I Protest

Last week Joe Hockey and the Government delivered one of the most hotly debated federal budgets for a long time. Across the country lobby groups, welfare advocates and disgruntled lefties have gone into meltdown, attacking the budget as heartless, hypocritical, unfair and, of course, sexist. Some of the more active objectors have taken to public protests as a result.

I’m not here to comment on the merits of the budget either way, but I am simultaneously amused and horrified at exactly what people consider to be a good protest these days.

The highest profile protest was, of course, the group that joined the audience of QandA to protest whatever it was Christopher Pyne was trying to say. They managed to cause a significant enough disturbance that the programme had to be suspended while the protest was dealt with. Similar groups have joined the audience since that night and attempted similar disturbances, but ABC management and the unflappable Tony Jones have been keeping a tight rein on audiences, prompting some viewers to condemn the show as undemocratic.

Other groups have attempted to physically intimidate Julie Bishop (are they mad? I wouldn’t take her on…) while earlier this week a public lecture by former Liberal MP Sophie Mirabella had to be abandoned because she couldn’t be heard over the protest groups angry at what the government she is no longer a part of is doing.

And following the illustrious and not-at-all-pointless March in March, many activists have begun to organise and execute the imaginatively-named “March in May” events. I can’t wait to see what they come up with next month. The key players in all this describe the protests as “democracy in action," which all sounds very stirring and admirable, except for one small problem.

It’s bullshit.

Democracy has nothing to do with being loud enough to drown out your opposition. It has nothing to do with confronting your political opponents with physical resistance, or with causing public discussions to be shut down. Democracy – the rule of the people – is about giving equal voice to all points of view, and then allowing the public to vote on what they want. The voices and votes of people you don’t agree with count just as much as your own, whether you like it or not. Indeed, there are systems of government that routinely use force and coercion to silence their opponents, but they aren’t democracies. As Winston Churchill put it: “it has been said that democracy is the worst from of government – except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

You know what democracy in action really looks like? An election. Like the one the current Government won less than a year ago. If you have a problem with their policies, fine. So do I. But don’t let’s kid ourselves that shouting the government down by being as noisy as possible has anything to do with democracy. Even if your protest chant rhymes, the only place you’re likely to get any credit for it is in a middle school poetry recital. And even then, probably not.

And I’m not saying don’t protest. By all means jump up and down until you are blue in the face to get your point across. I may well join you. The country needs a diverse range of opinions to function as an effective democracy. But if the highest form of debate you can manage is chanting your two-liner over and over until everyone else gives up and goes home, you haven’t won the debate. You’ve killed it.

On the other hand, you could look amongst your ranks to find the skilled orators, talented minds and experienced analysts among you to craft a decent argument. You could have someone stand up respectfully and ask it on QandA (if that's still a forum you take seriously), or post it on your own blog, or write to your newspaper or local member. There are plenty of ways to articulate your point of view politely and effectively.

And if you don’t have any skilled orators, talented minds or experienced analysts…

SHUT THE HELL UP

and leave the debate to the grown-ups.

Make of that what you will.




Garry with 2 Rs

Riot

It’s been a big week for the asylum seeker issue here in Australia. There have been riots in the detention centre on Manus Island. Tragically, a person has been killed.

In the last few days commemorative vigils have been held across the country to remember the life of Reza Berati. Thousands of people have attended, proving that people really do matter, and people really do care about this stuff. It’s moving and encouraging.

I don’t really know what to make of the whole thing. I've written about it before, but I still don't see the whole thing in black and white nor do I pretend I know the right answers.

I don’t know what started the riot. Some say it was an inevitable consequence of intolerable circumstances. But the same people send me tracts, petitions and requests for donations condemning violence in any context. Violence is never the answer.

Some say it was the act of malicious insurgents, exactly the kind of people we should be keeping locked up. That sounds equally ridiculous. Let me take away your freedom, your hope and your family and let’s see how long you peacefully behave yourself.

And as always, my Facebook newsfeed is full of articles, blogs and memes blaming everything on Tony Abbott. Well I guess that was inevitable. I’m sure Kevin Rudd would have done a much better job of … doing nothing while talking a lot.

I don’t know what started the riot, and neither do you.

What I do know is that I’m sick of the politics. I’m tired of the government’s secrecy and mistrust of Australian people. I’m tired of the assumption that by appearing tough on border security you make yourself seem like a strong leader. I’m tired of campaigns from the left side of politics pinning all this on Tony Abbott and his government, glossing over the fact that the policies Kevin Rudd’s Labor took into the last election were even more draconian than the Liberal set up. And I’m tired of the language from the Liberal government making us all sound like overly self-confident high school quarterbacks.

We don’t even play American football in high schools in this country. It’s un-Australian.

Today we saw calls from the Labor party for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison to resign over what they called ‘disgraceful’ handling of the crisis. Labor Senator Sue Lines posed her own question and conveniently answered it herself when she told the ABC “Does Scott Morrison have blood on his hands? Yes, he certainly does” This after Tony Abbott helpfully suggested that we “don’t want a wimp running border protection, you want someone strong”.

This is utter stupidity, from both parties. Instead of working on ways to improve conditions in the detention centres, or speed up the processing of asylum requests, they’re slinging paper-thin rhetoric at each other in the hope of scoring political points. This isn’t some high-school debating tournament where the most powerful sounding speaker (top tip: it was usually me. Don't know what went wrong) wins on manner points: This is now literally a life and death issue.

