Staining the walls of the palace of public discourse



Tuesday 26 February 2013

Voltaire's Fulcrum

I have to admit, I’ve got a soft spot for Boris Johnson.  Firstly, there’s the name: Boris.  Just imagine growing up with that name in Cold War Britain.  Half of MI5 would have been keeping a suspicious eye on you, while the other half tried to recruit you as one of their own.  Then there’s the almost cartoonish coupling of rapier wit with total physical ineptitude. A grand British fop.

Now I have another reason to like Bozza:

“Boris Johnson this week will face claims in the High Court that he failed to respect a Christian group's right to free speech by banning their posters from the side of London buses.

The Mayor of London refused to run ads that promoted the group's view that homosexuals can be ''reoriented'' through therapy and prayer, saying the ads by the Core Issues Trust were offensive to gays and may spark retaliation against the Christian community.”

Amen, brother.

Although, the argument about “retaliation against the Christian community” does put me in mind of something like this:


 “Freedom of speech”, of course, is the most over-used and abused justification for filling the world with hate-filled misinformation.  Of all the freedoms we claim, it is one of the most complex because speech does not exist independent of social power structures or the rights and freedoms of others.  Indeed, absolute freedom of speech is antithetical to the notion of a fair society.  Freedom of speech must always be balanced against the rights of those we are speaking about to live free from hatred, discrimination and intolerance. In a previous post, Of Sticks and Stones, I discussed the harm created by the fanciful narrative of the invading refugee hordes that has been either actively promoted or tacitly nurtured in Australian public discourse.  When used to marginalise and make vulnerable a people, words can break bones. For this reason, battles over freedom of speech are critical moments.  They define a society by defining who is “inside” and who is “outside”, what we will condone and where we draw the line, what we value and what we will compromise.  They also reveal our bravery, or lack thereof, because to define something is to take a position.  Sometimes, that position needs to be one of leadership, where we are willing to say that we will not tolerate certain instances of speech because there is evidence to show it is harmful and/or grossly incorrect.

This latter point, about the “truth” of speech, will continue to cause tension with religious groups.  Religion is a belief.  While everyone in a society should have the right and freedom to believe what they want, this does not translate into a right to present that belief as fact and use it as a basis to discriminate and incite hatred.  In the case of the Core Issues Trust, they did not say “we believe homosexuality to be curable”.  Such a statement, while misguided, might be acceptable (or, perhaps, just less offensive) as it just articulating a position.  However, what the Core Issues Trust actually said was that homosexuality is curable and should be treated.  There is no evidence to support such a position and, in fact, a mountain of evidence to suggest the opposite.  Thus, in a context where the commentary impinges upon the rights of its subject, the debate cannot be about belief, it must be about evidence with the burden of proof upon the speaker.  We need to break this bizarre and intellectually retarding notion that if somebody believes something then there is a truth in that.  We need to recognise that just because we respect someone’s right to believe, does not mean that we have to respect what they believe – particularly if that belief is harmful, malicious or just plain stupid.

Dis here world be only 4,000 year old and we ain't descended from no monkey

Meanwhile, the Core Issues Trust will proceed with a court case that is almost certainly doomed to failure, Boris will endear himself to rational humanists everywhere and the rest of us are left wondering how religious groups have the nerve to lecture anyone on sex and sexuality anyhow ... [fades to static]

