As I work my way through a summary of Jon Meacham's "The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels" (Amazon), I came across a comment that Walter Bagehot identified (in his 1867 book "The English Constitution") that the two crucial parts of government of a free people were the efficient, dealing with the rules and the work of government, and the dignified, which should “excite and preserve the reverence of the population".
How is the Morrison government doing on that second point?
Monday 30 December 2019
Wednesday 25 December 2019
Why, Scotty from Marketing, why?
For those who don't know, "Scotty from Marketing" is the latest disparaging term used for our (Australia's) current Prime Minister, He's been the epitome of neoliberalism, as one would expect, but, what was not expected, is that he has also failed to show leadership with our current bushfire crisis. There has been considerable excoriation of his actions, but no proper consideration as to why he has behaving this way.
It is possible he feels overwhelmed - after all, there is some doubt about whether he was a genuine contender to replace Malcolm Turnbull, or whether he was a sacrificial lamb no-one was too worried about, figuring a genuine leader could be elected after losing in 2019 (which didn't happen) and have enough years to develop as a leader. Having been re-elected, part of which showed his political cunning, it is possible that, not having properly prepared for such a role, he was overwhelmed by the crisis.
It is also possible that his ideological fixation on financial numbers, a trait that seems to be characteristic of current (neo)liberals, has blinded him to the need to focus on giving human beings help in a form that they can immediately appreciate, access, and use.
It is the second possibility that I want to briefly consider further.
I've touched on this sort of thing before - see here (particularly "virtue signalling") and here (and especially note that order, for many police, "feels good"), and describe it as being about "wanting to feel good". See also https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2019/12/post-no-1463-cross-posting-why-scotty.html.
Everyone wants to feel good, and there a wide range of things that contribute to that - food, good health, relationships, sex, love, security. Abraham Maslow famously set out a hierarchy of needs which covers such things, and Franklin D. Roosevelt described four freedoms (two freedoms from negative matters, and two positive freedoms) that also outline a set of ways to feel good.
Where this becomes significant is in considering how to change someone who, for whatever reasons (parental approval, intellectual satisfaction, personal flaws limiting comprehension as to why good numbers would not satisfy them, etc), has become fixated on neoliberalism and economic numbers, rather than what the numbers are supposed to be about, which is meeting people's needs and enabling their happiness.
Sure, there are times when sacrifice is necessary (wars to maintain freedom, for one), but using that to justify austerity outside of recessions, depressions and (genuinely justified - which excludes the invasion of Iraq in 2003) wars on the mistaken belief that a set of good numbers will bring others the same pleasure one has is a flaw - personal and/or organisational, depending on who or what is exhibiting it.
How can that flaw be changed?
How can one turn a neoliberal into a liberal?
Politically speaking, what is more important is ensuring voters truly understand the choices they are faced with, but my life is not limited to politics: I also have a strong, genuinely and deeply held religious belief system which is based on compassion, and that causes me to want to heal neoliberals - which may also have the - side but not minor - benefit of knowing how to ensure neoliberals do not create more mini-me neoliberals, or how to change those that are spawned.
Going back about three or four decades (and for a year or so more recently), I spent some time in spiritualism, exploring it all those decades ago and more recently as an outlet for some of my alternative life practices (sadly ended by discrimination and in-fighting), and one of the points they emphasised that stuck with me, although I considered a simplification that didn't always apply, was an admonition to not take someone's belief away unless you have first given them something new to hold to. I've paraphrased that somewhat, and there is sometimes a necessity to challenge a belief in order to make room for a healthier belief system (or worldview, to give it its proper name).
When interacting directly with neoliberals - such as our current Prime Minister - I suspect what may be required is to remind them what the basis for their belief in good numbers means - which is the wellbeing of people in our society (they may be making the mistake of thinking if the institutions and organisations have "good" financial numbers, it means society and thus individuals are OK - which is exactly the same mistake the UN made at its foundation, when it thought minority rights didn't need to be considered if individual rights were OK: that means some education on how societies function, and the wide range of what is "good" for people may involve - including that ensuring human rights over bigotry is better for society). If someone can get through to them that the short term harm of what-neoliberals-consider-good-numbers far outweighs any possible benefit of the numbers, then it opens a door that we might be able to use to start exploring how to get them to come to grips with the immediate and existential climate crisis.
And outside of the spiritual sphere, I will continue to actively advocate for people-based, progressive policies which aim to promote the creation and survival of a healthy society.
It is possible he feels overwhelmed - after all, there is some doubt about whether he was a genuine contender to replace Malcolm Turnbull, or whether he was a sacrificial lamb no-one was too worried about, figuring a genuine leader could be elected after losing in 2019 (which didn't happen) and have enough years to develop as a leader. Having been re-elected, part of which showed his political cunning, it is possible that, not having properly prepared for such a role, he was overwhelmed by the crisis.
It is also possible that his ideological fixation on financial numbers, a trait that seems to be characteristic of current (neo)liberals, has blinded him to the need to focus on giving human beings help in a form that they can immediately appreciate, access, and use.
It is the second possibility that I want to briefly consider further.
I've touched on this sort of thing before - see here (particularly "virtue signalling") and here (and especially note that order, for many police, "feels good"), and describe it as being about "wanting to feel good". See also https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2019/12/post-no-1463-cross-posting-why-scotty.html.
Everyone wants to feel good, and there a wide range of things that contribute to that - food, good health, relationships, sex, love, security. Abraham Maslow famously set out a hierarchy of needs which covers such things, and Franklin D. Roosevelt described four freedoms (two freedoms from negative matters, and two positive freedoms) that also outline a set of ways to feel good.
Where this becomes significant is in considering how to change someone who, for whatever reasons (parental approval, intellectual satisfaction, personal flaws limiting comprehension as to why good numbers would not satisfy them, etc), has become fixated on neoliberalism and economic numbers, rather than what the numbers are supposed to be about, which is meeting people's needs and enabling their happiness.
Sure, there are times when sacrifice is necessary (wars to maintain freedom, for one), but using that to justify austerity outside of recessions, depressions and (genuinely justified - which excludes the invasion of Iraq in 2003) wars on the mistaken belief that a set of good numbers will bring others the same pleasure one has is a flaw - personal and/or organisational, depending on who or what is exhibiting it.
How can that flaw be changed?
How can one turn a neoliberal into a liberal?
Politically speaking, what is more important is ensuring voters truly understand the choices they are faced with, but my life is not limited to politics: I also have a strong, genuinely and deeply held religious belief system which is based on compassion, and that causes me to want to heal neoliberals - which may also have the - side but not minor - benefit of knowing how to ensure neoliberals do not create more mini-me neoliberals, or how to change those that are spawned.
Going back about three or four decades (and for a year or so more recently), I spent some time in spiritualism, exploring it all those decades ago and more recently as an outlet for some of my alternative life practices (sadly ended by discrimination and in-fighting), and one of the points they emphasised that stuck with me, although I considered a simplification that didn't always apply, was an admonition to not take someone's belief away unless you have first given them something new to hold to. I've paraphrased that somewhat, and there is sometimes a necessity to challenge a belief in order to make room for a healthier belief system (or worldview, to give it its proper name).
When interacting directly with neoliberals - such as our current Prime Minister - I suspect what may be required is to remind them what the basis for their belief in good numbers means - which is the wellbeing of people in our society (they may be making the mistake of thinking if the institutions and organisations have "good" financial numbers, it means society and thus individuals are OK - which is exactly the same mistake the UN made at its foundation, when it thought minority rights didn't need to be considered if individual rights were OK: that means some education on how societies function, and the wide range of what is "good" for people may involve - including that ensuring human rights over bigotry is better for society). If someone can get through to them that the short term harm of what-neoliberals-consider-good-numbers far outweighs any possible benefit of the numbers, then it opens a door that we might be able to use to start exploring how to get them to come to grips with the immediate and existential climate crisis.
And outside of the spiritual sphere, I will continue to actively advocate for people-based, progressive policies which aim to promote the creation and survival of a healthy society.
Sunday 22 December 2019
This week
There has been some interesting reading this week:
Now, India before the British occupation was one of the most influential nations in the world - particularly economically. India also was if not the, one of the first places in the world to ban slavery, more than two millennia ago (under Emperor Ashoka), and India's Hansa Mehta "was responsible for changing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 'all men are created equal' (Eleanor Roosevelt’s preferred phrase) to 'all human beings' " (see here). India's largely ahimsa-based campaign for independence also set the standard for all such campaigns.
India at independence in 1947 became two nations: the secular and multilateral India, and Muslim-based Pakistan - which was a dominion for nine years, before becoming today's Islamic Republic (in the 1970s, East Pakistan fought a war to become independent Bangladesh - in which while "recognising Islam as the country's established religion, the constitution enshrines secularism and grants freedom of religion to non-Muslims"). Relations between India and Pakistan has been poor, with several wars fought. I've written about some of this here.
Since then, India has been more democratic, and better on human rights, than Pakistan:
There have been concerns about the state of democracy in India under the Modi government, which has implemented neoliberal policies, and has actively promoted Hindutva. (Incidentally, although the links I've used are from Wikipedia, most of my information for quite some years is from the online edition of "The Hindu". I have colleagues who are Indian - or are of Indian heritage, but we discuss work matters, not India. I discussed human rights with a past colleague, at a different company, but that was in the context of his family being forced to flee the anti-India Fiji coup.)
India is now experiencing considerable unrest over a new law which excludes Muslims from obtaining citizenship - The Hindu has packages of information on this here, here, here (in support of the Act), and see also here. Some of the outstanding imagery has been of Sikhs and Hindus standing together to protect Muslims.
Some of the criticism is from other nations - such as Malaysia. On relations between India and Malaysia, from the Wikipedia article:
I hope India has the sense to listen, unlike my nation, which has failed to listen to the admonishments of its diplomatic friends and its citizens on climate change and discrimination, and the USA, whose leadership has also failed to listen to its diplomatic friends, its citizens, and sanity, on many things.
again, negative or absent "leadership" and negative conduct has been an issue:
- Robert Reich - "Trump is the natural consequence of our anti-democracy decade";
- the five signs of leadership failure from the time that the Great Plague tore through 14th Century Europe;
- "Vital Signs: Australia’s nation-building opportunity held hostage by the deficit daleks", by Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW;
and there have been some good responses to these problems:
- George Monbiot wrote "There is an antidote to demagoguery – it’s called political rewilding";
- Léonie de Jonge, Assistant professor in European politics and society at the University of Groningen, wrote a letter to the media "Don’t mainstream the far right", listing three possible responses.
Moving on:
- Robert Galbraith aka "Joanne Rowling" has shown themself to be a transphobic bigot, which leads into:
- the 20 reasons that "Scott Morrison is Unfit to be Prime Minister", by Alastair Lawrie, both of which lead into the Morrison "government" 's Mediaeval Theocracy Re-establishment (aka "Religious Discrimination") Bill and related matters:
- "Anti-LGBT discrimination has a huge human toll. Research proves it", from the Washington Post (byline Nathaniel Frank and Kellan Baker);
- "Here’s Proof That Trans People Are The New Target Of ‘The Australian’s War On Queer People", on Junkee, by Joshua Badge & Alex Garcia Marrugo;
- "Amended Religious Discrimination Bill is worse and should be rejected", from the Human Rights Law Centre;
and
- "Being a video vigilante can serve the greater good, but that doesn't mean it's always right", by Daniel Flitton, on the ABC.
