The Elephant in the Room

agendaTracker

By Chris Graham, September 13, 2011

For decades, government report after government report has chronicled the continual failure of bureaucracies to lift Aboriginal people out of the mire of poverty and disadvantage. And for decades, Aboriginal people have been offering the same solution, as yet untried. Self-determination. CHRIS GRAHAM looks at the never-ending cycle of government reports into government failure, and the refusal of a nation to accept that it’s part of the problem, not the solution.

The elephant in the room: Self-determination

If the publication of government reports alone were enough to lift Aboriginal people out of disadvantage, then black Australia would be the healthiest and wealthiest people on the planet.

In the past seven months, at least five major reports into the appalling life circumstances of Australia’s First Nations people have been handed down by governments.

They all say pretty much the same thing. Well, almost, but we’ll come to the dissenting report in a minute.

In May, the NSW Auditor General released a report that outlined the train wreck that was the NSW government’s decade-long policy on Aboriginal affairs (Two Ways Together), noting that it had failed to deliver the outcomes intended.

In June, the federal parliament handed down a report entitled Doing Time – Time for Doing, a probe into the extraordinary rates of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth.

That report found government programs to halt the rising incarceration rates were ineffective.

In July, the federal government was forced to release a cabinet-in-confidence document entitled Indigenous Expenditure Review.

It lays bare more than a decade of government failure, and billions of dollars of bureaucratic waste through the failed delivery of services to Aboriginal Australians. It is by some margin, the most harrowing read of government in decades.

In August, the Productivity Commission handed down its bi-annual review, which outlines Commonwealth service delivery to Aboriginal people.

The Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Report 2011 said exactly what was said in 2009 – government programs were failing badly, in no small part because of a lack of coordination between Commonwealth departments.

The fifth report – the dissenting document – was delivered in February.

It was the Prime Minister’s ‘Closing the Gap’ report card, an annual statement to parliament on government progress in, as the name suggests, closing the gap between black and white Australians.

Of the five reports, the Prime Minister’s is the only document to suggest government programs were starting to make a real difference. After telling parliament that Aboriginal people needed to change their behaviour for real gains to be made, Gillard said that while much remained to be done, government service delivery was heading in the right direction.

Obviously, the Prime Ministerial statement flies in the face of the available evidence. Her statement is particularly concerning in light of the contents of the Indigenous Expenditure Review, which stated the precise opposite.

Even more concerning is the reality that Gillard’s cabinet fought tooth and nail to suppress it, finally capitulating after Channel 7 took the government all the way to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and won the right to access the document under Freedom of Information laws.

All of the reports are well worth reading, because they catalogue the sort of government failure that people expect, but rarely believe, even when they see it. But the problem with them is that while they’re very good at identifying the failings, government reports have never really been particularly good at coming up with solutions.

Indeed, a common feature across all of the reports is for the authors to blame governments for their repeated failings, only to suggest governments should continue to centralise service delivery.

In other words, the reports consistently find that bureaucracies are the answer.

In fact, bureaucracies are the problem.

Which leads us to the reason why, year in year out, we keep getting reports on government failure in Aboriginal affairs policy.
Government ministers are looking for solutions in all the wrong places.

In a former life, Paul Kauffman was Associate Professor at the University of Canberra. Today, he’s Manager of Research and Planning at Aboriginal Hostels.

Kauffman has written extensively on international issues around the world, and has a particular focus on the four major western nations with Indigenous populations – Australia, America, Canada, and New Zealand.

In 2003, Kauffman published a ground breaking paper entitled Diversity and Indigenous Policy Outcomes: Comparisons between Four Nations.

It received virtually no mainstream airing upon its release.

The issue of Australia’s performance against its Western peers is a fairly sensitive subject.

We love to be compared with the US, Canada and New Zealand in the sporting arena, but when it comes to human rights – and in particular our treatment of our First Nations people – Australia has a tendency to get a little defensive.

When you read Kauffman’s report, you get a sense why.

Kauffman’s report ranks Australia against the other nations in 21 key areas, covering everything from education and employment to health and incarceration rates.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard pats the climate change elephant. (AAP IMAGE).

The figures are startling.

Just 13.6 percent of Indigenous Australians have a post-school qualification, compared to 85 percent of all Maoris.

Twice as many Aboriginal Canadians speak their native tongue at home, compared to Aboriginal Australians (29.3 percent versus 13.3) and almost twice as many Aboriginal Australians left school before the age of 16, compared to Aboriginal Canadians (40 percent versus 22 percent).

In First Nations youth suicide rates, Australia is a world-beater. The Maori rate – one of the worst on earth – is 56 per 100,000 head of population.

Australia’s rate is almost double that, at 108.

Of the 21 statistical areas, Australia fares worse than Canada, the US and New Zealand in every single category, except four.

We’ll return to those shortly, because the major point of Kauffman’s report is not to belt Australia over the head with its own statistical failings.

It’s to explain why we’re failing so badly.

“Contemporary Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and United States governments claim to have pledged their allegiance to similar policy approaches,” writes Kauffman.

“All governments proclaim that they are committed to renewing partnerships, strengthening Aboriginal governance, developing new fiscal relationships and supporting strong communities, people and economies. It is significant that in the United States and New Zealand, treaty and other agreements have provided extensive educational scholarships, and individual and educational and business opportunities.
And there it is – the ‘T’ word.

A treaty is merely an agreement between two parties. In the context of Indigenous peoples living under colonisation, it is self-determination by any other name. The right to run your own affairs.

But the mention of the word on Australian soil sends politicians and conservative commentators into a tail-spin.

Like this, from former Prime Minister John Howard in 1988, while launching his “One Australia” policy as Opposition Leader (the policy which saw him call for a cooling on Asian immigration).

“I abhor the notion of an Aboriginal treaty because it is repugnant to the ideals of One Australia,” Howard said.

He offered that his One Australia policy would “…welcome all those who share our vision and are ready to contribute to it.”
Presumably, Aboriginal people who want real self-determination are not “welcome”.

Kauffman’s report, however, casts treaty – and self-determination – in a far more positive light. His report argues that in Canada, the US and New Zealand, treaties have paved the way for lifting Indigenous peoples out of their disadvantage, the resultant benefit being prosperity for an entire nation.

New Zealand in particular comes in for high praise.

“The New Zealand story is remarkable, because there was always a treaty or consciousness of a treaty and after restructuring the national economy between 1987 and 1992, Maori employment and livelihood were hit hard,” writes Kauffman.

He adds: “Since 1994 many Maori people throughout New Zealand have re-established themselves to share a reasonable if not bountiful place in the modern New Zealand economy, which with globalisation and the shift to knowledge economies, is still under pressure.

“When I visited New Zealand with eleven Aboriginal leaders in 1998, Maori culture, language, regional agreements, educational initiatives and business success were much in evidence.

“Although there is not statistical equality between Maori and non-Maori in many areas, labour force participation, median weekly income and retention of 16 year olds at school approaches similar levels to non-Maori.

“New Zealand has the best comparative data over time, and that country has shown how well-integrated policies, specifically linking training, education and economic opportunity, can significantly reduce phenomena such as unemployment within a ten year time frame.”

The point being, while most Maori will argue that the Pakeha (white people) have been breaking treaties ever since they were introduced, the sky is yet to fall in on Aoateroa.

“Maori employment and educational rates increased significantly after 1992 because of Treaty settlements and effective programs,” Kauffman says.

“There is pride in their Polynesian cultural heritage and achievements. A number of Treaty or regional agreements allowed Maori to own and work in major corporations.

“It is likely that both business assets and educational investment together were critical factors for change.”

And therein lies the lesson in Kauffman’s report. Rather than hamper Aboriginal progress, treaties have in fact formed the basis of advancement. This is also the case in Canada and the US.

But in Australia, it has been an unfortunate feature of the Australian political landscape that despite having the worst life statistics for First Nations people, we have the best record in telling the rest of world ‘how to fix the blacks’.

In August 2009, Professor James Anaya – the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and one of the world’s foremost experts on Indigenous issues – travelled to Australia to get a first hand look at the Northern Territory intervention, a Howard government 2007 re-election policy that is well-known in the international human rights community for its racially discriminatory measures.
Prof Anaya didn’t like what he saw, and said as much.

In his interim report, he noted: “After several days in Australia listening and learning… I have observed a need to develop new initiatives and reform existing ones in consultation and real partnership with Indigenous peoples to conform with international standards requiring genuine respect for cultural integrity and self determination.