Thursday 21 February 2013

The Mirror Game

Lately, my wife and I have become obsessed with sticking little red dots on our fifteen-month old son’s head.  It’s not that we’ve adopted some form of Eastern religion and will soon be dying our clothes orange.  Rather, we’re experimenting to see if our little man has yet achieved a key cognitive developmental milestone.  The test is to place a dot on an infant’s forehead and put them in front of a mirror.  If they see the dot and try to remove it from their forehead, it’s an indication that they have reached a level of consciousness that enables them to recognise their reflection.  It is a simple, but powerful, test of their sense of self.  It is a test that the Australian Labor Party, like my son, would currently fail.
In today’s Sydney Morning Herald, Waleed Aly wrote a terrific op-ed piece entitled, “Labour has lost the plot, and the narrative”.  Aly’s contention, in his own words, is that:
“Labor's problems are not nearly so managerial and technocratic. They are much, much bigger than that. Labor's problem is ideological. It doesn't really mean anything any more, and probably hasn't since Paul Keating lost power in 1996.”
Aly, quite accurately, paints the picture of a Party without identity, purpose and position.  A Party caught halfway between somewhere and somewhere else.  A Party that, in trying to please everyone, pleases no-one.  A Party of tactic, rather than vision.  This is perhaps not a surprise given that the Party is lead by someone who has, since day one, struggled to decide whether she is the “real” version of herself or not.
Oh, thank goodness I'm still here, wasn't sure where I went for a moment...

At the end of his piece, Aly poses the question to the ALP, “What are you?”  Perhaps, the greatest tragedy for the Labor Party, which will now surely be demolished in the September election, is that there is an answer to this question just waiting to be embraced.  But as the Party clings to the mast of its sinking ship, it seems unwilling to take the deep breath and make a calculated leap of faith into the turbulent seas to grab hold of that life-raft.
A big part of the problem for the ALP is that it has spent too long looking in the mirror trying to answer questions like that raised by Aly.  The answer doesn’t lay in the mirror, it lays beyond it in an evolving nexus of the needs and attitudes of the electorate, the opportunity for differentiation and the fundamental principles of the Party.  But it is important to recognise that the principles of a Party are distinct from its history.  This is critical for the ALP, for while its history lays in the labour movement, its future must be elsewhere.  The labour movement no longer provides the electoral strength to justify dominance over the Party.  This does not, however, suggest that the Party abandons labour – rather the engagement with the labour movement occurs through a framework of broader principles.  Representation of the labour movement is an outcome of identity, not its purpose.
In this light, there is a clear space in the Australian political landscape for the ALP.  The Liberal Party has demonstrated a consistent listing to the right on social issues and an unadventurous policy mindset.  It has become the brand of choice for the socially conservative – which, as Aly points out, is a constituency that includes much of the ALP’s old base.  The Greens have attempted to tone down some of the excesses of their position, but have proven to be ineffective as a Party of government or even as a party of influence beyond their “core issues”.  The way is paved for a socially and economically progressive ALP.  An ALP that drives a humanist, social justice agenda through smart economic policy that balances immediate gratification with investment in long-term drivers of social and economic success, such as education and health.  An ALP that, in contrast to the here and now selfishness of the Liberal agenda, can articulate (and deliver) the economic advantages for all of broadening social advancement.  An ALP of evidence-based and innovative policy that seeks to look after people. 
These principles are not distant from the core values of the modern ALP.  They are as relevant now as ever.  They are as distinct now as ever.  They are as powerful as ever.  It is these principles – not history or internal politics – that need to drive the Party.
The biggest challenge for the ALP, however, may not lay in articulating its positioning, but in ensuring that it is organisationally structured and flexible enough to support such principles.  Old power structures, decision-making processes and leadership styles may need to change to create such a vibrant, innovative and smart, but still essentially human, Party.  One thing is as good as certain: whoever takes over the helms of the ALP after the next election will not be wanting for a mandate for change ... [fades to static]