Now, India before the British occupation was one of the most influential nations in the world - particularly economically. India also was if not the, one of the first places in the world to ban slavery, more than two millennia ago (under Emperor Ashoka), and India's Hansa Mehta "was responsible for changing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 'all men are created equal' (Eleanor Roosevelt’s preferred phrase) to 'all human beings' " (see here). India's largely ahimsa-based campaign for independence also set the standard for all such campaigns.
India at independence in 1947 became two nations: the secular and multilateral India, and Muslim-based Pakistan - which was a dominion for nine years, before becoming today's Islamic Republic (in the 1970s, East Pakistan fought a war to become independent Bangladesh - in which while "recognising Islam as the country's established religion, the constitution enshrines secularism and grants freedom of religion to non-Muslims"). Relations between India and Pakistan has been poor, with several wars fought. I've written about some of this here.
Since then, India has been more democratic, and better on human rights, than Pakistan:
- Freedom House's 2019 ratings for these two nations were 75 for India (free), and 39 for Pakistan (partly free).
- Articles on human rights in India here, and Pakistan here - and here, for my nation, which has ongoing problems around racist treatment of indigenous people and refugees, and has a neoliberal "government" which is seeking to introduce religious discrimination. (Australia was ranked 98 by Freedom House in 2019, but the neoliberal "government" 's religious discrimination bill will knock that rating down if it passes.)
There have been concerns about the state of democracy in India under the Modi government, which has implemented neoliberal policies, and has actively promoted Hindutva. (Incidentally, although the links I've used are from Wikipedia, most of my information for quite some years is from the online edition of "The Hindu". I have colleagues who are Indian - or are of Indian heritage, but we discuss work matters, not India. I discussed human rights with a past colleague, at a different company, but that was in the context of his family being forced to flee the anti-India Fiji coup.)
India is now experiencing considerable unrest over a new law which excludes Muslims from obtaining citizenship - The Hindu has packages of information on this here, here, here (in support of the Act), and see also here. Some of the outstanding imagery has been of Sikhs and Hindus standing together to protect Muslims.
Some of the criticism is from other nations - such as Malaysia. On relations between India and Malaysia, from the Wikipedia article:
"India has a high commission in Kuala Lumpur, [1] and Malaysia has a high commission in New Delhi [2] and a consulate general in Chennai and Mumbai. [3] [4] Both countries are full members of the Commonwealth of Nations [5] , Asian Union and G15.[6] India and Malaysia are also connected by various cultural and historical ties that date back to antiquity.[7] The two countries are on excellently friendly terms with each other seeing as Malaysia is home to a strong concentration of Indian immigrants. Mahathir Mohamad, the fourth and longest serving Prime Minister of Malaysia has Indian ancestry.[8] On trade front their bilateral trade volume stands at $10.5 billion and is poised to reach $25 billion by 2020."When even your friends - and Malaysia fits that definition diplomatically, and, given the problems with Muslim Pakistan, that is significant - criticise what you are doing, it is time to start take a moment to reflect on what you are doing. This Act does not only simplistically exclude Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan (who may have fled because they were trying to improve human rights in those nations and were being discriminated against for that), it also even excludes Hindus fleeing from Sri Lanka, Hindus and Buddhists fleeing Nepal and Bhutan, Buddhists fleeing the genocide China is committing in Tibet, and Rohingya fleeing the ongoing genocide in burma - which is currently before the ICJ.
I hope India has the sense to listen, unlike my nation, which has failed to listen to the admonishments of its diplomatic friends and its citizens on climate change and discrimination, and the USA, whose leadership has also failed to listen to its diplomatic friends, its citizens, and sanity, on many things.
Saturday 21 December 2019
Climate change and the media
One of the things that has surprised me on Twitter is some people saying the media needs to do better on the climate crisis. I suspect that must be from people who read the "conservative" (right wing) papers, or watch TV as their main source of news. I just did a brief search at my two favourites news sites (The Conversation and The Guardian Australia), and found the following - and there is more, much more, going back for years.
Media reporting is not the problem; people ignoring what is being pointed out to them is - and maybe using poor (expletive deleted - no adult only filter on this blog) media sources.
In fact, I would suggest all people think carefully what they click on or buy or listen to or watch: if you are outraged by something, your engagement with that site, or your money, just encourages them to keep doing more - your outrage, no matter how widely spread or loudly proclaimed, is simply ignored, and actually counts in their favour in their accounting books.
The Conversation:
Media reporting is not the problem; people ignoring what is being pointed out to them is - and maybe using poor (expletive deleted - no adult only filter on this blog) media sources.
In fact, I would suggest all people think carefully what they click on or buy or listen to or watch: if you are outraged by something, your engagement with that site, or your money, just encourages them to keep doing more - your outrage, no matter how widely spread or loudly proclaimed, is simply ignored, and actually counts in their favour in their accounting books.
The Conversation:
- The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial - 29th November, 2019 ;
- People around the world will act on climate change to create a better society: study - 29th September, 2015;
- What does ‘belief’ in climate change really mean? - 10th August, 2012; and
- (yes, I know this is from The Guardian) Eric Abetz compares The Conversation to Nazis over stance on climate change denial - 19th September, 2019.
- Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment (to use the term "climate crisis") - 17thMay, 2019 and The media is failing on climate change – here's how they can do better ahead of 2020 - 30th April, 2019 (which was part of a joint project aimed at improving reporting GENERALLY on this issue);
- Climate change costings that don't count the cost of inaction are worthless - 5th May, 2019;
- It’s not just Greta Thunberg: why are we ignoring the developing world’s inspiring activists? - 5th October, 2019;
- Climate change denial is evil, says Mary Robinson - 26th March, 2019, Has the politics of climate change finally reached a tipping point? - 15th May, 2019, and Scotland faces climate 'apocalypse' without action to cut emissions - 31st May, 2019;
- Planting trees can help save the planet – but only if governments put people first - 9th July, 2019, Re-greening: can Louisville plant its way out of a heat emergency? - 21st November, 2019, and A eureka moment for the planet: we’re finally planting trees again - 13th February, 2018;
- Climate change made extreme heat before 2018 Queensland bushfires 'four times more likely' - 13th November, 2019;
- Climate change making storms like Idai more severe, say experts - 20th March, 2019;
- Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions - 9th October, 2019, G20 countries triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis - 25th June, 2019, and ExxonMobil faces EU parliament ban after no show at climate hearing - 22nd March, 2019;
and - almost anything by George Monbiot, who has been writing for The Guardian for many years (decades, I think).
Friday 20 December 2019
Cross posting: Post No. 733 - The Battle for the Soul of Australia
This is an even older post, from around four years ago, on my main blog, originally published at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2015/07/post-no-733-battle-for-soul-of-australia.html.
I recently did something I don't often do: watch some television. Even more rarely, I actually listened to an ad (mainly because I forgot to mute it), one for an SBS programme called "Go Back to Where You Come From", which aims to educate xenophobic people by showing them the conditions that refugees come from - which suffers from the dual flaws of assuming that all xenophobes (a) have compassion buried somewhere in them, but accessible by the experiences of the programme (I think it is buried much deeper than that), and (b) don't know this already. At any rate, during the ad a xenophobe accuses a whistleblower, someone who had brought out the truth about Australia's abuse of children and other asylum seekers, of being a traitor.
It was all a bit (stereotypical) teenagers squabbling in the schoolyard, as so much TV is, but ... in the sense that the xenophobe - who has been stirring up quite a bit of attention her small-minded self of late - meant, I also am a traitor to "Australia" - specifically, I am a traitor to her xenophobic Australia, an Australia that is so fearful, insecure and small-minded that it has no compassion, hospitality or caring for anyone else. Two of my ancestors were shipped out from Ireland in the early 1800s for "defending their mother's honour against some English soldiers" (i.e., stopping them from raping her), and they were renowned for their hospitality and welcoming of travellers and strangers (including indigenous people). In general, I suspect the Irish traditions of hospitality contributed to the Australians view of ourselves in the 1800s and early 1900s as a welcoming people (flawed though that was, with the notorious White Australia policy that, infamously, contributed to South Africa's apartheid policy), a view still surviving in the view of us as being "neighbourly" .. which is not, and often has not been, true.
The Australia I support is truly generous, welcoming and compassionate - truly "neighbourly", but in a sense that is not focused on the small, one that looks at all humanity (actually, all life) and has room in it's heart to say to the small numbers of refugees who reach us "I acknowledge and am touched by your suffering: let me heal you". The xenophobe is traitor to that Australia.
It all brought to mind a problem I've observed in this battle of late: those who are advocating for refugees know it is important - vital even, and it is: a battle for Australia's soul - but they do not have the eloquence and/or awareness to say that, or to talk of spiritual principles (sadly, those are often either confused for religious principles, or ridiculed). We have no Martin Luther Kings here - or even people who can overcome their emotion enough to come up with a riposte along the lines of the one I just wrote about.
The situation is, ironically, better in the case of the battle for LGBTIQ rights: there, advocates have known that we need to build support by educating people - which was a key part of the reforms I was part of in the late 1990s. There was no focus on marches and demonstrations and numbers, which is a flaw I find too many activists have: there had to be a focus on educating people. Now, both sides think it is a case of big numbers in public demonstrations, whereas it has to be more than that.
Numbers will demonstrate what people think, but that isn't necessarily right. The letter writing campaigns of Amnesty International, for example, are not based on "numbers in the street": they are based on issues, and what is right - and have been remarkably successful.
If numbers in the street were the sole issue, we would not have had anti-discrimination legislation passed in the 1970s.
In the case of recent demonstrations on this issue, as I wrote above, the behaviour has been deplorable, and both sides have been focusing on numbers to put pressure on politicians. The media has been publishing the comments of the xenophobes, but I haven't seen any cogent arguments against xenophobia in the media. I don't know whether that is because the media is choosing not to publish them, or such arguments are not being made, or a combination of those and perhaps other reasons.
In any case, most such arguments are based what is effective for the speaker, not the listener. Arguments about spiritual principles and human rights and human values such as compassion sway me, but they don't sway the xenophobes. If Australia is to become a better nation, arguments on this issue have to be addressed to the listener.
As an example, I know many blue collar xenophobes fear the loss of jobs. When that issue is raised, those advocating for refugees have often been quite glib - e.g., oh they only take jobs few people in Australia want to do anyway. Yes, and it those people who are feeling the threat of competition by people who are desperate enough to accept lesser work conditions. The issue is a valid concern, and needs to be addressed. How about pointing out that many refugees are actually quite educated people, and if Australia was less discriminatory towards such people they would be able to spread throughout the workforce and thus not get forced into competing for jobs that the poorly educated (and that is a reflection on the limited vision of our education system and the politician's who fund it, not the people themselves - for instance, get ridding of tech schools in Victoria was a mistake) find themselves having to compete for.