“Of particular concern is the Northern Territory Emergency Response. These measures overtly discriminate against Aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self-determination and stigmatise already stigmatised communities.

“The emergency response is incompatible with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; treaties to which Australia is a party.”

Anaya’s comments sent the conservative commentators and politicians into a rage.

Tony Abbott, then Opposition spokesman on Indigenous affairs, responded by calling Prof Anaya – a man who has devoted his life to travelling the world looking at these issues – an “armchair critic”.

News Limited reported that Prof Anaya’s call for the Racial Discrimination Act to be reinstated for Aboriginal Territorians could trigger an “army of publicly-funded human rights lawyers” to start challenging different aspects of the intervention in court.

Inexplicably, Abbott added: “If there are any concerns about the impact of this measure … why don’t we extend it more broadly? I think that would be the way to solve the problem, not to drop the measure.”

If Abbott was annoyed, the architect of the NT intervention, Mal Brough – a man with more missionary zeal than the 1930s – was apoplectic.

“I get very annoyed when I hear people pontificating about human rights when today there will be children sitting out there in abject squalor with diseases they don’t have to have, with inadequate education, poor nutrition and poor access to health and we have some nicety about human rights legislation,” Brough told ABC radio.

“Let’s get real, look these people in the eye, instead of coming in and telling us that we’ve offended some law rather than offending the right of a child to be healthy and happy and to have a future.”

Anaya was certainly telling Brough he had offended “some law” – namely international human rights law – but he was also telling Brough that his policy was killing Aboriginal men, women and children.

The fact is, human rights don’t cause “inadequate education, poor nutrition and poor access to health”.

Government does. And government neglect is rooted in the refusal to respect and extend basic human rights to a marginalised proportion of the population.

It’s worth remembering Brough and his colleagues were at the end of a 12-year stint in office when he discovered the desperate poverty confronting Aboriginal people.

According to the federal government’s own report into the Northern Territory intervention, released in late 2009 after two years of the policy, the death rate in intervention communities went from 10 in the year prior to the intervention, to 84 the year after.

Suicide and self-harm rates almost doubled in two years.

The intervention caused widespread starvation among Aboriginal people, and the Sunrise Health Service in Katherine reported an immediate spike of up to 57 percent in anaemia rates in children, courtesy of the intervention’s compulsory welfare quarantining provisions. The Australian Indigenous Doctors Association warned the government that the intervention was causing “immediate and lasting harm to Indigenous people”.

In announcing the policy, Howard predicted it would cost some “tens of millions” of dollars.

The bill today has climbed beyond $2 billion.

Notably, the very first recommendation of Little Children Are Sacred, the report which the Howard government used to justify the intervention, noted: “It is critical that both (the NT and federal) governments commit to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives for Aboriginal communities.”

Instead, the Howard government implemented the plan without any consultation with Aboriginal people, save for one – Noel Pearson, a Cape York Aboriginal man with no links to the Northern Territory.

It’s no coincidence that the NT intervention has been such an enormous policy failure.

Which brings us neatly back to the four areas in Kauffman’s report where Australia fares better than Canada, the US and New Zealand.

Unfortunately, they provide no comfort for the current Australian approach of Canberra-control of black communities.

Under the category “single parent families”, Australia beats the US with 28.1 percent versus 39 percent. Even so, you could hardly suggest that Aboriginal families stay together longer thanks to federal government policies.

It’s just the nature of black Australia to stick together longer.

Australia also fared slightly better in smoking rates than New Zealand Maori – 45 percent versus 50 percent.

But that was in 2001. The story today is quite different.

By 2006-07, efforts to stop smoking in New Zealand saw rates cut to less than 40 percent among Maori. At the same time, rates in Australia continued to climb.

In 2011, it sits at more than 50 percent.

Australia also comes in under Maori in diabetes rates – 24 percent compared to 30 percent in New Zealand.

Again, the figures have taken a turn for the worse.

Australia’s rate increased from one in four in 2001, to around one in three today. At the same time, Maori diabetes rates have decreased.

Most notably, one of the four areas where Australia doesn’t fare worse than the other three nations is in employment.

The Maori and Native Americans had unemployment rates of 10 percent and 14.6 percent respectively. Australia’s was 20 percent, but Canada’s was 24 percent.

There’s a simple reason why we didn’t finish last.

By 2001, the Community Development Employment Projects scheme (CDEP) was starting to gather steam.

CDEP was a program where Aboriginal people worked for the dole in, as the name suggested, projects aimed at building their communities.

It was created in 1977 by Aboriginal people near Katherine in the Northern Territory, as a local solution to local problems.

The program was quickly adopted – voluntarily – by Aboriginal communities around the nation, so much so that by 1996 the Census reported it was operating in more than 250 locations.

Enter the white man, in this case the Howard government.

By the mid-2000s, the Howard government had begun branding the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) a “failed experiment in self-determination”.

ATSIC had to go, Howard decided, and CDEP, which was administered by ATSIC, had to go with it. It had become a “destination” rather than a step into real employment, said Howard’s ministry at the time.

When the government finally axed the program in 2007, Aboriginal unemployment had dropped to around 13.8 percent.

Today, four years after the death of CDEP, unemployment now sits at around 20 percent again.

If you want more evidence of the power of black design over white malaise, then look no further than the federal government’s recent experiences in Aboriginal housing.

While dumping on all manner of Australian Government programs aimed at alleviating Aboriginal disadvantage, the Indigenous Expenditure Review which Gillard fought so hard to suppress actually praises one scheme – the Home Ownership Program (HOP).

HOP is one of the few government programs which is actually self-funding, and was described by the Auditor General at the turn of the century as one of the best programs in the Commonwealth.

The program enables black families to access home loans at interest rates one percent lower than the Commonwealth Bank rate. Most importantly, you also don’t require substantial savings to qualify. You just need a capacity to service the loan, and a good rental history.

HOP has been around for almost two decades. Like CDEP, it was an Aboriginal creation, having been designed and launched by ATSIC. Enter the white man again. Specifically, Mal Brough.

After the abolition of the ATSIC, the HOP program – which the Commonwealth retained – saw its waiting list blow out to several years. As a result, in 2008-09, applications nose-dived by 34 percent.

Aboriginal people – who had been queuing up to access an Aboriginal controlled and created program – walked away in droves.

The Howard government could have eliminated the backlog with a fresh injection of funds – money that it would get back through the payment of interest by Aboriginal homeowners. Instead, Brough constructed a brand new program, called HOIL – Home Ownership on Indigenous Lands. He quarantined more than $100 million in housing funds desperately needed by a people who were, in many communities, sharing a single dwelling with more than 20 other residents.

Brough’s bold plan was to encourage Aboriginal people living on their own land to purchase their own homes.

Of course, Brough never stopped to ask whether Aboriginal people in remote regions even wanted to own their own homes. As it turns out, they overwhelmingly didn’t.

Thus, after several years, the HOIL program managed to secure just 15 loans worth less than $3 million.

At the same time, the Commonwealth was forced to spend almost $10 million to administer the program. By any measure, HOIL was a spectacular failure.

In yet another government report, the Australian National Audit Office slammed the program in late 2010: “While it is necessary that costs will be incurred for the establishment of a program of this nature, the administrative costs of $9.9 million for the HOIL program were very high compared to the low level of loan activity that ultimately resulted.”

Significantly, the Indigenous Expenditure Review, recommended that money be transferred out of HOIL and into HOP.

To her credit, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin last year did precisely that. It had an immediate affect, with the waiting list dropping from around 1,500 to just over 400.

Despite the enduring failure of government, there is some light on the horizon, at least in NSW. It’s a pin-prick of light, but light none-the-less.

Earlier this month, the NSW Government announced a Ministerial Taskforce in response to the Auditor General’s report into the failed Two Ways Together program.

When the Two Ways Together report was released, Victor Dominello, the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the O’Farrell government, publicly stated that Aboriginal people were not responsible for the spectacular failure.

It was a surprise – if not refreshing – departure from the usual blame game levelled at the victim’s of government policy.

During an interview with this writer earlier this month (at the announcement of the Taskforce), Dominello was asked why he didn’t take the well worn ministerial path of blaming Aboriginal people for the failings of government.

“Because Aboriginal people weren’t at the table,” Dominello replied.

The NSW Liberal strategy of inviting Aboriginal leaders to the ministerial table is a radical departure from standard Australian government policy. It brings Aboriginal leaders into the process as equal partners. It puts Aboriginal people at least partly in control of the solutions.

As Stephen Ryan, chair of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (publisher of Tracker) put it, “It seems to be, and I hope it is, a taskforce that can address some of the outstanding issues.

