A tale of two headlines (or) I like my media independence a little less partisan please!

There's nothing like a light read or even a full on blog attack every now and then. Now I know the faint, familiar scratching of writing has been absent from these pages for many a week, so I thank all of you who've continued to check out the page and keep the flame alive.

My pen has not run dry, I've simply been a little distracted with other projects. Then there is also the issue of carving out a space for words and writing in my life. Virginia Woolf was not kidding when she laid out a room of one's own as a prerequisite for any scribe...
_______

As we speak I'm borrowing a few moments from another project to bash out a few thoughts because today I've been moved to write about writing, by another piece of writing I came across.

The Daily Telegraph for Monday, 5th August announced the impending federal election with the following headline...

"Finally you now have the chance to ... KICK THIS MOB OUT"

The editorial describes a litany of sins perceived to be attributable to the current government. Then goes on to make statements about what 'Australians' know and believe, presenting these tid-bits as fact and not (nearly impossible to verify) opinion.

Here's a little look at the offending cover...

But am I just being over-sensitive? I mean what's the big deal about a newspaper that doesn't particularly like the PM and wants to see him gone?

Well let's presume for a moment that not all Australians of voting age with democratic intentions are as well read as you and I. Perhaps they don't trawl through various media services and social media digesting opinions and critically appraising the information they encounter. Let's presume that some Australians get their news from only one or two sources.

Suddenly independent, balanced reporting starts to look pretty important.

When a news service decide to run opinion as front page news it begins to look suspiciously like campaign material. Publishers are tasked with avoiding this, in fact The Daily Telegraph has a code-of-conduct that includes amidst it recommendations:

• "Editorial employees and contributors should be open-minded, be fair and respect the truth."
• "Facts must be reported impartially, accurately and with integrity."
• "Try always to tell all sides of the story in any kind of dispute."

Today's headline does not come across as open-minded, impartial or fair. It offers truth up to a certain point by mentioning that an election has been called, only to then lean on speculation and opinion. All of these are fine when presented on an editorial page within the context of a range of opinions, but on the front page?!

Savvy readers will not fall for these stunts, but then it is not savvy readers that The Daily Telegraph is pitching at. They are making a cynical attempt to manipulate those who are time poor and disinclined to read widely on the issue.

The antidote to these displays is to take the matter into your own hands and start a conversation with the people you meet. You will be unpopular with some, ignored by many, but ultimately you will have the opportunity to do what The Daily Telegraph seems unable to ... engage a range of opinion.

To #Spill once may be regarded as a misfortune, to #spill twice looks like carelessness*...

Here we go again.

The Australian Labor melodrama has gone from speculation through tension and drama, depositing us all on the other side with the status quo. It's the volvo with bad suspension of all roller-coaster rides!

It seems to me that in the ADHD, 24-hour news cycle of Australian politics leadership speculation has become the treat you enjoy between meals without losing your appetite. When all the talk of elections, budgets, even policies gets a little boring there's bound to be a new poll out asking whether someone else could do the job better. And we love it!

For the punters all this speculation is like a cross between backseat driving and shouting at the television. We know we're unhappy (with something, anything?) and so we take a few moments to dream of a different world. But it doesn't achieve anything.

Our democratic system has taught us that the power is in our hands! I'm not talking about political elections; reality TV and mobile phones let us make the decisions. Live! People seem to view the Labor caucus as something like the 'Survivor' island or 'The Biggest Loser' at weigh in. Worse the members of that caucus obviously feel the same way.

There is a different way for people to engage with politics. Getting involved through online activism, protesting wrongs where you see them or writing letters to your local member give everyone a chance to enter the political debate. Me I write this blog, as well as email, tweet or facebook anyone I think will listen.

Polls are only meant to gauge our opinion on a given day, yet we treat them like de-facto elections. Writing a letter or getting involved in a campaign might not give you the same instant gratification but it will ensure you're playing a part in something real. Not just the latest headline beat-up...

_____________

* Most sincere apologies to Oscar Wilde!

Shout, shout, let it all out*...

One vote every three years and then shake your head in disgust at the antics of government. This was and still is the model of participation for too many Australians.

Regular viewers will remember my last post, a discussion of Tony Abbott's interview on '60 minutes' detailing his regret over past, negative comments about gay people. I followed up this post with a copy of the email I sent Mr Abbott addressing this issue.

Yesterday I received a reply to my email.

My letter contained one simple challenge: for the Coalition to address it's policy on marriage equality. The reply I received from Tony Abbott was written "on his behalf", by whom I don't know. It did not address, or even mention the issue of marriage equality. What I received was thanks, twice, for taking the time to write. I also received a link to read 'Our Plan - Real Solutions for all Australians', which I gather is policy-lite in lieu of actually taking a real position on issues. Tony's response is not the worst offender though.