Then there is the fear over security - sovereignty. Well, leaving aside for the moment the issue of "which Australia?" that I raised above, and the sovereignty of humanity and of life, counter this with facts. Perhaps something along the lines of - with relation to fears around terrorism, for instance - the number of Australian born terrorists vs. the number that come here from overseas, the discrimination and abuse which forces those people into terrorism, the FACT that the majority of refugees are not terrorists, the facts that the majority of people illegally in Australia come in via airports (if that is true - I don't know what the current and recent numbers are), etc.
What about fears of changing the nature of Australian society? Well:
How about countering such arguments with the value of mostly young refugees on Australia's ageing population problem? Or even raise the issue directly of the sort of Australia we want?
I don't consider my arguments to be necessarily good in terms of trying to change xenophobes, but someone has to make an effort on this, so I'll start the ball rolling ... with my very small audience. * SIGH *
This is a battle which has been going on for the last couple of hundred years, beginning with the violent white invasion of Australia, going through the struggles against racism and for worker's rights, the social progressiveness and economic disaster of the Whitlam government in the early 1970s (which helped, as much as the social upheaval of the 1960s, in breaking us out of the "white picket fence" mentality of Australia in the 1950s), the gross materialism and greed of the 1980s, and the politics of fear introduced by the evil John Howard in the 1990s and continued by far too many politicians since then.
It is a battle which needs to be fought and won in every generation - after all, the fight against slavery has been going for several millennia, and against racism for centuries, and they are still going - partly because of the basic them of this post: that activists fail to aim their work at the audience, and also because of denial - thinking that once something has been done (such as the various instruments of anti-discrimination legislation), it does not need to be addressed again. (Mind you, given my utter exhaustion after having been involved in such work, I have sympathy for those who do make the latter mistake.)
It is, at its heart, a battle for spirituality.
I may post more on this topic over time ...
Here are a couple of other links which might be of interest:
I recently did something I don't often do: watch some television. Even more rarely, I actually listened to an ad (mainly because I forgot to mute it), one for an SBS programme called "Go Back to Where You Come From", which aims to educate xenophobic people by showing them the conditions that refugees come from - which suffers from the dual flaws of assuming that all xenophobes (a) have compassion buried somewhere in them, but accessible by the experiences of the programme (I think it is buried much deeper than that), and (b) don't know this already. At any rate, during the ad a xenophobe accuses a whistleblower, someone who had brought out the truth about Australia's abuse of children and other asylum seekers, of being a traitor.
It was all a bit (stereotypical) teenagers squabbling in the schoolyard, as so much TV is, but ... in the sense that the xenophobe - who has been stirring up quite a bit of attention her small-minded self of late - meant, I also am a traitor to "Australia" - specifically, I am a traitor to her xenophobic Australia, an Australia that is so fearful, insecure and small-minded that it has no compassion, hospitality or caring for anyone else. Two of my ancestors were shipped out from Ireland in the early 1800s for "defending their mother's honour against some English soldiers" (i.e., stopping them from raping her), and they were renowned for their hospitality and welcoming of travellers and strangers (including indigenous people). In general, I suspect the Irish traditions of hospitality contributed to the Australians view of ourselves in the 1800s and early 1900s as a welcoming people (flawed though that was, with the notorious White Australia policy that, infamously, contributed to South Africa's apartheid policy), a view still surviving in the view of us as being "neighbourly" .. which is not, and often has not been, true.
The Australia I support is truly generous, welcoming and compassionate - truly "neighbourly", but in a sense that is not focused on the small, one that looks at all humanity (actually, all life) and has room in it's heart to say to the small numbers of refugees who reach us "I acknowledge and am touched by your suffering: let me heal you". The xenophobe is traitor to that Australia.
It all brought to mind a problem I've observed in this battle of late: those who are advocating for refugees know it is important - vital even, and it is: a battle for Australia's soul - but they do not have the eloquence and/or awareness to say that, or to talk of spiritual principles (sadly, those are often either confused for religious principles, or ridiculed). We have no Martin Luther Kings here - or even people who can overcome their emotion enough to come up with a riposte along the lines of the one I just wrote about.
The situation is, ironically, better in the case of the battle for LGBTIQ rights: there, advocates have known that we need to build support by educating people - which was a key part of the reforms I was part of in the late 1990s. There was no focus on marches and demonstrations and numbers, which is a flaw I find too many activists have: there had to be a focus on educating people. Now, both sides think it is a case of big numbers in public demonstrations, whereas it has to be more than that.
Numbers will demonstrate what people think, but that isn't necessarily right. The letter writing campaigns of Amnesty International, for example, are not based on "numbers in the street": they are based on issues, and what is right - and have been remarkably successful.
If numbers in the street were the sole issue, we would not have had anti-discrimination legislation passed in the 1970s.
In the case of recent demonstrations on this issue, as I wrote above, the behaviour has been deplorable, and both sides have been focusing on numbers to put pressure on politicians. The media has been publishing the comments of the xenophobes, but I haven't seen any cogent arguments against xenophobia in the media. I don't know whether that is because the media is choosing not to publish them, or such arguments are not being made, or a combination of those and perhaps other reasons.
In any case, most such arguments are based what is effective for the speaker, not the listener. Arguments about spiritual principles and human rights and human values such as compassion sway me, but they don't sway the xenophobes. If Australia is to become a better nation, arguments on this issue have to be addressed to the listener.
As an example, I know many blue collar xenophobes fear the loss of jobs. When that issue is raised, those advocating for refugees have often been quite glib - e.g., oh they only take jobs few people in Australia want to do anyway. Yes, and it those people who are feeling the threat of competition by people who are desperate enough to accept lesser work conditions. The issue is a valid concern, and needs to be addressed. How about pointing out that many refugees are actually quite educated people, and if Australia was less discriminatory towards such people they would be able to spread throughout the workforce and thus not get forced into competing for jobs that the poorly educated (and that is a reflection on the limited vision of our education system and the politician's who fund it, not the people themselves - for instance, get ridding of tech schools in Victoria was a mistake) find themselves having to compete for.
Then there is the fear over security - sovereignty. Well, leaving aside for the moment the issue of "which Australia?" that I raised above, and the sovereignty of humanity and of life, counter this with facts. Perhaps something along the lines of - with relation to fears around terrorism, for instance - the number of Australian born terrorists vs. the number that come here from overseas, the discrimination and abuse which forces those people into terrorism, the FACT that the majority of refugees are not terrorists, the facts that the majority of people illegally in Australia come in via airports (if that is true - I don't know what the current and recent numbers are), etc.
What about fears of changing the nature of Australian society? Well:
- change is inevitable - look at the changes brought about by the Internet and technology advances in recent decades: a better approach is to manage the change, not try to stop it;
- some changes are good - for instance, anti-sexism laws allowing women to keep working after they are married (and the better coffees - initially in Melbourne, but now spreading through the rest of Australia) as a result of the European influx to Australia after World War Part Two;
- some changes are bad, for sure - for instance, the change in Australia away from hospitality towards xenophobia.
- I'm still here, fighting the xenophobes;
- that view ignores the reality that people have ALWAYS been mobile - starting with the initial movement out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago, and continuing with the movement of Europeans to Australia over the last few hundred years;
- if I had kids, I also would want to get them out of conflict zones;
- the fact that people want to come here is an acknowledge of the economic advantages (there are depressingly few social advantages nowadays) of Australia, and has to be managed in a way that does not destroy those advantages - which the current xenophobia is doing, by destroying Australia's soul.
How about countering such arguments with the value of mostly young refugees on Australia's ageing population problem? Or even raise the issue directly of the sort of Australia we want?
I don't consider my arguments to be necessarily good in terms of trying to change xenophobes, but someone has to make an effort on this, so I'll start the ball rolling ... with my very small audience. * SIGH *
This is a battle which has been going on for the last couple of hundred years, beginning with the violent white invasion of Australia, going through the struggles against racism and for worker's rights, the social progressiveness and economic disaster of the Whitlam government in the early 1970s (which helped, as much as the social upheaval of the 1960s, in breaking us out of the "white picket fence" mentality of Australia in the 1950s), the gross materialism and greed of the 1980s, and the politics of fear introduced by the evil John Howard in the 1990s and continued by far too many politicians since then.
It is a battle which needs to be fought and won in every generation - after all, the fight against slavery has been going for several millennia, and against racism for centuries, and they are still going - partly because of the basic them of this post: that activists fail to aim their work at the audience, and also because of denial - thinking that once something has been done (such as the various instruments of anti-discrimination legislation), it does not need to be addressed again. (Mind you, given my utter exhaustion after having been involved in such work, I have sympathy for those who do make the latter mistake.)
It is, at its heart, a battle for spirituality.
I may post more on this topic over time ...
Here are a couple of other links which might be of interest:
- http://www.moirarayner.com.au/articles/02workpl/antidisc.pdf;
- http://www.equalitylaw.org.au/elrp-guest-blogs/reflections-on-reforming-discrimination-laws-in-australia.
Cross-posting: Post No. 1,064 - Challenging and Reversing the Neoliberal Grooming of the World
This is an older post, from a couple of years ago, on my main blog, originally published at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2017/08/post-no-1064-challenging-and-reversing.html.
An article that has strongly influenced me of late, in part because it matches my life experience, is "Grooming the globe: denying fairness, complexity and humanity", by Julianne Schultz (which I saw here, reprinted from here). This article describes the way that selfish, self-interested, unspiritual (in fact, anti-spiritual) people chose, in the 1970s, to change their nation, the USA, and through that, the world.
It was in the 80s that the evil philosophy known as "economic rationalism" appeared in Australia - a philosophy subsequently re-branded to join in the neoliberal movement seeping out of the USA; it was then that ideas of social responsibility and caring started to leave our power elites.
I actually don't consider this was solely the result of the evil actions of a few in the USA and elsewhere: there were failures on the progressive side as well - notably, perhaps, the failure to take people along with them (which, in turn, can be said to have grown out of the refusal to allow enough change on the part of conservatives - which condemned women to domestic abuse and servitude, indigenous people to white supremacism [aka "racism"]. and the world to war and violence and climate change).
From a psychic point of view, there was also powerful nonBPM influences at work - and they still are, not only in the individual struggles that far too many people are limited to being comfortable admitting, but stronger forces - not the neochristian struggle between light and dark, but a struggle between balance and unbalance that comes out of millennia of war and violence and detritus and damage that such has created.
This struggle that the article alludes to is not just a struggle over most of the last century for the fabric of society: it is a struggle for - to go a little gauche - the "energy soup" of the planet.
And it is a big job.
It's a little like trying to clean up after major oil spills - there is a massive amount of small, tedious work to do. Every nonBPM unit that is cleared as part of this work is a drop of oil that has, in the Cure Violence model, been removed from contaminating others - prevented from spreading violence and selfishness and suffering. Every BPM unit that is helped is like a bird or seal that has been helped recover from an oil spill.
