March 22 2018

When I was a nipper, I remember there was always a healthy rivalry between the state school kids and those of us who went to the local convent school. Many were the days we would run the gauntlet as we made our way to school; passing the main gate or the playing grounds of our state-schooled nemeses. It was standard procedure to fire off shots at each other; not with rocks or fists; rather it was in the form of cheeky taunts and ditties we would sing in earshot of the other party.

“Convent dogs jump like frogs, in and out the wa-ter” would come the ragged taunting chorus from beyond the chain-link fence as we filed past. Perhaps spurred on by the Holy Spirit, we Mick kids gave back as good as we got: ‘State school dogs sit on logs, eating maggots out of frogs’

What devastating repartée. Nyahh, nyahh, take that.

Sadly it seems we have a puerile clutch of political commentators who haven’t progressed much beyond the silly name calling stage that most of us left behind in the primary school playground. And some of our politicians and civic leaders aren’t much better.

This week I saw Miranda Devine bemoaning the goss that Matt Damon was considering relocating with his family to Australia rather than remain in a country under Donald Trump. This seemed far too bitter a pill to swallow for Ms Devine, who sarcastically tweeted “All we need is more leftie celebrities.”

Seriously? Lefty celebrities? Most normal people would just refer to Damon as a celebrity. Who would know that he is a left winger; if indeed that is even true? Who would even care? I’m pretty sure if you asked your average punters if they disliked Donald Trump because they were left-wingers, they would stare at you curiously and tell you they dislike him because he’s a dead-set numpty.

As an aside, had Ms Devine bothered to fact check, she would have found the Matt Damon story was in fact false, but that didn’t stop her having a wail at his expense. It seems as if anything or anyone who doesn’t conform with these journos own world views sends them into paroxysms of self-righteous indignation. They either need to get out more or move from under those power lines.

If someone feels so strongly about ‘lefty celebrities’ does this mean they will now boycott certain movies? ‘I refuse to watch the new Batman movie “The Dark Knight is Right” – the guy who plays Robin is a dirty lefty.’

Because there are dirty lefties and crazy lefties now. Believe in climate change and you’re by default a lefty. Speak out on the subject and you’re elevated to the status of dirty lefty. Nyahh, nyahh, take that.

Who even talks like this? When I happen to leave the toilet seat up by mistake, my wife never says “That was a bit right wing of you.” I’m far more likely to draw a cutting response along the lines of “How about you put the seat down for once, you lazy bugger!”

So, what next? Does the whole lefty/righty thing extend to the supermarket aisle? Do breakfast cereal choices brand someone left or right? “Just Right” is a dead giveaway for conservative consumers. Will my reaching for the organic muesli result in a chorus of lefty insults from my fellow grocery shoppers? I only happen to buy it because it tastes good.

Will road rules have to change so we all drive on the right and not the left? Or will we simply choose a side according to political persuasion and fight it out like Mad Max?

Everything we say, or do, or consume is not a statement of political affiliation.

What miserable one-dimensional lives these people must lead, that they can only see life in ideological terms. I truly question the value of a journalist who cannot see a multi-dimensional world existing beyond their political bubble. In a world of colour, these people are reducing everything to either black or white.

And politicians who make similar disparaging remarks need to be reminded that they are public servants, and they are not governing for themselves and their own little cheer squad.

Perhaps it might be on account of my Asperger’s, but every time I see their tedious lefty/righty diatribe spew across my Twitter feed, the “Convent dogs jump like frogs” ditty plays in glorious stereo in my head.

Even as I write this, I’m seeing the news that Peter Dutton is condemning “crazy lefties” for their criticism of his support for white South African farmers. So apparently the journos at the ABC and the Guardian are now “dead to him.” The last time I heard such blinding eloquence was from a teenage girl on the bus – “OMG, they are so totes dead to me right now.”

So now the song is playing in my head again. Thanks, Pete. Totes.

I am driven primarily by moral compass, not by a notion of political ideology. And I would suggest there are a great many people who feel the same way.

