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!

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... 

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...

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.

Tweeting the Zeitgeist

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

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

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

than homophobia, hate speech. #TessCorbett @BernardGaynor'

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

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

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

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

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

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

 @BernardGaynor and take his voice away!'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a right to my opinion...

I hate that expression!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___

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

You can't do that!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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