There are bigger things to do as well: the equivalent of holding (a) people and (b) companies accountable for an oil spill is (a) clearing / rescuing uncooperatives and (b) doing the work in the physical to counter and reverse the manifestations of the energy soup created by millennia of violence on this world.
It is the latter where the calls for spiritual workers to take action are so important, as well as articles such as the one I began this article with.
I'd also like to take a moment here to promote John Beckett's latest article: "A Weekly Ritual of Focus and Protection".
Going back to undoing the harm of directed evil, one of the aspects I have often thought about with this is the benefits and disadvantages of formal movements. There unquestionably can be benefits in working together, and being organise is one of those benefits ... but that can also slow responsiveness, and make a movement vulnerable. In the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, having known leaders gave the white supremacists clear targets, and the basis of a strategy. To some extent, that was overcome by the movement to end apartheid being an amorphous, universalist movement. For now, the work against the evils of neoliberalism is probably going - for better or worse - to be an amorphous, "organic" movement (provided there is management id idiots like violent anarchists); an organised movement might come about, a bit like I tried to organise the Rangers a few years ago (which wasn't helped by my refusal to join the facebook cult) - I just hope that, when it does, it includes things I had proposed for the Rangers like a formal conscience and an acknowledgement that its time would eventually pass ...
And now it is time for my meditations. This is one of the times where I make my positive contributions to the world's energy soup. Later, as I travel to work, I will probably do more reflection on the articles I mentioned, including parallels to my life (which does, incidentally, show that part of the problem is an off shoot of the issue of every generation thinking they discovered sex - that is, not acknowledging the validity and experience of those who have gone before, which leads to cycles ... Something I hope to one day write a novel to illustrate :) ).
PS - in case you think this is too big a job, look at the decline in rates of extreme poverty in the last half century. And if you want a way to measure progress, look at the amount of gossip in the world (most of which is on social media).
An article that has strongly influenced me of late, in part because it matches my life experience, is "Grooming the globe: denying fairness, complexity and humanity", by Julianne Schultz (which I saw here, reprinted from here). This article describes the way that selfish, self-interested, unspiritual (in fact, anti-spiritual) people chose, in the 1970s, to change their nation, the USA, and through that, the world.
It was in the 80s that the evil philosophy known as "economic rationalism" appeared in Australia - a philosophy subsequently re-branded to join in the neoliberal movement seeping out of the USA; it was then that ideas of social responsibility and caring started to leave our power elites.
I actually don't consider this was solely the result of the evil actions of a few in the USA and elsewhere: there were failures on the progressive side as well - notably, perhaps, the failure to take people along with them (which, in turn, can be said to have grown out of the refusal to allow enough change on the part of conservatives - which condemned women to domestic abuse and servitude, indigenous people to white supremacism [aka "racism"]. and the world to war and violence and climate change).
From a psychic point of view, there was also powerful nonBPM influences at work - and they still are, not only in the individual struggles that far too many people are limited to being comfortable admitting, but stronger forces - not the neochristian struggle between light and dark, but a struggle between balance and unbalance that comes out of millennia of war and violence and detritus and damage that such has created.
This struggle that the article alludes to is not just a struggle over most of the last century for the fabric of society: it is a struggle for - to go a little gauche - the "energy soup" of the planet.
And it is a big job.
It's a little like trying to clean up after major oil spills - there is a massive amount of small, tedious work to do. Every nonBPM unit that is cleared as part of this work is a drop of oil that has, in the Cure Violence model, been removed from contaminating others - prevented from spreading violence and selfishness and suffering. Every BPM unit that is helped is like a bird or seal that has been helped recover from an oil spill.
There are bigger things to do as well: the equivalent of holding (a) people and (b) companies accountable for an oil spill is (a) clearing / rescuing uncooperatives and (b) doing the work in the physical to counter and reverse the manifestations of the energy soup created by millennia of violence on this world.
It is the latter where the calls for spiritual workers to take action are so important, as well as articles such as the one I began this article with.
I'd also like to take a moment here to promote John Beckett's latest article: "A Weekly Ritual of Focus and Protection".
Going back to undoing the harm of directed evil, one of the aspects I have often thought about with this is the benefits and disadvantages of formal movements. There unquestionably can be benefits in working together, and being organise is one of those benefits ... but that can also slow responsiveness, and make a movement vulnerable. In the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, having known leaders gave the white supremacists clear targets, and the basis of a strategy. To some extent, that was overcome by the movement to end apartheid being an amorphous, universalist movement. For now, the work against the evils of neoliberalism is probably going - for better or worse - to be an amorphous, "organic" movement (provided there is management id idiots like violent anarchists); an organised movement might come about, a bit like I tried to organise the Rangers a few years ago (which wasn't helped by my refusal to join the facebook cult) - I just hope that, when it does, it includes things I had proposed for the Rangers like a formal conscience and an acknowledgement that its time would eventually pass ...
And now it is time for my meditations. This is one of the times where I make my positive contributions to the world's energy soup. Later, as I travel to work, I will probably do more reflection on the articles I mentioned, including parallels to my life (which does, incidentally, show that part of the problem is an off shoot of the issue of every generation thinking they discovered sex - that is, not acknowledging the validity and experience of those who have gone before, which leads to cycles ... Something I hope to one day write a novel to illustrate :) ).
PS - in case you think this is too big a job, look at the decline in rates of extreme poverty in the last half century. And if you want a way to measure progress, look at the amount of gossip in the world (most of which is on social media).
Policing and democracy
Policing is a difficult job.
I've known several police over the years (even considered dating a couple, a long time ago), met civilians who've worked there, and there is my uncle, who I've mentioned a few times (possibly on my main [spiritual] blog) who left another state's police because an enquiry "didn't get all the crooked coppers". That has been one source of information on this, but there has also been some reading, some ads a few years ago by police, and just seeing what they do - and what they have to put up with.
As an example from my area, police received a lot of criticism a few years ago over the fatal shooting by police of a young man who had a knife. That led to police being given better tools and training, but I thought at the time, and still do, that having someone charge at you with a knife is not an easy situation in real life - no matter how Hollywood portrays it, which is where I sadly suspect some people get their ideas.
On the other hand, police do make mistakes.
Some of their recent actions will have made it hard for people to comfortably consider calling police when it is necessary, and there have been large scale enquiries, such as the indigenous deaths in custody enquiries (still not properly implemented, I consider), and current controversies - such as the ill-considered decision to use a lawyer to spy on her clients.
That enquiry is still continuing, but is showing a few problems - particularly in the decisions taken to end a crisis of public intra-criminal world violence early this century. I consider a key part of those problematic decisions, by the way, to be the public pressure on police - including from the media - to end the violence.
It also shows, in my opinion, the problem of rigid, stereotypically male thinking (I use the word stereotype because not all men think this way - it is a somewhat Hollywood simplification) which afflicts all organisations which exert power in our society - and police, with their weapons, permission to kill, and frequently exercised powers that harm people arrested (who can reasonably be considered victims of policing), police forces are such organisations.
Just as we need women in politics and on Boards to change those organisations, we need women in police to change those forces - my home state's police were best, in my opinion, under Christine Nixon, who had a speciality and focus on community and preventative policing, which never sits comfortably with the sort of rigid thinking that I was referring to above (and which I and many others fight against in the business corporate world every day).
There has been a lot of disturbing information in recent months from NSW, including the sexual abuse by police of people - not only children - through strip searches, currently a key part of a Royal Commission (which is also showing the flaws of using dogs to detect drugs).
Last night on Twitter (my apologies, but I'm not going to try to find the footage now) of a Member of Parliament who had complied with orders being arrested and searched (possibly strip searched in the open back of a van - are they insane or just incredibly stupid about privacy?), and an officer who deliberately got unreasonably close to and intimidated a young girl.
It was appalling, power-drunk thuggery similar to the officer in my home city who went on rampage with a baton against protestors.
That girl will likely never call on the police when she needs them. The behaviour was unnecessary, and I read comments by former police on witter (again, my apologies, but I'm not going to try to find those now)who were critical of that behaviour. (Did the officer concerned think she was a "naughty" child needing to be smacked?)
It compares poorly with most of the face-to-face interactions I've had with police throughout my life.
Now, a lot of people don't realise that police are not only enforce the law, they also enforce public order - and it is THAT aspect that they keep getting into problems with, because their enforcement of that too often puts them into conflict with democracy.
Our society's greatest aspects are NOT those related to orderliness, they are those related to democracy - and protesting is a very key part of that.
Those police who treated the Parliament of their land with contempt by arresting an MP who had already complied with their instructions, or who violently and unnecessarily attack protestors, or thuggishly intimidate little girls, are directly, personally, attacking democracy.
I've known several police over the years (even considered dating a couple, a long time ago), met civilians who've worked there, and there is my uncle, who I've mentioned a few times (possibly on my main [spiritual] blog) who left another state's police because an enquiry "didn't get all the crooked coppers". That has been one source of information on this, but there has also been some reading, some ads a few years ago by police, and just seeing what they do - and what they have to put up with.
As an example from my area, police received a lot of criticism a few years ago over the fatal shooting by police of a young man who had a knife. That led to police being given better tools and training, but I thought at the time, and still do, that having someone charge at you with a knife is not an easy situation in real life - no matter how Hollywood portrays it, which is where I sadly suspect some people get their ideas.
On the other hand, police do make mistakes.
Some of their recent actions will have made it hard for people to comfortably consider calling police when it is necessary, and there have been large scale enquiries, such as the indigenous deaths in custody enquiries (still not properly implemented, I consider), and current controversies - such as the ill-considered decision to use a lawyer to spy on her clients.
That enquiry is still continuing, but is showing a few problems - particularly in the decisions taken to end a crisis of public intra-criminal world violence early this century. I consider a key part of those problematic decisions, by the way, to be the public pressure on police - including from the media - to end the violence.
It also shows, in my opinion, the problem of rigid, stereotypically male thinking (I use the word stereotype because not all men think this way - it is a somewhat Hollywood simplification) which afflicts all organisations which exert power in our society - and police, with their weapons, permission to kill, and frequently exercised powers that harm people arrested (who can reasonably be considered victims of policing), police forces are such organisations.
Just as we need women in politics and on Boards to change those organisations, we need women in police to change those forces - my home state's police were best, in my opinion, under Christine Nixon, who had a speciality and focus on community and preventative policing, which never sits comfortably with the sort of rigid thinking that I was referring to above (and which I and many others fight against in the business corporate world every day).
There has been a lot of disturbing information in recent months from NSW, including the sexual abuse by police of people - not only children - through strip searches, currently a key part of a Royal Commission (which is also showing the flaws of using dogs to detect drugs).
Last night on Twitter (my apologies, but I'm not going to try to find the footage now) of a Member of Parliament who had complied with orders being arrested and searched (possibly strip searched in the open back of a van - are they insane or just incredibly stupid about privacy?), and an officer who deliberately got unreasonably close to and intimidated a young girl.
It was appalling, power-drunk thuggery similar to the officer in my home city who went on rampage with a baton against protestors.
