The Coalition immigration spokesperson Scott Morrison's comments cast an unwelcome light on the lives of asylum seekers living in the Australian community. He sought to create fear and paint all asylum seekers as criminals. They're not, but that doesn't mean their lives were easy before Morrison opened his mouth.
Last year the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship brought in changes that mean asylum seekers arriving by boat who move into the community on bridging visas will not have the right to work, possibly for up to five years! I've never been unemployed myself but I have known people who describe boredom and later stress at waking up each morning and not knowing what to do with themselves.
Australian society puts a high premium on working. Go to a bbq with friends and invariably you will be asked how work is going. If it's a new friend they'll ask what you do (for work), or if you've been out of touch for a while they'll want to know what you're up to now. Eight or more hours a day for five days a week our identities are solely defined by our jobs. Hell I've even heard friends competing over who spends the longest overtime at work!
The 'dole bludger' is the natural foil to the hard working Aussie. If we love a hard worker, then we hate someone who does nothing and accepts benefits. Unemployment benefits are set low to encourage job seeking; where relative poverty fails, social stigma takes over.
Why then a policy that entrenches unemployment and forces asylum seekers to rely on welfare?
The effects of long-term unemployment are documented as including social isolation, poverty and loss of skills. Psychological effects described by the American Psychological Association include depression, anxiety and poor self-esteem. These effects are not limited to the unemployed person but impact on families and the community in which they live.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre works to provide aid to asylum seekers as they apply for refugee status in Australia. They report that in 2011-12, 90.8% of asylum seekers were granted permanent protection visas. If the current system had been in place for these asylum seekers they would have entered the community with depleted skills and likely suffering adverse psychological effects.
By denying asylum seekers the right to work the Australian government will achieve little more than entrenching poverty and mental illness amongst thousands of people.
There is no evidence to suggest asylum seekers are 'taking jobs' from other people. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports current unemployment figures of 5.4%. Now economists generally describe figures of around 5% as 'full employment'. That means that asylum seekers enter a job market that can support them, heck even needs them. More importantly they are often filling low skill jobs that most Australians don't want.
Allowing asylum seekers to work also makes good economic sense for those opponents of welfare. Giving a person a job not only gives them purpose, it also gives them an income that they spend in the wider community. No dole bludging here, just productive, contributing members of society.
You can support the right to work of asylum seekers in the community. Read the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre's 'Right to Work Mythbuster' fact sheet then check out their petition. Sign it and take action if you agree that the right to work is important for all people's lives and our community.
Thursday 28 February 2013
Wednesday 27 February 2013
More 'problematic' use of language...
I'm guessing Scott Morrison hasn't read my last post 'Our Problematic Use of Language'!
The Coalition immigration spokesperson has issued a media release reiterating the false claim that asylum seekers are 'illegal', using the pejorative term 'boat arrival' in favour of 'asylum seeker', calling for a suspension of community release bridging visas and calling for the institution of 'behaviour protocols' for asylum seekers. Morrison's media release was made in response to the news that charges of indecent assault had been made against a Sri Lankan man who is currently seeking asylum in Australia.
Reading through the media release I was immediately struck by the tone of condemnation and the presumption of criminality Morrison is willing to heap on all asylum seekers. In calling for police and community notification, 'behaviour protocols', mandatory reporting and the protection of 'vulnerable' populations the Coalition's policy deliberately invokes the language surrounding the release from imprisonment of dangerous criminals and pedophiles. The implication we are supposed to draw from this is that all asylum seekers are in fact amongst the worst class of criminal and therefore not wanted in our communities. Using this language is the worst kind of political manipulation and must be rejected by an informed community.
Morrison's central conceit is in lumping all asylum seekers in the same 'boat' and condemning them for an as yet unproven crime. He attempts to strengthen this notion of guilt by prefacing his argument with the lie that seeking asylum is somehow 'illegal'.
Let's be absolutely clear, only one man has been charged with any crime not an entire group of ethnically and culturally diverse people that we conveniently lump together based on their claim for asylum. This one man may be guilty of a crime, then again he may not. In Australia we have a Criminal Law and a court system set up to decide these matters. There is no need for a separate set of 'behaviour protocols' with 'clear negative sanctions' to manage this case. Such a set of de-facto laws would be nothing more than racist provisions of the type we are currently trying to stamp out.*
Interestingly while Scott Morrison seeks to have all asylum seekers treated as criminals he makes no mention of how government and Coalition policy confines these people to a bureaucratic limbo that intensifies negative psychological outcomes. In a week that has also seen discussion of asylum seekers in detention attempting self-harm and suicide, Morrison offers no comment on the crimes being perpetrated under a system his party would like to see toughened.
Scott Morrison's media release is a cynical attempt to take advantage of a tragic event and should be seen as such by all Australian's. A young woman has suffered through a horrific event and the matter should be dealt with by the legal system not a kangaroo court established by the Coalition to enforce 'behaviour protocols'. That the young man charged is an asylum seeker does not make him guilty, nor does it mean all asylum seekers are criminals.
This whole episode is an abuse by Morrison of his public profile and a tawdry manipulation of language to tell lies that serve his political ends.
Reading through the media release I was immediately struck by the tone of condemnation and the presumption of criminality Morrison is willing to heap on all asylum seekers. In calling for police and community notification, 'behaviour protocols', mandatory reporting and the protection of 'vulnerable' populations the Coalition's policy deliberately invokes the language surrounding the release from imprisonment of dangerous criminals and pedophiles. The implication we are supposed to draw from this is that all asylum seekers are in fact amongst the worst class of criminal and therefore not wanted in our communities. Using this language is the worst kind of political manipulation and must be rejected by an informed community.
Morrison's central conceit is in lumping all asylum seekers in the same 'boat' and condemning them for an as yet unproven crime. He attempts to strengthen this notion of guilt by prefacing his argument with the lie that seeking asylum is somehow 'illegal'.
Let's be absolutely clear, only one man has been charged with any crime not an entire group of ethnically and culturally diverse people that we conveniently lump together based on their claim for asylum. This one man may be guilty of a crime, then again he may not. In Australia we have a Criminal Law and a court system set up to decide these matters. There is no need for a separate set of 'behaviour protocols' with 'clear negative sanctions' to manage this case. Such a set of de-facto laws would be nothing more than racist provisions of the type we are currently trying to stamp out.*
Interestingly while Scott Morrison seeks to have all asylum seekers treated as criminals he makes no mention of how government and Coalition policy confines these people to a bureaucratic limbo that intensifies negative psychological outcomes. In a week that has also seen discussion of asylum seekers in detention attempting self-harm and suicide, Morrison offers no comment on the crimes being perpetrated under a system his party would like to see toughened.
Scott Morrison's media release is a cynical attempt to take advantage of a tragic event and should be seen as such by all Australian's. A young woman has suffered through a horrific event and the matter should be dealt with by the legal system not a kangaroo court established by the Coalition to enforce 'behaviour protocols'. That the young man charged is an asylum seeker does not make him guilty, nor does it mean all asylum seekers are criminals.
This whole episode is an abuse by Morrison of his public profile and a tawdry manipulation of language to tell lies that serve his political ends.
__________
* See my post on the issue of Indigenous Recognition in the Australian Constitution and the racist provisions of Section 25 and Section 51(xxvi)
** Just a quick shout out; the amazing graphic above, talking about the misconceptions about asylum seekers and refugees is from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
** Just a quick shout out; the amazing graphic above, talking about the misconceptions about asylum seekers and refugees is from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
Tuesday 26 February 2013
Our 'problematic' use of language
There is a conspiracy of misinformation at work in our daily lives. We are all guilty of this sometimes and we all fall victim when the truth is obscured from our sight. Misinformation occurs when the truth is glossed over with convenient catch-phrases, half truths or blatant omissions. Our politician's use these techniques to cloud their political reality and we suffer a lack of transparency about the society we live in. Those who suffer most however are those with the least ability to speak out and consequently to be heard.
I read an article in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald reporting Department of Immigration communiques describing suicidal and self-harming asylum seekers as 'Problematic'. The report goes on to detail other instances of obfuscation such as 'voluntary starvation'. This gem of a phrase details asylum seekers efforts to protest their conditions. Presumably by emphasizing the 'voluntary' aspect of the protest mitigates any blame for those responsible for the conditions being protested.
Every year people throughout the world flee their homes and their homelands because of civil war, internal strife and ethnic differences. When these people flee they travel, sometimes great distances to seek safe haven in countries and claim asylum under international law. They have the right to make this claim and be assessed in a timely manner. One of the countries that extends this right is Australia.
Within Australia the arrival of asylum seekers is not greeted with general approbation, you might say we can be hostile. I think one of the reasons is the way we talk about, and consequently understand who these people are...
