Kid Stuff? (I)

â??Cyber bullyingâ?? scored a big, in depth report in the Saturday Age on March 10th. â??Cyber bullyingâ?? is what you call it when schoolkids use the resources of the internet to harass one of their schoolmates by sending them abusive e-mails and text messages or spreading malicious rumours about them. When adults use the resources of the internet to harass each other itâ??s called something else â?? blogging, when itâ??s done on an amateur basis, journalism when you get paid for it and have the backing of a large media organisation.

The article hits the usual talking points â?? â??cyber bullyingâ?? is a new form of bullying only made possible by the power of the internet and SMS messaging, itâ??s much more insidious than â??traditionalâ?? bullying, which was limited more or less to school hours â?? recesses, lunchtimes and the journey to and from school. The general message is a gloomy one â?? cyber-bullying is here to stay, the best we can do is to contain the problem and teach parents how to protect their kids from it, and teach kids how to protect themselves.

Reading the article prompted several ideas, which all went off on their own tracks and refused to be shunted into a coherent train of thought. Ideas such as â?? is the problem really with the technology, or is it with the institution of the school? As none of them led to a coherent train of thought, let alone a sound line of argument, I put completing this piece aside for a while.

In between starting â?? on the day the article appeared â?? and today, a couple of other items in The Age helped me focus my attention. One was this news report on how the principal of Essex Heights Primary School in Melbourneâ??s East was driven out of her job by a concerted campaign of cyber-bullying by parents of children attending the school. Another was Shaun Carneyâ??s analysis of the attacks on Kevin Ruddâ??s character, published in the Saturday Age of March 17, 2007. Between them, these brought the issue of double standards to the fore. In brief, bullying is deplorable when it is done by children but perfectly acceptable when done by adults as part of the political process.

The general issue of double standards is a tricky one. The simplest approach is decry and denounce them completely â?? at least those you donâ??t subscribe to, especially those of your political or ideological opponents. Thatâ??s the straightforward, â??My double standards are OK, yours are objectionableâ?? line, to which the standard response is â??Goose, gander, sauceâ??. This is the basis of Peter Costelloâ??s â??Rudd started itâ?? defence of the Governmentâ??s attacks on Kevin Ruddâ??s character.

This approach doesnâ??t work well in ordinary social life; there we often encounter double standards â?? obviously the double standards of others, never our own â?? whose proponents consider them solidly justified. An example of such a standard is the one Helga and I apply to jokes about our failed marriage â?? weâ??re allowed to make them, because it was our marriage and weâ??re entitled to see the funny side of the whole painful business. But woe betide anyone who has the effrontery to join in the jocularity. Thatâ??s called â??survivor humourâ?? and lots of people use it to get by in life. There are, of course, socially inept people who donâ??t get it and one can only feel sorry for them â?? theyâ??re missing out on one of lifeâ??s great consolations.

Before we criticise someone for holding to a double standard, we need to examine whether that standard is a simple â??Do as I say, not as I doâ?? double standard â?? making an exception to the general rule on the basis that Iâ??m me and youâ??re not â?? we need to examine whether the standard rests on another basis. In the matter of â??survivor humourâ?? you might ask do Helga and I have the wit to extend the same privilege to other couples? Well yes â?? at least she does. Me, I just have to cop it sweet when I get it wrong and grudgingly apologise.

This is where Peter Costello erred, in his â??Rudd started itâ?? defence of his attempt to impugn Kevin Ruddâ??s character by pointing to his previous association with Brian Burke. He missed the specificity of Ruddâ??s â??attackâ?? on Howard â?? it is quite reasonable when a Prime Minister advocates policy, and his supporters are discovered to have interests in that policy, to ask the question â??Cui bono?â?? Costello also erred, in that he couldnâ??t point to anything specifically wrong with Rudd meeting Brian Burke â?? just a general aura of sleaze associated with the Burke name. Costelloâ??s biggest blunder is well known â?? he shot Ian Campbell in the foot.

After that there is the small matter of going too far â?? when behaviour that might be acceptable on occasion, or at a low level, becomes unacceptable when itâ??s cranked up one or two notches two many. Tony Abbott made that error in his remarks on Kevin Ruddâ??s personal tale of his fatherâ??s death in a road accident and the effects on his family.

The overarching double standard in the debate on cyber-bullying â?? at least as presented in The Ageâ??s recent article on the subject, is a fairly traditional one, as shown by the Essex Heights example â?? itâ??s the one where behaviour that is acceptable in adults â?? especially adults with authority – is not acceptable in children. Thatâ??s illustrated by the case of Essex Heights Primary School, where a group of adults went too far in their dealings with another adult and slipped into behaviour that they probably would have deplored if, for example, they had found that one of their children was on the receiving end of it.

I learnt for myself just how easy it is for kids to go too far recently (warning â?? anecdotal hearsay to follow). A friend had to pull up her teenage daughter when she discovered that she (the daughter) along with some of her friends had been sending a male schoolmate teasing e-mails. It was one of those situations which started out as a friendly joke, but was on the way to turning nasty â?? just as a bit of web-based political activism might turn nasty. As the normal rough and tumble of politics, Australian style, turned nasty when the Liberal Party decided, in Andrew Robbâ??s that â??the pretender needs to be testedâ??. This amounts to little more than a rationalisation of bad behaviour â?? Shaun Carneyâ??s assessment of the situation is right. The Government tried to bully Rudd into political collapse. As they did before to Mark Latham (who cracked) and Kim Beazley (who did his best to hide himself in plain sight). Unfortunately, the Liberal Party was too eager to do Rudd slowly and it didnâ??t play well with the electorate.

Postscript: this is the first part of a work in progress â?? Part II has hit 500+ words and counting. It will be posted as soon as I reach the next convenient resting point.