“I certainly hope it will be a true partnership and it is, as the Minister says, something that hasn’t been tried before – us, the Aboriginal community of NSW, in the room with a third of the cabinet.

“It’s something we haven’t been given the opportunity to try before, so I’m certainly grateful to the Minister and his cabinet compatriots.

“But it is called a ‘taskforce’, and there’s a hard task ahead of all of us.”

A ministerial taskforce, it’s important to note, is not self-determination. To borrow a phrase from the Howard ministry, it cannot become the destination.

But it is a step in the right direction.

Just as Australia is the only nation on earth that uses the term ‘queue jumpers’ to describe perhaps the world’s most disadvantaged people, Australia is also the only Western nation on earth where self-determination is even debated, let alone considered controversial.

There also happens to be only one Western nation on earth with trachoma, a third world eye disease which has been eradicated in poor nations like Vietnam.

And there’s only one Western nation on earth which jails black males at a rate more than five times greater than South Africa did in 1993, when the Apartheid regime collapsed.

All of the reports mentioned in this feature are available on the NSWALC website, at http://www.alc.org.au (follow the publications link) or via the Tracker website download page (www.tracker.org.au/downloads).

But if you can’t be bothered reading the 40 pages of the Two Ways Together report; if you can’t be bothered reading the 56 pages of the Prime Minister’s Close the Gap report card; if you can be bothered reading the 346 pages of the Doing Time – Time for Doing report; if you can’t be bothered reading the 66 pages of the Productivity Commission’s Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report; and if you can’t be bothered reading the 470 pages of the Indigenous Expenditure Review report, do yourself a favour and read Paul Kauffman’s Diversity and Indigenous Policy Outcomes: Comparisons between Four Nations.

It’s only 28 pages, and it contains more solutions than all the other reports combined. If you’re really stuck for time, skip to the last page. There, you’ll find a table entitled ‘Key national policies and Indigenous outcomes’.

It notes that while Canada, New Zealand and the US all have “constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples”, “Indigenous Treaties” and “Diversity-employment policies”, the column under Australia lists “none”, “none” and “few”.

Now look at the outcomes column.

The male lifespan of First Nations in Australia is 56. The others are between 67 and 68. Under infant mortality, our figures are almost twice as bad as New Zealand and the US. Over-representation in prison: United States, 1.4 times. Australia, 14 times.

Despite this, governments in Australia are still filing report after report on ‘how they broke it’, and ‘how they’ll fix it’.

The elephant in the room – the debate we must have – is about self-determination, the ONLY proven way to lift an Indigenous peoples above the atrocious affects of colonisation.

The fact is, the solutions for black poverty lie within black Australia, not white government.

Always have, always will.

RECOMMENDED READING

OTHER key works Australian governments might consider reading are the bi-annual Sustainable Governance Reports, from Bertelsmann Stiftung, a German think-tank which looks at the stability of nations around the world.

In the Australian report for 2009, one of the authors writes: “Ethnic minorities are not actively discriminated against, but it should perhaps also be noted that Indigenous Australians experience appallingly bad outcomes on almost all measures of economic and social well-being and health.

“While various programs and payments are made available to Indigenous persons, government provision of health care, community services and basic infrastructure in Indigenous communities is far from adequate.

“The federal government recognised this and has recently made a commitment to substantially increasing resources flowing into these communities [a reference to the Council of Australian Governments boost to Indigenous affairs funding].

“Nonetheless, to the extent that government policy has failed to rectify the adverse situation of Indigenous communities, it could be argued that the state does not protect Indigenous civil rights.”

The author of the report is none other than Roger Wilkins, the former secretary of the cabinet office of NSW, under Bob Carr when Two Ways Together was first launched. Wilkins, notably, is now the secretary of the Commonwealth Attorney Generals department, the very bureaucracy that designed the laws to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to enable the Northern Territory intervention.

• Chris Graham is the Managing Editor of Tracker magazine. He is a Walkley Award winning writer and twice won the Human Rights Award for his reporting on First Nations in Australia.

Source

Life in a public mental ward – enough to drive you insane

Catherine Jones
March 15, 2012

An unhealthy system … there are drugs that don’t cause horrendous weight gain – but you won’t be getting them in a public ward.

The state psychiatric system needs urgent reform.

Imagine for a moment that you are returning from the corner shop after buying milk one evening. At the end of your street, you can just make out the outline of two, big, burly police officers, waiting.

As you approach, they grab you, manhandle you, drag you terrified and screaming to the street corner, then violently hurl you into the back of their paddy wagon and race off at breakneck speed – to where, you have no idea.

You have never been dangerous or violent; you have never broken the law or committed any crime – in fact, three short months ago, you were the victim of a serious crime yourself, a violent sexual assault that you were lucky to have survived.

You are worried sick that your mother, who was waiting for you to return from the shop, will have no idea what happened to you and will be frantic that you disappeared into thin air, particularly given your recent history.

When the paddy wagon finally stops, you have arrived at the local public psychiatric hospital.

This is what it felt like to be ”scheduled” under the NSW Mental Health Act when I was 28 and my experiences with the NSW public mental health system only went downhill from there.

Allegedly designed to protect me, to help and heal me, it has done nothing but traumatise and brutalise me, destroy my career and steal great chunks of my life. I now have a severe case of post-traumatic stress disorder, on top of the bipolar disorder triggered by too many anti-depressants in the wake of my sexual assault. And my experience is far from uncommon.

Terrible abuses of human rights occur daily in our public psychiatric facilities but are known only to the victims’ families and close friends, because in essence, no one else cares about people with a mental illness.

The draconian NSW Mental Health Act is every bit as harsh as something you would see in Texas, one of the most backward states in the US, my American lawyer husband tells me. It gives police and doctors carte blanche to treat people scheduled under that act as they please.

I have been in a ward where electroconvulsive therapy was used as a threat; where a dirty look at a nurse could result in a ”code” being called, a bashing by hospital security and hours in a padded cell; where psychological abuse and verbal insults from nurses and doctors were par for the course.

I nearly died in one ward, where I was forced to take a drug that I was highly allergic to, despite my protestations to the doctor that it was causing brain seizures and anaphylaxis.

As an involuntary patient, I had no say in my treatment, even when it was killing me. My life was saved only because three good nurses witnessed a seizure and demanded the doctor change the medication.

The drugs I have been forced to take have seen me balloon from a healthy 62 kilograms in 1997 to my present obese 90kg. (There are drugs that don’t cause such dramatic and horrendous weight gain; I know because my private specialist uses them. But you won’t be getting them in a public ward.)

Even the reasonable hospitals are still glorified jails by another name, where everything, including your phone and wallet, and tea and coffee-making facilities, is locked up, and you are limited to just two phone calls a day.

Being imprisoned for being ill is horrendous enough, but recently in NSW, involuntary patients even lost their right to a timely legal challenge to their detention.

The wait was extended from two weeks to three or sometimes longer to save money, as an independent consultant’s report now reveals, despite two years of denials.

Only now is that being remedied, according to today’s report.

I have done everything I can over the past 14 years to protect myself from this system – I have insight into my illness; I am totally ”medication compliant”; I pay top private health cover to have access to a private psychiatrist and private hospitals. Yet nothing protects you from this public system once you have been in it: as I discovered last year, you can even be scheduled ”on your history” alone.

The public hospital psychiatric system and the Mental Health Act in NSW both need urgent reform. An excellent starting point would be with how people are ”scheduled” under the act. People with a mental illness are statistically no more violent than the rest of the population. So why are police involved in taking them forcibly to hospital?

For everyone else in our society who is ill, we call an ambulance.

Given that one in five of us will became mentally ill at some time in our lives, it could be your loved ones one day. Would you want to see them treated like this?

Source

A history of marriage in Australia

ABC  The Drum
1 July 2011

Rodney Croome

Rodney Croome

Rodney Croome

On August 13, 2004, in a debate punctuated by rage and tears, the Senate passed a Howard government amendment to the Marriage Act banning same-sex marriages.

Rally

Rally in support of gay marriage rights (Getty Images: Luis Ascui)

Exactly 45 years earlier, on August 13, 1959, in the midst of debating Australia’s first national Marriage Act – the one Howard later amended – the House of Representatives erupted at the news an Aboriginal woman had been denied permission to marry.

In Darwin the protector of Aborigines had refused Gladys Namagu permission to marry her white fiance, Mick Daly. In response to questions from the opposition, the Menzies government promised such discrimination would never be written into Australian marriage law.