Let's start with the names we give to asylum seekers; the one I found frequently repeated in the article above is 'client'. The term 'client' is used by both politicians and those working in detention centers. It sounds rather benign, perhaps even safe to the average reader who is frequently a client of various services. The term 'client' connotes someone who is accessing a service, and straight away we have fallen into the widespread use of doublespeak that distracts clear thought. For asylum seekers and refugees are not 'clients' accessing 'services' they are people fleeing violence and persecution in their homelands. All the name 'client' does is desensitize us when the government tries out the phrase 'access denied'.
George Orwell claimed the purpose of such political speech and writing was "the defense of the indefensible". He felt that some truths were "too brutal for most people to face"*, but more importantly that these truths couldn't be spoken by politicians who wanted to keep their jobs. Hence the use of fancy terms until asylum seekers and refugees become better known in popular vernacular as 'boat people' and 'queue jumpers'. The use of pejorative terms makes it much easier for everyone to look away when people are being locked up, or towed back out to sea on leaky boats.
The use of this sort of doublespeak is not limited to simply classifying a group of people. Half truths and loose terminology is used in describing all aspects of Australia's immigration detention program. In a short survey of Sydney Morning Herald articles dealing with asylum seekers for the month of February I found politicians and government officials quoted on the following:
I am not stating absolutely that all asylum seekers arriving by boat are mistreated and deserve more from Australia. I think many are. What I am telling you is that it is difficult to get a true impression of their treatment through the media.
Before making up your own mind on this issue, or any issue in the upcoming election, it is imperative that we all examine the evidence we are offered and demand more if it is inadequate.** Tomorrow the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will move amendments to the Migration Act that would allow media into offshore detention centers. Such scrutiny should at least provide some context for the message we've already received on asylum seeker's conditions.
It is important to support these efforts towards transparency and to question anyone who attempts to hide the truth. We are the keepers of our democracy so best we keep these politicians, our public servants, accountable...
I read an article in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald reporting Department of Immigration communiques describing suicidal and self-harming asylum seekers as 'Problematic'. The report goes on to detail other instances of obfuscation such as 'voluntary starvation'. This gem of a phrase details asylum seekers efforts to protest their conditions. Presumably by emphasizing the 'voluntary' aspect of the protest mitigates any blame for those responsible for the conditions being protested.
Every year people throughout the world flee their homes and their homelands because of civil war, internal strife and ethnic differences. When these people flee they travel, sometimes great distances to seek safe haven in countries and claim asylum under international law. They have the right to make this claim and be assessed in a timely manner. One of the countries that extends this right is Australia.
Within Australia the arrival of asylum seekers is not greeted with general approbation, you might say we can be hostile. I think one of the reasons is the way we talk about, and consequently understand who these people are...
Let's start with the names we give to asylum seekers; the one I found frequently repeated in the article above is 'client'. The term 'client' is used by both politicians and those working in detention centers. It sounds rather benign, perhaps even safe to the average reader who is frequently a client of various services. The term 'client' connotes someone who is accessing a service, and straight away we have fallen into the widespread use of doublespeak that distracts clear thought. For asylum seekers and refugees are not 'clients' accessing 'services' they are people fleeing violence and persecution in their homelands. All the name 'client' does is desensitize us when the government tries out the phrase 'access denied'.
The use of this sort of doublespeak is not limited to simply classifying a group of people. Half truths and loose terminology is used in describing all aspects of Australia's immigration detention program. In a short survey of Sydney Morning Herald articles dealing with asylum seekers for the month of February I found politicians and government officials quoted on the following:
- accommodation found wanting by United Nations officials was described by the Department of Immigration as "in line with living standards for local PNG residents" (no description of how these local residents live was provided)
- in response to claims that children in detention were legitimate refugees the government maintained it was "prudent" to conduct its own checks
- in responding to reports of hunger strikes, suicide attempts and cutting with razors by asylum seekers, the Department of Immigration described a "significant decrease in self harm incidents" (no baseline or comparison data is offered)
The picture the government is attempting to create is one where they are working toward a solution to a 'problem' and making some progress. What this picture ignores is the significant harm, both physical and psychological, that occurs while inadequate action is taken. Oh and if you think the alternative is better, the opposition repeatedly promise that the government is too soft and that they would 'tow the boats back'.
I am not stating absolutely that all asylum seekers arriving by boat are mistreated and deserve more from Australia. I think many are. What I am telling you is that it is difficult to get a true impression of their treatment through the media.
Before making up your own mind on this issue, or any issue in the upcoming election, it is imperative that we all examine the evidence we are offered and demand more if it is inadequate.** Tomorrow the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will move amendments to the Migration Act that would allow media into offshore detention centers. Such scrutiny should at least provide some context for the message we've already received on asylum seeker's conditions.
It is important to support these efforts towards transparency and to question anyone who attempts to hide the truth. We are the keepers of our democracy so best we keep these politicians, our public servants, accountable...
______
* George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946)
** Orwell himself was wary of being guilty of "the very faults I am protesting against". If you find me so guilty, or have any other fault with my arguments please drop me a line. This is not the sort of discussion that ever ends, or where we ever stop learning...
Monday 25 February 2013
Plus c'est le meme chose...
Warning! Strong opinions and broad, sweeping statements ahead.
When I wrote a week ago about my sadness and bittersweet hopes for Sydney's live music scene I was yet to re-integrate myself into the sweaty, noisy melange of pub music. In my head the schooners were fresh(ish) and the crowd were noisy, enthusiastic, maybe even dancing. On Sunday I checked out a gig that got me rethinking my whole approach and reinforcing that you get what you pay for.
Firstly I'm going to plug the muso, because although the afternoon was a shambles Donavon Frankenreiter put in a solid performance and it was through no fault of his that... you know what we'll get to my rant all in good time.
The deal was simple: free gig as brought to you by popular beer company seeking cachet in a sympathetic demographic. Couldn't be simpler and I was sold on the price but if I'd stopped and thought about it for a minute I might have come up with this...
Where's the incentives for everyone in this whole deal?
The venue is looking to the crowd; they garner an international headliner who is sure to draw the punters at little to no cost. It's a one off drawcard for an already popular Sunday arvo. Throw in the drinks, as put on by the sponsor and why try harder? Chances are (if I'd thought about it) the place will be too crowded, with local gronks and poorly ventilated. It's in the venues interest to get as many in as they possibly can.
The promotor is looking at their product. For a lot of gigs that's the music but here the music was just the gateway to 'where you'd rather be'. Once the crowd were in the mission statement was to sell them some beer. That means drinks promotions, giveaways and plenty of time to get to the bar. Chances are they'll spend more money putting up point of sale material than making sure the sound system is adequate and they're not going to care if the gig starts late; that's just more time to drink.
Now the crowd were the wildcard. They had it all put on for them: great show, cheap drinks, beachside location, all they had to do was turn up. It was too easy! When you give away something for free though it's very difficult to expect people to value it highly.
When I buy tickets to a gig I'm usually shelling out fifty to one hundred dollars, even a local club gig can cost twenty dollars on the door. Inside everyone is excited about the music; they've come out, paid big, a hush falls as the band comes out then everybody cheers! People are there coz want to listen to some music.
A free gig? People might listen if they get bored but otherwise they've got their mates to catch up with. One girl found her friends at the tab in front of us, turned her back to the band and at one point I think she said something like "who's the rude guy playing his guitar over our conversation"!
So if I'd thought about it I might have guessed that the room would be crowded and stuffy, the gig would start late, the sound would be crap with everyone talking over the music. And it was.
Take home message: pay for the music you care about. People don't care about free stuff, they throw it in the top drawer and forget about it. With free, or almost free, music becoming ubiquitous through the 'net its value as a primary (not background) source of entertainment is diminishing. Spending even a few dollars at the door is your guarantee that the people you are listening with care about the band.
I hope free gigs continue in pubs across Sydney and I hope some of the local bands out there get even half the crowd I saw on Sunday. When I head out though I'm going to remember my free gig lesson and be far more willing to shell out at the door for a night with fellow fans...
When I wrote a week ago about my sadness and bittersweet hopes for Sydney's live music scene I was yet to re-integrate myself into the sweaty, noisy melange of pub music. In my head the schooners were fresh(ish) and the crowd were noisy, enthusiastic, maybe even dancing. On Sunday I checked out a gig that got me rethinking my whole approach and reinforcing that you get what you pay for.
Firstly I'm going to plug the muso, because although the afternoon was a shambles Donavon Frankenreiter put in a solid performance and it was through no fault of his that... you know what we'll get to my rant all in good time.
