Election 2013

So, we're going to the polls...

September 14th is the date I hear and most of the country is all a'twitter and the rest are on Facebook. We knew it was coming this year but now we have a time frame and we know that there are going to be almost eight months of campaigning to win our hearts and minds in the lead up. What this means is anyone's guess but we can assume a certain level of vitriol between the main players.

A shrewd observer on Twitter asked not long after the announcement how we could tell the difference between campaigning now and the political rhetoric we've been made to suffer the last few years? Personality and personal attacks have become the bread and butter of Australian politics. I can't remember exactly when we moved towards an American, presidential style tete-a-tete, but I do know that Labour vs. Liberal feels more like Julia vs.Tony at the moment.

The presidential campaigning started straight out of the blocks as Tony Abbott framed the whole campaign as being based around trust. His comments of course refer to Julia Gillards backdown on statements made about the implementation of a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme. The issue of trust was later compounded by Labour's brazen statements about a budget surplus.

So Abbott says don't trust Gillard, coz she lies. Gillard says don't trust Abbott, coz he won't to commit to anything (lie or truth). They both make points in their own twisted ways but neither really mentions too much about their vision for the country beyond 2013 (except for the bit where we all go to hell if the other gets voted in).

Forgive me for thinking that policies and issues might be the important thing here. I believe there are plenty of things to be talking about in Australia in 2013...

What about our deplorable human rights record for compulsory, indefinite detention of asylum seeker arrivals? There's the state of our welfare safety net for the most vulnerable Australians and as the Sydney Mardi Gras enters it's 35th year we still have huge steps to take for gay rights and equality.

These are fringe issue to many Australians who are more concerned with making ends meet and providing for their families. Maybe the election could say something about the national broadband network; a resource for extending services and information to all of Australia. Or healthcare and education which affects us beyond the standard three year cycle. Everyone has their passion and everyone should participate in election 2013 with all the information to go on.

These are the issues that are important to me. There are many more that make up the larger picture of Australian politics this year and into the future. I'd like to explore them as we approach September and try to create some small perspective on what this election is all about. Please write me the things that matter to you, that you would like to see discussed in the lead up and heading into the future of our country...

An inclusive national identity?

Australians are fiercely proud of their national identity. Call us British or (shock, horror!) American and you'll likely be greeted with a confrontational:

"Maaate! C'mon!" 

When not stridently defending our national identity, we Australians are likely to be found just as passionately arguing over what said identity entails. This is never more prevalent than on, or around our national holiday when the beer, beaches and backyard cricket give way to more somber reflections. So it was in the aftermath of this Australia Day that I found myself reading the reflections of our deputy prime minister the Hon. Wayne Swann M.P. as he attempted to evoke our national character through an editorial piece for the Fairfax Media.

The article makes a case for the continued debate about an Australian republic. It does this by way of discussing the unique character of our Australian identity, distinct from the English, imperial settlers of the continent. Swann invokes the infamous 'Bodyline' series as model for our 'Australianess'; where a "democratic and egalitarian assertion of our national sovereignity" won out against tyranny. While many countries hearken back to periods of war and revolution to locate their defining moments of national character, for Australia the imagined battlefields are the sporting arenas our national teams so often dominate.

The 'Bodyline' series saw unorthodox tactics employed to gain a result for the English. Swann identifies these tactics as ruthless, imperialistic and against the spirit of the game. The implication is that England being the 'ruling' power felt they could bend and break established codes of behaviour to gain a favourable result for the team.

While arguments about the impact of the series will rage wherever there are cricket fans, in it we can see the origins of many a political tactic employed in modern Australia.

Spin and obfuscation; not of the bowling type, but the manipulation of words and perceptions. 'Bodyline' to the Australians was 'leg theory' to the English, not as sexy, but the Australian term was clearly adopted for maximum emotional clout. So it is in modern Australia that asylum seekers become 'queue jumpers', when their arrival is inconvenient; refugees become 'irregular maritime arrivals' when their legitimacy becomes inconvenient.

From our opponents we learned the assertion of power at the edges of legitimacy. Despite being unsafe and unsavoury, Bodyline fell within the broadest interpretation of the rules of cricket. Also legitimate, the Australian government feels, are our border control measures where we indefinitely detain people to ensure there is 'no advantage' to arriving by boat, or tow them back where no international convention protects their rights.

