The Christmas Blog 2014

-

Flowers in Martin Place - a sad end to a tough year.

If you take the cynical view, and many will, the Sydney Siege and its emotional aftermath could not have come at a better time for Tony Abbott and his shop-worn and slightly soiled government. On the very day that 'Diamond Joe' Hockey and Mathias 'The Lying Dutchman' Corman were forced to face the  MYEFO music and admit that;

(a) the budget had been an unmitigated disaster scorned and despised by all and sundry, with every divide and rule, tax the poor, ploy rumbled, and;

(b) the mining boom magic-money-pudding that had made the Howard years so easy to tout as economically responsible had finally run dry, and;

(c) this government would never, ever produce a budget surplus no matter how many terms it managed to lie its way into;

~ and suddenly the biggest end of year slap-down for any government in living memory became just a side-show next to the reality of a genuine 'Muslim-terrorist, Dog-Day-Afternoon, fear and loathing in Sunny Sydney' horror show. The siege, its innocent and heroic victims, its brutal and 'just as crazy as we thought these terrorist bastards were' protagonist; and the nauseatingly over-hyped television news coverage, became the setting for Tony 'trust me I really don't know what I'm doing' Abbott to look by turns, concerned, caring, fatherly and genuinely human.

He didn't manage to pull off Prime Ministerial, decisive, or penetratingly insightful, but then, he hasn't done since he got the job, and it's been a bloody long year with a lot of turbulence in what should have been clear political air. The opportunity now hangs in the air for Tony to become Mr. Safe-at-any-price, Authoritarian Asio-bloodhound, 'fight them on the beaches of Sydney', 'no more Mr Nice Guy' right wing demagogue of punitive measures for the disaffected leavened with a healthy dose of refugee bashing. And the worse things get in every other part of his government's remit, the harder to resist that temptation is going to be with the likes of Brandis, Cormann, Morrison and co beating the drum..

The nation's cosseted private sector media will only be too keen to lead, follow and cheer on the charge. Channel 9's post siege news positively gloried in the grief and misery, with an emoting blonde anchor pronouncing the grief of those who lost family members beyond any compare, before switching briefly to the murder of more than a hundred children by the Taliban in Pakistan to round out the A block intro at the top of the hour.

The carpet of flowers grows as thousands arrive to deliver them in person

Don't get me wrong here. I don't discount for a moment how genuine the pain of loss for a murdered family member is. Nor do I think that one person's grief is worth more than another's. But at 57 I'm relatively sanguine. I wept at the heroics of a young man who gave his life to save others, while the loss of the Pakistani children didn't touch me quite as much. Their distance lending a sad diminution of one man's emotional response in which I took refuge without shame. I know just how much my heart can and can't take.

Yet I am touched by the carpet of flowers that now covers most of Martin Place (and is still growing). That people are still coming in person to place their floral tribute displays not just grief and sadness but the warmth, generosity and open-hearted fellow feeling that is the best part of the Australian national character. That and their honest willingness to act on what they feel. And I am cheered to be a part of that. The #Illridewithyou campaign begun on Twitter shows not just how generous and open-hearted Aussies can be, but just how smart, insightful and able to sort emotion from reality. Our young can clearly discern and act on truth in ways that clearly baffle some of our politicians.

Stephanie Speirs organised 1,000 #Illridewithyou badges to give to commuters

But all three commercial TV stations are guilty of telling us how to think, feel and react to every tiny nuance of pain, grief, horror and shock in ways that went far beyond the normal realms of yellow journalism. Perhaps from habit as much as ignorance they hype up the faux-emotional at the expense of the real. They narrow the human response to banal phrases that don't ring true, just familiar. They distort for banal effect and in doing so betray the genuine feelings and thoughts of those involved. Straight reporting took second place to the values of fear-mongering, sensation-seeking and emotional manipulation that underpin the trite 'current affairs' shows that follow the news, and inform the shock-jock blame-a-thons that will surely follow on radio in the weeks and months ahead. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

The Telegraph - always first with sensationalist fiction.

My concern, however, and surprisingly, is for Tony Abbott. All year he's removed one foot from his mouth only to kick himself firmly in the teeth with the other when his tried and tested political skills were seen through so easily and consistently by so many. It appears that Generations X, Y and Whoever's Next take it personally when lied to so obviously, and in such clear, declarative pre-election promises. That and the endless series of rabid hard-right economic kickings handed out to the non-rich section of Team 'Straya has not worked the way it once used to. Cynical Baby-Boomers may not have been surprised, even if they were outraged. But the young are apparently made of more idealistic stuff, and less inclined to forgive and forget within the time-frame of a first-term government whose credibility before any election can only ever be zero from here on in. 