The deal was simple: free gig as brought to you by popular beer company seeking cachet in a sympathetic demographic. Couldn't be simpler and I was sold on the price but if I'd stopped and thought about it for a minute I might have come up with this...
The venue is looking to the crowd; they garner an international headliner who is sure to draw the punters at little to no cost. It's a one off drawcard for an already popular Sunday arvo. Throw in the drinks, as put on by the sponsor and why try harder? Chances are (if I'd thought about it) the place will be too crowded, with local gronks and poorly ventilated. It's in the venues interest to get as many in as they possibly can.
The promotor is looking at their product. For a lot of gigs that's the music but here the music was just the gateway to 'where you'd rather be'. Once the crowd were in the mission statement was to sell them some beer. That means drinks promotions, giveaways and plenty of time to get to the bar. Chances are they'll spend more money putting up point of sale material than making sure the sound system is adequate and they're not going to care if the gig starts late; that's just more time to drink.
Now the crowd were the wildcard. They had it all put on for them: great show, cheap drinks, beachside location, all they had to do was turn up. It was too easy! When you give away something for free though it's very difficult to expect people to value it highly.
When I buy tickets to a gig I'm usually shelling out fifty to one hundred dollars, even a local club gig can cost twenty dollars on the door. Inside everyone is excited about the music; they've come out, paid big, a hush falls as the band comes out then everybody cheers! People are there coz want to listen to some music.
A free gig? People might listen if they get bored but otherwise they've got their mates to catch up with. One girl found her friends at the tab in front of us, turned her back to the band and at one point I think she said something like "who's the rude guy playing his guitar over our conversation"!
So if I'd thought about it I might have guessed that the room would be crowded and stuffy, the gig would start late, the sound would be crap with everyone talking over the music. And it was.
Take home message: pay for the music you care about. People don't care about free stuff, they throw it in the top drawer and forget about it. With free, or almost free, music becoming ubiquitous through the 'net its value as a primary (not background) source of entertainment is diminishing. Spending even a few dollars at the door is your guarantee that the people you are listening with care about the band.
I hope free gigs continue in pubs across Sydney and I hope some of the local bands out there get even half the crowd I saw on Sunday. When I head out though I'm going to remember my free gig lesson and be far more willing to shell out at the door for a night with fellow fans...
Thursday 21 February 2013
Can we be friends?
Yesterday a comment popped up on my Facebook feed, about a photo I'd shared. The photo was an image from the guys at Letters for Ranjini about the recent reports of children self-harming in Australian detention centers. Now if you're a regular here you'll notice that I've written about Ranjini before, maybe even a few times. Suffice to say I feel strongly on the issue of children in immigration detention.
Now the comment I received on the photo was of the typical 'go back to where you came from' mantra. It came from a so-called 'Facebook friend'; you know the type, you click accept even though you haven't seen them in ten years. This guy had obviously not looked into the story and was reacting purely on pre-conceived ideas.
What the hell can you do or say when faced with ignorance like that?
I wrote a reply (I felt I was being quite restrained) suggesting my 'friend' look into the issue before making judgements and reminding him we are talking about vulnerable children. In my gut though I just wanted to hit 'delete friend' and be done with him.
In the end I decided to wait a couple of hours just in case he replied to my comment. I wanted the chance to engage with this guys ideas, maybe offer a more compassionate perspective to his hardline stance. That's when I started thinking...
My reaction to his comment was in it's own way just as narrow and pointless as his dismissal of the photo. Here I was ready to censor this guy out of my life just because I found his views abhorrent. Effectively I wanted to deny him his right to free speech (at least in dialogue with me) and send him packing.
The whole point of getting online and sharing views is that we are engaging in a community of ideas. Not all these ideas will be pleasant or well thought out, and guaranteed you won't agree with them all. My reaction is one I think we all feel occasionally; to ignore unpleasant comments, ideas & opinions in favour of those we agree with. We have to fight this impulse...
Engaging only with simpatico peers doesn't foster action, or advance progressive ideas. We can end up participating in a little club of self congratulation, forgetting any opposition exists. Free speech means freedom for all speakers and as uncomfortable as it may be, challenging negative views is the only way to contribute to change.
I plan to remember this and hopefully it will change my relationships both online and out in the world...
Wednesday 20 February 2013
Half the Sky
For those who skim, maybe only read my opening lines:
I'm not a film reviewer, but then technically 'Half the Sky' isn't really a film. It's a doco, or maybe it's advocacy, or maybe it's just a series of stories that you need to hear. My thanks to the people at Sutherland Amnesty International for putting on this film screening. They've opened up the door and since there's nothing I can bring to the tale maybe I can give you a reason to go watch it for yourself...
Half the Sky does not truck in complex ideas, it's message is simple; women represent half the planet's population but through systematic brutality, oppression, sexual violence and lack of education women of the world have been prevented from achieving their personal and social potential.
This sort of systemic oppression is staggering. It is staggering because against the backdrop of our modern western ideals this seems like the worst kind of Dickensian nightmare. It is staggering because these are crimes committed, not by distorted, Hollywood-esque villains, but by fathers, uncles and brothers. Mostly though, it is staggering because it makes no sense. In our world with all it's troubles, the combined might of an educated, empowered female population would be a beacon of hope.
The film does something really beautiful with it's combination of raw narrative at the source of the problem; the filmmakers go to Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Vietnam, combined with celebrity cameo just to keep you interested. George Clooney throws it out there in the intro that celebrities can use their celluloid power to make people take notice. Then throughout the film you get to watch Gabrielle Union, Meg Ryan and Eva Mendes confront and try to process impossible situations.
Our celebs are uncomfortable, they are awkward, they say comforting things to people who don't understand their language but how else is any sane person supposed to react when faced with the rape of children as young as two? Or the endemic poverty that affects generations of families and ensures that girls are never so welcome as a single son. These celebrities are used for their profile, because this is too important a message not to get out!
Half the Sky confronts worldwide brutality against women but it also shows us that this is not an insurmountable problem, though it does require action. The measures needed may even seem simple from our privileged perspective; education, freedom from violence and dignity. These things can not be taken for granted, they require that people get involved.
The beginning is education; at the film screening perhaps only 10% of the audience were guys. Yet as the film points out men own the majority of property, control the majority of wealth and hold the majority of political power in the world. Guys, we need to learn about the problem before we see a solution.
Beyond this we need to support organisations like Amnesty International, that are working with people on the ground. Support them financially, or perhaps politically by signing a petition about these issues. But also support women's rights internationally by sharing this with the people in your lives; Facebook them or Twitter, Google+ & LinkedIn them. Let your contacts know this matters to you, so that maybe with a little but of information it will matter to them...
The issues dealt with in the 'Half the Sky' film are not exclusive to developing countries. Violence against women is a huge issue in Australia and the hardest part for most people to face is that it's Aussie blokes that are doing the damage. No excuses here, it's a zero tolerance issue and it needs people to stand up and say it's not acceptable.
For people experiencing violence or other issues in their life you can always contact 'Lifeline' on 13 11 14 (or just call '000' in an emergency).
White Ribbon is an organisation campaigning to stop violence against women. I'd commend all the guys reading this to check them out and sign the pledge.
"go check out 'Half the Sky'!"
I'm not a film reviewer, but then technically 'Half the Sky' isn't really a film. It's a doco, or maybe it's advocacy, or maybe it's just a series of stories that you need to hear. My thanks to the people at Sutherland Amnesty International for putting on this film screening. They've opened up the door and since there's nothing I can bring to the tale maybe I can give you a reason to go watch it for yourself...
This sort of systemic oppression is staggering. It is staggering because against the backdrop of our modern western ideals this seems like the worst kind of Dickensian nightmare. It is staggering because these are crimes committed, not by distorted, Hollywood-esque villains, but by fathers, uncles and brothers. Mostly though, it is staggering because it makes no sense. In our world with all it's troubles, the combined might of an educated, empowered female population would be a beacon of hope.
The film does something really beautiful with it's combination of raw narrative at the source of the problem; the filmmakers go to Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Vietnam, combined with celebrity cameo just to keep you interested. George Clooney throws it out there in the intro that celebrities can use their celluloid power to make people take notice. Then throughout the film you get to watch Gabrielle Union, Meg Ryan and Eva Mendes confront and try to process impossible situations.
Our celebs are uncomfortable, they are awkward, they say comforting things to people who don't understand their language but how else is any sane person supposed to react when faced with the rape of children as young as two? Or the endemic poverty that affects generations of families and ensures that girls are never so welcome as a single son. These celebrities are used for their profile, because this is too important a message not to get out!
Half the Sky confronts worldwide brutality against women but it also shows us that this is not an insurmountable problem, though it does require action. The measures needed may even seem simple from our privileged perspective; education, freedom from violence and dignity. These things can not be taken for granted, they require that people get involved.