Bodyline may offer much by way of sporting history and tales of individual courage but it does not seem the best of models for political rule or national identity. Swann describes one element of the Bodyline series was the attempted assertion of imperial superiority. Against this our fledgling national identity could not stand down and heroes such as Woodfull, Oldfield and Bradman led us against this oppressive, restrictive regime. What this analysis fails to appreciate is the analogy between England's imposition of cultural hegemony on it's various, diverse, multicultural imperial subjects and contemporary Australia's attempts to impose a sense of Anglo-Australian identity over the much lauded but infrequently practiced multicultural tolerance.      

Further claims are made that Australian's are not a ruthless, whatever-it-takes people. This may ring true for the Bodyline series and it certainly accords with the image of the laid-back Australian. Such sanguine generosity may not resonate with Australian's Indigenous population, many of whom were ripped from their land and their people as Australia established it's modern identity without them. Nor would a refugee seeking assistance from Australia agree that our systems of acceptance are not ruthless. With legitimate refugees and children in immigration detention, it is hard to deny we do whatever it takes.

Swann's analysis works if you are arguing simply from an Australian/English dyad. This is admittedly his goal; to make the case for a republic. But in arguing for an Australian identity separate from England he presents a particularly exclusive, inward looking notion of who we are. Swann pays lip service to our Indigenous heritage but his argument turns on an Anglo identity that is Australian not English and certainly does not sound multicultural. A national identity that is not inclusive has no unifying force over it's population. Much in the same way a sense of identity that is too prescriptive will tend towards division as individuals struggle to locate their own personal self amidst a collection of stereotypical 'Australians'. 

Australia's national character and identity are not an issue resolved in a single article, a single conversation, perhaps not even by the severing of imperial ties with England. Minister Swann makes an admirable point about maintaining the republican debate but he crucially ignores the current state of our relationship with Indigenous Australians as well as those new Australians seeking our help. We need more from our politicians who should lead us in an open, inclusive conversation, one that appeals not just to inspirational moments in our past but to those of our future.

When I hear such conversations annually around Australia Day I wonder if perhaps discussing our evolving national identity is an integral part of that identity. What seems imperative to me is the acknowledgment of the shameful elements of our past and present as we forge an identity for the future.

Australia must identify that it was black before it ever was considered as white, and that we must see that heritage as ours. Constitutional acknowledgment of Indigenous Australians and a treaty would serve as an excellent beginning.

But Australia is no longer just indigenous and anglo. Identity also means accepting that 'the old country' is many places to many people, not just our old imperial master. Let's move towards an encompassing notion of identity for all. This will come at the cost of putting aside old rivalry for the promise of a peaceful tomorrow, nothing more than a greater peace throughout the world would require.

Most of all we need to talk, discuss, argue and agree because we continue to share this country and our division harms the future of our national identity. Even if this means debating who we are every year that is a conversation worth having, because that's a conversation we can all share in.

Representation?!

A tale of indifference from your elected representatives...

I've now written twice on the story of Ranjini and her brand new son Paari; locked up in Australian immigration detention during her pregnancy, then returned only days after Paari's birth. My plan is to continue writing in the hope that rallying support around this issue might see sense prevail and result in an outcome that sees a weeks old baby released from jail.

This outcome seems less and less likely when our elected representatives refuse to engage on the issue in a meaningful way, preferring to stonewall opposition to the official policy. I am not the only person writing on this issue, far from it. I first read about Ranjini's story through GetUp! and 'Letters for Ranjini'. Both of these organisations have been actively campaigning to see Ranjini and Paari allowed to reunite with their family. As a result of this campaigning a lot of letters have been written to a lot of local members requesting action.

Unfortunately the responses received by 'Letter's for Ranjini' were less than inspirational on the part of the government. While you might hope for a resounding success or fear an outright rejection, the replies from Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson reflect the worst of bureaucratic obfuscation designed to do nothing more than placate the reader. Both letters read as virtual carbon copies of each other. They are clearly form letters designed to deflect community concern over the issue of what they like to call 'irregular maritime arrivals' (asylum seekers in the regular parlance). These replies refer to Ranjini's case only in the final paragraph and speak nothing of addressing the urgent concern of having a newborn child locked up.