But, be that as it may, I had thought I'd seen in Tony Abbott a certain stirring of thought, of reflection on how badly things have gone, and in particular on how 'new, caring, soft-spoken Uncle Tony' had failed to earn any warmth from the punters. It looked from the cheap seats that Tony had planned to be John Howard redux - the concerned paterfamilias PM who sat above the fray and seemingly above party politics allowing his ministers their head and only stepping in to curb their honest zeal with a wiser restraining hand when enough voters got shirty.

The problem that won't go away, even if Tony goes away.

In reality it's just an old dog-and-pony show; let the Ministers fly the kites and if all goes well let them run with it, and step in to cut the ribbon when all's done. Or shut things down if the kite crashes and burns. But it seems Tony believed in it. And finding out this year that:

(a) if you lie so egregiously you don't get the benefit of the doubt when you say 'trust me with the details', and;

(b) people really loved that sod Whitlam and every socialist thing he did that sort of 'worked' and gave people a better standard of living, and;

(c) people really do notice when you manage to slide a $1 billion worth of funding for the Catholic Church into an 'austerity budget', and;

(d) if you really don't care about economics enough to pay attention, and just let the Huns ride roughshod over the budget, well damnit, people blame you for it anyway!

It all kind of took the shine off getting the Big Job which was what you wanted in the first place. And then there was that few days in early December when Tony appeared to be taking all this in, and genuinely trying to rethink things. I actually felt for him, which surprised me no end. Not sorry for him, more fascinated in the way that watching a Labrador trying to understand pockets is.

For a while I thought he might actually spend Christmas trying to re-imagine himself as PM - not so much 'Father Tony the political priest' any more, and well, something maybe that was what he actually could be if he stopped being Mr Knuckle-Sandwich from sheer force of habit. Perhaps there were some glimmers of a genuine attempt to learn on the job and adapt to a new century, a new demographic picture of Team Oz, a new ..

Well, it really doesn't matter now. The siege, the posturing, the playing the role of Chief Wreath Layer and uttering the Warm, Caring Pre-Programmed Phrases at every camera in the land may have banished that moment forever. And soon we'll get the inquiries and the security ramp-ups and the blame giving and more right-wing politics as usual. 

 Which is a pity.

One-term Tony. 

Is all I want for Christmas, 2016.

Oh, and peace on Earth. Every year. 

Or at least some signs that the Angels Of Our Better Nature are on duty.

So, Merry Christmas. Hug your loved ones. Cherish your children. 

Take time for your own happiness amid the stress of it all. 

It's been a really tough year with too many good people lost.

With love, AofM

"Welcome to Florida. Cross me and I'll kill you."

On the 13th of July the jury in the Trayvon Martin murdercase found George Zimmerman not guilty of tracking, stalking and murdering an unarmed 17 year-old in Sanford, Florida. The injustice of this verdict is attested to by peaceful rallies protesting in 100 US cities.

When reading the coverage of the trial I was struck by a thread running through all of the public comments on online news sites. Predictably there were two sides. One decrying the verdict and the pointless loss of a young life, raising the race card like a soccer umpire cautioning a violent and unrepentant offender. The other side vehemently defended the not guilty verdict. What struck me, however, was an underlying assumption common to every one of the 'pro-Zimmerman' comments, every single one on over a dozen different sites - that it is perfectly fine to shoot and kill another human being dead.

A shocking statement in itself, but one made even more disturbing by the tone and trend of this 'side of the argument' towards not just self defence and a comfortable certainty that it's fine to kill someone, but that the laws on this determine the morality, rather than the reverse. That a law which allows 'shoot to kill' means taking a life is completely justified and requires no further thought whatsoever.

In a healthy culture laws are an extension of social morality. We prohibit behaviour that goes beyond moral boundaries. When this is in balance our laws serve the principle of justice. Immoral behaviour, violence and property destruction and dispossession are proscribed in law along with the appropriate sanctions. When social values and social morality changes, groups who have argued for a change in the laws will see public opinion sway their way, and eventually public pressure will force a change in law.  

A current and classic example of this process is the global shift in laws regarding homosexuality and marriage. The feeling that gay marriage is not only a just extension to a minority of rights enjoyed by the majority, but a right that should be enshrined in and protected by law is a current global phenomenon.

Conservative politicians everywhere are finding themselves out of touch with the vox populi, the voice, and will, of the people on this. Their  conservatism is often a positive restraint on the 'enthusiasms of the mob' easily whipped up by demagogues and media barons. But when the people genuinely change their opinion politicians must follow or become electorally obsolete.

This is not the case with the 'Stand Your Ground' and 'Castle Doctrine' laws (the right to use deadly force in your own home). Originating in Florida (and aggressively promoted by ALEC*) these laws are now in place in over thirty US states. These laws go far beyond justice and leave morality trailing in their wake. They put justice and social morality to one side and arm the citizen with the right to judge, condemn and execute while protected by law. This isn't just rhetoric, it's already happening:

In November 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, 61 year-old Joe Horn shot and killed two men who were attempting to rob his neighbour's house. He rang '911' and reported the crime, and the discussion continued as follows:

Joe Horn: “I’ve got a shotgun; do you want me to stop them?”