I’m not saying the centres need to be closed down, but if they stay open then conditions inside need to improve. The detainees are not criminals and they need to be treated with more respect. And our leaders on both sides of the house need to show their constituents more respect and bring us some action that blind Freddie couldn’t see through with his head in a sack.

Make of that what you will.



Garry with 2 Rs

On Detention

When you’re unemployed you suddenly find yourself with enough time to do some of the stuff you’d always thought you’d do if you had enough time (obviously keeping my blog up-to-date is not included in this paradigm). So last week and for no-apparent reason I decided I’d go down to the weekly meeting outside the immigrant detention centre at the airport and check out what’s going on there.

For context, I will at the outset acknowledge that I have written before about supporting the off-shore processing scheme, and that I am generally in favour of keeping tabs on people who have arrived in some way other than by official channels.

I also know what it’s like to be locked upon attempting to enter a supposedly civilised country, albeit  only a few hours, not months or years like the detainees experience here.

It was a very strange experience for me. A few locals go down to the centre quite regularly, and a number of detainees come down to the fences with their children to meet and talk about what’s going on. It’s great to put a human face on the issue and to hear what the detainees have to say. It’s clear they are desperate to get out and under a lot of stress from the uncertainty of their situation. And in a number of cases their detention is probably unnecessary, but it’s just so difficult to know the whole story.

One of the most frustrating things about being intelligent is the tension that constantly comes from holding two competing and even mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time. I would have to say I’m still in favour of mandatory detention while refugee claims are verified, but I’m sure there has to be a better way to accommodate families than the facilities being operated at the moment. I would encourage anyone who is interested in the issue, whatever your opinion on the matter, to get down to a centre and see the situation for yourself.

Except that now that opportunity is probably gone. The last time I was there, a news team from the ABC came with a camera and documented the stories from a number of detainees. And just like that, the visits at the fence stopped. There are still locals outside wanting to meet detainees, but none are coming to the fence.

Why not?

The Darwin Asylum Seeker Support and Advocacy Network (DASSAN) reports it has received communication from inside the detention centre that Serco (the company that runs the centres) employees have told detainees that they aren’t to talk to people at the fence, and that if they go down and talk, it could endanger their application status.

If it’s true, this is appalling.

Serco have repeatedly insisted that the facilities they run are not prisons. They’re facilities that people are locked up in and which they are not permitted to leave, but they’re not prisons. Also the detainees are not criminals. To tell the detainees that they can’t interact with the people outside, and to use people's asylum applications as blackmail, is either a blatant admission that Serco’s attitude doesn’t match its public rhetoric, or it’s just a massive and flagrant case of bullying the defenseless. Either way, it’s not acceptable.

I’m still in favour of keeping tabs on new arrivals while their identity and background are confirmed. But there’s got to be a better way to do it. And there’s got to be a better company to do it through.

Make of that what you will.



Garry with 2 Rs

Political Football

Since the controversial years of John Howard’s Prime Ministership (it’s hard to believe it’s only been six years since his electoral defeat), and for decades before that, the issue of Australia’s position on people smuggling, asylum seeking and immigration has been a hotly contested political topic. Every time the topic of ‘mandatory detention’ or ‘offshore processing’ is broached, you can be sure there’ll be impassioned calls from both sides of the issue, ranging from moderate to extreme views at both ends of the political spectrum. Somewhere between the desire to shut down the immoral people smuggling market and the instinct to give aid to those who need it, Australia has been locked in a struggle to balance security with humanitarian interests, and strength with compassion.

Whichever side of the debate we might stand on, it’s clear that Kevin Rudd’s announcement earlier this month of a tough new stance on boat-borne immigrants sets a new tone for the whole debate. It has traditionally been the rallying call of the left side of Australian politics to decry the Pacific Solution and the mandatory detention of unregistered immigrants as fear-mongering and pandering to Australia’s cultural insecurity. Yet now the Labor Party is going to into an election with a stance on immigration far more inflexible than anything the Coalition has proposed.

Under the new set of laws, all unregistered immigrants arriving by boat are to be processed offshore, in a facility on Manus Island. This is nothing new, but the drastic new detail is that even those immigrants shown to have legitimate claim to refugee status will still not be admitted to Australia, but rather resettled in Papua New Guinea. The tough new laws are aimed at stopping the scourge of people smuggling, which is a noble aim, but many believe the stance goes too far.

In many ways it’s not surprising. It’s almost a political axiom that no-one is going to lose votes by appearing to be too tough on border control. And it might cynically be suggested that opponents of the Pacific Solution are unlikely to turn and vote for the Coalition, even if they do not support the drastic new measures being implemented. By taking such a bold and tough stance on refugees, Labor stands to gain the votes of those who see arrivals of boat-borne immigrants as some sort national threat; votes which have traditionally been in the Coalition’s wheelhouse.

Whatever the outcome, and whether we’re pleased to see votes moving in Labor’s direction or not, the practice of using the lives of asylum seekers, officially recognised as such or otherwise, as political leverage is every bit as disgraceful as the people-smuggling industry that brings them here in the first place.

Regardless of the diversity of opinions on offshore processing or mandatory detention, surely the notion that asylum seekers with legitimate refugee status can be turned away from Australia must send up some humanitarian alarm bells. Deterring people smugglers is one thing; deliberately ignoring the plight of those who need our aid, to say nothing of our obligations under international agreements, is quite another.

Assuming the new laws survive a challenge in the High Court, Australians may soon find themselves in the strange position of advocating a more compassionate refugee policy by voting Liberal. For many, this will be an impossible dilemma, and one which the Labor leadership may well be counting on. The question that the next election will answer is whether Australian society is really so politically polarised that the left-wing party can adopt a policy more right-wing than the right-wing party and still keep its traditional voter base loyal.

