the suffering of oppressed Islamic groups within the world.

The vehicle of oppression need not be violence or force either. It can also be perceived (and it is often perceptions that count more than reality) as economical, political or cultural. This is a powerful contributor to violent extremism and is valuable for terrorist recruiters And it is vital that we understand that every time we make a kneejerk fearful response that targets Muslims (campaigns to ban burkas and mosques, register Muslims, restrict immigration, etc) we are contributing to this sense of oppression.

So yes, in the current climate, Muslims are probably more likely to be radicalised than other religions, but every increasingly fascist step we take to further marginalise and dehumanise them to appease our fears increases this likelihood and thus makes us less safe, not more. I will say again, terrorists make their own choice and don’t get to blame anyone else for their crimes, but when we know (remember when ASIO personally contacted senior Abbott ministers to ask them to tone down their rhetoric) our actions can increase the likelihood of radicalisation and terrorism, we have to think carefully before we act.

Mental health
I just want to quickly mention mental health too. To my mind, anyone – regardless of race or religion – that is moved to carry out some kind of mass casualty attack on innocents, would have to raise a few red flags about their mental health. Certainly, anytime a non-Muslim is involved (Dylan Roof or Micah Johnson for example) in terrorism, mental health is offered as a primary explanatory factor. Why is it almost ignored as a factor for terrorists who happen to be Islamic?

I should add here, mental health is rarely an excuse for actions that are wrong. Most people dealing with these kinds of issues do so without committing crimes or atrocities. But when an attack is carried out by someone with poor mental health, it does weaken the argument that it is their religion not their psychosis that is driving factor in the behaviour.

In the preceding paragraphs I mentioned the issues of inequality and this has a compounding effect when you consider the role of mental health because those who live in poverty who are more easily radicalised, also have less access to mental health support. Moreover, the millions of displaced refugees (a significant proportion of whom are Muslim) who have experienced unspeakable trauma are obviously at higher risk of mental health. So from this perspective also, there probably is a greater chance that someone from a Muslim community could be, but their religion is not what is driving this. It appears to be a correlated but not causative factor.

What will I say if terrorism strikes in Australia?
The lack of successful terrorist operations on Australian soil to date does not mean we are not under threat. Our federal counter-terrorism forces are an important factor in keeping us safe and need to be properly resourced. But one day my message of tolerance and acceptance towards the vast majority of peaceful Muslims may be proved ‘wrong’ and Australia could be the victim of a major terrorist attack (for the record, despite what certain vested interests would have you believe, Man Haron Monis was less a terrorist than a violently unstable man with little religious motivation). I will actually go as far as to say I think it is quite plausible that this will happen. How will I feel then?

Well quite obviously I will be saddened and angry, as we all should. There will be a few bigots out there who can barely contain their perverse glee at being ‘right,’ but I imagine the vast majority of Australians will react with the same horror. Of course I tend to be saddened and angered whenever I hear about violent crimes and other avoidable tragedies, but I also realise that sadly they do happen.

We don’t give up cars, despite the thousands of deaths and injuries on our roads every year and the anguish they cause. And quite rightly so. We don’t want to give up our mobility as it would impact on our economy and our quality of life. So we accept the risk that comes with them, even knowing the heartbreak this inevitably includes.

In the same way, it is not worth giving up our humanity and empathy for others to try to reduce the risk of Islamic terrorism to zero, especially when we could still be the victim of violent crime in many other contexts. I have empathy for the argument that just one life lost to terrorism is too many, but so too is every cowardly racist assault on Australian Muslims, and these become more prevalent when society accepts the narrative that Muslims are a threat we must fear. I also suspect one of the reasons our appalling offshore detention regime still enjoys fairly broad support is exploited fears around unchecked migration and terrorism.

Conclusion (if you could call it that)
There are a lot of bad people in the world and quite a few of them are Muslim, but many aren’t (Peter Dutton, I’m looking at you). Barnaby Joyce can see it. My 12-year old students can see it. The rest of us need to see it too. Right now there appears to be more terrorism by individuals and groups associated with – or motivated by – extreme Islamic ideology. This results from a wide confluence of factors, including the geopolitical situation, extreme inequality and almost universal western cultural hegemony. But it is important to note the risk is less than portrayed in the media.