Personally, I believe we should care for our environment and protect its flora and fauna. Hell, it isn’t rocket science – right now this is the only planet we have, and what kind of bird is stupid enough to shit in its own nest? I believe we should treat others as we expect to be treated – I would expect fairness, respect and equality. We’re not Christians and Muslims. We’re not blacks and whites. We’re humans. We all bleed and we all cry; we all need love. It’s that simple.

I don’t believe these beliefs make me anything unusual or exceptional. It does seem as though you are automatically branded a lefty if you happen to demonstrate qualities of empathy and compassion or express a desire to care for the planet. I’m not sure how that makes one “dirty.”

I don’t know about you, but quite frankly these are qualities which I would hope to find in all my fellow planetary travellers. And if sad-sack politicians and their cheerleader political commentators feel they want to call me a dirty lefty, then so be it.

Perhaps this explains why the heart is on the left side of the body.

23 February 2018

It is being said in some quarters that Barnaby Joyce has been unfairly thrown under a bus. If that is so, then I suggest that the bus goes by the name of Karma. And it was no-one other than Barnaby who threw himself under its wheels.

There is something in all of this that certain people are not getting. And until they do, the lesson will not go away.

Joyce, like many of his born-to-privilege colleagues is fixated on the issues of morality and personal relationship choices as the cause of the fiasco. Joyce’s angry statement “Personal issues shouldn’t be a reason for a person to resign” is testament to this mindset. And in that sense he is more or less correct. A person’s public life should be separate from his or her private life, but when those private life choices impinge on one’s ability to carry out official duties, or culminate in nepotism, rorting and bias; then that becomes an issue for public scrutiny. That, to me is the line in the sand. Clearly many hold to that sentiment, and hence the outrage over Barnaby’s recent foibles. But conceited, self-serving men like Barnaby cannot see this. That is their problem, and that will ultimately spell their downfall.

Barnaby, obsessed as he is with self-interest and personal gain completely misses the point that it is not his personal relationship choices that should dictate his resignation; it is the fact that the greater good of his party, the Coalition and indeed the Australian public is increasingly damaged as a result of the ongoing distraction and controversy. The fact that Joyce saw fit to apologise to his ex-wife, his family and new partner on national television gave the whole fiasco a public dimension. The fact that he felt it unnecessary to use that national broadcast opportunity to make an apology to the Australian public which he serves is telling. And Aussies have long memories.

For somebody who made a platform of piousness – of championing traditional family values and supposedly protecting young women from promiscuity – to live a life diametrically opposed to the values one espouses just isn’t a good look. Nor does it gain you respect. And you’re really setting yourself up for a fall in this day and age of social media; there is always someone with a screenshot who is more than willing to remind everybody of what you said or did.

A true leader always leads by example. “Actions speak louder than words” is a truism which neatly sums it up. Sadly many of our political leaders fall well short of this ideal. The fact is anybody can talk, but few can pass the litmus test of practicing what they preach.

In a ‘compare the pair’ moment, cast your mind back to the Sam Dastyari affair when controversy threatened to cast a shadow over normal proceedings (if indeed anything is truly normal in Canberra these days). The matter was promptly nipped in the bud with the decision quickly made for Sam to step down. Parliament and Labor moved on. Barnaby on the other hand, is quite happy to play out as the precocious child who isn’t getting what he wants; openly disrespecting his leader publically in the process. For him the personal stakes are high, and he is a man who will clearly not allow the needs of the many to get in the way of the needs of the one – that ‘one’ being Barnaby Joyce.

It doesn’t take a behavioural expert to see in Joyce a man who has lived his life getting whatever he wants at the expense of others. And in that respect, life experience tells me that a leopard never changes its spots.

Barnaby suggests that “there is nothing to see here.” In actual fact there is everything to see here, in the sense that the whole affair (no pun intended) showcases the key problem which dogs the incumbent government – their singular tendency to lack perspective taking, and their obsession with self-aggrandisement and self-interest to the detriment of the greater good.

This week saw a socially inept and tasteless display on social media by Joyce’s Nationals colleague George Christensen. An unrepentant Christensen could see no wrong in the crass photograph he posted, threatening greenies with a handgun. It was pointed out to him that this was inappropriate, particularly in the wake of a school shooting in the States which claimed 17 young lives. Far from being contrite, he instead chose to sarcastically berate those who took offence.