Tuesday 19 February 2013

Of Sticks and Stones

Everyone with an interest in language, its use and abuse, will ask themselves the same question from time-to-time: are words really that important?  Does analysing public discourse provide any benefit – even assuming that anyone pays attention in the first place – or is it just the intellectual equivalent of discussing prevention strategies while the bushfire is actually raging? Sadly, the world will reliably bring forth evidence to set your mind at ease, evidence that the narratives we construct can create not only disadvantage but actual harm to individuals.  Words create myths, myths lead to prejudice and prejudice to vulnerability.
Australian political discourse is filled with myths.  My last post, The Cold Water, discussed myths around the industrial relations debate.  But one of the most pervasive myths in recent discourse is the “threat of the refugee” – the impertinent queue jumper, here to take our jobs and undermine our shared values (just as soon as we figure out what they are).  It’s a flimsy narrative built on an absence of evidence and based is an essential contradiction: people so desperate to join our community that they are willing to risk their lives, somehow, represent a threat to our way of life.  Yet, we have become so fearful of the “refugee peril” we have invented that we classify them, through our words and our actions, as criminals.  We imprison them to protect ourselves from what, in reality, is a terrible desire to be a member of our society.  In doing so, we provide no chance to disprove the myth, so it becomes self-fulfilling and unchallenged:  refugees need to be detained because detention is what you do with refugees.  The debate shifts to methodology of detention.  The myth becomes orthodoxy.  The disempowerment complete and vulnerability established.  Meanwhile, we all sleep at night knowing that our borders are protected from the unceasing scourge of the desperate. 
We take blind comfort in this insidious zombie-movie narrative we have bought into.  This allows us to do things to “them”, refugees, which we would otherwise find abhorrent, such as incarcerating children who have been convicted of no crime.  The imprisonment of a child is an act we generally take with the utmost seriousness.  We employ diversionary tactics and systems to re-engagement to avoid it.  Incarceration is the punishment of last resort for children.  With refugee children, it is an act we undertake as a matter of course.  Indeed, it is our preferred management approach. We have come to tolerate what would otherwise be intolerable because of this nebulous threat we have constructed.  Within this narrative, we permit ourselves to things that we would protest in the actions of others.  The myth both prompts and justifies our inhumane treatment of refugees and their children.
The refugees are coming, and they'll be wanting brains...
Earlier this week, documents from the Department of Immigration were released under Freedom of Information.  These documents detailed cases of self-harm among children imprisoned in refugee detention centres.  The evidence is an indictment of our, so called, egalitarian society.  A nine year-old child attempting suicide by over-dosing on painkillers because he was “going crazy in detention”.  A ten year-old boy cutting himself.  A 17 year-old trying to hang himself.
These were not acts of protest or attempted persuasion.  These were acts of despair induced by an imprisonment that has turned desperation into hopelessness. Acts born as a consequence of a dehumanising and demonising narrative that has rooted itself in our psyche.  This is harm for which we are all culpable through the words we utter or accept without challenge.  These are the effects of public discourse subjugated to base human instincts and the reasons why the critique of such discourse is vital to a fair, free and rational society ... [fades to static]

Sunday 10 February 2013

The Cold Water

Last week, Prime Minister Gillard announced the outcomes of the 2013 Closing the Gap Report giving us a view, albeit filtered through statistics, into the appalling disadvantage of Australia’s indigenous people.  This is disadvantage that costs lives.  This is disadvantage that seems incomprehensible in a society like ours. This is disadvantage so bad that the best we seem to hope for is simply to halve it, not remove it.
The Closing the Gap report was delivered with an interesting mix of paternal pride and furrowed brow.  “We are on course (reputedly), but still have a long way to go” was the message from both sides of politics.  It was a message of shaky optimism ... a message that could perhaps be made even shakier by pointing out that one of the few areas where we are claiming to be “on target”, halving the gap in child mortality rates by 2018, is actually a mathematical impossibility because, despite the achievements in this area, at present the non-indigenous child mortality rate is actually falling faster than the indigenous rate.  But that’s just, you know, details. 
Of interest here is the discourse around the Report and that discourse was a veritable chorus of acknowledgement, concern and commitment.  Political enemies were united in the cause.
That same evening, I sat in cool air-conditioned comfort at a seminar into “insecure work” put on by the Victorian Fabian Society.  It was an eye opening discussion that presented evidence which challenges our view of ourselves.  It challenged the unquestioned myths that poverty is an isolated feature on the Australian landscape and that the land of plenty will provide for those willing to set their back to the plough.
Two million people in this country, we were told, live below the poverty line.  ACCOSS has reported a 100% increase in the number of people accessing charitable services in recent years, with 50% of the people accessing such services being in employment.  40% of homeless people are employed.  Having a job is no longer immunisation from poverty.  Indeed, the emerging picture is that some employment structures are perpetuating cycles of disadvantage.  And yet, this type of “working poverty” is contested in a narrative that glosses over the fact that some employment contracts can be as crippling as welfare dependency.  We are told that structures like casualisation and individual contracts are good for employment overall and, most insidiously, that employees actually like them because they offer flexibility.  We buy this promise.  But for many workers, this “flexibility” means they cannot get a home loan or a car or a credit card or invest in long-term life plans like education because they don’t know if they’ll have a job next month, next week or tomorrow.  One person’s “flexibility” is another’s uncertainty and risk.  It all depends on your negotiating power ... and that ain’t something that gets shared around.
Let's talk about your future at this company...