All of this notwithstanding there is an elevated risk and I will reiterate that those who have concerns about this are not necessarily racist or stupid. But these concerns do not legitimise actions that are racist or stupid, such as demonising all Muslims. Aside from the fact that this is morally indefensible, it is also counterproductive, as it widens and entrenches the cultural divide that we need to overcome. I have said elsewhere it is not necessarily what we believe that defines us, but how we act on those beliefs. So let’s act intelligently.

Quick fixes to systemic problems rarely work out well. If a building has a structural problem, you need to fix it at the structural level, not just paint over the cracks. The same is true for a society. Making restrictive laws that target Muslims is at best painting over a crack, if not jackhammering into it. The structural problems in our society of why people can be radicalised will need to be addressed slowly by breaking down the fear and mistrust and engaging across cultural borders. To make this work we really need to get people like Pauline Hanson to shut up.

This article was originally published on the Quietblog.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Just like Gotham

The sense of national schadenfreude was almost visceral last night and understandably so, but can we really be happy with the result. To loosely paraphrase Christopher Nolan, Malcolm Turnbull just got the (humiliating) election result he deserved, but not the one he needed. It leaves the dreaded hung parliament the prime minister warned as against as a likely outcome as preferences are being redistributed.

Even if the Coalition does win, it will be by a razor thin margin and will likely hold even less seats in a senate that will now include Derryn Hinch, Jacqui Lambie, Pauline Hanson and a handful of Nick Xenaphon Team candidates. Good luck getting your company tax cut through there unscathed Malcolm!

The unexpectedly poor result for the Coalition was clearly a cathartic moment for many, judging by social media, and there are a number of possible reasons for this phenomenon.

  • Perhaps it was seeing Turnbull’s deceitful Double Dissolution strategy blow up in his smug face. Remembering that the Coalition went to the polls under the pretence that their anti-union bill was too critical to the nation to be blocked (while an anti-corruption body to investigate banks, corporations and political parties was not important), it was satisfying to see such a strategy backfire so spectacularly.
  • Or perhaps it was the whining about scare campaigns (with no sense of irony) from a party that has run scare campaigns about exaggerated effects of negative gearing and the carbon tax, dehumanised boat people and conveniently disappearing budget emergencies.
  • No doubt others took delight in the savage infighting on display amongst conservative powerbrokers, even as votes were being counted- making a mockery of Turnbull’s claims of being able to provide stable government.
  • Or maybe it was just relief that many Australians had learnt from mistakes of the past and were less easily swayed by the ridiculous claims the Coalition makes about its economic credentials or by the clearly partisan reporting of the Murdoch Press.

But going back to the Batman reference (the character not the electorate), we as a nation also got what we deserved more than what we needed. Many still voted to re-elect some of the most cretinous members of a Coalition government that has failed us economically, socially and internationally in the last three years. Many made their own reasoned decisions for doing so. I make no judgement about that, but many others did so only from intellectual fear or laziness – believing the loudest and most hysterical headlines put out in the last week, which is the same way Brexit happened. And hence our likely hung parliament.

I am not one who fears a hung parliament. I would actually like to see a less adversarial paradigm where parties negotiate to generate more bipartisan policies (obviously this requires the right people elected, what you might call a well-hung parliament). However I won’t hold my breath waiting for that. Not with destructive forces like Tony Abbott – one of the most effective political attack dogs I have seen- and his block of hardline conservatives ready to sabotage any policy not of their making (think NBN, Carbon Tax and Super Profits Tax as examples) and News Ltd ready to sensationalise their claims without any real fact checking. I have strong doubts this is the assembly we need to deliver a coherent economic policy without it being savagely contorted by interest groups, let alone any effective progressive policies around climate, equality or our refugee shame. Thus I can’t be too happy. It is not as bad as it could have been, but that is a pretty low bar to set.