This coincidence highlights the direct link between the way Aborigines were once denied freedom to marry the partner of their choice and how gay and lesbian Australians are denied the same freedom today.

Yet the link runs deeper than infringing the principle of individual autonomy.

In an article published in the latest edition of Overland, I argue Australian governments have a shameful history of manipulating who ordinary people marry in order to engineer broader visions of what Australian society should be. This history goes back to the earliest times.

In convict Australia the government assumed control over who the majority of white Australians married and used this control for overt ideological purposes. Governor Philip wanted to create a native Australian yeomanry and rewarded those convicts who exhibited appropriate traits with permission to marry.

Forty years later, governor Arthur sought to inculcate convicts with industrial rather than agrarian values and gave the reward of permission to marry to convicts who conformed. There was resistance to these controls from convicts who insisted on marrying for the sake of love or children, from women convicts who married to escape the convict system and become “free subjects”, and of course from the anti-transportationists who despised this kind of governmental intervention in personal life and brought it, and convictism, to an end in the 1850s and 1860s.

But Australian governments had not lost their weakness for infringing freedom to marry. Into the 20th century women had to fight hard for the right to marry who they wished and conduct those marriages free of laws against contraception, abortion and divorce.

Because of the White Australia Policy servicemen in occupied Japan were refused permission to local Japanese women or, if they married anyway, were unable to return to Australia with their Japanese wives.

Infringement of Aboriginal freedom to marry was most notorious of all. Beginning in the 1860s in Victoria and culminating in the 1930s in West Australia and Queensland, authorities assumed ever more control of who Indigenous people married.

In Queensland the purpose was to prevent miscegenation by preventing black/white marriages. In WA it was to absorb blacks into the white population by preventing black/black unions.

The adverse effect on Indigenous people was always the same, and, as with convicts, some Aborigines resisted control. Women deliberately fell pregnant to their forbidden fiancés, couples escaped to states without marriage controls, and in 1935 the “half-caste women of Broome” petitioned the WA Parliament declaring:

Sometimes we have the chance to marry a man of our own choice… therefore we ask for our Freedom so that when the chance comes along we can rule our lives and make ourselves true and good citizens.

Aboriginal advocates in Sydney and Melbourne were slower to pick up on the issue. But when they did – as a way to prick the conscience of an Australia increasingly concerned about “Hitlerism” – the right to marry the partner of one’s choice shot to the top of Aboriginal Australia’s list of demands above land rights and equal pay, and second only to the right to vote.

When the case of Gladys and Mick hit the headlines across the world, thanks in part to an appeal to the UN Secretary General, it helped end the entire rotten system of Aboriginal protection laws and propelled the nation towards overwhelming endorsement of Aboriginal citizenship in 1967.

Many white Australian’s have forgotten how important freedom to marry was, but not so Indigenous people like lawyer, Tammy Williams. When the issue of same-sex marriage was raised during the recent national human rights consultation she said, “I couldn’t help but think about my family, when you talked about the right to choose your partner… In my family, it’s only one generation ago that we were prevented from choosing our chosen partner to marry – not because of sexual orientation, but simply because of our race, our Aboriginality.

The denial to gay and lesbian Australians of our freedom to marry follows the historical pattern I have outlined.

The decision to form a lifelong legal union with one other person is one of the most important decisions most of us is ever called on to make. To rob an entire group of citizens of the legal right to make that decision sends the message that they are not fully adults, fully citizens or fully human. This was the burden convicts and Aborigines carried in their day and it is the burden gay and lesbian Australians carry today.

As it was in the past, today’s infringement of the freedom to marry is part of a broader ideological vision imposed by government. That vision is a theocratic one which sees the subtle re-introduction of Biblical values back into civil law following their removal in the second half of the 20th century.

Most importantly, the success of today’s freedom to marry movement will, like the movements before it, have consequences far beyond those directly affected. It will mean a re-affirmation of equity, impartiality and humanity as the values that govern Australian law. It will mean marriage is no longer manipulated to discriminatory, ideological ends and is instead what it should be, an affirmation of love, a commitment to fidelity, a source of security and a font of personal happiness.

Routine violations of the freedom to marry seem to well up from the bedrock of Australia’s history. But so do challenges to these abuses. As a result, when these challenges succeed, Australian society matures quickly and profoundly.

Rodney Croome AM, is an honorary lecturer in sociology at the University of Tasmania.

Source

Pride and prejudice

Daily Life

February 29, 2012 – 9:26AM

Alyena Mohummadally

Pakistani-born lawyer and social justice activist Alyena Mohummadally on the challenge of reconciling religion and sexuality.

Alyena Mohummadally ... proud queer Muslim

I was raised in a Muslim household where we were encouraged to ask questions and seek answers. But for a long time, all I knew about sexuality and Islam was that heterosexuality was celebrated once married, and that homosexuality – a word used to describe men who have sex with men – was forbidden. Lesbians didn’t even get a look in.

I had known I was attracted to women since I was in my early teens. I remember watching German Figure Skater Katarina Witt in the Winter Olympics and thinking she was the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen.

I first ‘came out’ to my parents when I was at Uni, but I went back into the closet when I saw the emotional chaos it caused for my family. My father didn’t want to speak about it and my little sister felt like I was tearing our family apart. I ended up denying my sexuality and living a double life, and hating myself for it.
Advertisement: Story continues below

In 2000, I entered my first same-sex relationship, and then suddenly it dawned on me that maybe I was no longer Muslim. When I decided to renounce my faith, I was miserable but I couldn’t pretend I didn’t want a life with a woman. Strict interpretations say that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. So I felt I couldn’t be queer as well as Muslim, and I was consumed by confusion. I even spent a year lying to my parents and saying I was “Women’s Officer” at Uni when I was the “Queer Officer”.

Eventually, I moved interstate and found the courage to explore both sides of my identity and discovered I could not deny my sexuality nor my spirituality. I could be both Muslim and queer since I believed Allah created me this way, and being a good person was enough for me to call myself Muslim. I am not a cleric nor religious scholar but I studied the religion and found my own way home. There are 99 names for God in Islam, and 97 of them are words like gentle, merciful, forgiver – this is the God that made me.

Until a few years ago, there were no online support groups for queer Muslims in Australia. I made a promise to myself that is I was ever comfortable enough with my reconciling faith and sexuality, then I would do something to help people find a voice when I for so long believe I had none. In 2005, I founded an online support group “Queer Muslims in Australia” to provide people like me with a safe space to connect.

We have just over 100 members so the group is small by today’s standards but I think of it as over a hundred brave people who are on a journey not dissimilar to my own. It still makes me extremely sad to read of people searching for “sham weddings” because it is not safe to come out. But I also do not think anyone should come out if there is a risk that they might be harmed or hurt – and this is a real risk for many people.

It has been a long and difficult road for my family to come to accept my sexual identity, but it’s worth it. I am now in a happy, committed and secure relationship with a non-Muslim woman, with whom I have a young son. We are raising our child to be Muslim because it just feels right. Although my parents have said that they still wonder why Allah created me differently, they accept my partner, and love her and my son. This is what matters to me.

Ultimately, I identify as a “queer Muslim”. But I am also a mother, partner, sister and daughter, a lawyer and a social justice activist. And I have found that I cannot be happy if I choose one world over the others. I’ve had countless people say to me, ‘You can’t be queer and Muslim – it just doesn’t exist in Islam.” To this, I simply say, “I exist. So it must be possible.”

Source

Should we name and shame online racists?

Tory Shepherd

by Tory Shepherd

18 Jan 05:50am

——————————————————————————

The interwebs are a cesspit of bigotry, bullying and racism, hate and snuff porn, and all things dark and evil, right?

Does anonymity breed hate? Pic: AP

Right. But, being a human place, they’re also full of wit and wisdom and things of beauty.

It’s hard to tell who’s winning, but there’s a bloody interesting skirmish going on. Twitter user @lizsinnott tweeted a screenshot from a Facebook page on which a bunch of racist nongs had posted racist rubbish about an ad for indigenous education.

Pig ignorant, superficial, uneducated, poorly composed, petty, nasty crap like:

God! Look at that boonga nose! Disgusting! Maybe if they stopped pretending to be Australian dancing animals who beat sticks and think it’s music and started being humans who dont live off the doll they’d get somewhere in life.

Disgusting indeed.

Another Twitter user, @swearycat, posted the screenshot on their blog. It spread through social media. And then people started tracking down the racist clowns, figuring out where they worked, and reporting them to their employers.

Modern medium, classic name and shame.