On their website 'Letter's for Ranjini' call these replies a complete disregard for democracy, but I would go a step further. These politicians attempt to use stock standard letters to placate their constituents because they have no regard for the intelligence and sincerity of collective community action. They feel they are safe within the 'democracy' because they sit in safe seats of regard Ranjini's story a fringe political issue.  

This is not an acceptable response from Australia's political representatives, no matter their political persuasion. Politicians govern at the will of the people and they must be reminded of the voices behind their power, that they may use it to some good end. Consider this and write to your local member; you can get most of them on Twitter if you don't have time for an email. Go to 'Letters For Ranjini's' - Facebook page and give them a 'like' so that they can continue this struggle. Most importantly though is to take back your voice and refuse to accept a stock reply from a politician; ask why, ask for more information and make them justify their position. Remember you gave them their job...  

________

More on Ranjini's story:

Here are some sites you might like to check out for more information about Ranjini's story and the issue of the detention of children in immigration detention facilities in Australia...

Rightzblock - Life Imprisonment? 

My first post detailing Ranjini's plight before Paari's birth.

Rightzblock - Followup to Ranjini's Story 

Detailing the shameful act of imprisoning Paari days after his birth.

Letters for Ranjini 

Campaigning for justice on behalf of Ranjini; write a letter of support!

Chilout 

Fantastic organisation campaigning on behalf of children in immigration detention.

Chris Bowen - Minister for Immigration 

Drop the minister a line; email, twitter or call to express your concerns 

over the issue of children being locked up! 

Invasion Day?

It's Australia day tomorrow, at least from where I'm sitting in Avignon. If you're back home the dawn will be breaking over our national holiday in a few short hours. Given it's a saturday I'd guess that a lot of people will miss that dawn and wake late feeling a little hungover and ready to do it all again in the name of national pride.

On Facebook I see a lot of friends planning and prepping for a big day around the bbq, at the beach, in the sun or wherever there is a flowing supply of beer. On Twitter it's a little different as I listen to a lot of people speculating over the meaning of our national day. Some tweets wonder out loud about how respectful it is to drape a flag across your shoulders and then proceed to get stinking drunk. Others openly deplore the gronks who use the day to spew racism at anyone who doesn't fit their (white) image of Australian. Many invoke the new name adopted for the day several years ago... 'Invasion Day'

My absolute favourites make clever use of the current debate over the treatment and fate of asylum seekers arriving by boat. They remind us that Australia's foundation myth involves people arriving by boat to a land that wasn't theirs, that these people did not have respect and assimilation on their minds when they met the locals and they continued to arrive as economic migrants because the 'lucky country' just seemed so damn good. Check out Bloody Boat People! for one of the best...

The term 'Invasion Day' hits a sensitive point with a lot of Australians. They see it as demeaning and disrespecting the fabulous country that Australia is today. They drag out another controversial term in 'black armband history' to deflect the argument. Now I hate it when people try to deflect or shut down an argument rather than face it (Rightzblock - I have a Right to my Opinion!), better to unpack all the discomfort and get it out there.

Shakespeare gave us "I think the lady doth protest too much" and he meant that when someone's shouting and kicking up a storm about something their motive may be a guilty conscience. No Australian alive today was present when the First Fleet from England arrived and began the takeover, but that doesn't mean that we don't today enjoy the spoils of what they achieved that day. If you don't like the term 'invasion day' perhaps you need to think about why you have this reaction, as well as why some people think it's an appropriate term.

Usually when two nations meet over a disputed territory they negotiate a treaty to settle the land. At present no treaty with Australia's first people exists. The Mabo decision granted limited land rights to some indigenous Australians, but this is not available to all. We apologised to the stolen generation in 2008 but that doesn't mean that the trauma of families torn apart disappears. Hell, we don't even recognise Indigenous Australia's in our constitution! - check out You, Me Unity

I think these are the reasons many people consider the 26th of January as 'Invasion Day' and if you're not comfortable for that term to sit alongside 'Australia Day', ask yourself why?

Tweeting the Zeitgeist

I've been a little slow on my social media uptake so it was with great surprise last night when I found myself engaging in a tweetfest that actually affected something in the real world.

It was about three in the morning and I was loving another bout of insomnia. Luckily being in Avignon in the south of France I was perfectly in time for Sydney news and media and just general wakefulness. As I scrolled down my news feed I scanned the headlines (I think of tweets as headlines and prefer the ones that open into a world larger than 140 characters) looking for something interesting...

