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...'

The People That You Meet (a Bluesfest follow up)

Do you have an opinion on Coal Seam Gas? Chances are, unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've developed one over the last week. And even if you have been hiding you might be wondering about the toxic concoction bubbling to the surface under your rock...

A recent episode of '4 Corners' on ABC TV entitled Gas Leak! has created an tide of media scrutiny over the processes and effects of coal seam gas on the environment. The '4 Corners' story, and much of the subsequent media, has focussed on the lack of any truly independent research into the environmental fallout from the coal seam gas industry. This lack of transparency by the industry is exacerbated by claims that environmental impact reports were fast tracked, with approvals being granted before all the information was known.

Meeting the Stop CSG team at Bluesfest

Only a few days before the program screened I was at Bluesfest talking with the volunteers and activists involved with the Lock The Gate Alliance. Lock the Gate are a group involved in protecting Australia's environmental, cultural and agricultural resources and they are particularly interested in the potential harm of coal seam gas extraction.  It was a fascinating conversation, especially considering I spend perhaps too much of my time engaging on the wrong side of this keyboard in front of me.

Prior to meeting the group at Bluesfest I had read a little about Coal Seam Gas and found myself generally confused by the wealth of contradictory information available. When I'm uncertain or feel ill-informed on an issue I tend to shy away from getting involved until I know more.

Getting information is not always easy though. Especially when your average Google search returns hits in the millions (21,800,000 when I searched 'coal seam gas') That's where talking to people who are passionate and involved can really help. Here's a little of the information and perspectives I was offered by Melissa & Elly whom I chatted with:

• Only a small percentage of Australia's land is used for crops - One of the big reasons Lock the Gate are locking their gates is because of concern for the viability of agricultural land. Coal seam gas extraction has the potential to contaminate bore water and significantly decrease the available ground water. This may have devastating effects on the 6.5% of agricultural land used for crops

• The effects are being seen on the ground (literally) - while we talked I heard about farmers in the Northern Rivers region who had seen bubbling in rivers and other previously unknown phenomenon. Now I can't report my personal experience of these events, but as a bystander with a vested interest in food production (we all need to eat!) I believe there is reason to be concerned.

• Alternate energy sources are being explored - the team at Lock the Gate are actively involved with groups researching solar energy production. Put simply, they are not blind to the fact that Australians consume energy. They just believe that coal seam gas and the hydraulic fracturing that assists it's extraction are dangerous, environmentally irresponsible ways to meet our energy needs.

Those three short points I've discussed are in no way the full story of coal seam gas and the Lock the Gate Aliance's work. I would encourage anyone interested to click on the links I've provided and gather information for yourself. When I chatted with the group though these three points of information were the ones that tipped my opinion in their favour and convinced me to sign their petition. 

Now I write often on social justice issues and the need for average people to be involved. Increasingly the most accessible and efficient way for people to engage is via the internet. My experience up at Bluesfest has reignited for me the power and potential face-to-face engagement. The Lock the Gate Alliance are real people working, fighting and winning battles in their communities for the right to a safe, sustainable future.

It's been a few days now since the end of Bluesfest and the good vibes and music are still running high. I'll continue to write and sign petitions online. But I'll also be wandering up to people with clipboards more often and asking them the hard questions. If they answer as eloquently as Melissa and Elly, they'll get my support too...

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.

The right to work

The Coalition immigration spokesperson Scott Morrison's comments cast an unwelcome light on the lives of asylum seekers living in the Australian community. He sought to create fear and paint all asylum seekers as criminals. They're not, but that doesn't mean their lives were easy before Morrison opened his mouth.

Last year the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship brought in changes that mean asylum seekers arriving by boat who move into the community on bridging visas will not have the right to work, possibly for up to five years! I've never been unemployed myself but I have known people who describe boredom and later stress at waking up each morning and not knowing what to do with themselves.

Australian society puts a high premium on working. Go to a bbq with friends and invariably you will be asked how work is going. If it's a new friend they'll ask what you do (for work), or if you've been out of touch for a while they'll want to know what you're up to now. Eight or more hours a day for five days a week our identities are solely defined by our jobs. Hell I've even heard friends competing over who spends the longest overtime at work!

The 'dole bludger' is the natural foil to the hard working Aussie. If we love a hard worker, then we hate someone who does nothing and accepts benefits. Unemployment benefits are set low to encourage job seeking; where relative poverty fails, social stigma takes over.