I won’t repeat the names here, because the people who are now involved in the exposé are redacting the names as people apologise, so I’ll leave the list in their capable hands.

The broader question is: Is naming and shaming an effective tactic against people being dickwads, and worse?

It certainly got Marieke Hardy in trouble. Hardy joined in a shaming exercise under the hashtag #mencallmethings, pointing to a blog post she’d written about the author of “ranting, violent” online attacks against her – but got the name wrong, and was forced to apologise.

But what if you get it right, and can literally shame people into realising the error of their ways?

The best outcome would be that you might force people to realise they let the crazy free-for-all hatefest of the internet go to their heads. They might just take a good hard look at themselves. It might make them think about what they say, and stop feeding the beast.

It might just make them stop spreading hate speech on Facebook, and turn to forums where it’s easier to stay anonymous. Anonymity gives people great freedom to voice their most horrid thoughts, to give free reign to foul ideas and to become world wide bullies.

It could, conceivably, encourage people to pose as others and post hateful things in order to discredit their enemies.

It could encourage cyber vigilantes.

I still reckon it’s worth a go. Like it or not, the internet is a frontier town. It’s close to lawless – and that’s part of its beauty. Censorship is not the answer; neither is removing the cloak of anonymity that allows people to speak without fear of retribution.

But where bad ideas fester, and hate speech flourishes, the best weapon against it is fresh air and sunlight, and the ridicule of the cyberworld.

And if you’re stupid enoughto be racist, and to put your own name to your racism, well you’ve already done the naming and shaming part yourself.

@ToryShepherd

Source

The long, long road to Utoya

The Drum

15 December 2011

Jeff SparrowAnders Breivik

On The Drum last week, Chris Berg attacked the book On Utoya (to which I’m a contributor) for suggesting a link between Islamophobic rhetoric and Anders Breivik’s anti-Muslim rampage.

“There is,” Berg said, “an enormous moral leap between believing multiculturalism is a bad policy and systematically slaughtering 77 members of the Norwegian Labour Party, some as young as 14 years old. To suggest they are on the same continuum is to obscure how anybody could make that leap.”

I wonder if Berg actually read the book.

On Utoya‘s not about people who believe “multiculturalism is a bad policy”. Rather, it discusses rightwing commentators who, like Breivik, see multiculturalism as a cover for what they generally call “Islamicisation”.

As it happens, one of the more extreme and repellent of these Islamophobic pundits was just in Australia.

A few weeks ago, the Q Society hosted an Australian tour by the American writer Robert Spencer.

Spencer runs a website called Jihad Watch, in which he publicises whatever slurs about Muslims that Google sends his way. Recently, he launched an “Action Alert” over a nefarious plot to force halal birds upon innocent Americans. Butterball turkeys represent, you see, the latest gobbling incarnation of the “stealth jihad” by which Islam enslaves the West and its people. He also helped initiate an ad-boycott against a reality TV-show All American Muslim: the Florida Family Association, with whom Spencer has allied himself, claims the show about average Muslim families is actually “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values”.

Spencer works closely with the blogger Pamela (‘Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s Son’) Geller, another big name in the so-called “counter jihadi” milieu. Together, they run the group Stop the Islamization of America, an outfit described by the Anti-Defamation League as “consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy ‘American’ values.”

Both featured repeatedly in Breivik’s manifesto.

“About Islam,” he wrote, “I recommend essentially everything written by Robert Spencer.”

As you would expect, in the aftermath of the Oslo massacre, Geller and Spencer hastily condemned their Norwegian admirer (though Geller couldn’t resist pointing out that the teenagers he murdered were “future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate”, nor posting a picture with a caption about how the camp attendees had “faces which are more MIddle [sic] Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian”).

For his part, Spencer noted that Breivik had explicitly criticized the non-violent orientation of Jihad Watch, a criticism that meant, he said, any connection between his work and Breivik’s actions was ludicrous.

It’s true that Spencer and Breivik disagree about how to fight Islamicisation.

But they don’t disagree that its happening. Spencer’s Melbourne talk concluded like this:

This is an unconventional war. We are in a war, we are in a clash of civilisations. The thing I want to leave with you in closing is that we are the soldiers. The soldiers are not in uniform. There are no armies on the field. The armies on the field are there, they’re doing noble work but that’s only one small part. The main struggle is right here. And we are it. This is a battle for the soul of Australia, for the soul of Europe, for the soul of America, for the soul of the west. And it’s outcome is not at all decided, as dire as it may look, because we have not yet begun to fight. It is up to us

Breivik, too, thinks a war with Islam is already underway.

His disagreement with Spencer and Geller, then, isn’t about the diagnosis. It’s just about the nature of the cure.

That’s the real jump – from accepting rhetoric about war, to taking up the gun to fight it.

Naturally, the vast majority of those who attended Spencer’s lectures won’t embrace violence (and nor did he urge them to).

In that sense, the debate about Breivik’s sanity is moot. By definition, if you commit mass murder, you’re not normal, simply because normal people aren’t mass murderers.

On the same tautological level, Berg’s correct to say no-one’s responsible for Breivik’s actions except Breivik. He’s the one who pulled the trigger – not Spencer, not Geller, and not anyone else.

Yet Berg refuses to acknowledge what Breivik himself was perfectly clear about – ideas and actions are related.

Spend some time on the big anti-Islam websites, and you’ll read over and over and over again that Muslims are violent, dangerous and determined to destroy everything the West holds dear. On Spencer’s page, for instance, commenters refer to Muslims as “subhuman barbarians”, “parasites”, “savages”, “people infected with the musloid faith”, “vermin” and so on.

LoonWatch noted one thread that contained

thirty-five comments by JihadWatch readers, and not a single one who opposed the idea of ethnic cleansing of Germany (or the entire non-Muslim world) and the nuking of Mecca on ethical grounds (with the notable exception of Ronald who thought that it would mean losing the oil reserves and another user who thought there are more creative ways to deliver “pure insult and humiliation” upon Muslims). Not a single commentator on the thread opposed either of these two ideas on moral grounds.

Geller’s blog is the same: almost every post descends into overt eliminationism.

Oh, of course, Spencer says he’s not responsible for his readers and their desires for racial murder. He doesn’t, his blog says, necessarily endorse their comments. But where, we might ask, do they get these ideas? Why do advocates of mass slaughter feel so comfortable around him?

Spencer and Geller also work together on another hate group called the American Freedom Defense Initiative. One of its original board members is a certain John Joseph Jay. Back in 2008, Jay explained on Pamela Geller’s blog how this war against Muslims should be conducted:

“We should declare war on iran, syria, egypt and saudi arabia, as well as libya and the sudan and somalia, and we should kill people by the scores. no science. no precision bombing. no shock and awe designed to ‘impress’ and send ‘signals’, but old fashioned war with wholesale slaughter including indiscriminate death of innocents and babes. down to the last muslim, if necessary.”

“Old fashioned war with wholesale slaughter including indiscriminate death of innocents”: that’s pretty much what Breivik provided a few years later.

Like Breivik, Jay’s enthusiasm for murder extends beyond Muslims to a Left that he says facilitates “stealth jihad”. That’s why, on his own blog, he urges readers to

buy guns. buy ammo. be jealous of your liberties. and, understand, you are going to have to kill folks, your uncles, your sons and daughters, to preserve those liberties.

Yes, there’s a difference between Spencer denouncing liberals as traitors and Jay declaring they should be exterminated, just as there’s a gap between Jay preaching mass murder and Breivik actually carrying it out.

But it shouldn’t be difficult to understand how the constant shared rhetoric about existential war breaks down Berg’s “enormous moral leap” and makes it far more likely that a keyboard warrior will creep out from behind his PC, believing, as he lifts his rifle, that he’s saving Christian civilization, that he’s finally doing what all his friends just talk about.

Chris Berg says that Breivik was a “shocking outlier”, indicative of nothing.

It’s a ludicrous argument.

With their epic struggle against the Mooslamic turkeys, Geller and Spencer might seem like fringe nutters. But they’re not. They’re both widely published (two of Spencer’s books have been New York Times best-sellers); they appear regularly on the circuit of right-wing radio and Fox News.

Together, they wrote the 2010 book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, in which they argued a line almost identical to Breivik’s manifesto:

Transformational issues facing this nation and the world at large—the world at war, creeping Sharia, the perversion of the rights of free men—hang in the balance during the Obama administration as never before. The stakes could not be higher. On foreign policy, Europe has lain down. The political elites have capitulated to Islamists and to multiculturalists. Europe is committing slow cultural and demographic suicide. It seems unclear that they could hold up their end even if America did the heavy lifting.

