What was said...

Not a bad week, last week.

Radio 2SM broadcast an interview* between Dr Cathy Kezelman, an expert on adult survivors of child sexual abuse and John Laws. The interview was in response to weeks of activism, yet it felt like it all came together rather quickly.

Briefly...

Back in March Laws hosted an interview with 'Carole' during which he questioned whether she was provocative and possibly to blame for the abuse she suffered between the ages of six and sixteen. Laws glib tone and questioning spoke of the dominant discourse where perpetrators are provoked and victims blamed for the crimes committed against them.

As the furor over the interview threatened to disappear within the twenty-four hour news cycle, online activist groups 'Destroy The Joint' and 'GetUp!' initiated a campaign and petition to demand an apology and education for Laws and his misogynist views. Laws refused to personally accept the petition. He also deferred a request for airtime that would present expert opinion on the issue of sexual abuse.

A slew of incredulous Sydneysiders, your humble blogger included emailed Laws petitioning for the interview. Last Monday I received a reply; his producer assented to scheduling the interview. A flurry of emailing and phone calls between myself, 'Destroy the Joint' and Laws producer saw the interview finally happen.**

So what was said, and what does it all mean?

Really it depends on who you ask: 'GetUp!' emailed victory to it's members citing "John Laws and 2SM have made commendable strides towards ensuring another victim blaming incident won't happen on it's airwaves again". 'Destroy the Joint' offered congratulations to it's members focussing on Laws' humility in acknowledging that "he now knew a lot more about child abuse than he had previously".

Clearly many followers were not pleased with the outcome though. 'Destroy the Joints' Facebook page was divided between celebration and frustration, with one 'Destroyer' maintaining that "he should still lose his job".

And what do I think?

Listening to the interview live I was immediately struck by the way Laws distanced himself from the fallout of the initial interview. Yet when Dr Kezelman was given the chance to speak Laws was polite and engaging. He was receptive to the points made and acknowledged he had something to learn. I felt more could have been discussed but then I'm not typical of Laws audience and nothing is achieved if they start tuning out over the content.

Mine is a very equivocal endorsement of Laws response after the strident opposition I offered to his initial attitude. See I don't believe the world is perfect and that means people need the chance to change.

You win very few supporters by constantly berating the opposition. Laws speaks to a broad audience, though his view is often narrow, that was part of the reason his initial comments were so objectionable. His interview with Dr Kezelman may not have been a call to arms, to combat abuse. However it did reach more people than my writing perhaps ever will. Most importantly it challenged listeners to look at the issue of abuse and victim blaming in a different way. Small changes, but in a large audience these things add up.

So is the campaign over?

Well, no. In the week since the interview I've heard of friends and colleagues making sexist, pejorative comments. I've seen the double standard of male/female expectations play out professionally and socially. The dominant discourse does not shut up so easily.

But I've also talked to people about it. Sometimes they listen, other times not, but I've always left the conversation such that we could take it up another day. Because one thing I know for certain is that you will never change a discourse if you stop talking...

________________________

* You can podcast the show and interview here: http://www.2smsupernetwork.com/podcasts.html just look out for the episode from the 10/4/2013

** Check out the trail of correspondence on my earlier post - 'Opportunities Missed...'

Blame...

Let's get this out of the way from the outset: victims are never to blame for rape or sexual assault.

Yet prominent Australian broadcaster John Laws yesterday asked a woman who had been abused at age six "was it in any way your fault?" Laws goes on in the interview to question whether the woman was provocative during the nine years of abuse she suffered and whether or not she was attractive. Following criticism of the interview Laws stood by his comments, claiming he was "trying to keep it light".

A few days ago I wrote about men and feminism. I posited that for men to contribute they must first challenge their assumptions about equality, women and society and often stop talking; taking time to consider how these assumptions inform the conversation.

At a guess John Laws would not subscribe to my position on this. The self proclaimed 'King of Radio' speaks with full confidence that people are listening. To stop talking would be akin to death for him. His claim that he was keeping it light reveals his deep need to entertain, not challenge or inform. There is no place in his world for challenging assumptions.

This makes Laws a dangerous presence on the radio. Over fifty-four years of broadcasting he has garnered a huge audience, many who see no need to question what Laws says. Laws is the embodiment of oppressive, patriarchal discourse; an old, white guy talking without thinking, who is primarily interested in maintaining his own position.

How do we challenge such ingrained beliefs?

A fantastic picture I saw online recently depicts a girl holding a sign. It says "Why am I dressed like a slut? Why are you thinking like a rapist?" This is the crux of the matter. Too often we focus on the overt, the visual, the thing we can easily identify and that is the victim. We must instead delve into the thoughts, attitudes and beliefs of the attacker; reflect them back in his face.

When John Laws speaks to his sympathetic audience he has his beliefs reinforced. Let's hold a mirror up to his comments and ask what it means when a seventy-seven year old man thinks a six year old or a fifteen year old girl can be provocative?

_____________

There is a very real danger that this story could be overshadowed by other news events. Today's SMH has the story relegated to page #15. following eight pages of election coverage and three pages of advertisement.

You can help keep it on the news agenda, hold a mirror up to victim blaming and show Laws how disgusting his comments really are. Write to him at Radio 2SM and sign the petition demanding an apology started by 'Destroy the Joint'. Only by speaking out will we change the conversation.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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...

Representation?!

A tale of indifference from your elected representatives...

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

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

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

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

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

________

More on Ranjini's story:

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

Rightzblock - Life Imprisonment? 

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

Rightzblock - Followup to Ranjini's Story 

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

Letters for Ranjini 

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

Chilout 

Fantastic organisation campaigning on behalf of children in immigration detention.

Chris Bowen - Minister for Immigration 

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

over the issue of children being locked up!