Why then a policy that entrenches unemployment and forces asylum seekers to rely on welfare?

The effects of long-term unemployment are documented as including social isolation, poverty and loss of skills. Psychological effects described by the American Psychological Association include depression, anxiety and poor self-esteem. These effects are not limited to the unemployed person but impact on families and the community in which they live.

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre works to provide aid to asylum seekers as they apply for refugee status in Australia. They report that in 2011-12, 90.8% of asylum seekers were granted permanent protection visas. If the current system had been in place for these asylum seekers they would have entered the community with depleted skills and likely suffering adverse psychological effects.

By denying asylum seekers the right to work the Australian government will achieve little more than entrenching poverty and mental illness amongst thousands of people.

There is no evidence to suggest asylum seekers are 'taking jobs' from other people. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports current unemployment figures of 5.4%. Now economists generally describe figures of around 5% as 'full employment'. That means that asylum seekers enter a job market that can support them, heck even needs them. More importantly they are often filling low skill jobs that most Australians don't want.

Allowing asylum seekers to work also makes good economic sense for those opponents of welfare. Giving a person a job not only gives them purpose, it also gives them an income that they spend in the wider community. No dole bludging here, just productive, contributing members of society.

You can support the right to work of asylum seekers in the community. Read the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre's 'Right to Work Mythbuster' fact sheet then check out their petition. Sign it and take action if you agree that the right to work is important for all people's lives and our community.

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.

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.

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...  

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! 

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!

Followup on Ranjini's story...

Hi all,

I've been diligently working on a follow-up to my last post about civil disobedience that I hope to post soon but I want to interrupt with an update on an earlier post. A little while back I wrote about the detention in Australia of a young, refugee named Ranjini (if you'd like to read it - http://rightzblock.blogspot.fr/2012/12/life-imprisonment.html).

Ranjini was pregnant and there has been a lot of work by a lot of people to help free her before the birth of her baby. Well on the 15th of January Ranjini gave birth to baby boy named Paartheepan or Paari. Unfortunately she had not been freed from immigration detention at the time and as I understand it she has now been returned to Villawood detention center.

Today I'd like to share with you a letter I wrote to my local federal member challenging her on this issue. If you're in reading this in Australia and you feel strongly about this issue I'd challenge you to write to your local member as well. It's easy to do; you'll find their email contact online. If you're not in Australia, perhaps you could get on Twitter and message our Prime Minister on @JuliaGillard. I believe that this is a serious issue, deserving of attention just as I believe that a strong, engaged group of people can make a difference when they raise their voices.

Here's the letter:

Dear Minister,

I have written to you in the past regarding the current government's policies on refugees and asylum seekers. I do not support policies of mandatory detention nor do I support punitive, 'no advantage' policies regarding the processing of boat arrivals. As I have mentioned in the past, it is well documented in the scientific literature that detention has negative physical and psychological consequences for those detained. All of these points I feel must be acted on by a government that is both signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Refugees and a member of the United Nations Security Council.

Today I write out of urgency and sadness on the impacts of these issues. On the 15th of January 2013 a young Sri Lankan woman named Ranjini gave birth to a baby boy in detention. As I understand it both Ranjini and her son have now been returned to Villawood detention center. My understanding of the case is that Ranjini has received a positive refugee assessment from the government but a negative security assessment from ASIO. She now faces indefinite detention without a right to appeal. That's means that the current government is presiding over an illogical, unjust system and the consequence is a newborn child, innocent of any crime is locked up.     

Ranjini's story is not the only tale of detention deserving of attention. It is however the most striking case of the impersonal, bureaucratic attitude both the government and the opposition take of refugee issues. This is not about statistics of numbers on boats; this is a child born in Australian that is deserving of the protections our society offers.  If you are not currently aware of groundswell of support for Ranjini I would recommend you check out the website 'letters for Ranjini' (http://lettersforranjini.com/) for some perspectives on the public's feelings on this issue.

I am a voter in the electorate of Sydney and I would ask you to respond as my local member. I also challenge you to raise this issue in all it's gravity with your colleagues. Ranjini's story raises very real questions about Australia's approach to human rights and justice. If we cannot as a society protect those most vulnerable and respect the rights of those unable to protect themselves we must be judged poorly in the eyes of the world.

More importantly though I would ask you to utilise what influence you have within your party and the government to help free Ranjini and her newborn son before untold harm is done to this new life.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Pople