Meanwhile, the first batches of asylum seekers have already arrived in Papua New Guinea, ready to begin new lives in a country prepared to give them a fair go, rather than use them as a political football. Here’s hoping they can find the fresh start that was denied them in Australia

Make of that what you will.

Garry with 2 Rs

Daringly Bold and Cuttingly Insightful Political Commentary

So in other intermediate-sized news, I’ve applied for a position with a new online publication. And just on the off chance the editors of said publication should happen to click on the link to my blog, I’d really rather the first thing they read not be a blow by blow description of my birthday party. So what I really need now is a nice juicy political topic to write about.

Thank you Kevin Rudd.

That’s got to be the first time I’ve written that sentence since he sent me a thousand dollars while I was on holiday in Spain.

While Kevin Rudd’s re-ascendency to the  Prime Ministry has comprehensively answered some questions, it has also immediately posed a series of others: When will the election be? Can Kevin really turn things around for Labor before then? And, if the Prime Ministry is held by a man now, does that make everyone who disagrees with him a misandrist?

I’m really not sure what I personally make of the whole showdown. Part of me is happy to see Kevin restored, almost as if it’s bringing some cosmological natural justice back into balance. But part of me also remembers the night he was axed in the first place.

Even as a right leaning hyper-conservative nutcase, I hadn’t minded seeing Rudd defeat Howard too much in 2007. It was definitely the right time for a Labor government to bring the Australia political pendulum back into balance. He was all charisma and smiles, and brought promises of a fresh new energy in Australian Politics.

It didn’t take long for the shine to wear off. By the time 2010 rolled around, Rudd’s polling was sinking to levels that the Labor party could not possibly carry into a federal election, largely because there was a perception that the Prime Minister, for all his charm and stage presence, could not be trusted to deliver on the promises he had made to the country. So with a federal election defeat looming, the knives came out and the leadership was up for grabs.

Sound familiar?

I remember being very annoyed that the press conference cut right into the middle of Hey Hey It’s Saturday, and then later that evening suffering confusion on an almost existential level as I went to bed hoping for success on Julia Gillard’s part. When I woke the next day, I was happy to discover we had our first female Prime Minster, but disappointed that the Socceroos, despite beating Serbia, had been knocked out of the World Cup finals.

And then came “Moving Forward,” the Real Julia and the Carbon Tax. And before we knew it, we’d swapped one credibility challenged Prime Minister for another. And that's a real shame because Gillard - despite the precariousness of the government’s hold on the House of Representatives - has done some pretty cool things. NDIS, NBN (sort of) and uniform education standards have all been there, right alongside the budget deficits, petrol watch schemes and pink batt debacles.

And now we’ve come full circle. Kevin Rudd is back in power, and the Socceroos are off to Brazil. But given that Gillard’s ousting of Rudd was largely responsible for a hung parliament and a minority government, the question of whether ousting Julia Gillard as leader will undo the damage that has been done to the Labor brand, or damage it even further will be the defining factor of the election, whenever it is held.

Oh yeah, and Tony Abbott will be there too.

Make of that what you will.

Garry with 2 Rs

Press Release

(Written for Happy Yess Comedy 4 April 2013, and posted here in lieu of anything else to write about)

Good evening ladies and gentleman and thank you very much for your attendance this evening. As you would no doubt be aware from the press briefing notes we spoon fed you this morning, our party is taking this opportunity to announce some bold, audacious and courageous new policy directions. These new policies are designed to give more Australians a fair go, and to more responsibly, sensibly, reasonably and responsibly spend the budget allocations for this sector.

Just like many Australians, our party has been disturbed, concerned, troubled and indeed disturbed by recent revelations regarding the transport of live creatures around Australian and to destinations in South East Asia among others.

It is the firm belief of this party that such wanton disregard for the value and dignity of life is unacceptable. To cram so many in to such a confined space, for interminable amounts of time on route to Asia is beyond reprehensible and cannot be allowed to continue.

Therefore under a brand new initiative, our party will be forcibly disbanding Jetstar, replacing it with a transit system that doesn’t leave at one o’clock in the freaking morning and placing a blanket ban on those stupid orange uniforms to go with it.

Our party is very cognizant that Australians are concerned about the state of our environment, about climate change and about Anthropogenic Global Warming. As a political movement, we want to reassure all voters that not only do we have a firm grasp on what these words mean, we take very seriously the science behind the debates and the entirely rational discussions that go with it.

As an extension of this, our party will be revamping the Carbon Tax. It will no longer be a flat rate tax on polluting industries, which damages our economy, but a more fairly, evenly, equitably and fairly distributed tax on all carbon-based life forms and their footprints. This is to ensure a strong and sustainable future for our country, free from carbon and the manifold problems associated with it. The science is clear on this issue; remove all the carbon-based life forms from our economy and we’ll remove the human causes of global warming altogether, for a cleaner future for all Australians.

Turning to the very complex challenges facing us in the area of immigration, asylum seekers, people smuggling and political refugees; It’s important to understand that issues such as these can only be addressed with very simple, straightforward, sloganistic campaign messages, and in accordance with this principle, Australia has a very clear approach to the development of appropriately populist immigration policies. As far as this party is concerned, if the immigration policy of this country can’t be summarised, satirised or debunked in a three line internet meme, then it needs to go back where it came from.