I'm really not having much luck engaging with politicians lately. Two letters to former Immigration Minister Chris Bowen on asylum seekers; unanswered. One to Brendan O'Connor when he took the Immigration job; unanswered. One letter to the Immigration Minister Pretend Scott Morrison over you know what; unanswered. Tanya Plibersek is currently my hero just for responding to emails, even when she doesn't address the issue.

Engaging with politicians is not an easy task it would seem. Many people I know, passionate people who care about the current state of Australia, express trepidation over writing a letter to a politician. Perhaps they worry they shouldn't bother them, or perhaps that they don't have the letter writing skill? Perhaps they fear their dissenting opinion will be viciously attacked as they see politicians attack each other daily on the news. Political discussion in this country seems in a deplorable state these days and it is alienating everyday Australians.

I like organisations such as GetUp! Australia for the service they provide making both issues and action accessible to everyday Australians. GetUp! describe themselves as "an independent, grass-roots community advocacy organisation which aims to build a more progressive Australia". They run campaigns to promote awareness, fundraise and take action on a range of community issues. Current campaigns include marriage equality, saving the Tarkine and asylum seeker rights.

GetUp! are also frequently criticised over issues such as being extreme, lacking transparency and for trying to 'subvert' the democratic process. As an organisation that is relatively new on the national scene** these are all criticisms that GetUp! have and will continue to address as part of their fight for the inclusion of everyday Australian's views.

What all these criticisms seem to miss though is the philosophy of participation that GetUp! fosters. By harnessing social media and digital culture tools GetUp! effectively engages their member base in a way political parties do not. Most fundamentally they offer an access point to issues by providing information. They then provide a means to take action thropugh their online petitions. Action is scalable though and people wishing to be more involved may write their own letters, donate financially to a campaign or even volunteer their time with GetUp! Finally GetUp! puts control of campaigns into the hands of it's members through CommunityRun, where members can setup and run campaigns important to their own area.

GetUp! is not the only organisation engaging people in accessible, online campaigning. I recently signed a petition run by the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia aimed at saving digital community radio broadcasts. Greenpeace is also running an online campaign aimed at introducing a 10c refundable deposit scheme on a similar online model. Without a social media based strategy I might never had heard of these issues!

Social media engagement may not be the perfect model for activism. It should never replace more traditional models such a letter writing, peaceful protest and debate. But social media activism is a model that facilitates participation by huge numbers of people. Such participation has potential to grow beyond any one group into an engaged population.

So next time you write, if politicians refuse to respond to letters or address issues, remember we just have to ask more questions, make more noise...

"What started as a whisper, slowly turned into a scream..."

Ben Harper

___________

* The post title is of course a reference to Tears for Fears' song 'Shout!' - who says the eighties have nothing to offer!
** GetUp! was founded and became active in 2005
*** I've included links to contact details of the MPs I've mentioned. Check them out and drop them a line about issues you care about.

Leopards, spots & Tony Abbott

Tony Abbott yesterday spoke publicly about his attitudes on homosexuality, leadership and religion. In a fifteen minute interview on '60 Minutes' he expressed contrition that on previous occasions he had expressed opinions characteristic of bigotry and religious zealotry. Such public humility augurs well for the emotional maturity of the man predicted to be the next Prime Minister of Australia.

Unless it's a stunt.

Abbott's message of change was clearly framed as both a break from his past and an indicator of his potential as a leader. '60 Minutes' interviewer Liz Hayes described him as a "twenty-first century man who can admit the mistakes of his past". These views contrast favorably with his hardline image but as the unofficial campaign for election 2013 heats up the timing might be considered suspicious.

The interview addressed comments Abbott had made in 2010 stating he was "threatened" by homosexuality. The public now knows that Tony Abbott's sister is gay and had come out to him in 2010. He reflected that the comments made in 2010 were a reaction to what he perceived as a threat to the "cohesion" of his family. Having us believe that his deeply offensive comments were motivated more by personal confusion than any deeply held belief; Abbott said "I've changed and I'd like to think I've grown" adding "I've said some things then that I don't believe now", describing these comments as "throwaway lines".

The personal, confronting nature of the interview with both Abbott and his sister Christine jarred with the measured responses given by Abbott. The interplay between head-shots and scenes of a cosy family dinner felt to me like a carefully crafted message, but on what?

Public confession has become something of a cottage industry in the media of late. Lance Armstrong being the most recent in a string of public figures to fall on their proverbial swords, presumably hoping to rehabilitate their public persona. Australian politics has it's own precedent with former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke establishing a tradition of public confession that included alcoholism, infidelity and family drug problems. Hawke's mea culpa did little to harm him politically and arguably endeared him to the public as an honest, 'real' character.