The beginning is education; at the film screening perhaps only 10% of the audience were guys. Yet as the film points out men own the majority of property, control the majority of wealth and hold the majority of political power in the world. Guys, we need to learn about the problem before we see a solution.
Beyond this we need to support organisations like Amnesty International, that are working with people on the ground. Support them financially, or perhaps politically by signing a petition about these issues. But also support women's rights internationally by sharing this with the people in your lives; Facebook them or Twitter, Google+ & LinkedIn them. Let your contacts know this matters to you, so that maybe with a little but of information it will matter to them...
____
The issues dealt with in the 'Half the Sky' film are not exclusive to developing countries. Violence against women is a huge issue in Australia and the hardest part for most people to face is that it's Aussie blokes that are doing the damage. No excuses here, it's a zero tolerance issue and it needs people to stand up and say it's not acceptable.
For people experiencing violence or other issues in their life you can always contact 'Lifeline' on 13 11 14 (or just call '000' in an emergency).
White Ribbon is an organisation campaigning to stop violence against women. I'd commend all the guys reading this to check them out and sign the pledge.
Tuesday 19 February 2013
Externalities...
I want to play a little 'Economics 101' and before you tune out and go check the latest cuteness on insta_kitten, I need you along for the ride. Because sometimes they make these things obtuse and hey I'm still learning too...
Today in the news I heard about a massive soft drinks company that is taking legal action against the Northern Territory government over a law designed to promote recycling of containers. The deal is that under the scheme companies are compelled to pay a 10c refund on returned bottles. Now the companies don't like this because if they are charging you say $2 for a bottle of their fizzy stuff that 10c represents a 5% loss for them (greater if you measure it just against their profit). Now the soft drink company could just put up the price of the drinks, but that might lose them customers.
Soft drink companies don't particularly want their bottles back; they send them out into the world, full of goodness hoping they find a good home. Soft drink companies are selling you a product; the beverage, and you in turn are buying a product. The container is just a necessary evil in delivering sticky, sugary goodness to your belly. Except that the container must go somewhere and someone has to deal with it.
This is known as an 'externality'. The can or bottle is completely external to your decision to buy the drink and when the drink is gone, more often than not so is your interest in the container. The container does not disappear however, though it might go to trash, or to recycling or worst of all just become rubbish out in the big wide world. In all of these scenarios someone, somewhere down the line has to pay for it.
To deal with the cost of an externality we sometimes use a device called an 'externality charge'. Basically an externality charge is the cost of dealing with the externality. So in the case of the soft drink company and the bottles, the 10c refund is the externality charge. It's like the NT government is saying 'Hey, if we have to clean up your mess, well then we're going to make you pay for it!'
We all deal with externalities every day...
Who does the cooking at your place? I love to mix it up in the kitchen, but I'm often a little over it when it comes to cleaning up. My goal is to make an awesome meal and by the time that's achieved the dishes are just a nuisance. See the dishes are our externality.
We've all got our 'externality charge' techniques to deal with this. I'm most familiar with 'the cook doesn't clean', brilliant right! Except that the next night, when I'm not cooking, it's my turn to clean. This scheme ensures that the cooking gets done by a happy chef, the cleaning gets done by a grateful diner and everyone tries to be tidy knowing that their turn is coming up.
Car registration is another externality charge. "What?!" you say, not our precious cars! But did you really think you were getting free use of the roads and all the bright shiny lights that come with it? Cars produce wear and tear on roads, as well as pollution, traffic congestion and our registration fees contribute towards paying these costs.
Is it starting to sound like externalities and externality charges have a lot to do with cleaning stuff up? That's probably because many of the externalities we encounter in our day to day world are of the messy, polluting kind. Many tend to be the by-products of our modern world that we didn't understand completely when they were first invented. Things like the exhaust from cars, non-biodegradable plastic containers and the emissions created when electricity is generated. Because they weren't fully understood when they were introduced they weren't adequately accounted for.
The problem with externalities is that they always have to be accounted for. Now you might not ever see that cigarette butt you threw away again, but someone will end up fishing it out of a waterway when it goes down the drain. Similarly your exhaust fumes today might not ever kill a fish you'll meet, but it contributes to an overall air toxicity that will rain down into the water table and on to rivers, lakes...
Externality charges are not designed to punish; they are put in place to make sure the right person pays for the externality. Let's go back to the soft drink bottles. Chances are the company will raise the price of the drink a little bit, maybe even the full 10c. This might make you as a consumer decide not to purchase the more expensive drink - awesome no rubbish! Equally you might decide to buy the drink but then keep your bottle and claim your refund - awesome, still not rubbish! For any in-between scenario the refund has created an incentive for any random stranger to make a few dollars collecting cans and bottles. Rubbish problem solved and no one loses in real terms.
There are plenty of other situations where we see externalities and their charges every day. One big one is the Federal Government's so-called 'Carbon Tax'. Just like the bottle refund it's intended to make us think about our consumption, maybe change our behaviour a little bit and ultimately provide a way to pay for any mess. At the moment it sounds far from perfect but there's room for improvement unless we dump it. But more on that later...
Today in the news I heard about a massive soft drinks company that is taking legal action against the Northern Territory government over a law designed to promote recycling of containers. The deal is that under the scheme companies are compelled to pay a 10c refund on returned bottles. Now the companies don't like this because if they are charging you say $2 for a bottle of their fizzy stuff that 10c represents a 5% loss for them (greater if you measure it just against their profit). Now the soft drink company could just put up the price of the drinks, but that might lose them customers.
Soft drink companies don't particularly want their bottles back; they send them out into the world, full of goodness hoping they find a good home. Soft drink companies are selling you a product; the beverage, and you in turn are buying a product. The container is just a necessary evil in delivering sticky, sugary goodness to your belly. Except that the container must go somewhere and someone has to deal with it.
This is known as an 'externality'. The can or bottle is completely external to your decision to buy the drink and when the drink is gone, more often than not so is your interest in the container. The container does not disappear however, though it might go to trash, or to recycling or worst of all just become rubbish out in the big wide world. In all of these scenarios someone, somewhere down the line has to pay for it.
To deal with the cost of an externality we sometimes use a device called an 'externality charge'. Basically an externality charge is the cost of dealing with the externality. So in the case of the soft drink company and the bottles, the 10c refund is the externality charge. It's like the NT government is saying 'Hey, if we have to clean up your mess, well then we're going to make you pay for it!'
We all deal with externalities every day...
Who does the cooking at your place? I love to mix it up in the kitchen, but I'm often a little over it when it comes to cleaning up. My goal is to make an awesome meal and by the time that's achieved the dishes are just a nuisance. See the dishes are our externality.
We've all got our 'externality charge' techniques to deal with this. I'm most familiar with 'the cook doesn't clean', brilliant right! Except that the next night, when I'm not cooking, it's my turn to clean. This scheme ensures that the cooking gets done by a happy chef, the cleaning gets done by a grateful diner and everyone tries to be tidy knowing that their turn is coming up.
Car registration is another externality charge. "What?!" you say, not our precious cars! But did you really think you were getting free use of the roads and all the bright shiny lights that come with it? Cars produce wear and tear on roads, as well as pollution, traffic congestion and our registration fees contribute towards paying these costs.
The problem with externalities is that they always have to be accounted for. Now you might not ever see that cigarette butt you threw away again, but someone will end up fishing it out of a waterway when it goes down the drain. Similarly your exhaust fumes today might not ever kill a fish you'll meet, but it contributes to an overall air toxicity that will rain down into the water table and on to rivers, lakes...
Externality charges are not designed to punish; they are put in place to make sure the right person pays for the externality. Let's go back to the soft drink bottles. Chances are the company will raise the price of the drink a little bit, maybe even the full 10c. This might make you as a consumer decide not to purchase the more expensive drink - awesome no rubbish! Equally you might decide to buy the drink but then keep your bottle and claim your refund - awesome, still not rubbish! For any in-between scenario the refund has created an incentive for any random stranger to make a few dollars collecting cans and bottles. Rubbish problem solved and no one loses in real terms.
There are plenty of other situations where we see externalities and their charges every day. One big one is the Federal Government's so-called 'Carbon Tax'. Just like the bottle refund it's intended to make us think about our consumption, maybe change our behaviour a little bit and ultimately provide a way to pay for any mess. At the moment it sounds far from perfect but there's room for improvement unless we dump it. But more on that later...
Sunday 17 February 2013
Plus ça change?
Walking down King st, Newtown last night I saw that the Sando has closed! I wasn't heading there anyway, so no harm done, but it was sad to see the doors closed on the faded, peeling deco facade; the emptiness where formerly smokers loitered chatting through windows, schooners perched on the sill. The street felt strangely quiet without the strains of punk, blues, folk wafting through the main bar.