That girl will likely never call on the police when she needs them. The behaviour was unnecessary, and I read comments by former police on witter (again, my apologies, but I'm not going to try to find those now)who were critical of that behaviour. (Did the officer concerned think she was a "naughty" child needing to be smacked?)
It compares poorly with most of the face-to-face interactions I've had with police throughout my life.
Now, a lot of people don't realise that police are not only enforce the law, they also enforce public order - and it is THAT aspect that they keep getting into problems with, because their enforcement of that too often puts them into conflict with democracy.
Our society's greatest aspects are NOT those related to orderliness, they are those related to democracy - and protesting is a very key part of that.
Those police who treated the Parliament of their land with contempt by arresting an MP who had already complied with their instructions, or who violently and unnecessarily attack protestors, or thuggishly intimidate little girls, are directly, personally, attacking democracy.
Sunday 15 December 2019
This week
Conduct has been a topic of discussion this week.
I'll begin with this Washington Post article: "Which is worse, bigotry or cowardice in the face of bigotry?"
Well, to make my desired position clear, one of my favourite sayings is:
The Post article - to simplify - looks at attitudes, particularly those that are discriminatory, and the role of enablers, and basically criticises the latter for what they did to the republican party in the USA. To me, that's not quite the same thing as cowardice - it's collaboration, which may not involve any fear at all if you feel your faction is in control.
But the article does raise the issue, and it's one I got into over at my spiritual blog (see here). Courage, no matter what the situation, is overcoming fear.
Someone overcoming their fear of dentists (which is understandable given how bad many were decades ago) is being courageous.
Someone overcoming their fear to make a mild stand against a hateful statement is being courageous.
And someone realising that they've been duped, and someone or something they thought was good isn't and then making at least some sort of objection or stand is also being courageous.
We're not all capable of charging into a hail of machine gun fire, or being Tank Man, or being Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.
But we're all capable of courage in our lives.
And that brings me to the next issue from this week: the reaction to a moment of tone-deafness (actually, it was stupid) by the ALP's national leader, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, MP, Member for Grayndler, an electorate in NSW.
Mr Albanese is on a tour of Queensland, trying to win back the support base the ALP lost over jobs - because jobs in central Qld. are tied to the coal industry, which was being - rightly, in my opinion, although the convoy from the southern states was a counter-productive, patronising and stupid idea - criticised over the damage it does to the climate, and thus the role it lays in our current existential crisis. He made a comment about exporting coal because "if we don't, someone else will".
Understandably, given the raging 2019 climate bushfires (see here for a comparison of these to other recorded bushfires), the remark went over like a lead balloon. The Morrison "government" (theocracy) was missing in action for weeks of the bushfire crisis, and the ALP's leader wasn't particularly noticeable either. To some extent, it's not the opposition's job to be noticeable, but had Mr Albanese been doing regular media briefings from his electorate office, in the smoke haze from the bushfires, it would have been an opportunity to highlight the ALP's policies at the 2019 federal election, which included substantial sums for firefighting as well as action on the climate crisis, as well as presenting an image "here is a party that turns up when you need it".
I know that tours like the one Mr Albanese is on take time to organise, but, had someone had the nous to say "Stop! Opportunity! Do the tour later", I think, in the long term, the ALP would have wound up far further ahead everywhere - especially as Queensland is also part of the 2019 climate bushfires.
I've heard two points of view on this:
There undeniably will be a long term and just transition required. On the closure of major industries, I looked at the effect of the closure of the steel industry in Newcastle (see here), and consider it led to a population decline of around 83,000 people.
Although help after coal industries close down (and thermal coal WILL close) can help, which was shown by the Andrews government's response to the closure of Hazelwood (although quite a few workers there are still out of jobs), implementing a policy beforehand - as was shown in Germany - will ultimately be of benefit, which is why also starting work on renewables now will help maintain jobs in the long term.
I've written about the need to "future proof" jobs previously - which is something that applies across all jobs, not only the coal industry.
In fact, we can do better than simply replace/maintain jobs: we can turn our renewables potential into a major export industry. This was written about recently in The Conversation, but has also been pushed for years by others - including me. The schemes to export solar power from the Kimberley and the newer one in the NT are doing well - and Andrew Forrest's recent decision to invest in them will help, but there is also the potential to export renewables (a lot of Qld has the regular, reliable and consistent trade winds - which I used to sail in for around 12 years) to PNG and the Pacific. I would have considered SA under Jay Weatherill the most likely state to do that, but now it's probably Victoria (which is already developing an export hydrogen to Japan business [which saw a milestone with the ship carrier launched this week], albeit on a trial basis and from coal, not renewables). In Qld, a scheme like that could set up an alternative to start transferring coal industry workers to now. In fact, a scheme like that In Qld would offset some of the harm to our international reputation that the Morrison "government" (theocracy) has done.
Just transition is certainly part of the ALP thinking, and it is probably part of the platform (the official document is quite long, so I won't go looking to check), although I would like to see it tweaked, and for State ALP governments to prove the jobs that can come from renewables by setting up sustainable energy export businesses.
When you can look a voter in the face and say "here's the proof that we can get jobs in renewables by selling the power overseas because we've been doing it at a State level", you are in a much stronger position than if you can only talk about plans - and your position would be stronger both in Qld. and the rest of Australia in relation to both jobs and the climate crisis.
Of course, that requires cooperation between State and Federal branches, and it probably needs some state government investment, but I consider those things would be good.
And on good, let's look at the ethically murky issue of "if we don't someone else will", which has been used to justify things such as selling weapons and uranium (more on that shortly).
How does that compare with the Post article?
Well, "if we don't someone else will" is about maintaining a status quo, not making things worse, but it is still about a situation that is harming people and putting our existence at risk, and seems to be about deferring taking action.
It's not a good argument - it is, at the least, disappointing - most of all because it underplays the ALP platform. It would have been better to talk about commitment to jobs, and "look at what we did when we had a closure of Hazelwood foisted on us".
It's an issue that is addressed more openly in the USA, where, because they stupidly don't have compulsory voting, one f their biggest issues is doing what is necessary to "get out the vote". Thus, there are intense debates over whether progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren are better than more establishment figures like Joe Biden. That's the sort of debates that applies in this situation: is the gain in one area of one state going to be enough to offset the poor signalling the remark makes elsewhere?
Going to that level of debate when we're not used to it seems to be being a bit of a painful experience.
Moving on from that debate, Mr Albanese has started the recovery by - quite rightly - attacking the proposal by the neoliberal "government" to get into nuclear power. Others are pointing out what was in the election platform for the 2019 election.
And an article here has pointed out the ALP's historic credentials on climate change.
The journalist's decision at the end of that article to wait and watch is reasonable for her, but that assumes that those who can, will work at things like persuading the state ALP governments to get renewable energy export businesses going NOW for (a) our and the climate's benefit, and (b) the ALP's prospects in two years' time.
And ensuring that is up to all of us.
The explanation about the realities of trying to win government with the Australian electorate as it is now is also apt - sadly. (The debate is also happening in the UK, given the disastrous election result there - see also here. Also from the media there is this, calling for more honesty about pain [I don't entirely agree with this: having smaller, simpler houses is not painful], and an interesting call for the ALP's Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mark Butler, should be "front and centre".) This not a new debate here, and it is as old as politics, probably, but the issue must always address the issue of being authentic and progressive vs. creating an image that will get you elected - yes, if elected you can do things, but if you got there on what is effectively a deceit, anything you do will be viewed with suspicious and distrust no matter how good it is. The maths is - and I am making these numbers up - along the lines of 10% good if you don't get elected (there is always some pressure that can be exerted), vs a net 60% (80% good less 20% for the effects of the distrust that was engendered) if you get into power.
Also, I suspect that Mr Albanese's tone-deaf remarks didn't just trigger reactions because of the 2019 climate bushfires; I think things like the incredibly unwise capitulation over national "security" (authoritarianism) legislation last December, on the bass of a political wink-and-a-nudge that no-one believed, and the ALP's patchy history on refugees, are also playing into this.
The ALP has actively supported Medevac legislation, and has quite a few MPs who are pro-refugees (including my local Federal MP), so that issue is being addressed - slowly, and not completely. Some of the ALP's history is good, some not so much, but it needs to be sold better - particularly the economic credentials - and having soundbites prepared for questions and challenges, including "fake news", which I understand the controversial UK MP and PM Tony Blair was good at. All this is necessary at the best of times, but the poor timing of Mr Albanese' remarks on coal mean there is much more work to do.
And on responses, we have the Mediaeval Re-enactment Bill, also known as the Religious Discrimination Bill. If the ALP let this one pass as was done with the "security" (authoritarianism) bill last year, the damage will be irrecoverable.
Looking at the bill itself, it has been made worse following complaints by the reactionary dotards, bigots and haters in the small ultra-"conservative" religions that support our neoliberal prime minister. Official information on the changes is available here, which also invites submissions.
Making such a submission can be, apart from the normal challenges, traumatic when it is about something that is aiming to enable hate, and also enables the death of a society. It is important to consciously plan for self-care when engaging with evil, and this is no exception.
As far as the details of a submission go, Alastair Lawrie has some excellent critiques (see here, for instance, and here, here, and here also have useful points), see also here, and a bit of searching will find other suggestions.
As an example of the latter, this is this, from here on Twitter:
Personal experience is often described as being useful in such submissions, and it often is, but look after yourself first. Sometimes doing what one can, in order to be a snowflake that is part of an avalanche, is the best aim for individuals - but you have to be in there.
Also, do not forget to send copies of your submissions to as many progressive MPs and Senators as you reasonably can - your MP, if they are a progressive, and every state has at least some good Senators.
I'm going to end this with a few articles that may be of use to others:
I'll begin with this Washington Post article: "Which is worse, bigotry or cowardice in the face of bigotry?"
Well, to make my desired position clear, one of my favourite sayings is:
Now, Edmund Burke was a monarchist, and he was actually writing the above against the first French Revolution in 1789, so his motivation was questionable, as far as I am concerned. Nevertheless, I believe in trying to do what one can - and "what one can" varies from person to person; I hope that all will do their genuine best, and I acknowledge that not everyone can be a Nelson Mandela, for instance (I know I can't - and that's not being the same quality of person, quite apart from issues around courage).The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.(based on writing by) Edmund Burke
The Post article - to simplify - looks at attitudes, particularly those that are discriminatory, and the role of enablers, and basically criticises the latter for what they did to the republican party in the USA. To me, that's not quite the same thing as cowardice - it's collaboration, which may not involve any fear at all if you feel your faction is in control.
But the article does raise the issue, and it's one I got into over at my spiritual blog (see here). Courage, no matter what the situation, is overcoming fear.
Someone overcoming their fear of dentists (which is understandable given how bad many were decades ago) is being courageous.
Someone overcoming their fear to make a mild stand against a hateful statement is being courageous.
And someone realising that they've been duped, and someone or something they thought was good isn't and then making at least some sort of objection or stand is also being courageous.