With this in mind, our party is committed to eradicating people smuggling by the year 2175. In order to take the first steps towards this realistic, measurable and accountable goal, we will not only abolish the Pacific Solution, but we are in active negotiations to abolish the Pacific Ocean altogether. We have put out a number tenders for sub contracts, and the consensus from the private sector is that complete elimination of the Pacific’s 622 million cubic kilometres of water could be achieved over a period of three years at a cost of three hundred kajillion dollars. We have therefore set aside the necessary 1.7 billion dollars and we are confident that the project will be delivered by Christmas.

Naturally some budget cutbacks will be necessary to fund this venture. It would irresponsible, reckless, careless and, frankly, irresponsible to make a huge sweeping promise like this without having any idea how to fund it, and Australians expect more. That is why we have elected to generate funds for the Pacific Dissolution by closing twenty seven hospitals across the country and completely disbanding the Department of Education. This is an important sacrifice that we are prepared to undergo on behalf of the Australian people, as we are firm in our belief that draining the entire ocean will stop the boats. Probably.

Our party is firmly committed to these policies, as a central part of our nation building platform; a platform which is engaging, sustainable, equitable, and – above all – engaging for all Australians. Full details will be available on our party website, just as soon as we get the NBN working.

Ladies and gentleman, I’m Garry Condoseres. I thank you for your time.

Make of that what you will

Garry with 2 Rs

I'll Show You Sexist

Sorry, but it’s time for another pseudo-political rant. I do try to keep these at a minimum, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s more than a little fed up with the quality of ‘debate’ from our federal politicians of late.

Let’s get the biases out of the way first; yes, I lean slightly to the right. No; I probably wasn’t thinking of voting Labor anytime soon anyway. But my rant isn’t really aimed at Labor (although they get the brunt of it by virtue of being in government); it’s aimed at the culture of federal parliament in general.

Firstly, I’m a little bit sick of the overuse/misuse of the word ‘sexist’. And don’t get me started on ‘misogynist’. Having dabbled with a spot of chauvinism myself, I feel qualified to remark that the speech writers charged with driving the rhetoric of political debate either don’t realise that they are mischaracterising what these words mean, in which case they should be fired, or they are fully aware that they’re mischaracterising what these words mean, in which case they should be fired.

It’s old news by now, but just for context let’s look at the attacks on Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

It’s not sexist to disagree with a woman, particularly if that woman happens to be the leader of the party opposing yours. Questioning the competence and integrity of a government cannot be called misogynistic simply because the Prime Minister is female. One does not automatically earn the label ‘sexist’ by being a member of the Catholic Church.

And – most strikingly of all – it is not sexist to demand the resignation of the speaker if he’s been caught sending highly inappropriate and - yep – sexist messages to his staff concerning female body parts. As rousing as Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s response to this was, as and much as it was a great relief to hear her speak with some sincere passion as opposed to the bland, focus-grouped rhetoric that has come to characterise the Labor party since the Kevin 07 election campaign, the fact that she continued to support such an obviously messed up man right up until he resigned, and that she then jumped up and down calling Tony Abbott, instead of Peter Slipper, a misogynist left me a little bewildered.

Tony’s got issues, there’s no denying it. But I really don’t see how ‘sexism’ is supposed to be one of them.

Fast forward a few weeks and now the Prime Minster has come under renewed scrutiny over some bank records from years ago that might or might not show (if she would just do the right thing and confirm what happened) that Julia Gillard, who was working as a lawyer at the time, was involved in a rort of union funds. Or that her boyfriend at the time was, and gave her the money, or not. Whatever.

The point is that the response from the Labor party, rather than to cooperate and demonstrate to the people they are elected to represent exactly what happened, has been to come out swinging, accusing the Opposition of a smear campaign. Apparently seeking integrity and full disclosure from members of parliament is not as important as ignoring/changing the meaning words to manufacture the idea that the opposition leader has a problem with women. It’s come to the point where the opposition has wisely chosen to have Julie Bishop, rather than Tony Abbott, spearhead the attack on the Prime Minister’s credibility, because she’s obviously not sexist because she’s a woman (just have a sit and think about that one for a bit).

But for me, the clincher came earlier today, when Steve Gibbons broadcast a message on Twitter, in which he called Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop a bimbo, and Opposition Leader Tony Abbot a douche bag.

First, let’s deal with the fact that the quality of political debate in our country has now descended to the level that small children get in trouble for in the playground. Seriously – we teach our kids that this is a bad way to behave. And here are our federal politicians going at it like naughty school kids. That’s bad enough.

But then Steve realised he’d gone and left a muddy footprint all over the hypocrisy line by using what was perceived to a be a sexist term to attack the opposition. He issued a retraction, in which he apologised for using the word ‘bimbo’ and substituted the word ‘fool’. As if that’s any better.

And let me see if I have this straight: If you call the Deputy Opposition Leader (who happens to be a woman) a bimbo, you have to issue an apology because that’s inappropriate, but if you call the Opposition Leader (who happens not to be a woman) a douche bag in an open forum, then that’s fair play. I don’t think I could construct a more ridiculous or ironic situation if I tried: Apparently our leaders are obliged to treat women differently to men, because if they don’t they’re being sexist.

How the hell did that happen?

I don’t even care which ones are and aren’t sexist anymore, the term is so over-used and over-applied that it has practically become meaningless, at least in the political polylogue. I’m just about at the point where I will vote without question for the first party to propose a policy – any policy – without first using it to create a wedge against the other party.

Make of that what you will.