I'd heard about the Sando going into receivership while on the road and had hoped it would recover it's equilibrium and continue serving up cheap beers and local tunes. Things got in the way though and I didn't follow the fate that inevitably felled the iconic venue. It's not all bad news I hear as like the proverbial phoenix the Newtown Social Club will emerge from the Sando's ashes.
The Annandale Hotel has also gone into receivership; only a few days ago I hear. Two amazing live music venues facing uncertain futures and with them the larger question of Sydney's live music scene. It's been discussed at length, by people more astute than myself, that Sydney has a crisis of priorities when it comes to entertainment. Culture has given way to profitability and in so many venues poker machines and flat screen televisions tuned to sport are ubiquitous.
I've heard the arguments for this shift; that publicans are providing the service their patrons demand and given the preponderance of males, that is sport. The pokies themselves, the logic supposedly goes, are a necessary evil without which the indulgence of live music could not be afforded. These arguments have a beautiful, circular logic as the public eat what they are being force fed and told to like it.
My sadness got me thinking about the way we face change, or perhaps more appropriately the way we romantically hold on to old notions. Hotels that have moved their 'business model' away from live music claim that they cannot be profitable without change. They aim to build profit and grow their business and hence they focus on products that bring in cash: drinks, food & pokies. Punters that long for the days of crowded band rooms see this as a sell out, perhaps even a form of exploitation as the pokies hypnotise the crowd in their thrall.
I'm of the more romantic view myself, but I can't help but notice the venues have the power here. With the relative restriction of liquor licenses in Sydney the number of pub/venues is already capped. The flaw I see in the 'business growth' argument is that venues are brainwashing their patrons into a fairly narrow mindset. Effectively they are losing the diversity that a wide entertainment roster brings to their business. That's why a lot of pubs are the stereotypical boys club, particularly on a weekend. This crowd may have deep pockets for a time but can any business survive with such a limited demographic.
For the fans the solution is to support the music where you find it, but I might suggest an addendum to that adage; reject the venues where you don't find it. It's one thing to complain about the change but if we meekly accept it we reinforce the behaviour. That's a hard call to make and I doubt I'll live up to my ideal at all times, but it's worth registering a protest at your local if they never have a band.
Challenge yourself to check out new music as well. It's not all doom and gloom out there with heaps of awesome venues around Sydney; like the Brass Monkey in Cronulla, the Red Rattler in Marrickville or 505 in Surry Hills running the gamut of styles and theatrics. New bands never get old if no one listens and even Dylan took a few shaky steps when he went electric so give them a chance! Couldn't be worse than pub muzak...
The Annandale Hotel has also gone into receivership; only a few days ago I hear. Two amazing live music venues facing uncertain futures and with them the larger question of Sydney's live music scene. It's been discussed at length, by people more astute than myself, that Sydney has a crisis of priorities when it comes to entertainment. Culture has given way to profitability and in so many venues poker machines and flat screen televisions tuned to sport are ubiquitous.
I've heard the arguments for this shift; that publicans are providing the service their patrons demand and given the preponderance of males, that is sport. The pokies themselves, the logic supposedly goes, are a necessary evil without which the indulgence of live music could not be afforded. These arguments have a beautiful, circular logic as the public eat what they are being force fed and told to like it.
My sadness got me thinking about the way we face change, or perhaps more appropriately the way we romantically hold on to old notions. Hotels that have moved their 'business model' away from live music claim that they cannot be profitable without change. They aim to build profit and grow their business and hence they focus on products that bring in cash: drinks, food & pokies. Punters that long for the days of crowded band rooms see this as a sell out, perhaps even a form of exploitation as the pokies hypnotise the crowd in their thrall.
I'm of the more romantic view myself, but I can't help but notice the venues have the power here. With the relative restriction of liquor licenses in Sydney the number of pub/venues is already capped. The flaw I see in the 'business growth' argument is that venues are brainwashing their patrons into a fairly narrow mindset. Effectively they are losing the diversity that a wide entertainment roster brings to their business. That's why a lot of pubs are the stereotypical boys club, particularly on a weekend. This crowd may have deep pockets for a time but can any business survive with such a limited demographic.
For the fans the solution is to support the music where you find it, but I might suggest an addendum to that adage; reject the venues where you don't find it. It's one thing to complain about the change but if we meekly accept it we reinforce the behaviour. That's a hard call to make and I doubt I'll live up to my ideal at all times, but it's worth registering a protest at your local if they never have a band.
Challenge yourself to check out new music as well. It's not all doom and gloom out there with heaps of awesome venues around Sydney; like the Brass Monkey in Cronulla, the Red Rattler in Marrickville or 505 in Surry Hills running the gamut of styles and theatrics. New bands never get old if no one listens and even Dylan took a few shaky steps when he went electric so give them a chance! Couldn't be worse than pub muzak...
Friday 15 February 2013
Recognition...
Yesterday I flew in to Sydney with that fantastic feeling of returning home after eight months. Now as any returning Australian, or visitor knows that feeling is significantly mitigated by the cramps and insomnia of more than thirty hours of flights and transfers. Trying to write last night I was overcome with langour and that strange displaced feeling of being somewhere both so familiar and a little foreign...
Catching up later on the news I'd missed that fantastic feeling returned while reading of the passage of the 'Act of Recognition' through the federal Parliament. The Act commits Parliament to working towards the inclusion and recognition of Australia's Indigenous people in the national constitution. It is significant that this process has begun just as it is shameful that it has taken so long.
Catching up later on the news I'd missed that fantastic feeling returned while reading of the passage of the 'Act of Recognition' through the federal Parliament. The Act commits Parliament to working towards the inclusion and recognition of Australia's Indigenous people in the national constitution. It is significant that this process has begun just as it is shameful that it has taken so long.
The Treaty of Waitangi signed between the Crown and Maori leaders in 1840 began a collaborative, albeit uneven at times, relationship between indigenous New Zealanders and those who would wish to be their sovereigns. No such treaty exists in Australia and collaboration between indigenous leaders and the Federal Government seems bereft of direction. Indigenous Australians have been denied their identity just as surely as they were denied their lands. Colonial policies of integration threatened to wipe out language and cultures tracing thousands of years of history and this continues to happen when we denigrate these memories as 'black armband history'.
While traveling through Europe I was constantly amazed by the depth of history that permeates the land. I was also shocked that this jarred so starkly with my perception of Australian history. My shock was not because we are a 'young' country as is often repeated, but because we are old and this history is not well known. As former NSW senator Aden Ridgeway acknowledges in his recent editorial, constitutional recognition expand our national history from a few hundred years to many thousands of years. It enriches us as a nation and paves the way for a more complete understanding of our history; hopefully, one day I'll have kids who will grow up with a broader knowledge of all Australian people.
Constitutional recognition also offers us the opportunity to remove a stain from the constitution in the form of the so-called 'race powers'. Section 25 and section 51(xxvi) are provisions for both state and federal governments to make race specific laws. These do not exclusively refer to Indigenous Australians, but may do so. The implications of such provisions are frightening, even if they sit unused, and the presence of such provisions is a blot on the most powerful document of a supposedly multicultural country.
The Act of Recognition is only the beginning of the story. If nothing else it means that we can expect a referendum on constitutional change to occur after two years. The 1967 referendum on indigenous suffrage garnered overwhelming support and was passed. This should and must happen again, but it can't be guaranteed unless all Australians get behind it.
If you're reading this then you have some of the story; check out the guys at 'Recognise', from whom I got a lot of background information, and who offer you the opportunity to sign up for the cause of Recognition. Let's make this story our national story...
Monday 11 February 2013
What's in a name?
I see Fred Nile wants to change the name of the NSW Upper House. This would mean that members of the legislative council would go from being known as MLCs to newly minted Senators. Apparently it's sexier this way and besides there's been a spate of mistaken identity cases where insurance salesmen have been mistaken for legislators.
Supporters of the name change maintain that it will reduce public confusion over the role of MLCs. Opponents maintain that with all the navel gazing it's probably better if people don't know what they do.
Meanwhile Green's MP Adam Bandt has been labelled a 'self-proclaimed homosexual' by Australia's newest political wannabes 'Rise Up Australia'. Rise Up's outing of Minister Bandt's presumed sexuality seems to ignore the understanding of gay people, Adam Bandt, oh just so many people that being out and proud is nothing to be ashamed of.
But while we're name calling, am I the only person to note the similarity between the name 'Rise Up' and the popular, independent advocacy group GetUp! A cynical person would think that the right wing crazies were trying to ride the coattails of an established identity by mumming their name.