Does Abbott then seek approval as the 'everyman', just a knockabout bloke? Scenes from the interview showing him in the surf and cooking a barbeque scream yes and the increasingly populist, presidential nature of our federal election campaigns accords with this strategy. Is this enough though to erase memories of past indiscretions?

There is of course the problem of Abbott's staunch derision of public changes of mind. Frequently on record condemning the Labor government for what he saw as lies over the carbon pricing scheme. He would have us believe these revisions, directed at the cohesion of the Labor/Independent/Green government, were unforgivable but that we should see his own revisions in a more favorable light. Such contradictions should sit uneasily with voters wanting to believe in the integrity of the 'new' man.

One question the voting public must ask is whether these softened attitudes are enough for a potential national leader? When Tony Abbott uses his considerable public profile to make comments against a woman's right to choose or the right of gay Australians to marry he lends credence to discrimination on all levels of society. His public change of heart does not undo the wrongs his public statements have contributed to. It is important to consider that Abbott has not signaled a policy shift on issues such as gay marriage in the wake of this interview. A true reflection of his changed perspective should include public advocacy of issues such as marriage equality and a woman's right to choose.

Ultimately it is up to the public to judge Tony Abbott's attempt to make amends. Describing his challenge to become Prime Minister as the "supreme challenge of my life" may acknowledge his sincerity or simply his ambition. I am not convinced and would prefer to hear 'sincerity' at a time when it is not also politically advantageous.

Marginal or Vulnerable?

So Julia Gillard has hit town in Western Sydney...

The story, as I understand it, is the PM will address the concerns of some of the most vulnerable; families, single parents and low income earners, telling them her vision for the west. The other story, as I understand it, is the PM will be attempting to shore up support in eleven marginal seats. The price of failure is an election loss come September.

Nothing particularly sinister here, especially if you're in western Sydney and have the ear of a politician. Except that between Abbott and Gillard western Sydney must be feeling like the birthday kid that everyone wants to sit next to, just to get a bigger piece of cake!

'Battlegrounds' is what the yanks call it, we prefer terms like 'safe' and 'marginal'. But be they regional, inner city, battler, conservative and green, these are all voter groups whose votes are being courted or ignored in the lead up to the election. The politicians will talk; promising and politicking about why they are best, and expect us to listen.

So how does it feel to be a demographic more than a person?

I find it alienating and also a little confusing. I mean I feel strongly about human rights issues, rent and think infrastructure development around the country is important for all Australians. That barely begins to describe my opinions but buggered if I can find someone speaking to me.

Come election time I'll have to make a choice that may not address all the issues that concern me. Other people may find themselves making a choice over one issue that concerns them.

If you choose based on which party is addressing child payments and tax cuts maybe you're identifying with the 'families' demographic. But if you're voting on environmental action and the carbon tax, you're more of a 'green' demographic. Perhaps you're concerned about financial regulation and your investments from a 'conservative' demographic position. There are other positions though.

Consider those who don't get a vote...

Kids don't get a vote, hell even young adults don't have the chance to poll their opinions which sucks if you've left school and are working and paying taxes but not yet eighteen. This means that parents must give some consideration to their youngsters when they think about who to give their vote to. Childcare and education become issues long after school. Not to mention the health care system and welfare.

Foreign aid, development as well as asylum seekers takes in thousands of people who do not get to vote in our elections. As a globally engaged country Australia is committed to initiatives overseas as well. Holding a seat on the UN security council, more than ever we have an obligation to consider how we act on behalf of refugees, people in crisis and those in war torn nations.

One vote and then three more years. Whatever 'demographic' you ostensibly fall into that's not enough and there's so much more we can do. Don't wait to be a demographic the politicians need to win, demand their attention now.

The people in western Sydney didn't have to wait for the PM to visit. At any time they could write, email or tweet:*

The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
email: 'Contact your PM'
twitter: @JuliaGillard

Or perhaps the alternate PM:

The Hon Tony Abbott MHR
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House
RG 109
Canberra ACT 2600
email: 'Contact Tony'
twitter: @TonyAbbottMHR

Or even the balance of power in the Senate:

Christine Milne's Office
GPO Box 896
Hobart TAS 7001
email: 'Contact Christine Milne'
twitter: @senatormilne

Once every three years we vote to give them all a job. Let's not forget that the rest of the time we can hold them accountable for doing it.

_________

*All contact details were taken from the relevant pollies website and twitter pages. Apologies if they are not correct but good on you for trying to get in touch to try them out!

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.

__________

* 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

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:

• 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... 

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...

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...

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...

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...

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..."

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...  

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.

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...

Election 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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