We're not all capable of charging into a hail of machine gun fire, or being Tank Man, or being Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.
But we're all capable of courage in our lives.
And that brings me to the next issue from this week: the reaction to a moment of tone-deafness (actually, it was stupid) by the ALP's national leader, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, MP, Member for Grayndler, an electorate in NSW.
Mr Albanese is on a tour of Queensland, trying to win back the support base the ALP lost over jobs - because jobs in central Qld. are tied to the coal industry, which was being - rightly, in my opinion, although the convoy from the southern states was a counter-productive, patronising and stupid idea - criticised over the damage it does to the climate, and thus the role it lays in our current existential crisis. He made a comment about exporting coal because "if we don't, someone else will".
Understandably, given the raging 2019 climate bushfires (see here for a comparison of these to other recorded bushfires), the remark went over like a lead balloon. The Morrison "government" (theocracy) was missing in action for weeks of the bushfire crisis, and the ALP's leader wasn't particularly noticeable either. To some extent, it's not the opposition's job to be noticeable, but had Mr Albanese been doing regular media briefings from his electorate office, in the smoke haze from the bushfires, it would have been an opportunity to highlight the ALP's policies at the 2019 federal election, which included substantial sums for firefighting as well as action on the climate crisis, as well as presenting an image "here is a party that turns up when you need it".
I know that tours like the one Mr Albanese is on take time to organise, but, had someone had the nous to say "Stop! Opportunity! Do the tour later", I think, in the long term, the ALP would have wound up far further ahead everywhere - especially as Queensland is also part of the 2019 climate bushfires.
I've heard two points of view on this:
- It is necessary to get power to be able to act; and
- A just transition of jobs is necessary.
There undeniably will be a long term and just transition required. On the closure of major industries, I looked at the effect of the closure of the steel industry in Newcastle (see here), and consider it led to a population decline of around 83,000 people.
Although help after coal industries close down (and thermal coal WILL close) can help, which was shown by the Andrews government's response to the closure of Hazelwood (although quite a few workers there are still out of jobs), implementing a policy beforehand - as was shown in Germany - will ultimately be of benefit, which is why also starting work on renewables now will help maintain jobs in the long term.
I've written about the need to "future proof" jobs previously - which is something that applies across all jobs, not only the coal industry.
In fact, we can do better than simply replace/maintain jobs: we can turn our renewables potential into a major export industry. This was written about recently in The Conversation, but has also been pushed for years by others - including me. The schemes to export solar power from the Kimberley and the newer one in the NT are doing well - and Andrew Forrest's recent decision to invest in them will help, but there is also the potential to export renewables (a lot of Qld has the regular, reliable and consistent trade winds - which I used to sail in for around 12 years) to PNG and the Pacific. I would have considered SA under Jay Weatherill the most likely state to do that, but now it's probably Victoria (which is already developing an export hydrogen to Japan business [which saw a milestone with the ship carrier launched this week], albeit on a trial basis and from coal, not renewables). In Qld, a scheme like that could set up an alternative to start transferring coal industry workers to now. In fact, a scheme like that In Qld would offset some of the harm to our international reputation that the Morrison "government" (theocracy) has done.
Just transition is certainly part of the ALP thinking, and it is probably part of the platform (the official document is quite long, so I won't go looking to check), although I would like to see it tweaked, and for State ALP governments to prove the jobs that can come from renewables by setting up sustainable energy export businesses.
When you can look a voter in the face and say "here's the proof that we can get jobs in renewables by selling the power overseas because we've been doing it at a State level", you are in a much stronger position than if you can only talk about plans - and your position would be stronger both in Qld. and the rest of Australia in relation to both jobs and the climate crisis.
Of course, that requires cooperation between State and Federal branches, and it probably needs some state government investment, but I consider those things would be good.
And on good, let's look at the ethically murky issue of "if we don't someone else will", which has been used to justify things such as selling weapons and uranium (more on that shortly).
How does that compare with the Post article?
Well, "if we don't someone else will" is about maintaining a status quo, not making things worse, but it is still about a situation that is harming people and putting our existence at risk, and seems to be about deferring taking action.
It's not a good argument - it is, at the least, disappointing - most of all because it underplays the ALP platform. It would have been better to talk about commitment to jobs, and "look at what we did when we had a closure of Hazelwood foisted on us".
It's an issue that is addressed more openly in the USA, where, because they stupidly don't have compulsory voting, one f their biggest issues is doing what is necessary to "get out the vote". Thus, there are intense debates over whether progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren are better than more establishment figures like Joe Biden. That's the sort of debates that applies in this situation: is the gain in one area of one state going to be enough to offset the poor signalling the remark makes elsewhere?
Going to that level of debate when we're not used to it seems to be being a bit of a painful experience.
Moving on from that debate, Mr Albanese has started the recovery by - quite rightly - attacking the proposal by the neoliberal "government" to get into nuclear power. Others are pointing out what was in the election platform for the 2019 election.
And an article here has pointed out the ALP's historic credentials on climate change.
The journalist's decision at the end of that article to wait and watch is reasonable for her, but that assumes that those who can, will work at things like persuading the state ALP governments to get renewable energy export businesses going NOW for (a) our and the climate's benefit, and (b) the ALP's prospects in two years' time.
And ensuring that is up to all of us.
The explanation about the realities of trying to win government with the Australian electorate as it is now is also apt - sadly. (The debate is also happening in the UK, given the disastrous election result there - see also here. Also from the media there is this, calling for more honesty about pain [I don't entirely agree with this: having smaller, simpler houses is not painful], and an interesting call for the ALP's Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mark Butler, should be "front and centre".) This not a new debate here, and it is as old as politics, probably, but the issue must always address the issue of being authentic and progressive vs. creating an image that will get you elected - yes, if elected you can do things, but if you got there on what is effectively a deceit, anything you do will be viewed with suspicious and distrust no matter how good it is. The maths is - and I am making these numbers up - along the lines of 10% good if you don't get elected (there is always some pressure that can be exerted), vs a net 60% (80% good less 20% for the effects of the distrust that was engendered) if you get into power.
Also, I suspect that Mr Albanese's tone-deaf remarks didn't just trigger reactions because of the 2019 climate bushfires; I think things like the incredibly unwise capitulation over national "security" (authoritarianism) legislation last December, on the bass of a political wink-and-a-nudge that no-one believed, and the ALP's patchy history on refugees, are also playing into this.
The ALP has actively supported Medevac legislation, and has quite a few MPs who are pro-refugees (including my local Federal MP), so that issue is being addressed - slowly, and not completely. Some of the ALP's history is good, some not so much, but it needs to be sold better - particularly the economic credentials - and having soundbites prepared for questions and challenges, including "fake news", which I understand the controversial UK MP and PM Tony Blair was good at. All this is necessary at the best of times, but the poor timing of Mr Albanese' remarks on coal mean there is much more work to do.
And on responses, we have the Mediaeval Re-enactment Bill, also known as the Religious Discrimination Bill. If the ALP let this one pass as was done with the "security" (authoritarianism) bill last year, the damage will be irrecoverable.
Looking at the bill itself, it has been made worse following complaints by the reactionary dotards, bigots and haters in the small ultra-"conservative" religions that support our neoliberal prime minister. Official information on the changes is available here, which also invites submissions.
Making such a submission can be, apart from the normal challenges, traumatic when it is about something that is aiming to enable hate, and also enables the death of a society. It is important to consciously plan for self-care when engaging with evil, and this is no exception.
As far as the details of a submission go, Alastair Lawrie has some excellent critiques (see here, for instance, and here, here, and here also have useful points), see also here, and a bit of searching will find other suggestions.
As an example of the latter, this is this, from here on Twitter:
Personal experience is often described as being useful in such submissions, and it often is, but look after yourself first. Sometimes doing what one can, in order to be a snowflake that is part of an avalanche, is the best aim for individuals - but you have to be in there.
Also, do not forget to send copies of your submissions to as many progressive MPs and Senators as you reasonably can - your MP, if they are a progressive, and every state has at least some good Senators.
I'm going to end this with a few articles that may be of use to others:
- from "The Guardian", "'Traitors to their class': meet the super rich who want to be taxed more", which is not actually entirely surprising, given that a number of ultra-rich are doing what they can to help others/the world, but it is encouraging to see some who are aligned so clearly with Robert Reich's persistent calls to tax the wealthy;
- "Assange and the Myth of Due Process", which I haven't read much of yet, but is worth considering; and
- "Perceptions of Frontline Managers Practicing Diversity Management", which I've circulated to my company's Inclusion and Diversity Committee (which I am a part of).
Wednesday 11 December 2019
Fixing the UN with technology
Arguably the biggest problem with the UN is the veto power, which enables things like Russia blocking censure motions on Syria for using chemical weapons.
The veto power applies in the Security Council, which meets more or less permanently. On the other hand the UN's General Assembly, which is a much larger meeting, meets at most a few times each year, and is an extremely expensive undertaking.
However, there is no veto power in the General Assembly.
It seems to me, therefore, that one of the ways of overcoming the veto power in the Security Council would be for the General Assembly to permit some meetings - or some specific business, perhaps? - to be undertaken using video conferencing. After all, some court evidence is given over video links these days, although that involves a lot fewer locations.
The technology exists; people have the skills to solve the multiple locations issue; and even courts have set a precedent on this.
So . . . what if there was a mechanism to allow video conferencing for the General Assembly to consider specific issues such as censure motions on the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons?
I don't consider it should be used for the main General Assembly meetings, as there are many "corridor meetings" - including with NGOs - that are important, but it may be a way to overcome the tyranny of the veto.
Issues to be resolved would include:
Nevertheless, this could be a significant cost and time saving measure, up to a point, and may be worth considering from that point of view alone. (It would also reduce GHG emissions associated with air travel for attendees.)
So, next "problem" (it depends on one's perspective): factions.
The veto power applies in the Security Council, which meets more or less permanently. On the other hand the UN's General Assembly, which is a much larger meeting, meets at most a few times each year, and is an extremely expensive undertaking.
However, there is no veto power in the General Assembly.
It seems to me, therefore, that one of the ways of overcoming the veto power in the Security Council would be for the General Assembly to permit some meetings - or some specific business, perhaps? - to be undertaken using video conferencing. After all, some court evidence is given over video links these days, although that involves a lot fewer locations.
The technology exists; people have the skills to solve the multiple locations issue; and even courts have set a precedent on this.
So . . . what if there was a mechanism to allow video conferencing for the General Assembly to consider specific issues such as censure motions on the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons?
I don't consider it should be used for the main General Assembly meetings, as there are many "corridor meetings" - including with NGOs - that are important, but it may be a way to overcome the tyranny of the veto.
Issues to be resolved would include:
- the experience, familiarity and preference of Ambassadors and diplomatic staff for face-to-face meetings, which they are trained for, rather than this newfangled videoconferencing;
- the aforementioned technical challenges associated with more than 150 locations being involved;
- the EXTREME likelihood of very advanced cyber attacks (on the other hand, there may be a reduced draw card for violent extremists); and
- issues such as trust around who else is "in the room" at the various location.