@GetUp - 'We should expect more from our political candidates & community leaders 

than homophobia, hate speech. #TessCorbett @BernardGaynor'

No idea what this was about but respecting @GetUp's take on issues I decided to dig around. Turns out @BernardGaynor is a senate candidate for a new political entity in Australia known as Katter's Australia Party (Katter's Aus Party). Gaynor had taken to Twitter to back up another party nominee, Tess Corbett and her comments made comparing homosexuality to bestiality...

@BernardGaynor -  'I wouldn't let a gay person teach my children 

and I'm not afraid to say it #auspol'

Uhmmm... ok! I was suitably aghast, I mean I'd heard that people tweet all sorts of crazy bullshit but had never actually had the opportunity to read it. This was completely different to retweeting inspirational articles about issues I believe in; here was someone making pejorative comments about people that included friends, coworkers, cool strangers that I haven't meant yet. I was kinda pissed but also felt strangely powerless to do anything against this hate speech.

I read through the post again and some of the follow up this goon had made attempting to justify his position. Some people had made some equally crazy comments wishing violence and death on the guy. I wanted to write something but didn't want to join the club of people venting their spleen. Basically I wanted to be clever, witty and concise (the last not being a huge problem on Twitter)...

@rightzblock - '@GetUp now you know people just don't vote for

 @BernardGaynor and take his voice away!'

I felt proud, I felt engaged, I reread it and realized my punctuation made the message a little ambiguous but I had said something against this guy. The way Twitter works though @BernardGaynor might never know that I thoroughly abhorred his narrow minded perspective...

@rightzblock - '@BernardGaynor Australia is a secular state, 

don't bring your misguided religious beliefs to the political debate!'

Now I felt better. I had spoken my beliefs in 140 characters or less and let some bigot know he had no place spreading his views. I could sleep easy, and despite the insomnia, several hours later I did.

In the morning I woke up and after covering coffee and the obligatory ablutions I got a little curious about what I'd been reading last night. I found this: The Australian - Twitter Gay Slur Story

I was stoked, energised and generally pretty damn happy... Of course this story has ignored thousands of others who also got online and expressed their unhappiness at this guys bigotry and insensitivity. Collectively they made the difference and were there representing the Australian public over the wicked minority. For me though it felt good that I had spoken when I felt moved to speak and stood up for my convictions.

When I sit down to write this blog I always hope that someone will read it and take away something of my message. It's hard to know when you write alone and receive little feedback; mostly your own opinions. The blog's pretty new though and I accept that few people even know it exists. But I do believe strongly in the power of our voices when we speak out on the things we believe (Rightzblock - The right to free speech?), it was great to see how it can come to fruition...

I have a right to my opinion...

I hate that expression!

Nothing marks a conversational dead end faster than one party boldly stating that they have a right to their own opinion. Translated for the crowd this usually means: 'I disagree with you and I don't want to talk about it anymore!'

This particular invocation of 'rights' blew up on Australian TVs recently when the prominent media presenter David Koch made comments about breast-feeding. Kochie was commenting on a news story detailing how a Queensland woman was asked to cover up while breast-feeding at a public pool. His comments included the advice that breast-feeding women should be "discrete" and "classy" while lactating in public. These comments promoted a response from breast-feeding mothers that ranged from measured to vitriolic and culminated in a rally outside Kochie's breakfast program. In a final sally against his critics Kochie invoked his implied 'rights' (SMH - Kochie editorial),attempting to end the discussion.

What is this 'right' though? The sentence itself is worth a quick look because quite frankly it is ludicrous and redundant. Having opinions is intrinsic to our thoughtful, individual, messed up humanity. Within the privacy of our own thoughts we cannot help but form opinions, so asserting a right is nonsensical unless you fear brainwashing. When someone feels the need to assert this as a 'right' they are really indicating that they don't intend to engage you any further, lest their opinion shifts; becomes a little less theirs, maybe more your own.

