Who is in control of the Victorian (neoliberal) opposition?

Recently, the biggest opposition party (the neoliberal party) in my home state announced that, as part of their education policy for the coming election, they wanted to make some changes – specifically, they want to allow LGBTIQ kids to be bullied, and they want to instil their version of “Australian values”.

Of course, they didn’t phrase it that way – they referred to “a broader anti-bullying programme”, for instance.

Well, bullying based on sexuality and gender identity is a part of that broader view of bullying (and there are other targets), and the evidence  shows that Safe  Schools was what was needed to manage that sub-set of bullying. Cutting that back will, in addition to harming its targets, limit the ability of parents to do their job of raising LGBTIQ children (from a party which, as I understand it, thinks parents should have more say?), directly contradict the principle within the “Four Freedoms” set out by the USA’s 32^nd President, Franklin D Roosevelt of “Freedom from Fear”, as well as contravening the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 1, 2, 3, 16, 25 and especially 26, which guarantees the right to education that bullying of LGBTIQ children restricts), and will harm the economy (from a party which claims to be good at economic management) by denying young LGBTIQ people the opportunity to develop and contribute their full skills to the economy – but I suppose that doesn’t stack up against the emotional discomfort of a few conservatives in the neoliberal party who are unable to cope with the fact of gender identity covering more than the old, thoroughly discredited two polarities view.

This policy can – ad is, by me – viewed as getting cheap votes from the fearful, the uninformed (or misinformed), and the hateful - at the expense of belittling and attacking a relatively small minority of human beings, and those who care about them (including parents and other family, friends, students, peers, and teachers).

It is ironic that this is happening in the party that decriminalised homosexuality in Victoria in the 1980s, and which was supportive (with a modicum of education, which was offered to all sides) of reforms of Victoria’s human rights laws in 2000 to support gender diverse people – which, of course, was before John Howard tore any connection to Menzies out from the heart and soul of that party.

The descent of the neoliberal party since then has been shown by the malicious , damaging and harmful  lies at a Federal level during the recent postal survey on Equal  Marriage.

However, there were also those in the neoliberal party (and churches) who, during that debate, showed that there is still some of Menzies’ “small l” liberalism left– for example, the originator of the Bill which was ultimately passed.

So the question needs to be asked: who is behind this move at a state level? Perhaps that question can be more broadly phrased, “who is in charge of the Victorian neoliberal party?” – which is a topic that I recently examined at a Commonwealth level.

In this state level instance, has this decision been taken by (amoral?) political advisors, the aforementioned conservatives, the neoliberal party more generally, or the neoliberal party leadership?

In any event, the policy shows exactly the same short-sightedness of attacking the South Sudanese community over alleged youth gang violence, which pushed Victoria backwards into racism, and the now several decades long, racist xenophobia against asylum seekers at a Federal level (I do not and never have believed that it is about maritime safety – Italy’s response to recent, similar events shows how a safety-focused response truly looks) which accelerated the politics of fear in this nation: this current neoliberal party policy proposal would push Victoria backwards into homophobia and transphobia – it would divide and harm our society. To be clear: the harm is not only to LGBTIQ people and those who care about them, it is also to the society that is actively choosing to manifest that hate.

Choosing actively, but, thanks to what I consider to be political and media manipulation, not deliberately (perhaps a better word is deliberatively) choosing …

So … finally, in view of all that: what is their version of Australian values?

Link to another post

Some thoughts on my main blog (here) may be of interest.

Hypocrisy and/or weakness by Australia’s neoliberal Prime Minister?

There has been, for some time, a sense of political weakness about Australia’s (neo)Liberal Prime Minister: apart from poll results, there has been blunt internal criticism, pressure to adopt a Royal Commission into banking, criticism of his Cabinet reshuffle, indications of defensiveness – and even good news comes with a swipe about being “embattled”.