Garry with 2 Rs

The Lunar Solution

So Australia has recommenced the relocation of asylum seekers to Nauru. I know this for a couple of reasons; for one thing, it was all over the news because the Labor party, after trying several unsuccessful attempts at implementing a useful asylum seeker policy, decided that reverting to the Pacific Solution, which they revoked upon gaining power for no other reason than because it was the Liberals who instigated it, is actually probably our best bet at the moment. That was big news, because it was a major backflip for the Gillard government and also because the Greens started yelling, screaming and crying like petulant children about it. That’s what they do most of the time, particularly when they aren’t getting things their own way.

The other reason why I couldn’t possibly have missed it is because my Facebook news feed is full of posters, memes and highly emotive slogans, some with Amnesty International branding, others with cuttingly original meme fonts from my left-leaning activist friends, informing me that my country should be ashamed of itself, that human rights are being ignored and that it isn’t illegal to seek asylum in Australia, even if arriving by boat.

A quick qualifying disclaimer: I generally support the work of Amnesty International, and make monthly financial contributions towards the important advocacy work they do. But as for the small platoon of extremely loud so-called activists jumping up and down on Facebook (don’t ask me how that metaphor is supposed to work), I really only have one piece of advice.

SHUT THE HELL UP.

The Pacific Solution is not now nor has it ever been about stopping asylum seekers, or limiting immigration, or denying anyone their human rights (Also, since when is travelling to safety in Australia from Indonesia, which is also safe, a human right?). The Pacific Solution is about putting a stop to people smuggling.

The point is to mitigate the “pull factor”. That is, Australia is awesome and everyone agrees, so naturally people want to come here. This creates a market for those who would exploit either people’s desperation or opportunism, and transport them to our waters by boat, at exorbitant prices and in inhumane and unsafe conditions. A strategy like the Pacific Solution mitigates this pull factor by putting the word out that if you get on one of these boats, you don’t end up in a house in suburban Adelaide, you end up on an island in the middle of nowhere (some might be tempted to argue that this could be preferable to Adelaide). A very nice, tropical island I’m told, populated by some really friendly locals, a bunch of significantly less friendly immigration officers and a few other applicants who are ... ahem ... in the same boat as you. But yeah, it’s in the middle of the freaking Pacific Ocean.

“But… Waaaaaaaaaah we like refugees” say the activists. Of course they do. Everyone likes refugees. That’s why we want to stop them coming here in dodgy boats that have the nasty habit of sinking and killing everyone on board. Everyone agrees we should take refugees in. Well... everyone worth listening to. The problem with the activists’ position is that, typical of lefties all over the world, they’re far too concerned with maintaining the status quo and never really stop to think of the plight of the little guy. PEOPLE ARE DYING! But I suppose that’s not as important as “standing up for human rights” and feeling all morally smug because we’re pro-refugee.

They shouldn’t have to come here in boats anyway. If I had my way (I usually don’t, but you don’t hear me whinging like a union rep. about it), here’s what would happen.

Phase 1) Anyone arriving by boat is taken to a processing centre on the moon (Apparently Nauru is already full) to have their claims verified. There should be a statute of limitations on it; like if there’s no evidence either way that you are who you say you are and your home is definitely not fit for you, then some kind of arbitrary decision gets made by some sort of tribunal with some sort of guidelines and you are either released into Australia, repatriated or (voluntarily) shot into space. None of this detention for six years rubbish. That sucks.

Phase 2) Round up all the 747s Qantas can spare, and start an officially sanctioned shuttle service from UNHCR refugee camps on the borders of places like Pakistan and Sudan express to Ozenkadnook, Victoria (just because it’s a really funny name). It might be a little expensive, but I’m sure Qantas would be happy to sponsor the initiative. They’re the spirit of Australia after all. Anyone whom the UN has granted refugee status gets a free trip to Australia, an invitation to a welcome barbeque (note: we’ll need to figure out which ones will and won’t eat what kinds of meat), a backyard cricket match and vouchers for free English classes.

Now, this might be a problem because, if the spruikers who have at me in the shopping centres are to be believed, the UNHCR is a little short of resources and manpower on the ground in those places. Okay…

Phase 3) Train up and send out a thousand or so Australian aid workers specifically to target the camps and aid the UN workers in the processing of refugee status claims. It might not be so easy to convince workers to go out there and live in a refugee camp. Let’s pay them a million dollars each for a two year contract. That should be enough to make sure we get a good selection of quality applicants. A half a billion dollars a year is probably a lot to spend, but then how much are we planning on spending for an internet connection that’s faster than the one we already have?

Phases 2 and 3 might be a ways off yet, but facing an issue like people smuggling requires a long-term commitment. It can’t be dismissed with flash-in-the-pan schemes. And it sure as hell can’t be defeated with political posturing, emotive yet vaccuous sloganeering or (least of all) internet memes.

Last I heard, the plans for a lunar detention centre were still in the concept development stage. But the point is we need to stop the damn boats. For those who need it, finding sanctuary in Australia should be easy, and shouldn’t require anyone to risk their life on a floating (well…) death trap.

It is morally unthinkable for us to continue to allow people to be hoodwinked into drowning in our waters.

Even if they arrive by boat.




Garry with 2 Rs

The Height of Hypocrisy

There has been a lot written over the past weeks about the attitude of Christians to the definition of marriage. There are all sorts of statistics floating around about what percentage of religious people are for or against or indifferent. Those stats, while sociologically interesting, really aren’t as significant as the views expressed by major church leaders recently, which make it clear that at the top levels, the Christian church is opposed to the proposed changes.

As a fundamentalist Christian myself, I have to say that my views are paradoxically set in concrete and at the same time constantly changing. When the issue was first raised, my initial reaction was to think “well, that’s wrong. Of course it’s wrong.” Then I made the biggest mistake the dogmatist can make: I started reading other people’s opinions on the matter, and weighing them up against my own.