I think  this whole notion of being free to express one's opinion gets a little tangled up in the much vaunted First Amendment to the American Constitution. That's the one guaranteeing, to paraphrase, 'free speech'. Seems like everyone knows of this and feels that it applies to them too; shout your opinion loud and proud people. While I agree with the principle of freedom of expression it's worth noting that it doesn't quite work that way in Australia. We have no equivalent to America's first amendment enshrined in Australian law. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship describes 'Freedom of Speech' as one of Australia's five fundamental freedoms (Aus Dept Immigration), but it's not quite that clear cut. What we have is a common law protection of freedom of political expression, which I gather means you are free to critique the government of the day without persecution. However our general right to free expression is tempered by qualifications against the incitement of hatred, violence or discrimination. 

I don't think Kochie's comments come anywhere near inciting hatred, violence or discrimination but nor does this mean he just gets to claim he has a right to comment unfettered. As a public commentator and media personality Kochie must acknowledge his role in creating an filtering public opinion. His website notes a poll describing him as one of the top fifty most respected people in Australia. People listen to him and through them Kochie can direct the public narrative and understanding of an issue. Breast feeding mothers everywhere rightly feared that Kochie's comments could result in their being shamed and ridiculed for the very natural act of feeding their child.

In this light, the backlash against his breast-feeding comments does not amount to an attempt to censor Kochie's implied right to express himself, rather it is the exercise of that same right being used to dissent against his opinions. When Kochie derides his critics as "the noisy social media brigade" he demeans private individuals attempting to meet him on common ground. He fails to afford them the platform he already enjoys.

Implicit in a right of free expression (qualified or otherwise) is another's right to oppose your opinion. We generally just call this a public debate and encourage it as a healthy part of our society. By bluntly declaring "I have an opinion... always have, always will", Kochie came dangerously close to an attempt to suppress this. Fortunately he seems like a decent bloke and for those who read to the end of his response, he attempts redemption by acknowledging the role of public debate. In what some commentators claimed as backtracking, Kochie described the protest against his comments as "terrific" and encouraged open discussion with the protest leader Amy Ahearn.

Crisis averted, and the whole event threatens to disappear in the relentless turning of the news cycle. Perhaps some good may come of engaging people in thinking about the roles and rights of new mothers and the trials they face in daily life. But I would warm however against allowing the dreadful false adage of 'a right to my opinion' to creep back into your public or private life. Debate and discussion form an important part of our intellectual lives; you don't have to change your mind, but it's worth considering why your partner disagrees...

___

Throughout my blogging I've considered issues of free speech and the way the rights of expression intersects with our daily lives. Check out a discussion of the voices you're not hearing online @ Rightzblock - The Right to Free Speech? or my discussion of the role of civil disobedience, the ultimate expression of opinion @ Rightzblock - You Can't Do That!

You can't do that!

So I was talking about civil disobedience wasn't I? 

It had been all over the newspapers in Australia that a young guy had faked a press release to make a statement about the environment. This in turn caused stocks in a mining company to dive. This guy broke the law and some politicians were calling for quite severe punishment, while others were situating him in a tradition of civil disobedience.

(check out my post @ http://rightzblock.blogspot.fr/2013/01/civil-disobedience.html)

This event was a dramatic, news-attention grabbing event which the Australian Greens Party situated in a long tradition of action and protest within the Australian community. These include environmental protests; most notoriously the Franklin River Dam protests in the eighties. Women's suffrage in Australia also benefitted enormously around the turn of the twentieth century from women willing to stand against an oppressive system.

Throughout October and November of last year there were numerous and long running hunger strikes in detention centers facilitated by Australia; these were supported by protests and marches on the mainland. Here we saw people defying official policies, occupying public spaces and making bold physical statements attempting to address the government policy on processing asylum seekers. Many of these people were already imprisoned in a detention center while others ran the risk of arrest which might lead to fines and or jail time.

If you want to talk about, read about or even just think about the notion of civil disobedience a few names generally come up; I'm thinking Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Aung San Suu Kyi. These are people that have stood up and made themselves heard because they saw injustice, even when it went against the law of the day. Their actions took many forms, some of which we might find quite benign in Australian society; things like occupying space that was reserved only for white people, or speaking out against the government that perpetuated injustice through it's laws and policies. 

In Australia you are generally allowed to speak your mind on any topic, expressing any viewpoint; this includes the enlightened and the repugnant. Our laws respect the right of expression and we trust in the public to gather and filter information on which they will make their decisions. This is not always so throughout the world. Online activists and bloggers in Vietnam are currently serving lengthy sentences for posting so called 'subversive' material and in perhaps the most visible case worldwide members of the Russian band 'Pussy Riot' are serving time for an anti government film clip.