Names are kind of important it would seem. We know this and that's why you can be 'Smithy' to your mates but Mr Smith to your colleagues (sorry to all the Smiddies out there but it's too easy). Names carry weight; in them we find title, prestige, respect or sometimes shame.
Shakespeare postulated that names are little more than words, what matters is who we are inside. But then again 'Romeo and Juliet' were just trying to get laid, so they would say that. Being a Montague screamed enemy to Juliet's family before anyone took a moment to meet the guy.
So we throw around labels and pretend they tell us all we need to know about a person. It's a survival instinct and frees up a lot of time for movies, books, online gaming (euphemisms are another type of label). No more taking up precious time getting to know the person, we have 'assumptions'; but the label is never the thing itself.
Think about that next time a party like 'Rise Up' use the term homosexual to denote someone not worthy of respect. Now maybe Adam Bandt doesn't deserve your respect. Perhaps you disagree with his political views, or maybe you just barrack for a different AFL team. Respect the man and not the label though. Homosexuality is not a political football to be tossed around by every right-wing bigot trying to make a name.
And while we're talking respect, it's worth questioning political name calling. Maybe MLC is more obscure than Senator but perhaps that reflects on the performance of the members. I'm suspicious of anyone who believes they might change opinions in name only.
This was a political article (just in case I was being too subtle before). I believe there are certain presumptions that pervade Australian (if not global) politics, and we are most definitely going to confront them throughout the coming election campaign.
It's not for me to say who's right or wrong, left or right, left or wrong. I just want to ask questions about our assumptions. I intend to do this throughout the campaign and to maintain pressure where I see politicians attempting obfuscation over truth. Stay tuned...
Supporters of the name change maintain that it will reduce public confusion over the role of MLCs. Opponents maintain that with all the navel gazing it's probably better if people don't know what they do.
Meanwhile Green's MP Adam Bandt has been labelled a 'self-proclaimed homosexual' by Australia's newest political wannabes 'Rise Up Australia'. Rise Up's outing of Minister Bandt's presumed sexuality seems to ignore the understanding of gay people, Adam Bandt, oh just so many people that being out and proud is nothing to be ashamed of.
But while we're name calling, am I the only person to note the similarity between the name 'Rise Up' and the popular, independent advocacy group GetUp! A cynical person would think that the right wing crazies were trying to ride the coattails of an established identity by mumming their name.
Names are kind of important it would seem. We know this and that's why you can be 'Smithy' to your mates but Mr Smith to your colleagues (sorry to all the Smiddies out there but it's too easy). Names carry weight; in them we find title, prestige, respect or sometimes shame.
Shakespeare postulated that names are little more than words, what matters is who we are inside. But then again 'Romeo and Juliet' were just trying to get laid, so they would say that. Being a Montague screamed enemy to Juliet's family before anyone took a moment to meet the guy.
So we throw around labels and pretend they tell us all we need to know about a person. It's a survival instinct and frees up a lot of time for movies, books, online gaming (euphemisms are another type of label). No more taking up precious time getting to know the person, we have 'assumptions'; but the label is never the thing itself.
And while we're talking respect, it's worth questioning political name calling. Maybe MLC is more obscure than Senator but perhaps that reflects on the performance of the members. I'm suspicious of anyone who believes they might change opinions in name only.
...
This was a political article (just in case I was being too subtle before). I believe there are certain presumptions that pervade Australian (if not global) politics, and we are most definitely going to confront them throughout the coming election campaign.
It's not for me to say who's right or wrong, left or right, left or wrong. I just want to ask questions about our assumptions. I intend to do this throughout the campaign and to maintain pressure where I see politicians attempting obfuscation over truth. Stay tuned...
Sunday 10 February 2013
Who's really to blame?
It's never nice to feel guilt, or have to take responsibility. Instinct tells us this, so from childhood it's always the cat or the wind that broke the vase. We shift the blame but avoidance only anesthetizes us to the pain of guilt it doesn't solve anything.
Heaven help you then if you're a celebrity these days; 'a', 'b', 'c' even the 'd' grade celebs have more cameras pointed at them than a British high-street. So when Chrissie Swan snuck a cigarette the other day she was happy snapped by an obliging paparazzo. The really story wasn't Swan or the cigarette, it was her pregnant body that apparently belongs to the world at large to probe, prod and criticise.
Smoking while pregnant is bad (just in case you weren't aware). A quick Google search or even a vox pop of those around you reveals shocked indignation and horror scenarios. Swan wasn't ignorant of this, and we learned as much when she was all but forced to make a public mea culpa on her battle to bag the fag.
What did the public hope to gain by taking to Twitter to shame Chrissie Swan? If helping her was the aim, then the vitriol seems counter productive. Perhaps this was a public awareness campaign against smoking; but then why did it had to wait for a celebrity to get caught in the act? I think Chrissie Swan has been made into the cat that broke the vase, taking the hit for all our little health indiscretions. We need these celebrity mistakes, they're the 'bad influence' that we blame when our own willpower gets weak.
It's not just weak willed people that need to shift the blame though. Three weeks ago I wrote about Jonathan Moylan, the stock crashing, hoaxer living in the bush. Moylan's protest against the proliferation of new mines in Australia exposed (yet again) vulnerabilities in the Australian Stock Exchange. Basically a bunch of people reacted to an unverified news report and sold their shares at a loss. Now instead of blaming the media insiders that allowed the report without verifying it, or even the individuals that panic traded their shares, Moylan is being held solely culpable.
When we shift responsibility we create the illusion that the world's problems might never exist but for the 'bogeyman' being blamed. Private, public and political we have 'bogeymen' surrounding us; disempowering us as we become increasing reliant on a saviour to purge our demons.
We have developed a culture of scapegoating to avoid taking personal responsibility for our actions, as if blame somehow mitigates the damage. This is disturbing at the level of the individual because it perpetuates the cycle; blame fast food and you don't have to look at your personal habits or diet, blame the addictive nature of the pokies and you don't have to consider what drove you to them in the first place. Blame and scapegoating passes responsibility, but there is no one waiting to pick it up.
At the institutional level this culture of 'blame and run' hurts more than just individuals as the moral torpor marginalizes those who stand outside the majority. This is never worse than in the area of political compromise. The most common scenario seems to be a distorted Catch-22, as the humanitarian treatment of asylum seekers becomes equated with soft border protection, and refugees become the scapegoats. Or the question of equal marriage rights for gay people is made synonymous with a disintegration of values and gay men and women are the scapegoats.
The woes of the world have successfully been transferred. There's no need confess or face the truth and this is really bad for us, because the focus is on the problem not on the solution. As we move toward an election this year will we also be interested in blame?
Listen to your local candidates as they campaign for your vote; are they telling you what the other guy is doing wrong, or what they plan to do right? When they tell you someone is to blame they are playing a negative political game and want you to believe that eliminating the problem is the same as a solution. But locking up asylum seekers does not stop more arriving because it does address why they seek refuge in the first place. Preventing gay people from marrying does not strengthen family ties it just prevents good people from making them. Demonizing a tax does not mean there are no meaningful ways for the polis to address climate change.
We must therefore move to address change with a view to judging our flaws meaningfully, not shifting them onto somebody else...
Heaven help you then if you're a celebrity these days; 'a', 'b', 'c' even the 'd' grade celebs have more cameras pointed at them than a British high-street. So when Chrissie Swan snuck a cigarette the other day she was happy snapped by an obliging paparazzo. The really story wasn't Swan or the cigarette, it was her pregnant body that apparently belongs to the world at large to probe, prod and criticise.
Smoking while pregnant is bad (just in case you weren't aware). A quick Google search or even a vox pop of those around you reveals shocked indignation and horror scenarios. Swan wasn't ignorant of this, and we learned as much when she was all but forced to make a public mea culpa on her battle to bag the fag.
What did the public hope to gain by taking to Twitter to shame Chrissie Swan? If helping her was the aim, then the vitriol seems counter productive. Perhaps this was a public awareness campaign against smoking; but then why did it had to wait for a celebrity to get caught in the act? I think Chrissie Swan has been made into the cat that broke the vase, taking the hit for all our little health indiscretions. We need these celebrity mistakes, they're the 'bad influence' that we blame when our own willpower gets weak.
It's not just weak willed people that need to shift the blame though. Three weeks ago I wrote about Jonathan Moylan, the stock crashing, hoaxer living in the bush. Moylan's protest against the proliferation of new mines in Australia exposed (yet again) vulnerabilities in the Australian Stock Exchange. Basically a bunch of people reacted to an unverified news report and sold their shares at a loss. Now instead of blaming the media insiders that allowed the report without verifying it, or even the individuals that panic traded their shares, Moylan is being held solely culpable.