There are a lot of reasons given for why people are opposed to changing the definition of marriage to allow for homosexual marriages. I’ve read through thousands of blog comments on a few different forums, each with varying levels of logic, passion, consideration, bigotry, hysteria, sloganism and ability to construct a grammatical English sentence. Having read counter arguments and counter-counter arguments, and having observed with increasing despair the level of name-calling and chest thumping that these debates inevitably descend to, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that most of the arguments about social stability, slippery slopes, false equality and respect for the institution proposed from both sides by every amateur social psychologist on the internet are complete baloney. Well… partial baloney at least. I’ve at last come to the revealing conclusion that as a Christian I’m opposed to homosexual marriages… because God said so.

This is where I believe the Church is coming unstuck. Our leaders are – in perfect accordance with Biblical doctrine – insisting that marriage is ordained as a covenant between one man and one woman, because God said so. The problem is that we’re saying “because God said so” as if that argument still carried any weight in this country. Try using it as an argument in support of anything outside a church and count how many seconds it takes for you to be laughed out of the debate.

As Christians, I believe we have only ourselves to blame for this.

I’ve had a lot of people on both sides of the argument quote Leviticus at me, either as evidence that God hates gays, or that the Bible is stupid. A more informed and contextualised understanding of the role that Jewish law plays in Christian doctrine reveals that neither of those statements are true. However, if we’re going to cherry pick verses out of context, then here are a few more for you:

What then does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

“They will answer ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison and not help you?’ He will reply ‘whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me.’” (Matthew 25:44-45)

There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you – who are you to judge your neighbour? (James 4:12)

This is a blog post, not a sermon, but my point is as Christians we don’t get to play the divine authority card unless we’re consistently following the precepts laid out for us. If we aren’t supporting the poor, campaigning against injustice and going out of our way to meet the needs of those around us, then denouncing homosexual marriage as ungodly is the height of hypocrisy. If we don’t know the names of the homeless people in our neighbourhood, but can list the names and merits of the Voice finalists, it’s a sign that something is going horribly wrong. As Brennan Manning so famously said;

“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”

It isn’t all doom and gloom. There are many great religious (and secular, for that matter) organisations and individuals who are out there making a difference for those who need it. They don’t attract much media attention, largely because they are too busy feeding the homeless to write press releases, but they’re working in communities, addressing issues much more important than whether we call certain arrangements “marriages” or “civil unions.” Take a trip through the more remote parts of the Northern Territory, and then come back and tell me what a great step towards ‘equality’ it will be to change the marriage act.

All the same, it’s not good enough for those of us who call ourselves followers of Christ to ignore the poor, tolerate racism, engross ourselves in materialism, treat our own marriages as states of convenience and then jump up and down over gay marriage because it’s unbiblical. That ship has sailed. If we want “because God said so” to be a valid argument in society again, we need to be living as though it applies to us, before we start trying to apply it to others.

From my point of view “because God said so” is the only reason I need. However, I’m acutely aware that not everyone in this country shares my religious beliefs. And nothing gives me the right to impose those beliefs on those who don’t share them. In fact, both the Bible and Australian law tell me I shouldn’t. So if you don’t identify as Christian, then go and marry whoever you want: I'm prepared to concede that there is nothing we can say to convince you it's a bad idea. No-one is going to stone you or throw you out of the village, but please be sensitive to the religious beliefs of those around you.

And if you are a Christian, take comfort in the fact that when they finally get as far as outlawing religion in this country altogether, there probably won’t be enough evidence to convict us.

Make of that what you will




Garry with 2 Rs

Mad as Hell

Well, that’s torn it: Two thickly religious posts in a row. Apologies if it’s not your thing; I’ll get back to idiotic and self obsessed daily commentary eventually, I promise. But I can’t let this one through to the keeper: It’s just got me too mad.

I read this on The Punch yesterday.

Apparently now we’ve gone past the part where Christians aren’t allowed to impose their views on others (debateable, but understandable). We’ve gone past the part where the fact that we have faith automatically discredits any moral or even sociological position we might take (ridiculous, but not unexpected). Now we’re seeing calls to stop Christians being involved in government altogether.

Fiona Patten’s article expresses concern about the proportion of Christians in Parliament as compared with the proportion of Christians in society in general. Apparently the fact that as many as ninety of the two hundred and twenty six members of federal parliament might identify as Christians is a matter that we need to be extremely concerned about. How will we ever cope if we have a bunch of politicians subverting the normal course of government with their seditious compassion, selflessness and desire for social justice? What is the country coming to?

And her casual assertion that Christians are probably all flat-earth, literal creationists merely highlights the general ignorance that has led the atheist movement to cede any intellectual high ground they might have imagined they once had.

I mean, what the hell? In the digital-age, media saturated democracy in which we now live, does Ms Patten really suggest these MPs have gotten themselves elected to federal parliament by keeping their religious affiliations a secret from their electorates? That somehow researchers for the other side of politics have researched and aired every dark secret they could find through the election campaign but somehow failed to notice that the candidate is a “God-botherer”? Have we somehow been tricked into voting for MPs whilst under the comforting illusion that they are completely godless? And even if we have: so what? Is it so hard to accept that people who acknowledge a greater cause than themselves, who subscribe to values of aiding those in need, promoting peace and working for justice might make pretty good community leaders, whether they agree with your theory on the origin of the universe or not?

