Half the Sky

For those who skim, maybe only read my opening lines:

"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...

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.

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.

See names are important and if that sounds familiar it's because in my last post I talked quite a bit about names; the way they can be used to convey power and status, or attempt to remove it by belittling someone. Names are the way we recognise who someone is and if we don't give them to ourselves someone else will find one for us. How much more difficult then to not have a name?

Indigenous Australians were recognised as citizens and given the vote in 1967; essentially acknowledging that them as members of Australian society. As important as this act was it reads more like a 'welcome to Australia' for a people whose existence on this continent predates European settlement by thousands of years. Compare this relationship with that of the Maori and the British in New Zealand.

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...

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.