One name inseparable with civil disobedience is the America philosopher, writer and lakeside camper named Henry David Thoreau. In his essay 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' he lays out the framework, indeed the ethos for living a life of civil disobedience. He outlines the need to live a life ruled by conscience even if this contravenes the law of the day. Further he acknowledges where conscience and law disagree we have an obligation to disobey the law, even go to jail for it. Thoreau was protesting against America's slave trade and their was in Mexico but his principles stand for time immemorial. 

Laws are not always right or just. This can be clearly seen throughout history and we must trust in our conscience to show us where unjust laws exist today. Standing against an unjust law is not an easy or simple choice to make and history has also shown us that civil disobedience often comes at the cost of ones personal liberty.

So far I feel like I've made only a brief tour of civil disobedience, protest and the like and this is not the full story. PersonallyvI feel it's an important part of our lives as citizens and that this is demonstrated in the amazing achievements and liberties gained by people speaking out. 

What about the rest of you though: how far would you go, or maybe you feel this is all just wrong? This is a topic that involves every person, on every issue. Share your opinion here, or you can tweet me @rightzblock. Love to here from you...

Followup on Ranjini's story...

Hi all,

I've been diligently working on a follow-up to my last post about civil disobedience that I hope to post soon but I want to interrupt with an update on an earlier post. A little while back I wrote about the detention in Australia of a young, refugee named Ranjini (if you'd like to read it - http://rightzblock.blogspot.fr/2012/12/life-imprisonment.html).

Ranjini was pregnant and there has been a lot of work by a lot of people to help free her before the birth of her baby. Well on the 15th of January Ranjini gave birth to baby boy named Paartheepan or Paari. Unfortunately she had not been freed from immigration detention at the time and as I understand it she has now been returned to Villawood detention center.

Today I'd like to share with you a letter I wrote to my local federal member challenging her on this issue. If you're in reading this in Australia and you feel strongly about this issue I'd challenge you to write to your local member as well. It's easy to do; you'll find their email contact online. If you're not in Australia, perhaps you could get on Twitter and message our Prime Minister on @JuliaGillard. I believe that this is a serious issue, deserving of attention just as I believe that a strong, engaged group of people can make a difference when they raise their voices.

Here's the letter:

Dear Minister,

I have written to you in the past regarding the current government's policies on refugees and asylum seekers. I do not support policies of mandatory detention nor do I support punitive, 'no advantage' policies regarding the processing of boat arrivals. As I have mentioned in the past, it is well documented in the scientific literature that detention has negative physical and psychological consequences for those detained. All of these points I feel must be acted on by a government that is both signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Refugees and a member of the United Nations Security Council.

Today I write out of urgency and sadness on the impacts of these issues. On the 15th of January 2013 a young Sri Lankan woman named Ranjini gave birth to a baby boy in detention. As I understand it both Ranjini and her son have now been returned to Villawood detention center. My understanding of the case is that Ranjini has received a positive refugee assessment from the government but a negative security assessment from ASIO. She now faces indefinite detention without a right to appeal. That's means that the current government is presiding over an illogical, unjust system and the consequence is a newborn child, innocent of any crime is locked up.     

Ranjini's story is not the only tale of detention deserving of attention. It is however the most striking case of the impersonal, bureaucratic attitude both the government and the opposition take of refugee issues. This is not about statistics of numbers on boats; this is a child born in Australian that is deserving of the protections our society offers.  If you are not currently aware of groundswell of support for Ranjini I would recommend you check out the website 'letters for Ranjini' (http://lettersforranjini.com/) for some perspectives on the public's feelings on this issue.

I am a voter in the electorate of Sydney and I would ask you to respond as my local member. I also challenge you to raise this issue in all it's gravity with your colleagues. Ranjini's story raises very real questions about Australia's approach to human rights and justice. If we cannot as a society protect those most vulnerable and respect the rights of those unable to protect themselves we must be judged poorly in the eyes of the world.

More importantly though I would ask you to utilise what influence you have within your party and the government to help free Ranjini and her newborn son before untold harm is done to this new life.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Pople

 

Civil Disobedience...

Did you hear the one about the man in the tree who wiped millions off the mining companies stock?