Nevertheless, this could be a significant cost and time saving measure, up to a point, and may be worth considering from that point of view alone. (It would also reduce GHG emissions associated with air travel for attendees.)
So, next "problem" (it depends on one's perspective): factions.
Education in the 21st Century
Neither my birth nor my adoptive mother finished high school - in fact, my adoptive mother didn't even get to start.
My adoptive mother was born in the 20s, and that cut-short education was fairly widespread then. Go back further, and education was typically even shorter, and often patchier.
These days, most people finish high school (although the removal of tech schools in the 90s under Kennett was a mistake), and many get further education, whether at a tertiary (i.e., university) or vocational (i.e., TAFE) institute.
So the historic trend has been towards longer periods of education. To simplify, that probably matches the increasing technicality of life after the industrial and scientific revolutions (i.e., there is more to know), and the growing complexity of life generally (tax returns haven't been with us for forever, and there are quite a few other financial and legal aspects [especially driving] aspects that have added to the complexity of life).
Recently, there has been considerable fuss over Australia's educational decline relative to other nations. Most of the analysis of that has focused on the obvious, such as class size, funding cutbacks under the neoliberal "government", and time constraints and underfunding preventing effective teaching. Some of the fuss has been overblown - see here.
There have also been calls for better teachers. That's probably a good thing - provided those teachers have the time and other resources to actually teach, and if the time and other resources became available, that would also allow our current teachers to manifest their abilities more effectively.
Now, the neoliberal "government" has called for the curriculum to be cut back (see here).
Unfortunately, given the biases and shortcomings of our neoliberal "government",that probably means cutting back things that don't directly enable product (students completing school) to be effective cogs in the business world - things like being aware of the problems of discrimination, students being decent human beings as adults, schools managing issues such as student welfare, including the effects of domestic violence in the home (other than using neochristian prayer, I mean), and crucial skills for the future such as creativity.
That would be a disaster - socially, and economically, although the neoliberals seem to be immune to evidence on that.
As I wrote here:
Trying to squeeze the curriculum into six years at primary school and six years at high school (it was seven and five when I was in Qld. in the 70s, incidentally) isn't working.
The solution is, in my opinion, to continue the historical trend, and stretch out our education system - specifically, high school. Primary school should still allow plenty of time for children to play and be children, but I would like to see one (preferably two) extra years tacked on to the end of high school (perhaps under a different label) to enable our students to have a chance to properly absorb and integrate all that they need to know in the modern world.
This would increase the costs of education - as a simplification, by around 6 to 11% - and that would be on top of fixing the current underfunding.
However, the cost of not doing so would be worse - financially, $20 billion a year, according to this, (compared to less than half a billion expenditure, according to this and this), and socially, even more.
Time to act on what the experts advise, and give everyone more time to do so.
My adoptive mother was born in the 20s, and that cut-short education was fairly widespread then. Go back further, and education was typically even shorter, and often patchier.
These days, most people finish high school (although the removal of tech schools in the 90s under Kennett was a mistake), and many get further education, whether at a tertiary (i.e., university) or vocational (i.e., TAFE) institute.
So the historic trend has been towards longer periods of education. To simplify, that probably matches the increasing technicality of life after the industrial and scientific revolutions (i.e., there is more to know), and the growing complexity of life generally (tax returns haven't been with us for forever, and there are quite a few other financial and legal aspects [especially driving] aspects that have added to the complexity of life).
Recently, there has been considerable fuss over Australia's educational decline relative to other nations. Most of the analysis of that has focused on the obvious, such as class size, funding cutbacks under the neoliberal "government", and time constraints and underfunding preventing effective teaching. Some of the fuss has been overblown - see here.
There have also been calls for better teachers. That's probably a good thing - provided those teachers have the time and other resources to actually teach, and if the time and other resources became available, that would also allow our current teachers to manifest their abilities more effectively.
Now, the neoliberal "government" has called for the curriculum to be cut back (see here).
Unfortunately, given the biases and shortcomings of our neoliberal "government",that probably means cutting back things that don't directly enable product (students completing school) to be effective cogs in the business world - things like being aware of the problems of discrimination, students being decent human beings as adults, schools managing issues such as student welfare, including the effects of domestic violence in the home (other than using neochristian prayer, I mean), and crucial skills for the future such as creativity.
That would be a disaster - socially, and economically, although the neoliberals seem to be immune to evidence on that.
As I wrote here:
Einstein: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.There is a lot in the curriculum, but there needs to be - both so we can be a better society, and so we can perform better economically, and so we can have even half a chance of addressing the climate crisis.
Neoliberals (esp. re economy, climate denial, and today & yesterday in APH): You just keep going on repeat.
Trying to squeeze the curriculum into six years at primary school and six years at high school (it was seven and five when I was in Qld. in the 70s, incidentally) isn't working.
The solution is, in my opinion, to continue the historical trend, and stretch out our education system - specifically, high school. Primary school should still allow plenty of time for children to play and be children, but I would like to see one (preferably two) extra years tacked on to the end of high school (perhaps under a different label) to enable our students to have a chance to properly absorb and integrate all that they need to know in the modern world.
This would increase the costs of education - as a simplification, by around 6 to 11% - and that would be on top of fixing the current underfunding.
However, the cost of not doing so would be worse - financially, $20 billion a year, according to this, (compared to less than half a billion expenditure, according to this and this), and socially, even more.
Time to act on what the experts advise, and give everyone more time to do so.
The Morrison "government" 's proposed religious discrimination bill
Australia's neoliberal "government" is ignoring the 2019 climate
bushfires and focusing instead on matters such as enabling
religiously-motivated bigotry.
This appalling - doubly so, after being re-written - bill is discussed at https://alastairlawrie.net/2019/12/03/the-internal-contradiction-of-the-morrison-governments-religious-discrimination-bill/ and https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/11/the-coalitions-religious-discrimination-bill-whats-changed-and-can-doctors-refuse-treatment.
From my point of view, I would like someone (and I have written to a couple of progressive MPs requesting them to do this) to ask the following questions:
This appalling - doubly so, after being re-written - bill is discussed at https://alastairlawrie.net/2019/12/03/the-internal-contradiction-of-the-morrison-governments-religious-discrimination-bill/ and https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/11/the-coalitions-religious-discrimination-bill-whats-changed-and-can-doctors-refuse-treatment.
From my point of view, I would like someone (and I have written to a couple of progressive MPs requesting them to do this) to ask the following questions:
- Are the bigotted - and they are that - doctors who are going to refuse to perform certain procedures going to let members of the public know in advance so the bigotted doctors can be avoided?
- If not, is there a way to avoid having to pay those doctors for what amounts to misleading/deceptive conduct (the appointment was made in good faith, but the doctor has not behaved in such a manner - perhaps someone can move an amendment on this)?
- Is compensation going to be available to cater for the harm that the bigoted doctors are causing by having their say? Are patients going to get an equal right of reply to the vitriol they may be exposed to?
- Is there going to be a mechanism to enable patients find decent doctors? (As it is, I drive more than an hour to attend a clinic that I consider reasonable.)
- Will the Morrison "government" ensure that sufficient government funded services in ALL areas of Australia are provided by decent doctors to ensure adequate access for ALL Australians?
Sunday 8 December 2019
The lack of role models, and contempt
Around two decades ago, I first started seriously thinking of getting involved in politics. At the time, I was what now is referred to as a "community activist", and it was the first time I had encountered real exposure to politics beyond what was in the paper.
Growing up, as a teenager in a small-ish Queensland regional town, I missed out on a whole stack of constructive role models.
On that, in terms of work role models, a couple of my teachers suggested I get into teaching: I've always said I made the choice because I didn't want to have to deal with the sort of behaviour my fellow students dished to our teachers, but now, I'm wondering if I might have decided differently, had I seen a young, energetic, enthusiastic teacher who was capably managing the behaviour of my fellow students.
Another teacher suggested I get into writing as a career - and I would have loved to, but all I could think of was writing novels, and I didn't see that I would be able to make a living that way in a relatively small literary market like Australia (no online access to world, nor affordable self-publishing, back then). I had no conception, despite an off-the-cuff remark by my English teacher, of how many fields I could have got into that way. (A couple of decades later, I once applied for a job writing technical manuals, which would have been fulfilling - but was knocked back as being overqualified. I'd seen my experience as an asset as it had included a lot of writing, and have been disappointed ever since, but I now wonder if the people making that decision didn't underestimate the importance of good writing/communication to creating a technical manual? A bit like the importance of teachers has been critically underplayed . . . )
In terms of this post, in those crucial years I had absolutely no idea that it was possible for everyday people to stand for election - I had no clue about what involved in campaigning, and the incredible demands of being an elected representative either, but had I been able to make that connection, there were other backroom roles that I could have pursued.
My only meeting with a politician was one who gave a speech which noted the connection between sailing and politics as both involving a lot of wind at a regional sailing championship. It was a good joke, but hardly enough to draw me into becoming involved with politics.
Looking back now, I also consider that I needed some life experience. I am of the view that when I did start becoming interested in politics, two decades ago as noted, I was probably at a personal development stage that was appropriate, but my personal circumstances had changed - in particular, I had a family at that stage who had no idea of the level of commitment that being a politician involves, had a callous contempt, disregard and disrespect for politicians ("Oh good, you'll be able to get the same perks as them" was one of the comments), and had no idea of how much scrutiny they would come under (and they had, shall I say, a "chequered" history . . . ), so I decided not to pursue that option. My family now is better informed and more supportive, but . . .
Shortly after that my health started falling apart, and I didn't, at that time, see how I could have been effective. Now, I know I could have - see here, for instance (and, to some extent, here).
I want to be clear, by the way, that I am discussing here engaging with politics as what is called "an insider": the option of engaging with politics as a citizen is something that ever citizen SHOULD do anyway - see here.
At the time I'm talking of, the option I thought I had was standing as an independent, and I started a (poor) blog in support of it. I didn't necessarily want to get elected, but I wanted more voters to better understand things like:
This brings up the vexed issue of Parliamentary conventions - those things that people think are a A Big Deal, but don't exist anywhere in physical reality.
The fact that "Royal Assent" is nowhere compelled is a perfect example of that. If, for whatever reason (perhaps genuinely held religious belief), the Governor-General (or one of the State Governors) decided not to give something the "Royal Assent", we, as a society, are . . . <expletive deleted> . . . up the creek without a paddle.
There is no court that can overrule this. Yes, the government can recommend who the Governor-General is, and possibly they can suggest they be removed, but basically, we are . . . <expletive deleted> . . . in trouble.
This is one of the reasons that so much effort is made to select people who are unlikely to perform such an egregious act - and I certainly have no indication that any of our current Governor-General/Governors would even contemplate such matters, but that isn't the <expletive deleted> point.
The point is we, as a democracy, are VULNERABLE.
And that vulnerability can be used by fascists, as it WAS in Italy and Germany in the 20s and 30s and by other tyrants since - for more on that, see here. Such conventions have also been broken by political parties for the purpose of the gain of power - going back to Malcolm Fraser's refusal to allow supply, which was followed up by Governor-General John Kerr choosing, in 1975, to sack a progressive government.