When we shift responsibility we create the illusion that the world's problems might never exist but for the 'bogeyman' being blamed. Private, public and political we have 'bogeymen' surrounding us; disempowering us as we become increasing reliant on a saviour to purge our demons.
We have developed a culture of scapegoating to avoid taking personal responsibility for our actions, as if blame somehow mitigates the damage. This is disturbing at the level of the individual because it perpetuates the cycle; blame fast food and you don't have to look at your personal habits or diet, blame the addictive nature of the pokies and you don't have to consider what drove you to them in the first place. Blame and scapegoating passes responsibility, but there is no one waiting to pick it up.
At the institutional level this culture of 'blame and run' hurts more than just individuals as the moral torpor marginalizes those who stand outside the majority. This is never worse than in the area of political compromise. The most common scenario seems to be a distorted Catch-22, as the humanitarian treatment of asylum seekers becomes equated with soft border protection, and refugees become the scapegoats. Or the question of equal marriage rights for gay people is made synonymous with a disintegration of values and gay men and women are the scapegoats.
The woes of the world have successfully been transferred. There's no need confess or face the truth and this is really bad for us, because the focus is on the problem not on the solution. As we move toward an election this year will we also be interested in blame?
Listen to your local candidates as they campaign for your vote; are they telling you what the other guy is doing wrong, or what they plan to do right? When they tell you someone is to blame they are playing a negative political game and want you to believe that eliminating the problem is the same as a solution. But locking up asylum seekers does not stop more arriving because it does address why they seek refuge in the first place. Preventing gay people from marrying does not strengthen family ties it just prevents good people from making them. Demonizing a tax does not mean there are no meaningful ways for the polis to address climate change.
We must therefore move to address change with a view to judging our flaws meaningfully, not shifting them onto somebody else...
Wednesday 6 February 2013
Chomsky vs. Twitter
Last time I wrote I threw in a quote by Noam Chomsky regarding the de-facto mental slavery we are subject to when powerful interests are allowed to dictate the narratives, the advertising, the media we consume. If you haven't come across Chomsky before I'm going to let you Google him, but suffice to say that I've heard him described as the most influential intellectual of the last fifty years (more than once). Chomsky writes passionately about the individual in the face of larger corporate, political and media influences. He is an advocate of individual action and thought free from coercion.
I'm a fan of Noam, but in my reading for the last post I also came across some comments he made about social media and Twitter. It seemed he was not a fan of the brevity or relative flippancy of tweets and their limited character. He has also described in interviews a view that communication via devices tends towards the "superficial, shallow, evanescent" while Twitter perhaps "draw(s) people away from real serious communication".
Let's face it, he has a point and in Noam's defense these comments were made around the same time Charlie Sheen was lighting up Twitter with a very dim bulb. At it's worst social media is people you've never met telling you they're hungry and then posting a picture of what they're eating (before anyone says anything I do realise that the worst is more like racism, sexism, trolls and attitudes best left in the middle ages). Beyond the shallow though Twitter et al. is also a democratizing force as it allows the audience to decide which voices are heard through comments, critiques and simply by ignoring the undesirable.
If we accept the premise that Twitter is often heavy with trivia and ephemera, this does not exclude the possibility for meaning within 140 characters. Brevity seems to be a particular bugbear for Chomsky as he feels it negates or sidelines controversial, non-mainstream discussion. But 140 characters is merely a window to another world that people may choose to explore at the cost of a mere click. Personally I am drawn back to tweeters who lead to me to more interesting information through links.
As a gateway social media has as many doors to Narnia as it does to last seasons Kardashian closet. The mere presence of crap does not negate it's power to distribute voices however. Just as the printing press gave us newspapers it also helped fill them with comics and personals. We have the opportunity to control the content as it evolves and part of that evolution is engaging, discussing and aggregating voices towards social causes. Daily people create their own content and distribute it via the interweb and social media is a resource they utilise to get word out.
Is there anything to say though?
Embedded in the technology is the mechanism that (hopefully) will see us guide this evolution towards a positive channeling of public voices; Twitter and other microblogging sites are equipped with functions to retweet, comment or simply stop following. While publishing may be free and easy, editing happens at the hands of the public at large. This means that the network of users vote with their 140 characters on whether an opinion expressed is viable. I wrote recently of my first experience with a truly abhorrent Twitter post and how at the hands of the 'Twitterverse' the poster was duly chastened.
In one of the interviews mentioned above Chomsky describes a 'good public citizen' as one "who participates in the management of public affairs". Amongst the idle thoughts and tummy rumblings social media offers a platform for participation that is open and uncensored as yet. Entry criteria for participation is the possession of an online device, and this can be a steep price in some markets, as I've discussed in a previous post. This is changing though and with access comes a proliferation of new voices. For those that can afford it, this is cheap compared to running for office in a developed western democracy.
These technologies offer both shallow, narcissistic interactions and the potential to engage in the public sphere like never before. It requires a little creativity to straddle the line and becomes a daily commitment if you really intend to engage, but I've found it worth the effort. In a future where this technology will become second nature I wonder if our questioning it's validity at length (longer than the aforementioned 140) will seem quaint. Till then I choose to embrace the voice it affords me.
Tuesday 5 February 2013
1000 words...
Not everyone reads blogs, newspapers, or even that little ticker tape at the bottom of the TV. Hell given the option of 140 characters some people throw their hands up in the air and tweet a picture instead!
Messages and the medium in which they are communicated have become wide and varied in the years since Marshall McLuahn assured us the two are related. But with so many competing messages and all the bright flashing lights, what's a person have to do to get noticed?!
...
This morning, feeling more than a little ironic, I decided to visit a musee exposition on street art. It was a no-brainer with all that talent blown inside by the winter winds, I could take the time to contemplate deeply stenciled truths out of the winter cold. I love walking down any random street and suddenly being confronted with something thought provoking, original, not merely plain brick...
Banksy was in there, as was Shepard Fairy (the 'Obama Hope' guy), Space Invader, as well as a bunch I didn't know so well but had seen around. Their images confronted and challenged consumerism, political indifference, privacy and state observation, even as they braved the fate of all ephemera. Issues both personal and global were theirs, just as their canvas was both private and public.
Around the same time I read of the Australian Greens releasing pictures drawn by young children in detention on Manus island. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young wanted the Australian government to see how it's immigration policies were robbing children of their childhood but some commentators on Twitter felt that the pictures were a form of propaganda or emotional blackmail. What is the truth when images cut so deep?
In Triple J's Hottest 100 for 2012 a song called 'Same Love' by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis came in at #15. It's a cool song, even if you're not the biggest fan of hip-hop. Basically it confronts the prejudices people unconsciously reinforce about gay people, to a beat. Now the Hottest 100's a big deal. More than a million people vote every year for these songs and they voted in a protest against the marriage discrimination against gay people.
We know this stuff! We stream the tunes and view the Youtube clips; we decry the graf on our fence but wear the pithy t-shirt. Every time it pisses someone off it means they are taking notice and questioning what's going on. It's definitely better than a Maccas opening on your block and their billboards blocking the skyline.
"Formal slavery has long been abolished, but a de facto mental slavery has replaced it" so says Noam Chomsky in his recent book Power Systems. When we ignore a challenging image but accept an advertisement; this is our enslavement. When we tune out to pop, but turn off a protest song; this is our enslavement.
Outside the gallery someone had reworked some discarded furniture...
Messages and the medium in which they are communicated have become wide and varied in the years since Marshall McLuahn assured us the two are related. But with so many competing messages and all the bright flashing lights, what's a person have to do to get noticed?!
...
This morning, feeling more than a little ironic, I decided to visit a musee exposition on street art. It was a no-brainer with all that talent blown inside by the winter winds, I could take the time to contemplate deeply stenciled truths out of the winter cold. I love walking down any random street and suddenly being confronted with something thought provoking, original, not merely plain brick...
Around the same time I read of the Australian Greens releasing pictures drawn by young children in detention on Manus island. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young wanted the Australian government to see how it's immigration policies were robbing children of their childhood but some commentators on Twitter felt that the pictures were a form of propaganda or emotional blackmail. What is the truth when images cut so deep?
In Triple J's Hottest 100 for 2012 a song called 'Same Love' by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis came in at #15. It's a cool song, even if you're not the biggest fan of hip-hop. Basically it confronts the prejudices people unconsciously reinforce about gay people, to a beat. Now the Hottest 100's a big deal. More than a million people vote every year for these songs and they voted in a protest against the marriage discrimination against gay people.
We know this stuff! We stream the tunes and view the Youtube clips; we decry the graf on our fence but wear the pithy t-shirt. Every time it pisses someone off it means they are taking notice and questioning what's going on. It's definitely better than a Maccas opening on your block and their billboards blocking the skyline.