That book appeared with a glowing foreword by former ambassador to the UN John Bolton – a man who Newt Gingrich has recently announced will be Secretary of State under a Gingrich presidency. Indeed, Gingrich himself seems on-side in this lunatic crusade. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination recently announced that “sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and the world as we know it”.

Meanwhile, in Europe, far-right groups, many with histories stretching back to the fascist era, are re-orienting to exploit anti-Muslim sentiment – and, as a result, they’re growing.

Mattias Gardell, a Swedish expert on the far right, provides the following list of what he calls “redesigned brown [ie fascist] parties”:

Fremskrittspartiet, (Progress Party, Norway), Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats), Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party), Sannfinländarna (True Finns), Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom, Netherlands), Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest), Front National (Belgium), Front National (France), Mouvement pour la France, British National Party, Lega Nord (Northern League, Italy), Futuro e Libertá (Italy), Schweizerische Volkspartei (Swiss People’s Party), Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Germany), Pro Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany), Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Freedom Party of Austria), Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (Alliance for the Future of Austria) and Laikós Orthódoxos Synagermós (People’s Orthodox Rally, Greece).

Gardell notes:

Some of these have been remarkably successful. Dansk Folkeparti gained nearly 14 per cent of the votes in Denmark’s 2007 election; Fremskrittspartiet – of which Breivik was once a member – received 23 per cent of the vote in Norway’s 2009 election; and Partij voor de Vrijheid – whose leader Geert Wilders seeks to ban the Koran – became the third largest party in parliament, with 17 per cent in the 2010 election. In Sweden, Sverigedemokraterna – whose ideologue Kent Ekeroth believes that Sweden and Europe are cast in an apocalyptic war with Islam and Muslims, and who co-funds the anti-Muslim network out of which Breivik emerged – became the first brown party in the country’s history to enter parliament, with close to 6 per cent in the 2010 election. In Finland, True Finns – whose ideologue Jussi Halla-aho says that Europeans have but two options when confronted with Muslim immigration: war or surrender – gained 19 per cent in the 2011 election, just 1 per cent away from becoming the largest party.

There are no adequate statistics on hate crimes in Europe, since few countries collect information about violence against Muslims. Nonetheless, the latest OIC Islamophobia Observatory report documents disturbing incidents from May 2010 through April 2011.

In one instance in Norway, where the massacre also took place, vandals desecrated a mosque in August, 2010, with spray-paint writings saying “oink” and “Allah is a [picture of a pig]”. In another 2010 Mosque attack, this time in the Netherlands, a dead sheep was found hanging in the place where a mosque was to be built. In a similar incident in Normandy, France, inscriptions reading “Islam get out of Europe”, “No to Islam and to burkas”, along with swastikas, were discovered on 15 July, 2010, which the report suggests might be encouraged by a law banning women from wearing the full-face Islamic veils in public, since the timing of the events coincide.

A few months ago, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned: “A dangerous trend is emerging, a new politics of polarization. Some play on people’s fears. They accuse immigrants of violating European values. Europe’s darkest chapters have been written in language such as this. Today the primary targets are immigrants of the Muslim faith.”

Most of the rebadged far-right organisations have retained their old-school anti-Semitism even as they choose, for strategic reasons, to campaign against Islam (and, often, support Israel). Indeed, the tropes of traditional anti-Semitism generally reappear in the new discourse of anti-Islam bigotry. Gardell explains how:

anti-Muslim conspiracy theory comes complete with its own version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Evoking a Manichean vision of a struggle between the forces of light and darkness, it tell us that for 1300 years the Western world has been locked in an apocalyptic conflict with ‘Islam’, which is depicted as an animated being with a sinister agency, which tirelessly seeks the eradication of Christian Europe, the last outpost of freedom.

The journalist Colm Ó Broin has produced a neat demonstration of the relationship between the old hate and the new hate, with a close comparison of Spencer’s writing on Muslims next to the propaganda of Julius Streicher, the editor of the notorious anti-Semitic magazine from the Nazi era, Der Stuermer.

Here are the first nine of his parallels.

Muslims/Jews have a religious duty to conquer the world.
“Islam understands its earthly mission to extend the law of Allah over the world by force.” Robert Spencer.
“Do you not know that the God of the Old Testament orders the Jews to consume and enslave the peoples of the earth?” Julius Streicher.

The Left enables Muslims/Jews.
“The principal organs of the Left…has consistently been warm and welcoming toward Islamic supremacism.” Robert Spencer.
“The communists pave the way for him (the Jew).” Julius Streicher.

Governments do nothing to stop Muslims/Jews.

“FDI* acts against the treason being committed by national, state, and local government officials…in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.” (Freedom Defense Initiative, Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller organisation).

“The government allows the Jew to do as he pleases. The people expect action to be taken.” Julius Streicher.

Muslims/Jews cannot be trusted.

“When one is under pressure, one may lie in order to protect the religion, this is taught in the Qur’an.” Robert Spencer.

“We may lie and cheat Gentiles. In the Talmud it says: It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles.” From The Toadstool, children’s book published by Julius Streicher.

Recognising the true nature of Muslims/Jews can be difficult.

“There is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims.” Robert Spencer.

“Just as it is often hard to tell a toadstool from an edible mushroom, so too it is often very hard to recognize the Jew as a swindler and criminal.” From The Toadstool, children’s book published by Julius Streicher.

The evidence against Muslims/Jews is in their holy books.

“What exactly is ‘hate speech’ about quoting Qur’an verses and then showing Muslim preachers using those verses to exhort people to commit acts of violence, as well as violent acts committed by Muslims inspired by those verses and others?” Robert Spencer.

“In Der Stuermer no editorial appeared, written by me or written by anyone of my main co-workers, in which I did not include quotations from the ancient history of the Jews, from the Old Testament, or from Jewish historical works of recent times.” Julius Streicher.

Islamic/Jewish texts encourage violence against non-believers.

“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter… — 2:191.” Koranic verse quoted by Robert Spencer on Jihadwatch.org.

“And when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally: men and women and children, even the animals. (Deuteronomy 7:2.).” Biblical verse quoted by Julius Streicher in Der Stuermer.

Christianity is peaceful while Islam/Judaism is violent.

“There is no Muslim version of ‘love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you’ or ‘if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also’.” Robert Spencer.

“The Jew is not being taught, like we are, such texts as, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’, or ‘If you are smitten on the left cheek, offer then your right one’.” Julius Streicher.

Muslims/Jews are uniquely violent.

“(Islam) is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.” Robert Spencer.

“o other people in the world has such prophecies. No other people would dare to say that it was chosen to murder and destroy the other peoples and steal their possessions.” Julius Streicher.

It’s pretty remarkable stuff. But then we come to the tenth point, and it’s the real kicker.

The final parallel is a shared insistence that such criticism has no relationship to violence.

“There is nothing in anything that I have ever written that could be reasonably construed as an incitement to violence against anyone,” says Robert Spencer.

In a strict sense, that’s probably true. Spencer himself, unlike his associates, knows to watch his mouth. In Orwell’s terms, he’s the kind of person always somewhere else when the trigger gets pulled.

Then again, so was Streicher.

For that was his defence at Nuremberg – he’d never personally incited violence.

“The contents,” Streicher argued, “of Der Stuermer as such were not [an incitement to violence]. During the whole 20 years, I never wrote in this connection, ‘Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death’. Never once did such an incitement appear in Der Stuermer.”

Streicher didn’t burn houses down himself. Nor, he claimed, did he encourage others to do so.

But if you publish article after article claiming that a particular minority group is a deadly menace, a violent, existential threat to the nation and its citizens, can you really claim surprise if others take you seriously?

Which brings us back to Berg and the IPA.

If someone toured Australia peddling Streicher-style slurs against Judaism, the Jewish community would be rightly outraged, precisely because of the relationship between talk about war against a minority and actual physical violence against them.

Would Australian conservative think tanks argue they had nothing to worry about? Would they tell them that rhetoric about “war against Jews” was merely a suggestion that multiculturalism was a bad policy? Would he reassure them that past examples of deadly violence were the result of an apolitical lunacy for which no-one other than the direct perpetrators were responsible?

If not, wherein lies the difference. During his Australian sojourn, Robert Spencer was invited onto ABC Queensland to discuss his theories. Would a peddler of hatred against any other minority have been treated that way?

That’s the thesis of On Utoya: that bigotry against Muslims has been consistently downplayed in the mainstream, thus creating an environment in which violence becomes more likely.