Holding public office carries with it an implicit expectation to set community standards by your own behaviour. And clearly people make a yardstick of politicians’ behaviour – I only need point to the disgusting ‘copycat’ behaviour which occurred in the wake of Christensen’s inappropriate post in the form of offensive social media threats against figures like Sarah Hanson-Young to highlight how this behaviour emboldens and empowers ‘followers’, who only need the cue from a ‘leader’ to act out their thoughts.

A true leader leads by example. The sad reality is a vast proportion of our current crop of politicians is cut from rougher cloth.

Indeed, Barnaby’s crisis points to the government’s endemic problem. The dramatist in me would call this a tale of love and lust. Our current government is riddled with individuals thirsting for power and personal gain. Self-interest has overtaken the principled responsive approach to public service. And I predict it will be this broader notion of civic love – or more correctly the dire lack of it – which will bring down this government.

If nothing else, Malcolm is a man who can see shortcomings and he has consistently acted to step in and shore them up. For example, he recognised John Alexander’s personal limitations as a public speaker during the Bennelong by-election; seconding Alexander to a mute ‘Humphrey B Bear’ role while he picked up the perceived slack as the talking head. In a wider sense Turnbull has spent a goodly proportion of his term in office playing ringmaster to a second rate circus.

He surely knows that the bottom line is that the public need to ‘feel the love’ from their government; to feel a sense of inclusion and cohesion from those they have selected to serve them. There is a wholesale loss of voter confidence in the two-party system. Public perception of politicians is at an all-time low. Used car salesmen and real estate agents must be wringing their hands together gleefully; grateful for the distraction that MPs have given provided them. Rightly or wrongly, the public see fingers in the till at every opportunity. The sense of entitlement and contempt for rule of law. Politicians showboating at gala events like catwalk models. Swanning around the world at public expense with partners in tow. (Funny how they seem to be conveniently viewed as partners when the need arises). Corruption and bare-faced lies are now perceived as political ‘business as usual.’

Even as I write this comes the news that Australia has fallen a further 8 points on the global corruption index. For the first time we have dropped from the top 10 least corrupt nations. At the same time our government is slamming the idea of a federal corruption commission as completely unnecessary. Move along – nothing to see here folks.

Malcolm must sense that, at its heart, his government isn’t capable of delivering on the goods. In a previous article I discussed Malcolm’s telling over-use of the word ‘love’. It came as no surprise to me that Malcolm put his own relationship with Lucy on public display in a recent 60 Minutes segment, in a practical demonstration of love and harmony. I for one have no cause to doubt Malcolm and Lucy’s connection and love for one another. Indeed it was clearly evident and refreshing to behold, set against the lovelessness of his Canberra colleagues. And that’s the important thing about love – absolutely no words are necessary to tell people that it exists; they can feel and sense it. What I simply cannot buy is the implication that this same deep and loving commitment exists within Turnbull’s own government. Nor would I suggest do many members of the public.

Until a sense of practical love and respect replaces the current culture of greed and self-interest in the halls of power, the people will remain disenchanted and tuned out to those they have increasingly come to see as a dishonest self-serving ruling class.

Whether or not she actually said it; Marie Antoinette’s classic line springs to mind: “Let them eat cake.” The children of the revolution saw the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots. Between love and lust. And by the time it inevitably came, the guillotine blade cared little for either.

A good salesperson will tell you that every sale, be it a house or car; even something as seemingly simple as a particular brand of breakfast cereal, is made on emotion. When we choose that new car, we are actually buying comfort, reliability and peace of mind. Or sex appeal, status and prestige. Negative emotions drive sales too. After the first Iraqi conflict broke out in 1991, American surplus store owners were confounded by the sudden surge in gas mask sales, driven by the perceived terror threat.

Fear and anger are powerful motivators. But when it comes to rational thinking and clear decision making, you are asking for trouble when you make complex decisions whilst in that kind of emotional state. How did that last discussion with your spouse work out for you when you were angry?

An unscrupulous salesperson could capitalise on the irrational reactive thinking that comes with strong emotion and convince you to buy something you don’t really need. That’s why consumer law allows for a ‘cooling off’ period after making a significant purchase. There is no such cooling off period with politics per se; instead, there are judicial checks and balances put into place to protect us. That is how rule of law works.