If anyone is concerned that Christianity is over-represented in our democracy, then the path is clear: go find some alternatives, and get them elected. Or better yet, go chuck a fascist revolution, as that’s probably a more efficient way to make rules about which religions aren’t allowed to participate in government.

Andrew Bolt is someone I wouldn’t normally find myself recommending to anyone. In fact, in certain circles I walk in, just mentioning his name will spark a tirade of disapproval. And sometimes that’s fair enough. But he published this over Easter which is well worth thinking about, even if you don’t like Christians or Bolt.

There is no reason for intelligent men and women of faith to be frightened, ashamed or apologetic for their beliefs, any more than there is any reason for atheists to be frightened of Christians. When we start to see arguments like this being touted, it’s time to ask just who is trying to indoctrinate whom.

Make of that what you will.

Garry with 2 Rs

Unlicensed

What the hell has happened to my blog?

I remember back in the day I used to write about important political issues, significant events of the day and cutting edge social commentary. At the very least, they were tales with a strong moral message for the family. These days it seems my blog is more self-obsessed than ever, which probably goes a fair way to explaining why I find myself with nothing to write about so often.

Well forgive my sudden change of tack, but I feel compelled this week to jump back on the “look how important I am” bandwagon for just a moment, because while the degree to which I take anything seriously is debatable, this stuff matters.

Last week a government report named the Finkelstein Review was released, providing recommendations for reforms to the Australian media system. In broad terms, it didn’t really say anything revolutionary: media standards are something we should be concerned about, but really it's not that bad. It turns out the idiocy at News of the World was specifically an English problem. Better luck next witch hunt.

But one sneaky recommendation the review makes is the overhauling of the decentralised self-regulatory bodies used by existing media companies, and the establishment of a government controlled licensing and regulatory board.

No two ways about it; this is flat out wrong.

The idea behind the proposal is that in the digital age it is far too easy for any hack with a smart phone to call himself a journalist and upload whatever content he likes to the internet, regardless of accuracy, propriety or ethics. The council would require all reporters with the Australian media industry and, interestingly, all producers of blogs with more than 41 hits per average day, to be registered as licensed journalists.

This isn’t a new idea; the idea of a journalism license to prove intellectual capacity and responsibility in the press has been around for decades. And as attractive as it sounds (I'll be the first to publicly lambaste the Australian media for shoddy quality. I'm also fairly quick to use the word 'lambaste' in general. I really like it), the reason we don’t do it has been around for just as long: You don’t get to tell me what I can and can’t write in a liberal democracy.

Yes, we need standards and ethics in the media, that’s why the Australian Press Council and The Australian Communications and Media Authority already exist. The problem with these organisations is that they are part of the media system itself, a fact which always lends itself to criticism about accountability. But that’s the whole point of a free press. No-one gets to tell the press what it can and can’t write, least of all the government. And you can't silence someone because she doesn't meet your criteria for qualification. Ever. You can criticise her, ignore her, counter her or lambaste her. But you can't silence her.

Sure, we want media content to be appropriate. But do we want the government telling us what that means? Sure, we demand that the news always be true. But do we want the government telling us what is and isn’t true? Now imagine that the party you don’t support is in power and ask yourself the same questions. This stuff really does matter.

Fortunately (well…) for the free world, Cum Tacent Clament doesn’t rate anything near 41 hits a day, so you can rest assured that the steady flow of biased, inappropriate nonsense will continue long after the dark shroud of government censorship has descended on the cyberverse. When that day comes, I and my eight followers shall lead the glorious revolution, overthrow the establishment and usher in a new era of freedom, irresponsibility and ice cream for all.

Make of that what you will.



Garry with 2 Rs

Oh Chaplain My Chaplain

In the days since the announcement of the federal budget, many writers, bloggers and journalists have been quick to criticise the Government’s proposed increase to funding for school chaplaincy. Critics have been upset on two fronts; firstly the amount of money being invested in the program and secondly on the notion that federal funds should be used to give religion a place in public schools in the first place. And while these concerns are certainly worth discussion, I suggest that this week the role of the school chaplain has been given a bum rap.

There are a number of points to be made here. The first is to highlight the distinction between chaplaincy and religious education. Chaplains are not teachers; they are employed as counsellors and advisors. The notion of a chaplain coming into a classroom and proselytising to your children is utter rubbish. Chaplains are employed to serve, encourage and to provide advice and/or guidance where it is sought or needed. They are not employed to impose, indoctrinate or even (heaven forbid) promote religious values in schools.

Some public schools do allow religious groups to run religious instruction classes. These are always optional; parents who would prefer their children not to receive RI have the right to ask for their child to be excused. Every RI program I’ve ever been involved with has been run under strict guidelines under the watchful eye of a school staff member in order to prevent any hint of “brainwashing”. And fair enough too. But teaching children a few bible stories and encouraging them to obey their parents and treat others as they want to be treated themselves doesn’t constitute the insidious threat to liberty and democracy that is being touted by opponents to the new funding.

Besides which, that’s not what school chaplaincy is about; school chaplaincy is a completely different occupation.

Chaplains are on hand to meet the needs of students or staff who have problems or questions of a spiritual nature.  Whether Australia claims to be a secular society or not, it stands to reason that those seeking answers to spiritual (or philosophical, if you prefer a secular term) questions, especially in the formative years, should have access to those able to answer their questions, or at least provide some direction for finding the answer for themselves. Whatever your personal position, the realisation of a spiritual identity (of any faith, or no faith at all) is an aspect of education to be encouraged, not sneered at.