Unfortunately, the argument seems more relevant than ever.

Jeff Sparrow is the editor of Overland literary journal and the author of Killing: Misadventures in Violence. He Tweets @Jeff_Sparrow.

Source

Underarm stink also underhand

SMH National Times
Waleed Aly
January 13, 2012

Opinion

Ranting racist

Illustration: Andrew Dyson.

Teresa Gambaro’s wrong-headed remarks about migrants are symbolic of a wider problem with Coalition attitudes.

How did Teresa Gambaro’s father smell? Let us survey the evidence. His first Australian job was as a farmhand in the hot, sweaty climes of north Queensland. It’s unclear how long he stuck at this, but it must have been quite some time because it gave him enough savings to buy a small fish store, which rapidly grew into an impressive seafood business.

From this, I am apparently to deduce that he stank. Not simply because of his obviously stench-filled path from farm labourer to fishmonger. Mainly because he migrated to Australia from a war-ravaged Italy. This indicates his personal hygiene was not up to Australian standards, and more specifically, that he was insufficiently acquainted with the virtues of deodorant. On this I cite no less pertinent an authority than his own daughter, Teresa, who so infamously declared this week that migrants need to be taught such things if they are to integrate. You smell! What began as a schoolyard insult suddenly became public policy formulation.

Public outrage was swift and loud, and Gambaro’s apology inevitable and ”unreserved”. She regrets ”any offence that may have been taken”. So, that’s that, then. Case closed. ”Let’s move on,” pleads acting Opposition Leader Warren Truss.

Not so fast. Certainly, there is little point expounding further on the myriad ways in which Gambaro’s remarks were wrong-headed. So plain is the error, and so pervasive the retorts that further substantive analysis is now redundant. But this doesn’t mean we should simply press on as though nothing has happened. Something has happened. Something that keeps happening. Something telling about the Coalition’s approach to the politics of culture.

You’ll remember that patch from around 2005 when Coalition MPs, then in government, seemed to be competing with each other to demonstrate belligerence on the issue of migration and integration. Mostly (and predictably given world events) this was directed towards Muslims. Bronwyn Bishop demanded that we ban headscarves in schools because they made women subservient, then when confronted with the fact that many headscarved women felt perfectly free, said they were like Nazis who felt free in Nazi Germany. Brendan Nelson told Muslims who didn’t know the story of Simpson and his donkey to ”clear off”. More recently Cory Bernardi declared that ”Islam itself is the problem”, describing it as ”an ideology that is mired in 6th-century brutality”.

But this invective is not confined to Muslims. Recall Kevin Andrews’ pledge to cut the immigration intake from Africa in 2007 because Africans fail to integrate. And this in response to the murder of a young Sudanese refugee by young white men; an impressive victim-blaming manoeuvre.

Such outbursts may not be Coalition policy, but they express a certain political logic that Coalition policy does express, just in more moderated tones. The individual who goes too far (like Gambaro) is transgressing only in degree, not in essence.

A day before Gambaro opined about stench, opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison attacked the government’s multiculturalism policies as mere ”symbolism”. This is a familiar Coalition theme. It is the reason John Howard gave for refusing to apologise to the stolen generations. In its own narrative, the Coalition doesn’t do gestures. It does commonsense, practical things. None of that ”mushy, misguided multiculturalism” Peter Costello so abhorred.

Just tell migrants how to act, what to value and what to spray on their armpits; it’s direct action for wogs.

But there’s a deceit here. Far from being baldly practical, the Coalition’s cultural politics are every bit as symbolic as Labor’s. To see this, we need only recall the citizenship test initiative of 2006. The headline message was clear: tougher citizenship requirements to make sure only the worthy get admitted. But the practical effects of the policy were far less hairy-chested. The test was hardly taxing, and for most categories of migrant, the changes meant they could become citizens sooner – after four years’ residence rather than five.

Meanwhile, government literature banged on with slogans such as ”Australian citizenship is a privilege, not a right” and sample questions emerged evoking Bradman and Phar Lap. This was naked iconography. And the government was sure to announce the policy several times: first in the form of a discussion paper, then as a confirmed policy position, then as a budget item deserving of its own specific press release.

This was clearly something the Howard government wanted to talk about. Much as it liked to talk about the importance of migrants learning English while it was cheerfully slashing funding for English-language tuition. Clearly, the rhetoric demanding integration mattered more than the resources that might encourage it.

What little I know of Mr Gambaro’s work history I learned from his daughter’s maiden speech to Parliament. In the present context it makes particularly interesting reading because of the warmth it expresses towards Italian migrants and the way it celebrates Chinatown (located in Gambaro’s seat of Brisbane) and doesn’t once complain about the smell. But the symbolic order of a party is rarely set by maiden speeches. And here we must recognise the symbolism that pretends to be practical. To refuse to apologise to the stolen generations is a symbolic gesture in its own right. To declare that migrants disproportionately have a deodorant problem, citing no more evidence than ”you hear reports” of these things, is deeply symbolic. Symbolism is not confined to feel-good politics. Prejudice needs its symbols, too.

Waleed Aly is a broadcaster and a politics lecturer at Monash University.

Source

Refugee student scores top marks for uni entry

BETHANY HIATT EDUCATION EDITOR,

The West Australian Updated December 30, 2011, 3:00 am

Iranian refugee Arash ArabshahiAn Iranian refugee who started school in Australia just three years ago speaking almost no English was among 15 WA students to achieve the highest possible university admission rank of 99.95.

Arash Arabshahi, 19, who worked nights at a fast-food outlet so he could buy textbooks, attended the intensive English centre at Cyril Jackson Senior Campus for a year before going on to complete Years 11 and 12.

Pushing him every step of the way was older brother Amir, 20, who also did Year 12 this year and achieved a stellar Australian Tertiary Admission Rank of 97.05.

After leaving Iran, the brothers spent four years in Turkey with their mother Maasoumeh Tanabi before being accepted into Australia. They live in Bentley.

Ms Tanabi, who lectured in nursing in Iran, said they had to flee because of her involvement in human rights activities. She was reluctant to give details.

The boys’ father, a teacher, remained in Iran.

Arash said he was “really happy” when he found out his results at 12.30am yesterday because he had not expected to do so well.

He studied two maths courses, physics, chemistry and English and said it had been difficult to adapt to learning in a new language and education system.

“But I think with hard work you can do anything,” he said.

The brothers hope to study medicine at the University of WA.

Cyril Jackson principal Karen Woods said Arash had been dux of the school and his perfect score was an amazing achievement.

“What we find with our refugee students is they are highly aspirational and they work very hard,” she said.

“And they’re very interested in the caring professions because they want to give back.”

Among other students to achieve a perfect ATAR was Rossmoyne Senior High School’s Norris Lan, who plans to study law, and Christ Church Grammar School’s Harald Breidhal

Kalamunda Senior High School student Marisa Duong, on holiday overseas, also overcame great odds to make the top 15.

The international student arrived from Vietnam four years ago with only a basic grasp of English but went on to become dux of her school. She hopes to become a biomedical engineer.

Also holidaying overseas is St Mary’s Anglican Girls’ School student Thisuri Jayawardena, who continued a family tradition of academic excellence by achieving the top rank.
Her brother Binu won the Beazley medal as top student in 2008.

Source

Elsewhere

Leadership Australia – A New Generation

Refugees make their mark after hard slog

Asian migration a tour de force

You’re in Australia: Speak English!

Google and ilk can’t shirk responsibility for ranters

Sydney Morning Herald

December 30, 2011

OPINION

————————————————————————————–

Welcome to the world of hate blogging. A reported defamation payout of $13,000 by the TV book show celebrity Marieke Hardy gives us an inkling of the dark side of the blogosphere.

Marieke Hardy

Marieke Hardy ... victim of poisonous blog posts. Photo: Damian Bennett

Hardy has been the victim of some poisonous blog posts for more than five years by someone assuming the name of ”James Vincent McKenzie”.

It’s distressing stuff and naturally Hardy is offended. Her error was accusing, in one of her own blog posts, the wrong person as being the author of these ”ranting, violent” attacks.

Under a naming and shaming exercise with the Twitter hashtag of #mencallmethings she pointed to her own blog, which said Joshua Meggitt was the person responsible.

Meggitt had posted critical remarks about the First Tuesday Book Club on ABC TV, where Hardy is a regular member of the panel, but he was not the author of the extraordinarily nasty ”James Vincent McKenzie” blog.