Politicians, like snake-oil sellers will also play on emotions like fear to gain public support. Often they will ignite that fear and then offer a solution to resolve it. We have seen this most recently with the magnification of the so-called ‘African gangs’ problem in Victoria. Moral outrage can be a giddy cloud of confusion behind which political agenda can be played out, and draconian laws are often passed off under the guise of public protection. In many cases, our civil rights and liberties are quietly eroded away as a result.

The recent matter of a convicted paedophile Roman Catholic priest is a prime case in point. A dual national who became a naturalized Australian citizen, he committed offences over more than two decades. On completion of his prison term, the Minister moved to revoke his citizenship and deport him. Let me be clear from the outset – there are two separate issues at play here. Firstly, the recognition of what amounts to heinous criminal acts and the subsequent need to protect the community at large. There is no defence for the man’s abominable crimes. What I point to here is the potential for moral outrage to cloud proceedings in cases like this; permitting the broadening of draconian laws which then ultimately degrade the rights of others. I also speak to the rise of the notion that some people have less right of ‘ownership’ of residence in Australia than others.

The calls in this case have been clear: ‘This man must be stripped of his citizenship and removed from this country.’ Many outraged people took up the call, but I would wager precious few of them actually knew or cared whether in fact a dual national could be stripped of their citizenship. How exactly can citizenship be revoked after it’s conferral on a dual national, and under what circumstances? To act without recourse to law becomes the mentality of the lynch mob.

When citizenship has been conferred on a non-Australian born person, that citizenship may be revoked only in certain specific circumstances under the auspices of the Australian Citizenship Act (2007) – section 34 Revocation by Minister.

Put in a nutshell, if it was found you acted fraudulently when applying for citizenship or you were convicted of a serious crime resulting in a prison sentence of 12 months or more at any time before you were granted that citizenship, the Minister can pull the pin and revoke your citizenship, if he decides it is in the public interest.

A further consideration was enacted in 2015 to address citizens going overseas to fight with terrorist groups. The Allegiance to Australia Act allowed for Australian citizenship to be stripped from dual nationals as young as 14 who engaged in terrorist acts or were convicted of terrorism related offenses that carry prison terms of 6 years or more.

The stripping of one’s citizenship is a serious matter, and one would expect that there are legal safeguards in place to ensure a just and reasoned decision is made. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and the Federal court play a critical role in overseeing and reviewing decisions made by Federal government ministers. What is concerning to note is just how much by way of this protection has been quietly eroded without fanfare or public knowledge.

For example, in the case of immigration matters; if the decision to cancel an existing visa or decline a request for the granting of a visa on character grounds is made by the Minister himself, the present legislation has been written in a way which denies a person recourse to a review of that decision by the AAT. Where the AAT over-rule decisions made by his delegates, Peter Dutton has stepped in on dozens of occasions and vetoed their findings. This of itself should be cause for concern, yet few people are aware of it.

Dutton has been very vocal in condemning the AAT, claiming that they have unfairly overturned scores of decisions to cancel the visas of non-citizens. Firstly, a politician criticizing the judiciary is tantamount to undermining the separation of the powers. Dutton’s behaviour is akin to a habitual drunk driver demanding that random breath testing be banned. It leads one to question the true intent of this ex-cop turned politician who is so contemptuous of rule of law.

Secondly, it is a fact that the rate of cases set aside is actually lower now than many previous years in the past decade, including those under Labor governments. This could perhaps be attributed to the troubling fact that in 2017 the government actually moved to replace members of the tribunal and many appointees are ex-Liberal staffers or candidates. Does it concern anybody that a government can ‘stack the deck’ by appointing its own people to an independent tribunal?

Law Council of Australia president Fiona McLeod SC hit out at Dutton’s attacks on the AAT last year, reminding him that “members of the government may disagree with decisions made by the AAT, but the courts and tribunals provide an important check upon the unlawful exercise of power. The independence of the judiciary, and respect for the role of courts and tribunals, is a fundamental to the rule of law in Australia.”