Pasadena emergency operator: “Nope. Don’t do that. Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, O.K.?”

Joe Horn: “But hurry up, man. Catch these guys will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.”

Mr. Horn then said he would get his shotgun.

The operator said, “No, no.” But Horn said: “I can’t take a chance of getting killed over this, O.K.? I’m going to shoot.”

The operator told him not to go out with a gun because officers would be arriving.

“O.K.,” said Horn, “But I have a right to protect myself too, sir,” adding, “The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.”

The operator said, “You’re going to get yourself shot.” 

Mr. Horn replied, “You want to make a bet? I’m going to kill them.  I ain’t gonna let them get away with this shit ... They got a bag of loot … Here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.”

The operator then heard: “Move, you’re dead.” Followed by three gunshots.

“I had no choice," said Horn when he got back on the line. “They came in the front yard with me, man.”

You can listen to a complete recording of the call here: 

The two men, who were carrying a sack with cash and jewellery, were shot in the back. Both died. A Texas Grand Jury found Mr Horn had no case to answer. He was free to go.

This decision implies that the 'Castle doctrine' embodies not just the right to self defence in your own home, nor the legal right to kill to protect person and property, but the opportunity to deliberately seek the death of others as a personal choice, a right to kill for personal satisfaction within the law. Joe Horn is not an isolated case. Nor is his attitude, which says the laws now serve me. My right to arms includes the right to kill my fellow citizens if they offend me. All I have to do is claim I felt under threat. The right to free speech entitles me to lie to protect myself. My rights are absolute, and sacred. Cross me and I will kill you.

 Joe Horn being lauded by Fox News:

 

This is a society in moral free-fall, so driven by fear and hatred that it is fragmenting into tiny personal fiefdoms of property and the right to kill others to defend it.

There is a serious systemic issue here. When law and morality are out of balance one will move to accommodate the other, driven by a kind of social cognitive dissonance. In progressive reforms laws reflect changes in public morality. In reactionary and regressive reforms public morality will accommodate itself to repressive laws. Laws that provide protection for our baser instincts license behaviour previously held in check by tradition, social custom and social institutions. 

When the law shifts the goalposts towards the bottom of the barrel behaviours that were once beyond the pale soon emerge, with those with a taste for violence and hatred soon claiming the moral high ground. Soon society is brutalised, social relationships are vested with threat and animus, and social institutions that reflect positive moral values lose their standing and we are thrust into the realm of the shock-jock listener. A world full of hatred, paranoia, misogyny, and xenophobia, where wilful ignorance, bigotry and self-interest are elevated to the level of supreme moral virtues. 

The justification for this is always the same: a crude Social Darwinist view that man is by nature violent, competitive and crass and any attempt to claim otherwise is derided as sentimental and fantastic. That in our true nature we are 'red in tooth and claw'.

Civilisation and its moral and social values are what separate us from other animals. The Social Darwinist derides this as wishful thinking and that a crude form of 'natural justice' demands we behave as brutes, that competition is the only fact of life and that nothing is sacred: not family, not society, not virtue or ethics or any moral stand against the barbaric and brutal. 

I say no. I say we must fight for every principle, every choice to rise above a base nature, every instinct for compassion, empathy and generosity of spirit. The struggle will be endless. As long as man has a baser nature there will be those who are too lazy to see beyond it, and too selfish to think beyond their own needs. But civilisation wasn't built by these people, and while any of us defends humanity's higher calling they will not prevail.

Civilisation belongs to the civilised. The brutes and their mercenary mouthpieces will always be limited by the short-sighted self-interest they claim as their nature. If anything separates humans from other animals it is our ability to rise above the instinct for blood and to seek what justice we can in an imperfect world.

.o0o.

* FOOTNOTE: ALEC:  the American Legislative Exchange Council.

 

 ALEC is the 40 year old American Legislative Exchange Council, originally the Conservative Caucus of State Legislators. ALEC's website says members believe "government closest to the people" is "fundamentally more effective, more just, and a better guarantor of freedom than the distant, bloated federal government in Washington, D.C." 

ALEC is funded by industries whose profitability is enhanced and whose corporate responsibility is minimised by ALEC laws. ALEC promotes legislation to restrict voter access through ID laws, limit corporate accountability (on asbestos, fracking and tobacco health claims for example), limit taxation and government oversight (on environmental protection, for example), extend police powers and punitive laws (for the private prisons industry), and promote gun rights and ownership (for gun lobby corporations). 

In 2012 ALEC wrote to the Australian government stating that US legislators opposed plain cigarette packaging and that generic cigarettes increase rather than decrease cigarette consumption.

.