It would be funny if it weren't true, and more so if the poor bloke weren't being dragged from pillory to post for an act that reflects more on the vulnerabilities of the Australian stock exchange and the gullibility and lack of rigor amongst financial reporters.

The short version is an anti-mining activist by the name of Jonathan Moylan released a statement under the guise of a major bank. In this statement he claimed that the bank had refused credit to a mining company because of concerns over their environmental record. This was in turn picked up by the media and in turn by segments of the share trading public. They proceeded to get rid of their stock and it dropped in value, until such time as trading was suspended. There's a lot of reporting going on around this topic but it seems from what I've read that Moylan was trying to create the impression that a major bank was speaking out against mining and environmental destruction. Oh and he did all this from a protest camp in a forest with indifferent wifi...

Let's look at this another way; Moylan who is a nobody, at least in the grand scheme of banks and mining companies realised he wasn't exactly going to make a big splash sitting in a tree blocking bulldozers (my interpretation). So he impersonates a somebody, or in this case a banking institution somebody and makes a statement that adheres to his environmental beliefs. He does this reasoning that Jonathon Moylan doesn't get much attention but maybe major bank will.

Problem is he's a little too clever. If he'd just stayed chained to a tree or whatever the hell he was doing it would all be fine and he'd only be pissing off some poor day worker trying to get the job done. Instead he ignited a stock run, got the politicians polarised and worst of all, dared to tamper with peoples money!

The leader of the Australian Greens, Christina Milne, declared Moylan's act a part of a great tradition of civil disobedience in Australia. Possibly she was having a slow day and worried that she hadn't suffered any recent vitriol as the leader of Australia's third party released an honest, unambiguous statement. The statement got both her and party comments that make unflattering references to mental illness. But she raises a good point about the presence and role of civil disobedience and protest within Australian society.

Protest generally seems to get negative publicity in Australia, or perhaps more correctly the protests that get the most attention are the ones that end in confrontation and violence. This is unfortunate and I don't intend to speculate on journalistic integrity in reporting these issues prominently or rogue activists turning peaceful protest violent. What I would like to raise is the philosophy of civil disobedience within a society and specifically what role it might fill in Australian society.

Myself, I think civil disobedience definitely has a place. At the core of it's philosophy is questioning and taking action against unjust laws. I don't think any society can claim to be free from the stink of such laws and it is not always the legislators who are motivated toward change.

This will be my taking off point and I will endeavour to explore further the role of civil disobedience in a modern society like Australia. In the mean time I will be having a think about some of the changes that we can see right now that came about as a result of people standing up: female suffrage, the Franklin River's conservation and the acknowledgement of indigenous people immediately spring to mind. Can we add further environmental protections and rights for refugees in the future?

The Product?

If you're not paying for it then you're the product.

I keep hearing people talking about social media and the online world in these terms. Usually not very far into the conversation issues of privacy and access are also being mentioned and the argument can start to sound part civil rights issue and part conspiracy theory; that somehow the online illuminati are staging mass identity theft/profiling of us all.

I'm still not sure what to make of it all and so I dutifully ensure my privacy settings are set high and perhaps more importantly I self censor rigorously (which for some people might just mean not going near a computer whilst drunk!). Still though, I find it quite strange after searching on a whim for a flight somewhere that I soon find advertisements for holidays on my FB and other pages.

Am I savvy because I know this or a retard for not yet adequately getting around it and protecting my online life? I have no idea what the answer to that question is or even if it's the sort of question that can be answered at the moment. Whenever we use an app, whether to shop, search, poke, check in or any of the functions they offer, there is potential for data to be mined from us and sent back to the developer. What it might be used for is likely still being explored but I pause when I think someone could know what I'm thinking (from status updates and tweets), what I'm reading (from purchases) and where I go and when (check ins and the like). Thank goodness I don't live in a repressive state where that sort of information can get you in trouble.

In my last post I was wondering out loud about the potential for mobile applications and social media to change our thinking about parts and peoples we don't know or understand that well. Consider the African continent where smartphone penetration is closing in on 20% or one in five people. It's higher in Northern and Southern Africa and pretty low in Central Africa. This compares with almost 40% in Australia.