The checks and balances of the AAT and the courts cannot be undermined, in exactly the same way that you as a consumer would not want safeguards like the ‘cooling off’ period removed; leaving you at the mercy of that potentially unscrupulous salesperson.

In the context of citizenship revocation, let me put that to you another way – would you be happy for your future and that of your family to rest wholly and solely in the hands of just one man? That man in this particular case being Peter Dutton? No legislation should permit one man that degree of power.

The line between criminal punishment and immigration detention is blurring, and deportation or expulsion from a society is increasingly being seen as a punitive measure. This is fraught with complication as it essentially becomes a double punishment. To mete out such harsher penalty to a foreign national is essentially punishing someone because they are not naturalized; and that is actually not a crime. We see this notion in the reign of Trump who asserted that the focus on gang members should not be so much on imprisoning them but rather on “getting them the hell out of here.” In 2016, Theresa May while still British Home Secretary stated, “We aim to deport all foreign national offenders at the earliest opportunity.”

In Australia, Dutton is hell-bent on taking this to the next level. Shortly after the inception of his new Home Affairs ministry, he announced the launch of a new super security agency to target child sex offenders with dual nationalities. The object of the exercise is to strip such offenders of their Australian citizenship. Nobody challenged the Minister as to exactly how he planned to achieve that, given the legislation that is currently in place. We need to look behind the cloud of moral outrage and question exactly what is happening in the background.

There are laws in place to prevent a person effectively becoming stateless. The Australian Citizenship Act currently prevents a Minister from revoking a person’s Australian citizenship if he or she is unable to become a national or citizen of another country. Despite this, Dutton and Abbott still investigated whether the revocation of Australian citizenship could be extended to natural born Australians, including second generation Australians. The proposal was so radical that six ministers reportedly revolted against the policy in a cabinet meeting. The fact that it was even considered in the first place simply goes to show just how far men like Dutton and Abbott are prepared to push the envelope in their desire to strip citizenship from as many people as humanly possible.

So where is the line in the sand? At what point do we decide that stripping of citizenship and exile is not an appropriate punishment? How ‘Australian’ does one actually need to be in order to be beyond the powers of the Minister? Cold logic suggests to me that with men like Dutton demonstrating their intentions to extend that line in the sand to include second generation Australian-born citizens, then precious few people are safe. They just haven’t been affected yet.

The average punter might counter these concerns by reminding us that the targets of removal of citizenship are those who were fraudulent in their application for citizenship, or who did not declare a past criminal history; or who engage in terrorist activities. “My family certainly aren’t terrorists, so this doesn’t concern us.”

Here’s something to consider. Perhaps someday your teenage kids will go on an overseas trip. Maybe an end-of-year footy trip. High-jinks and drunken horseplay get taken a step too far. Public property is damaged, stolen or defaced. Dual nationals can now lose Australian citizenship if engaging in ‘foreign incursions’ and this includes such things as damage to a public building overseas. The Law Council of Australia has raised concerns that an Australian could now lose his or her Australian citizenship for simply “engaging in graffiti on a public building in a foreign country.”

It’s very easy to be carried by the tide of moral outrage and view rigorous new laws as justifiable; until the day you realise that in the process ordinary people have actually lost many of their rights too.

Once a net is set, it can catch many fish. The degrees of separation between you and potential disaster quietly diminish in the background.

Lesson 1: The use of nerve words

A few years back, at the height of the controversial Western Australian shark cull, I found myself constantly locking horns with a local news editor over the fear and misinformation that they were generating in their deliberately slanted media reports. Back then it was exasperating, and served to cloud the issue and curry favour for the state government agenda of drum-lining. The perspective of time shows it for the cheap spin it truly was. With the shark cull defeated, I can laugh about it now. One of my all-time favourites still remains ‘Shark Horror at Perth Beach’ – the story of a man who had been out for an early morning walk along his local beach when he captured footage on his phone showing a shark fin circling offshore. The shark was catching fish. As the man panned his camera around it confirmed that he was alone on the deserted post-dawn beach. I emailed the editor and demanded to know who exactly was so traumatised by the event as to warrant the use of the word ‘horror’? Indeed, the only two parties involved were the beach walker and the shark.