Long before the rise of tyrants like POTUS45, or Queensland's "flying peanut", or any of the others (which events show that we cannot rely on having people of good character - both initially, and while in power [we have no equivalent of the USA's flawed 25th Amendment] - in key or crucial positions) - in fact, for all my life, I have held nothing but contempt for the failure to codify Parliamentary conventions. The conventions are mostly good, but the naive and puerile insistence that they be unenforceable makes democracy vulnerable.
In this age of resurgent fascism, we need to protect our democracy by codifying important conventions, and enabling action to be taken when they are broken. As examples, automatic replacement of a Governor-General or Governor is they fail to give Royal Assent, discounting votes that have been placed when pairing has been broken,
This, today, is what I want more voters to have a better understanding of: political vulnerability, and my contempt for the lack of protection of those.
Growing up, as a teenager in a small-ish Queensland regional town, I missed out on a whole stack of constructive role models.
On that, in terms of work role models, a couple of my teachers suggested I get into teaching: I've always said I made the choice because I didn't want to have to deal with the sort of behaviour my fellow students dished to our teachers, but now, I'm wondering if I might have decided differently, had I seen a young, energetic, enthusiastic teacher who was capably managing the behaviour of my fellow students.
Another teacher suggested I get into writing as a career - and I would have loved to, but all I could think of was writing novels, and I didn't see that I would be able to make a living that way in a relatively small literary market like Australia (no online access to world, nor affordable self-publishing, back then). I had no conception, despite an off-the-cuff remark by my English teacher, of how many fields I could have got into that way. (A couple of decades later, I once applied for a job writing technical manuals, which would have been fulfilling - but was knocked back as being overqualified. I'd seen my experience as an asset as it had included a lot of writing, and have been disappointed ever since, but I now wonder if the people making that decision didn't underestimate the importance of good writing/communication to creating a technical manual? A bit like the importance of teachers has been critically underplayed . . . )
In terms of this post, in those crucial years I had absolutely no idea that it was possible for everyday people to stand for election - I had no clue about what involved in campaigning, and the incredible demands of being an elected representative either, but had I been able to make that connection, there were other backroom roles that I could have pursued.
My only meeting with a politician was one who gave a speech which noted the connection between sailing and politics as both involving a lot of wind at a regional sailing championship. It was a good joke, but hardly enough to draw me into becoming involved with politics.
Looking back now, I also consider that I needed some life experience. I am of the view that when I did start becoming interested in politics, two decades ago as noted, I was probably at a personal development stage that was appropriate, but my personal circumstances had changed - in particular, I had a family at that stage who had no idea of the level of commitment that being a politician involves, had a callous contempt, disregard and disrespect for politicians ("Oh good, you'll be able to get the same perks as them" was one of the comments), and had no idea of how much scrutiny they would come under (and they had, shall I say, a "chequered" history . . . ), so I decided not to pursue that option. My family now is better informed and more supportive, but . . .
Shortly after that my health started falling apart, and I didn't, at that time, see how I could have been effective. Now, I know I could have - see here, for instance (and, to some extent, here).
I want to be clear, by the way, that I am discussing here engaging with politics as what is called "an insider": the option of engaging with politics as a citizen is something that ever citizen SHOULD do anyway - see here.
At the time I'm talking of, the option I thought I had was standing as an independent, and I started a (poor) blog in support of it. I didn't necessarily want to get elected, but I wanted more voters to better understand things like:
(a) that they were - as far as the election Act is concerned - voting for an individual, with limited (there is some) recognition of political parties;The number of arguments I had when we had the referendum on becoming a republic because people thought that getting the "Royal Assent" was automatic and didn't matter!
(b) that what mattered was a parties' policies, not the level of US-presidential style fervour around their leader; and
(c) that we live in a "constitutional monarchy", and once bills (incidentally, I am deliberately being sloppy about my terminology: if you want to know what terms I should be using, go to your Parliament's website) pass Parliament, they are not Laws until they receive the "Royal Assent".
This brings up the vexed issue of Parliamentary conventions - those things that people think are a A Big Deal, but don't exist anywhere in physical reality.
The fact that "Royal Assent" is nowhere compelled is a perfect example of that. If, for whatever reason (perhaps genuinely held religious belief), the Governor-General (or one of the State Governors) decided not to give something the "Royal Assent", we, as a society, are . . . <expletive deleted> . . . up the creek without a paddle.
There is no court that can overrule this. Yes, the government can recommend who the Governor-General is, and possibly they can suggest they be removed, but basically, we are . . . <expletive deleted> . . . in trouble.
This is one of the reasons that so much effort is made to select people who are unlikely to perform such an egregious act - and I certainly have no indication that any of our current Governor-General/Governors would even contemplate such matters, but that isn't the <expletive deleted> point.
The point is we, as a democracy, are VULNERABLE.
And that vulnerability can be used by fascists, as it WAS in Italy and Germany in the 20s and 30s and by other tyrants since - for more on that, see here. Such conventions have also been broken by political parties for the purpose of the gain of power - going back to Malcolm Fraser's refusal to allow supply, which was followed up by Governor-General John Kerr choosing, in 1975, to sack a progressive government.
Long before the rise of tyrants like POTUS45, or Queensland's "flying peanut", or any of the others (which events show that we cannot rely on having people of good character - both initially, and while in power [we have no equivalent of the USA's flawed 25th Amendment] - in key or crucial positions) - in fact, for all my life, I have held nothing but contempt for the failure to codify Parliamentary conventions. The conventions are mostly good, but the naive and puerile insistence that they be unenforceable makes democracy vulnerable.
In this age of resurgent fascism, we need to protect our democracy by codifying important conventions, and enabling action to be taken when they are broken. As examples, automatic replacement of a Governor-General or Governor is they fail to give Royal Assent, discounting votes that have been placed when pairing has been broken,
This, today, is what I want more voters to have a better understanding of: political vulnerability, and my contempt for the lack of protection of those.
Saturday 7 December 2019
This week
I'm going to start this post with wrote I wrote elsewhere:
In the latter category, the possibility of Scotland leaving the UK if Brexit proceeds is being raised again. I have no firm view whether it will or not, but the anger of many Scottish people over the economic harm that is likely from Brexit is palpable. How strongly that would flow over into a vote for independence is not clear to me - someone has probably covered the overlap in a survey, but I haven't read a report on that - although I haven't gone looking, either. If Brexit proceeds, there will be considerable dislocation and pain; if Brexit doesn't proceed, there will be considerable resentment and anger - probably to be point of rage. No option looks good, at the moment.
In Australia, there have also been problems - some mentioned above. Today's imminent storm may be over Minister Dutton's fascist/authoritarian view that Parliament is a "disadvantage for the government of the day".
Such views are undemocratic - they are appalling, and I have to wonder how those who voted for the neoliberals are feeling. (They could be OK: a Boston Globe video on a POTUS45 supporter found he is so alienated he still supports POTUS45.)
We are sliding into authoritarianism, an authoritarianism that is looking disturbingly like fascism, and the openness of our democracy has been downgraded.
(This has been written about by Timothy Snyder [see here and here] and Madeleine Albright [here].)
On top of that, we have ongoing, severe economic problems, which the neoliberals seem to be meeting with old, hackneyed, discredited approaches from the mid-late 20th Century.
As I wrote recently on Twitter:
If we don't go that path, either as states or a nation, then I would like to see more widespread use of bans on key groups who may unreasonably bias or influence elections - not just developers, as is done in NSW, but also the gambling, alcohol, and tobacco industries.
Unions are, in my opinion, exempt from this, as they are acting in the public interest (for workers), much as charities are acting in the public interest of groups that they represent.
And on workers, this article explains some of my recent health problems to me. Given the widespread nature of stress, I wonder how long it will be before our life expectancy starts going backwards.
Final point from this week: activist groups have been targetting tech companies in the USA over the companies' links with the USA's notorious ICE department. Those connections, if they are there, sound like a failure of business ethics to me - and a demonstration of why being ethical in business is so important.
The extent and savagery of the fires in NSW and Qld. are appalling - and we're now getting fires in other states, including my home state. The informed commentary explaining why we should be taking climate action - and other actions - has been common sense and obvious - and I like the suggestion that we refer to these as "the climate fires".There have been a number of gravely concerning events here, and elsewhere.
Our (neoliberal) leaders have failed us; our fire experts, with respect, should probably have listened more to indigenous fire custodians; and we all should have been paying attention, caring, listening and prodding the hell out of whoever wasn't (including ourselves).
The smoke in parts of NSW is staggering. I'm asthmatic, and suffer from high pollen days. If I was living in NSW, I think I would have to get out (although not through airports).
In the latter category, the possibility of Scotland leaving the UK if Brexit proceeds is being raised again. I have no firm view whether it will or not, but the anger of many Scottish people over the economic harm that is likely from Brexit is palpable. How strongly that would flow over into a vote for independence is not clear to me - someone has probably covered the overlap in a survey, but I haven't read a report on that - although I haven't gone looking, either. If Brexit proceeds, there will be considerable dislocation and pain; if Brexit doesn't proceed, there will be considerable resentment and anger - probably to be point of rage. No option looks good, at the moment.
In Australia, there have also been problems - some mentioned above. Today's imminent storm may be over Minister Dutton's fascist/authoritarian view that Parliament is a "disadvantage for the government of the day".
Such views are undemocratic - they are appalling, and I have to wonder how those who voted for the neoliberals are feeling. (They could be OK: a Boston Globe video on a POTUS45 supporter found he is so alienated he still supports POTUS45.)
We are sliding into authoritarianism, an authoritarianism that is looking disturbingly like fascism, and the openness of our democracy has been downgraded.
(This has been written about by Timothy Snyder [see here and here] and Madeleine Albright [here].)
On top of that, we have ongoing, severe economic problems, which the neoliberals seem to be meeting with old, hackneyed, discredited approaches from the mid-late 20th Century.
As I wrote recently on Twitter:
Einstein: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.There are other areas we need new thinking, in my opinion, and public funding of elections is one. If that could be implemented effectively (and I haven't had the energy to go chasing any evidence/analyses on this yet), I consider it might neutralise the financial clout of the neoliberals business backers.
Neoliberals (esp. re economy, climate denial, and today & yesterday in APH): You just keep going on repeat.
If we don't go that path, either as states or a nation, then I would like to see more widespread use of bans on key groups who may unreasonably bias or influence elections - not just developers, as is done in NSW, but also the gambling, alcohol, and tobacco industries.
Unions are, in my opinion, exempt from this, as they are acting in the public interest (for workers), much as charities are acting in the public interest of groups that they represent.
And on workers, this article explains some of my recent health problems to me. Given the widespread nature of stress, I wonder how long it will be before our life expectancy starts going backwards.
Final point from this week: activist groups have been targetting tech companies in the USA over the companies' links with the USA's notorious ICE department. Those connections, if they are there, sound like a failure of business ethics to me - and a demonstration of why being ethical in business is so important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)