And any government bills that do escape the lower house unscathed then have to get through the minefield that is the new senate. While this is also true of policies I don’t want to see, such as the company tax cut, a legislative paralysis is not something I want either It seems to me that celebrating the election of a dysfunctional senate is myopic. Yes a large number of people have rejected the Coalition’s strategy of ignoring community concerns or lying to us about them, but if we have a truly unworkable senate, it is the country that stands to lose the most. I am not sure I am ready to cheer about this.

So while the panicked looks of Coalition members and hysterical revisionist wails of Andrew Bolt were a temporary panacea, this is only the first step towards the government we need. Somehow Australia still elected a slew of people I wouldn’t trust to collect my mail (in Barnaby Joyce’s defence, that is more about his stupidity than his dishonesty though) and both major parties are committed to continuing our criminal treatment of refugees. Perhaps our expectations are so low after years of the electorate voting as instructed by the Murdoch Press that a reversal of this trend is enough to make people happy, but I am not happy. Let’s celebrate when the new parliament achieves something worthwhile.

This article was originally published on the Quietblog.

Aren’t we more than just what we believe?

Does everyone need to take a step back and have a few deep breaths? The level of abuse I am seeing online as the arguments over our treatment of refugees intensifies is getting a little out of hand.

Now I have commented that I am in favour of a much more humane approach to refugees and separately that I am pretty sickened by the sensationalist anti-Muslim sentiment being stirred up in the media and the political arena (Jacqui Lambie should be ashamed of herself). Perhaps unsurprisingly then, I have been pretty disgusted by some of the bigoted and plain stupid posts I have come across on social media recently. For all that, I have tried to keep my responses as civil as possible. Some of my responses have probably been a little on the sarcastic side, especially towards the truly stupid, but I am at a loss to understand the people who whip themselves into such an apoplectic fury with those they are arguing with that they make it so personal.

The idea that if someone doesn’t share my belief, I can heap scorn and abuse on them- even threaten them and wish them harm, as I have seen- seems disturbingly familiar. Oh that’s right – that is how religious extremists think. I would like to think most of us are better than that, but that belief is getting harder to maintain.

While I think it is pretty obvious which groups a lot of this type of behaviour is coming from, there is enough of it coming from all sides of the debate that I thought I would just put this out to everyone.

Do we need to be getting that angry with each other? The real trolls and bigots are too insignificant to even deserve my anger, but to some extent I do believe others are entitled to disagree with me. They might even be right about some things. If we define each other according to a single opposing belief, we are being very one dimensional. Some of the people who I hold very different beliefs to have turned out to be really good friends. Of course that is more of an exception to the rule, but it is worth remembering.

To those who have experienced this rather unpleasant overreaction to airing contrary views, I am a little saddened you had to, but I suggest you take it as an indication you were probably winning your argument. Those who have logic on their side should have little need to resort to abuse and violence. There is more than one form of cowardice in the world and one form is to not have the courage to admit that you are (or may be) wrong and to try to cover it with bluster and threats. If you can, I recommend ending that conversation immediately and reporting the comment if appropriate. There is going to be little you can do to affect that person’s world view. Getting angry and responding in kind is only going to be counterproductive. One poorly worded post in anger can do more damage to your cause than anything your opponent says.

To those who are seriously aggravated by not getting through to those they argue with, you are probably arguing with the wrong people. Rather than letting it devolve into something that will entrench each side’s view further, disengage now. Save your arguments for someone who might listen to them. If you can’t change someone’s thinking with calm discussion of facts, you are not going to change their thinking through getting personal or aggressive. And if you are not going to change someone’s thinking, what is the point of the conversation.

Obviously many people realise they are not so much arguing to change the mind of their direct interlocutors, but to shape the dialogue that others are reading. If that is your goal, fair enough- you have chosen a difficult task. Still it remains important to retain your composure and stick to stating the key facts that refute opposing arguments, as once again you will persuade few third party observers of the legitimacy of your belief by getting sucked into a personal feud with a troll.

This article was originally published as on the Quietblog.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button