A question that emerges is why is indigenous disadvantage so heartily recognised and accepted in political discourse, while working poverty is not?
Not for a second do I mean to suggest that indigenous disadvantage is not due the focus and concern it receives.  On the contrary, the Closing the Gap Report would suggest, if anything, we are still not placing enough effort and focus on this issue.  But why is it an uncontested political narrative compared with working poverty? Why is it that both sides of politics will (rightly) join hands in solidarity over the plight of indigenous people, while at the same time further discriminate against single mothers stuck in low-pay casual working arrangements that offer no foundation for a future?  Why isn’t the latter form of disadvantage even seen?  Working poverty is no less real.  It may reasonably be argued that indigenous disadvantage goes “deeper” or is more harmful than working poverty, but this (at worst) should influence our priority on addressing working poverty, not our recognition of its existence.  If the concern of our political parties over indigenous disadvantage is evidence of a truly humanitarian ethos, then couldn’t we expect to see that compassion extended to other vulnerable members of our communities?  Something doesn’t add up.
The answer is, of course, that there are two self-serving political narratives at play here.
It serves a political purpose to openly acknowledge and bemoan the shocking plights of indigenous people in impoverished communities.  Establishing indigenous disadvantage as a fact creates its own excuse.  A kind of “get out of jail free” card for any sitting government.  We all know that indigenous people live in terrible, life threatening poverty – that’s the way it is.  It becomes a foundation fact in our political discourse and that allows us to be all care and no responsibility.  So, when any particular government fails to make significant headway on this issue – as the 2013 Close the Gap Report reveals – we can furrow our brows, slap the table in bitter disappointment and say we must work harder, but nobody really kicks up a stink.  Nobody is going to lose their seat.  Nobody is going to say that our failure is unacceptable.  We are simply failing because it’s just the reality of the situation.   In political terms, embracing the problem and bringing to the foreground has neutralised it.  The beast has been tamed and domesticated.
Why then contest working poverty?  Why not employ the same “normalisation” strategy?
The difference is that working poverty is a political threat and, therefore, must be hid.  It reveals the great untruth of the ideological myth we have been fed and swallowed whole: the myth of self-determination in a society of opportunity, where it is the role of government to create an industrial environment to support the advancement of the individual.  A myth based in our own self-perceived agency and brilliance … who wouldn’t want to believe that!?
Working poverty, research tells us, is the very result of this shifting of risk from employers to employees through casualisation of the workforce and the entrenching of “precarious” relations between the disempowered employee and the employer.  The vicious nexus of low rates of pay and uncertainty diminishes (if not obliterates) many people’s capacity to leverage their employment to anything beyond a subsistence existence … and ACCOSS’s statistics would suggest that subsistence would be a step up for many.  In this industrial world, precarious forms of employment do not provide a pathway for improvement in people’s lives, but a shackle to the status quo.  Working poverty renders plain the gross structures of advantage and disadvantage that influence our lives more greatly than those of us on the positive side of the ledger would care to admit.
So, like the projectionist, working poverty is invisible to us as we focus with our wilful suspension of disbelief on the main feature: I’m Alright Jack.  And the myth will be perpetuated, and our vision obscured, until the horror story of its human cost forces its way on to our screen and its “evidence-base” (which consists of little more than assertion) is dissected piece-by-piece and at every opportunity.  Meanwhile, the monsters of poverty in our indigenous communities hide in plain sight … [fades to static]