Some have suggested that a religious chaplain couldn’t possibly provide any valuable help for students of a differing religious background. That’s nonsense. A skilled chaplain will recognise and respect the diverse beliefs of any who come seeking guidance. As has been pointed out numerous times, sermonising, proselytising, evangelising and any other forms of religious promotion that so incense the guardians of liberty in our society are strictly off limits. But you don’t have to promote your own religion in order to guide a young mind towards finding the answers they are looking for, or at least towards asking the right kinds of questions.

This is the part of the discussion where someone jumps in with a moving and impassioned testimony of how some RI teacher sent him to stand in the corner because he said he didn’t believe in God, or some crazy fundamentalist tried to cast a demon out of her after playing some rock and roll at music class, and asks how we can possibly spend government money on ramming religion down the throats of those who don’t want it.

I don’t have any defence to that. That sort of vilification, where it occurs, is unacceptable in any society, religious or otherwise. But the answer isn’t just banning religion from schools altogether. Students need to have access to resources to guide them in finding answers to questions that are just as important (some might argue even more so) than anything on a NAPLAN test. It’s not the role of teachers to provide this support, nor should it be. And while the single most important role to be played in the moral upbringing of a child is that of the parents, it’s important for parents to be confident that their children have access to the appropriate support mechanisms while they are at school, which is the majority of their time during their upbringing.

Yes. The system needs work to make sure that all chaplains are properly trained, qualified and experienced and to ensure that all worldviews are being respected and catered for. I don’t pretend to know the best way to do that, but it seems to me that an increase in Government funding – if properly handled – couldn’t possibly be a bad start.

Make of that what you will.





Garry with 2 Rs

Token Election Post

I'd be a pretty rubbish blogger if I didn't post something about the Australian Federal Election, especially given the dramatic result (at the time of posting I'm still not exactly sure who the prime minster is).

But, to be honest, like most Australians I am utterly sick of the whole thing. It seems to me that a hung parliament is pretty representative of a country that in the end, couldn't decide which party was less rubbish, and accordingly voted them both out.

And that's about all I have to say on the subject. In the meantime, remember: if at first you don't succeed, skydiving is probably a bad idea.

...




Garry with 2 Rs

The View From the Middle of Nowhere

I'm writing this from the visitors' accommodation in Milingimbi, just off the North coast of East Arnhem Land. Stranded from the rest of civilisation, and cut off from the internet (don't ask me how I'm posting this... wibbly wobbly timey wimey), it's just me, the land, the ocean, my bible, my notebook and my iPod.

Okay, okay. I also have a fridge, an air conditioner and a TV. But there's nothing on except repeats of Two and a Half Men, so my iPod's been getting a fair work out. I've been re-living and re-loving Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog and I've decided that our lovable and piteous antihero wasn't that far off the mark.

Just before TAAHM, Channel Nine News informed me of the following:

Kevin Rudd's government has announced that after getting themselves elected by promising to open around 250 new childcare centres to relieve the chronic national shortage, they've decided they're going to build 38.

The Melbourne Storm have announced that they've been cheating for the last five years at least by rorting the salary cap system and have been stripped of three minor premierships, two premierships, a million dollars and all points for this season, past and present. No-one would ever have accused rugby league players of being able to count, but this sort of "do whatever it takes to win and bugger the spirit of the game" attitude really belongs in some other country. Like England.

In another brazen display from Rudd's goons, they've also gone and announced that an enquiry into the debacle that was the home insulation scheme has found that fixing the mess is likely to be really difficult, and really really expensive. So they've decided not to.

And did they send out Peter Garrett to face the music? No. He was hiding in an office deep within Parliament House somewhere. So did Kevin, who just two months ago was so keen to take responsibility and show us all how up front he was, front up? No. He was hiding in Tasmania. He would probably have been even further away, if it wasn't for that damned Icelandic volcano. Instead they arranged a press conference with some dubious looking assistant minister for who-cares-what? A man so otherwise irrelevant I'm not even going to bother looking up who it actually was.

On top of all that, and despite a very strongly worded request to join a Saturday league, I've been consigned to an E grade cricket team playing on Sundays, which means choosing between playing sport to do something about my physical fitness, and investing my Sundays in intercongregational activities to do something about the spiritual health of the local Church. I mean, I realise I'm close enough to useless and not getting anywhere, but this might just be the final insult.

I'm also rubbish at cricket.

Yes indeed, as the Horrible little Doctor put it:

"It's not about making money. It's about taking money; destroying the Status Quo. Because the Status is not Quo. The world's a mess and I just need to rule it."

I've been considering the various avenues available to me in terms of affecting the obviously necessary pardigmic social change. I could become a politician myself, but they all seem to be increasingly useless. I could become a religious leader, but, for all I see, we have too many of them as it is (more on that later). I could found an underground resistance movement, but bringing a campaign of violence and destruction of property to the streets of Palmerston wouldn't actually set me apart from the local high school students. And no-one seems to pay them any attention.

So logically the only recourse left is to become a lone-wolf masked vigilante and prowl the streets at night, seeking out injustice and crushing it under the heel of my rocketboots. To the secret lab, Emilio!

No. There's no secret laboratory and no mad yet devoted assistant. And who calls their sidekick Emilio, anyway? Lame. I guess I'll just stay here in the visitors' accommodation and continue to combat the forces of evil by blogging them to death.

And that's the news for this Thursday the 22nd of April. A Current Affair is next, but for now: good night.




Garry with 2 Rs

P.S. I apologise for the overtly political tone this blog has now taken. We will be returning to the regular scheduled service of absurd sexist ecumenical idiocy as soon as possible.

P.P.S. Anyone else think Jonathan Uptin needs a more creative sign-off?