(here's a nice site for some stats http://www.mikekujawski.ca/2012/05/30/finally-some-2012-statistics-for-the-african-mobile-phone-market/)

This can have amazing impacts as was shown throughout the Arab Spring uprisings but it also brings up questions about the rights of people acquiring smartphones and the information they share. An external company may have incentives to develop and offer free software and applications for people in this developing market, which they can then transition into a data mining, money spinning operation (Facebook I'm looking at you). On the other hand there are great initiatives like Apps4Africa (http://apps4africa.org/) that encourage local developers to target problems and needs at a local level.

I did a quick Google search using the terms 'ethics of app development' and I got very little. All the top hits were for people wanting to write an ethics application for a research project or associated endeavor.  Curious, I did another search, this time with the search terms 'ethics of software development'. This time I got a lot more success which was comforting, at least people are thinking in the general area. The thing was that of the top hits I saw the most recent was from 2009, a little early for the current app revolution. Now this was an admittedly tiny search, using only narrow terms but I was really hoping for a little more thinking out there about the potential benefits and harms of our mobile, online life and how to address them.

The way I see it is the information economy is growing at a huge rate and this is largely driven by mobile internet usage. This usage is in turn driven by the development and use of apps on people's mobile phones. As this development occurs our thinking in turn must keep pace with the changing nature of content development and sharing. This is predominately going to require innovative thinking about the way to deal with all the incidental content development that happens when we're not thinking about it (location services and the like). Information shared by people online is intimately connected to their identity, their livelihood and sometimes their safety. The key to addressing the issue is probably as always education, but of what nature and how? 

...

I proofread this before I posted and got a little worried that I sounded a bit doom and gloom about spreading technology, which I'm really not. My thoughts tend towards wondering about future scenarios and I often play the devil's advocate. Anyway, here's another article I read while researching this that discusses the amazing potential and achievements mobile access can have in a development information economy... http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/africa/mobile-phones-change-africa/index.html

The right to free speech?

What are you reading this on?

There are more than a billion people on Facebook. I read that on my tablet the other day. I was flicking through some blogs and posts on Flipboard and there it was in the middle of an article about online trends.

Psy’s hit a billion too on Youtube I gather, while Obama won his first presidential election on social media and the Arab Spring owes some of it’s success to Twitter. The fact that everything from Facebook to Twitter allows you to check-in now makes me think that most of these people are watching, talking and organising from mobile devices. Huge numbers of people doing amazing things from their pockets and backpacks.

I tend to write this blog on my laptop but I don’t mind drafting on my phone; so far I lack the patience to type long paragraphs on such a small keyboard. I worry though that people are tuning out after the first 140 characters. Which brings me back to my original question of what are you reading this on, or perhaps more important to think about is whether would you be reading, writing and responding to any of this new media if it weren’t for your device. I don’t think it’s an impossible scenario that in the future the western world will consider access to an online device as a basic right; denial being akin to denying someone their right to speak freely.

We like to think of the online world and social media as being an egalitarian playground where participation has more to do with your cachet in wit and wisdom than your bankroll or influence. This forgets however one very important, very expensive initial entry criteria… our devices.

When I think about the potential for social media to connect, rally and influence I cannot help but wonder what we are missing out on from those who just don’t have access. How would Instagramming our amazing meal photos be understood if people starving in refugee camps could reply with images of their meagre repast? If social media tools like FB and Twitter could play such a powerful role in the Middle East and America, what role might they play in other regions of political or social unrest less able to get online and organise.

Free speech is an ideal much touted but even in places where people can express themselves freely they are not always guaranteed an audience. The mobile-online world allows live content development and publishing as well as access to a huge audience always on the lookout for new things. Think about a cause or charity you believe, maybe donate to. Their webpage probably has a ‘like’ symbol as well as a little blue/white bird and an orange RSS logo all ready for you to click on. They are networked and ready to harness the huge numbers available online to their cause; making a difference through people. If you cannot afford to get on social media though you are essentially stuck in the nineteenth century, waiting for some benevolent colonial to notice and take pity on your plight.

Mobile connectivity has provided so much to the world, shallow as it may seem at times. It is important to remember though that this opportunity is not completely democratic, not free for all. Consider this next time you peruse the voices on Twitter and the channels on Youtube; listen critically to who is talking but question also whose voices are missing. Remember this also when you tweet your own voice what an amazing privilege it is just to have the chance to be heard.