The sole human witnessing the event was videoing it excitedly, and he was clearly far from horrified. The shark, completely oblivious to the man on the distant shore and the looming threat of amateur journalism, was busying itself with rounding up a few fish for breakfast, and most certainly wasn’t horrified in the slightest. Sadly, it should have been. What followed was a season of drum-lining and the needless deaths of several small tiger sharks. Then-premier Colin Barnett and his Liberal crones blatantly ignored the advice of the scientific community and growing public outrage; instead enacting a senseless culling program which produced no positive result whatsoever. Which was precisely what we advised them would happen. To this day I swear the WA government’s research involved watching all the Jaws movies several times.

This followed hot on the heels of another piece of journalistic crap ominously entitled ‘Shark Lurks Off Crowded Metropolitan Beach.’ The inference in this case was blindingly obvious. Hungry man-eater lured by the prospect of a buffet meal hovers ready to strike. Only in this case, the shark in question happened to be a tagged shark and the trace information recorded as it passed the receiver buoys proved that it had actually transited down the coast without stopping. There was no hovering, stalking or prowling. And quite clearly no loitering. I pointed this out to the news editor and bluntly suggested that her third-rate journo might consider terms such as ‘swims harmlessly past’ or ‘totally ignores’ as more truthful substitutes for ‘lurks off.’ Of course the editor knew this full well, and that wouldn’t support the government’s narrative that the shark problem was out of control. There is absolutely no mileage to be gained in a story entitled ‘Suddenly Nothing Happened.’ But in fact, that is exactly what it was – a story about nothing, deliberately made sensational and provocative simply by some well selected words which did not convey the truth. These articles did just what they were supposed to do – instil fear and more importantly, cause outrage. This is what gets views.

‘OMG, you’re actually denying the shark was there? WTF! Sharks are our biggest problem right now.’ retorted one of my more articulate critics on social media. Therein lies the proof that it wasn’t just sharks that were taking the bait, thanks to media manipulation and spin.

As a writer I am familiar with how words work – we use certain ‘nerve words’ to evoke a desired reaction or create an image in the reader’s mind. That’s the beauty of words – they have a latent power. And remember, that power can be wielded for good or evil. I recall Obi Wan Kenobi explaining something similar to Luke Skywalker. Or as the Galactic Empire approved tabloid media in a distant galaxy might spin it: ‘Old man lures naive farm boy.’

Lesson 2: Be selective about who you mention and how

Now you’ve learnt the power of certain words and you’re grappling with whether to use your newfound force for good or evil, here is another truism about words. The words that we use, or indeed the words we choose to leave out can create a slanted impression in people’s minds. Moral panics tend to be generated by tabloid media and their skewed depiction and portrayal of specific occurrences. We saw that with the ‘shark menace’, and most recently we have seen it with the depictions of ‘African gangs’ in Victoria.

When a teenage arsonist was arrested for lighting a fire just days later, no mention of the youth’s ethnic background was made in any media reports. Why did it seem so vitally necessary to describe the ethnicity of non-Caucasian perpetrators a few days earlier, yet the arson incident which was enacted by a Caucasian teen did not seem to call for a racial description of the accused? Before you suggest that this is an isolated incident, consider also the recent November 2017 brawl in Gippsland which saw four people hospitalised and a woman king hit and stomped on as she tried to resuscitate an injured man. Once again it seemed unnecessary to include the ethnicity of the perpetrators in media reports. Neither were those Caucasian perpetrators referred to as a gang. It is a fact that black youth are far more likely to be described as a ‘gang’ than a group of white youth.

Throw in some more of those nerve words we talked about in Lesson 1; I would suggest some good descriptive ones are ‘thugs’ and ‘predators.’ Be sure to add some behavioural texture with words such as ‘frenzy’ and ‘rampage’ and you’re well on the way to creating your own hotbed of moral outrage. And remember – it is moral outrage and panic that gets you views on-line. When you can’t make it on your own journalistic ability, this is a dead-set winner. A large part of your audience are apathetic viewers who won’t look that deeply into the background behind your stories, so you must play to their innate fears to galvanise them.