"Formal slavery has long been abolished, but a de facto mental slavery has replaced it" so says Noam Chomsky in his recent book Power Systems. When we ignore a challenging image but accept an advertisement; this is our enslavement. When we tune out to pop, but turn off a protest song; this is our enslavement.
As Australia goes to an election in 2013 we must think about these messages, but we must also make our own. With so many mediums through which we might be heard we have to go out and occupy that mental space. I don't know what your message might be but it's important that you get it our there for other people to hear it. While you're there take a moment and listen to what other people are saying...
We have infinite opportunities to engage each other, with as many distractions telling us to spend, consume and ignore. I say listen when it resonates with you but don't stop there. Tweet, like, spray, blog, post, comment or do whatever gets you heard and engage. "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery..."
Sunday 3 February 2013
Make Election 2013 about human rights...
It is hard to see how the forthcoming election could offer any positive news for Ranjini and baby Paari.
Elections do not turn on personal stories and certainly not the personal stories of individuals who are not voting members of the country in question. Industrial relations, taxes and economic direction all sound like familiar policy platforms for parties. The fate of vulnerable individuals who are members of a foreign state do not sway our decision; but should they?
The Coalition have promised to entrench indefinite detention or refugees if elected by reinforcing the power of ASIO. This would roll back a review introduced by the Labor government last October. At present Ranjini languishes in Villawood detention center with her newborn child and two other children. Is this to be their lives if they are afforded no recourse to a decision they are not even privy too?
Asylum seekers arriving by boat are a political football, tossed around ad-nauseam throughout election campaigns for the last decade. The result is that any party seen as soft on 'boat arrivals' garners a complementary title of being soft on all leadership matters. Respected Fairfax political correspondent Peter Hartcher discussed this recently, citing a formulation by former PM Kevin Rudd on the primacy of national security. National security is frequently conflated with border security & boat arrivals in the public consciousness, with the result being the demonizing of legitimate refugees.
Refugees are rarely a popular topic. During an election they either fall into the black hole of border security arguments or fade away in importance as Australia discusses domestic concerns and the economy.
Don't believe me? Before the 2010 election Human Rights Watch, an independent, international organisation committed to defending human rights sent the following letter to the leaders of Australia's political parties. It reads just as relevant today; indicating just how little has changed in the areas of refugee and asylum seekers rights.
So why should we consider Ranjini & Paari and the many others in immigration detention awaiting a decision?
Australia is a developed, modern economy that loves to brag about how well we're doing by comparison to the rest of the world. We have also taken a seat on the United Nations security council giving us a platform for global leadership. Even without these considerations I would argue we have a responsibility to assist those most vulnerable in our society, given our current international standing it is imperative that we take a positive leadership stance on Human Rights.
Increasing the national profile of this debate and making it an election issue is something that will only happen if we demand it. Politicians are public servants and never more so than when they are trying to garner your vote to stay in office. Find your local member and write to them sharing your thoughts on the matter. Let them know that you care about human rights as much as, if not more than, the budget surplus or a national highway or whatever they are currently campaigning on.
Your words and your vote set the agenda...
Elections do not turn on personal stories and certainly not the personal stories of individuals who are not voting members of the country in question. Industrial relations, taxes and economic direction all sound like familiar policy platforms for parties. The fate of vulnerable individuals who are members of a foreign state do not sway our decision; but should they?
The Coalition have promised to entrench indefinite detention or refugees if elected by reinforcing the power of ASIO. This would roll back a review introduced by the Labor government last October. At present Ranjini languishes in Villawood detention center with her newborn child and two other children. Is this to be their lives if they are afforded no recourse to a decision they are not even privy too?
Asylum seekers arriving by boat are a political football, tossed around ad-nauseam throughout election campaigns for the last decade. The result is that any party seen as soft on 'boat arrivals' garners a complementary title of being soft on all leadership matters. Respected Fairfax political correspondent Peter Hartcher discussed this recently, citing a formulation by former PM Kevin Rudd on the primacy of national security. National security is frequently conflated with border security & boat arrivals in the public consciousness, with the result being the demonizing of legitimate refugees.
Refugees are rarely a popular topic. During an election they either fall into the black hole of border security arguments or fade away in importance as Australia discusses domestic concerns and the economy.
Don't believe me? Before the 2010 election Human Rights Watch, an independent, international organisation committed to defending human rights sent the following letter to the leaders of Australia's political parties. It reads just as relevant today; indicating just how little has changed in the areas of refugee and asylum seekers rights.
So why should we consider Ranjini & Paari and the many others in immigration detention awaiting a decision?
Australia is a developed, modern economy that loves to brag about how well we're doing by comparison to the rest of the world. We have also taken a seat on the United Nations security council giving us a platform for global leadership. Even without these considerations I would argue we have a responsibility to assist those most vulnerable in our society, given our current international standing it is imperative that we take a positive leadership stance on Human Rights.
Increasing the national profile of this debate and making it an election issue is something that will only happen if we demand it. Politicians are public servants and never more so than when they are trying to garner your vote to stay in office. Find your local member and write to them sharing your thoughts on the matter. Let them know that you care about human rights as much as, if not more than, the budget surplus or a national highway or whatever they are currently campaigning on.
Your words and your vote set the agenda...
Friday 1 February 2013
Trust...
The opening salvo of election 2013 has been fired.
Tony Abbott has declared the election to be about trust. In this statement he has sought to frame the whole election race; if you trust me then you will make me your prime minister he says. What he doesn't really clarify is what this elusive virtue trust is, or how we might apply it to politics.
Tony Abbott has declared the election to be about trust. In this statement he has sought to frame the whole election race; if you trust me then you will make me your prime minister he says. What he doesn't really clarify is what this elusive virtue trust is, or how we might apply it to politics.
Fool!
(I hear you loudly declare)
Trust is simple and you have it or you don't; that PM we currently only kinda, sorta like betrayed our trust when she kept promising things and then changing her mind.
That statement sounds so obvious that I refuse to trust it without giving it a good once over. That's the thing trust, it shouldn't be given blindly. Things are rarely what they seem (especially in politics) and if someone is shouting loudly trying to get you to look at what they're doing with their right hand, there's a good chance they're robbing you with their left.
Firstly let's consider the 'trust me, I don't lie' claim. Every election, large or small, parties (frequently two) claim and counter claim against their policy platforms. They announce plans and schemes for what they will do when they obtain office. The thing is only one party will get into office and that means only one party will be judged on whether they come good on their plans. This makes it simple for the other party to say trust me; they haven't yet been tested. If elections were decided on trust and this was the standard we used it is likely we would swap governments every election. Trust has to be more than simply tallying the plans not enacted because the incumbent will never win.
But ol' Tony may still have a point, Julia did use words like promise and pledge when she was talking about the carbon tax and the budget surplus. Were they promises she could reasonably make? Did she jump, or was she pushed? In both these situations, circumstances outside the party lead to them abandoning their earlier statements (read: breaking their promise). The Greens compelled a scheme that put a price on carbon as part of forming a minority government and global finances, particularly a downturn in China forced a recount of the pennies in the piggybank.
Don't even get me started on whether these 'broken promises' were a good thing. A mechanism for forcing polluters to pay for pollution - tick! A reevaluation supported by the majority of economists - tick! Do we really want politicians of any colour or flavour that are unable to respond to changing circumstances?
So the second point to consider is whether election platforms are the sort of promises that are brought down from the mountain in stone or whether they might be something else. At present the coalition are fairly thin on the ground when it comes to presenting policies. Tony Abbott's reputation as 'Dr No' stemmed largely from his lambasting government policy without offering alternatives. Such a position, viewed in the light of the argument above, seems shrewd. No promises, platforms, positions then there's no chance of being accused of lying if you have to change track. The coalition is waiting for the best time to announce a platform they know they can back. Now we already know the world isn't always kind like that, so let's hope nothing comes up to surprise them.
Even the Greens, ever the hardline, firm statement types have announced a new policy platform filled with 'aims and principles'. Sounds like they know what they want to do, but are smart enough to give themselves a little wriggle room just in case reality gets in the way.
Sounds like Tony Abbott's trust platform isn't quite what it seems. I don't want a politician so set on a particular agenda that they ignore the rest of the world. Our democracy only allows us to personally effect change once every three or so years. In between I want to be able to trust our politicians to think about the issues and move with new circumstances.
Political mistrust seems more the domain of back-room dealings and corrupt politicians. We've seen plenty of that across the board over the last few years, with both parties splitting at the seams on more than one occasion. As far as trust goes though, I'd rather see this election run on policies...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)