Hence, the payout and apology to Meggitt.

So who is James Vincent McKenzie? The comments on his blog make all sorts of helpful speculations – Kyle Sandilands, a jilted lover, Jack Marx, even Hardy herself.

The blog appears recently to have changed URLs, which adds to the trickiness of the enterprise.

Presumably, if McKenzie’s true identity could be revealed, Hardy might be on her way to getting back her $13,000. After all, she is just as much a victim as Meggitt.

What is alarming is the propensity for hateful and anonymous blogs to continue publishing after the online host would be aware of the content.

How safe can the identity of McKenzie remain? The blogspot.com site which he uses is operated by Google, based in California and registered in Delaware. It requires a Google account and gmail address.

One person posted an online comment about this yesterday, saying they had tried to report the McKenzie blog to Google which replied that it is not responsible for any allegedly defamatory content and it does not remove defamatory, insulting, negative or distasteful material from US domains. It claims that under US law internet services, such as the blogger site, are republishers and not the publisher.

That’s all very well, but increasingly Google finds it cannot hide behind these waivers of responsibility. In this country, republishers can be liable for defamation when they have notice that what they are republishing is actionable.

If she had the time, a small fortune and determination, Hardy could apply to bring discovery proceedings in a US court.

McKenzie is in breach of the blogspot terms and conditions, which require compliance with the laws of the country in which the blogging takes place. In any third-party proceedings, the offender also would be required to indemnify Google.

Proceedings overseas may not be necessary. In October, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered Google Australia to cough-up the details of the identity behind a blog that called a Gold Coast self-help guru a ”thieving scumbag”.

Last year, a judge in Ireland gave permission to the Irish Red Cross to start proceedings against Google in California in order to obtain the identity of an anonymous blogger who had posted what the charity claimed was ”distorted confidential” material. Italian and French courts have held Google liable for defamations that arose from ”autocomplete” search requests.

In England, the Demon internet service provider was found to be liable for defamation after a judge held that the ”innocent disseminator” defence didn’t wash once an ISP had notice of the offensive content.

The principles of the Demon case got an airing in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Ives v Lim. There, the material under consideration was published on a blog site owned somewhere in the Russian Federation. Justice Rene Le Miere said: ”In principle, a person who creates a website that hosts an interactive blog may be liable for defamatory material posted by third parties.”

Further, courts have ordered the identity be revealed of people who have made unpleasant comments on newspaper websites or on internet travel sites.

It may not be a real identity but at least the IP addresses of the computers used to post the comments can be located.

The NSW Supreme Court judge Robert Hulme in October found that Google and other global publishers, such as Facebook and Wikipedia, were not out of reach as far as internet take-down orders were concerned, in relation to a pending criminal trial.

In the Gutnick case, the High Court decided a defamation by an offshoot of The Wall Street Journal occurred where it was read, Melbourne, not where it was uploaded.

Despite the internet looking like a game of Twister, Hardy is not without a remedy. However, at the end of the rainbow she may find ”James Vincent McKenzie” doesn’t have a cracker to bless himself.

justinian@lawpress.com.au

Source

Men call me things: it’s not as romantic as it sounds

ABC The Drum Opinion
11 November 2011

KeyboardKaralee Evans
Karalee Evans

Karalee Evans

You know, sometimes I really love Twitter. It’s a love that, like all great love affairs, has its good times and its bad times, but at the end of the day you know the good will outweigh the bad.

It’s a microcosm of society which can enrich your life should you approach it in a certain way; the meaningful camaraderie you build with like-minded Tweeters, the knowledge you can glean by reading content lovingly shared by people you follow, the previously inaccessible conversations with ‘personalities’ such as ABC Radio National’s Mark Colvin (one of my favourite Tweeters) and the network of friendships you can foster which when you move cities, can actually be a God-send and totally safer than relying on OKCupid.

It’s also a microcosm of everything that is bad about society and humanity’s penchant for drama. And the internet as a whole is a much bigger example of this. Not surprising when we understand its hyper-connected ability to amplify sentiment of the masses.

But what is it with the internet and misogyny?

We all know examples of when the internet turns bad. Trolling is not a new thing, it existed even in the days of MySpace and GeoCities. What seems to be on the rise, is compliance trolling and the phenomena of anonymous digital misogyny. When did faceless men decide it was acceptable to take it upon themselves and threaten women online with death threats, rape threats, violence and sexism?

The horrid abuse towards women who have an opinion and dare to share it online, is a scary indicator of the health of our society. The rise of misogynist trolling towards women – and we’re not just talking about the abuse directed towards Julia Gillard, Miranda Devine, Catherine Deveny or Marieke Hardy here – online is one of the things which at times, leads me to question whether my love affair with the internet is actually an abusive relationship that I need to seek escape from. Indeed, there have been times I’ve retreated to the women’s shelter of real-life and re-evaluated the relationship.

This was at its most trying a couple of weeks ago. I made the mistake of conducting an interview with News.com.au on the appeal or not of Google Plus for businesses, and was subjected to days of online abuse, anonymous emails, and comment threads filled with men calling me ‘love’ and telling me to ‘get back into the kitchen’ and my favourite, ‘the world would be better off without you’. Funnily enough, one of the men took it upon himself to email me after he had derided me for my ‘silly little girl’ views, and expressed hope that I wasn’t offended and was tough enough to cop it. Thanks, Jim.

Within the women with opinions that I follow online, I’ve witnessed varying degrees of this sexist trolling committed nine times out of 10 by men who rarely use their real identity, and the impact of which ripples out affecting their confidence, their security and their credibility. Because if a woman complains online over this turgid behaviour, she’s subjected to calls of being too emotional, or soft, or the old ‘if you don’t like it, don’t go online’. Would a woman garner the same dismissive reactions if she called this behaviour out in real-life?

Bullshit.

Leaving aside the discussion that this online abuse by men is just an extension of the continuing battle for equality by women (not because it’s not true or important but simply there are not enough words permitted in this forum) any online abuse is simply unacceptable and must be called out.

This is different. And that’s why I love the #mencallmethings Twitter hashtag and conversations which started on Monday. It’s like Dr Phil came on Twitter; we’re all talking about our experiences and naming and shaming the perpetrators. Started by feminist blogger Sady Doyle, the hashtag is a way to further the discussion of the sexist (and scarily threatening) abuses women who have an online ‘voice’, face.

The movement is empowering women to respond to their abusers with the same functionality the trolls take for granted – a platform to call out, name and shame. Marieke did that on Wednesday and named and shamed her most vocal abuser.

We all need to take responsibility for our own behaviour online. What would your wife, girlfriend, sister or mum think if they knew you anonymously posted comments telling a woman they’d be better off dead, or should get back into the kitchen?

Within this burgeoning discussion, no-one is denying that ‘trolling’ online is exclusively directed towards women. Men definitely cop it, and yes, women troll women. Haters gonna hate (as they say). But what is clear, particularly when you take the time to read through the #mencallmethings hashtag and associated blog posts, is that women are subjected to a unique, and frankly, ridiculous level of abuse almost entirely based on their sex.

‘Bitch’, ‘slut’, ‘whore’ and ‘love’ are commonly thrown towards women online, along with rape threats and deviant violence references, and are very rarely called out by the woman scorned or by the online community surrounding her and the ‘troll’. They’re given seemingly without consequence, and perpetuated by compliance. I’m often told by colleagues, friends and my partner all with the best of intentions (love you guys), not to worry about the abuse or to fight it or even to respond as “it’s just trolls” or “don’t feed the trolls”.

But you know, I can’t remember the last time I was on the bus, expressed an opinion and had a man pipe up that he was going to knock me off. Nor can I think of a time I’ve been in a cafe, reading a newspaper and commenting on the issues of the day, only to have a man in a mask jump out and tell me I’m a silly little girl that deserves to be raped.

So why does this behaviour occur online? Is it simply because these men are empowered with the safety of their anonymity and computer screen and are acting out long-held feelings of disgust over women?

We wouldn’t tolerate this misogyny on the bus, or in a cafe, or at school or at work or in a pub or Church, so why are we allowing it to happen online? It’s time to call it out, ridicule it, and most importantly, make men stop it. The question is how do we do that? How do we reverse this vile and abusive digital sexism?

Perhaps Dr Phil has the answer; “Awareness without action is worthless”. So, now that we’re becoming aware, what’s your contribution to #mencallmethings ?

Karalee Evans works in advertising but still has her soul as well as a passion for writing, snowboarding and politics. She’s on Twitter @karalee_

Source

Blog at WordPress.com.