Lesson 3: Magnification, or the ‘Highlights of the Day’ technique

Is there a problem with youth crime – ‘African’ or otherwise? Yes, undoubtedly there is. But, like the old shark issue it is not the biggest problem, as crime statistics bear out.

Blanket reporting of targeted incidents in the media gives us a skewed perspective of frequency and scale. Anyone who has ever watched the two minute summary of a day’s test cricket will understand how this works. The summary footage contains only the highlights of the day played one after the other, giving one the impression of dynamic exciting play, when in actual fact the reality was hours of boredom broken by precious seconds of action. Despite knowing this, you still can’t help but be caught up in the sense of non-stop action, punctuated by the roars of the crowd and the feverish commentary. This is called magnification, and it leads neatly into the next lesson. That is, when you focus light through a magnifying glass onto something volatile, you can start a fire.

Lesson 4: The ‘Firestarter Method’

As far as problematic youth gangs and crime go, Australia has been there before. Many times. In my youth it was the ‘rocks’ and the ‘skinheads’, and the local suburban gangs were well known. In truth, they were more a bunch of kids who hung out together, but of course ‘gang’ is a convenient nerve word which conjures the idea of criminal motivation or organisation. Before my time there were the bodgies, widgies and sharpies.

The thing is, the gangs of the past were ‘our gangs’. White Europeans. With the steady rise of multi-culturalism, what followed were Vietnamese and Lebanese ‘gangs’ and they seem to be viewed in an inherently different way. When these racial ‘gangs’ arise, the talk invariably turns toward their reluctance to integrate and assimilate. I lived in a suburb with a strong English population. There were youth problems, and crime statistics showed the suburb had the third highest incidences of crime in the city. Yet no talk of Caucasian youth gangs. There were a gaggle of shops plainly emulating the shops you would find back in England; selling imported English produce. (The Olde English Confectionery shop was my favourite!) Yet nobody talked about a reluctance to integrate or assimilate. It was certainly never painted that way in media reports.

Consider how gangs are portrayed in the context of entertainment and pop-culture. Take the TV series ‘Sons of Anarchy’ for example. Can you imagine the fall-out if the ‘Sons of Allah’ gang TV show was aired? Negative reactions would range from moral outrage to mild surprise and horror. (And not even a shark in sight). What would make a show about Muslim bikers a no-no? Imagine how the viewing public might react to the depiction and glorification of the Muslim equivalent of Chopper Reid. The question is, why do we react with such moral outrage?

It is a sociological fact that we inherently identify with our own kind. We naturally have a stronger connection with our own race which lends itself to a heightened sense of empathy and bias. We feel a sense of relation and social bonding. A sense of allegiance. Diehard football fans will never see the wrong with their own team. Because well, it’s their team. When the team loses, it’s because they had an off-day, not because they’re losers.

There is an element of cultural nationalism at play here. The engendered belief that this is ‘our’ country. There is an implicit notion that ‘our’ lawbreakers are OK. And there is a magnified sense of outrage when the same violence and lawlessness is perpetrated by a cultural ‘outsider.’ The early bushrangers kicked back at social injustice and the heavy-handedness of the police. The people of the First Nation would have had more than ample cause to do exactly the same, yet I’ll wager we would never elevate an indigenous bushranger to the same legendary status as ‘our’ bushrangers. Our country, our rules.

I am ashamed to say that not so very long ago I was guilty of this myself as a white European – if I was cut off in traffic by someone clearly of a foreign descent, I noticed that the curses I involuntarily muttered under my breath tended to be far more racially oriented to those I voiced when it was a Caucasian behind the wheel of the offending car. It led me to wonder just how many of us can claim to be truly colour blind.

So, the Firestarter method. It is the technique of playing upon a latent fear or an innate belief and fanning it until it becomes a blaze. Without oxygen a volatile source cannot become a fire. The media give an issue (or a perceived issue) oxygen. During the WA shark cull they played on the public’s fear and misunderstanding of sharks. Today they are doing precisely the same thing in fanning the flames of racial tension with the magnification of the ‘African gangs’ issue. And to revisit that galaxy far, far away: ‘Fear leads to anger, and anger leads to the Dark Side.’

The pen, as they say is mightier than the sword. It comes down to the integrity of the holder as to how it is used.