Now, anecdotally, when a political group or their leader is under extreme pressure, one of the tactics that some resort to is a “diversionary  war”. Argentina’s war to reclaim the (as they term them) Malvinas (the Falkland Islands to most English speaking nations) in the 1980s is one example of this. Politically, though, a diversion or distraction does not necessarily need to be a violent conflict. I couldn’t find a site giving a good overview of this, but some examples can be found here, here, and here.

It is therefore concerning when a Prime Minister who allegedly wants an Australia that is better with regards to race, decides to trot out the race card by highlighting that aspect of a youth crime problem in Australia’s most progressive state, Victoria - further spiced up with juicy allegations about Victorians not feeling safe to go out.

The entirely predictable result of these allegations and comments has been racist abuse of, and fear amongst the, African – particularly the South Sudanese – community in Victoria.

There are two aspects to this: racism, and crime.

Dealing with the latter issue first, other conservative neoliberal politicians around the PM have made it clear that they have a simplistic analysis of the problem of crime:

   if someone is doing wrong, punish them harder until they stop.

Unfortunately, crime doesn’t work that way.

Although tougher penalties are probably quite genuinely deterrents to law abiding people, the issue is what works on those who do not obey laws, and may well not think of consequences before they act:

• an examination of violent crime I once read included the following: “Part of the answer is that these people are hurting and attempt to redeem their sense of importance through hurting another. It comes back to a view of the world that sees dominance and force as being signs of real power. A belief that unfortunately we see mirrored in the way we respond to crime”;
• it is well worth carefully examining the successful, evidence based “Cure Violence” model developed by medical experts in the USA;
• in addition, this expert review mentions the link between drugs and crime, which is a theme that has been around for quite some time;
• in my case, based on some former relatives who were troublesome at times during their youth, I have the view that growing up and getting families and jobs will do a great deal to end such youthful problems; and, finally,
• a critique of Queensland’s “bikies law” (VLAD) credited an increase in the numbers of police, not the harsher law, with achieving the reduction in crime.

“Tough on crime” is simple to understand, comforting to law abiding citizens, and evidentially flawed.

Now, on top of the issue of the actual extent and severity of crimes, there is the issue of feeling safe (which, sadly, too often fail to correspond with reality).

The last time a neoliberal politician tried raising this in the context of Victoria (in February, 2017), a FactCheck showed that, based on crime victimisation surveys (which include unreported crime), crime is actually falling (in addition, last year reported numbers of crime were also down 6.2%). Perhaps the most accurate source of information on perceptions of safety in Victoria is the first report of the “Community Safety Trustee”.

Furthermore, in terms of feeling safe, what about those law-abiding Victorians of African ethnicity who feel unsafe because of both (a) Australia’s historic and current racism (as exemplified by how we have treated and still treat – badly – indigenous Australians), and (b) Australia’s harsh attitudes towards refugees and “new Australians” – unwelcoming attitudes which go back to Irish convicts in the late 1700s and early 1800s, Chinese immigrants in the 1800s, Europeans after the Second World War, Vietnamese in the 1970s, and African refugees who started arriving in the 1980s?

We have, apart from the harm we have actively inflicted in recent years, a history of not helping people who have come from regions subjected to violence (see here and here) very well; those two trends have combined to disastrous effect, at times (see here, here and here).

Adding marginalisation from further racism and an undue focus on a crime problem, that white youths also have, on top of this is not going to help that community, nor the broader community.

It should be kept in mind that this is not the first time gang and/or youth crime problems have been an issue (I recall a gang in Noble Park called the 3174s, if memory serves, in the 90s, for instance): we have dealt with such problems successfully in the past, and also more recently (e.g., by evidence being used to reduce Geelong youth crime): this is one more such incident, and it is likely that we will also successfully deal with it.

Furthermore, history suggests we will eventually learn to accept these new Australians.

However, the legacy of any racism that has been created during these efforts to achieve success will live on, and scar the individuals giving and receiving that racism, the groups both sets of people come from, and society as a whole.

Let’s cut that whole set of problems off before it gets started by being more temperate in what we say, and hope that our elected representatives follow suit.