The last couple of weeks have seen a fair bit of furore about those intertubes. Anna Bligh wrote to Facebook about the defacing of a couple of memorial sites for a child and a teenager who’d been murdered in Queensland. Nick Xenophon suggested an Internet Ombudsperson, a suggestion Kevin Rudd applauded. There’ve also been numerous controversies about high school students posting racist groups, or offensive ones (for instance, effectively calling for attacks on sex workers). All this no doubt warrants condemnation – but it’s also worth observing that only a certain subsection of offensive content (usually involving children in one way or other) comes to the attention of the media and politicians. Little outrage is directed to the much larger subset of racist groups on Facebook (which don’t happen to be set up by high school kids), or the everyday misogyny that permeates much of the online space.
There’s no doubt that there are problems with Facebook’s method of dealing with offensive content. But the fundamental errors in this debate are twofold:
(a) Social networking sites are far more akin to phone networks than a traditional publishing model. A huge multiplicity of users constantly and simultaneously post content. Unlike talking on a phone, it leaves a permanent trace, but it’s a much better analogy;
(b) The direction of causation is the wrong way round. It’s not that the internet encourages people to do dumb and wrong things. It’s that people do dumb and wrong things, and they do them on the internet too.
The noise coming from politicians, and the ’solutions’, make one wonder whether they understand at all how social networking works. Part of the problem is one very easily resolved through taking more responsibility on the part of group creators for the little bit of the internet they set up, and using privacy and content management tools intelligently.
My mate Tim Watts, who’s been doing some great work online on violent racist incidents in Melbourne, has provided this guest post. Previous discussion of the spate of attacks on Indian students at LP can be found here. -MB
“I’m not Racist, but… I’m Complacent”
Australians are rightfully proud of the good thing we’ve got going on here. We know that we live in god’s own country and most of us wouldn’t swap it for anything in the world. There’s nothing wrong with that – in fact I couldn’t agree with it more. However, one area in which we’re certainly not world leaders is self reflection. Most of us are pretty happy with our lot in life and don’t feel the need to risk it by asking too many questions of ourselves. As a result, we’ve made avoiding direct public discussions about the (relatively minor) imperfections in the Australian way of life an art form. It’s trite, but it’s the Australian way to dodge any issues that have the potential to make us uncomfortable with a dismissive ‘She’ll be right’ or ‘No worries’.
I had cause to reflect on this recently when I posted a bit of a spray about the inadequacy of the police response to the recent attacks on Indians in Melbourne on my Facebook profile. This deliberately direct comment provoked some very odd responses (both public and private) from ordinarily sensible people. While the content of these responses was extremely varied, they had one fairly consistent theme – a desperate avoidance of confronting the role that racism (subjective or structural) has played in these attacks.
I knew that Mark shared my frustration at people’s reluctance to confront the issue head on, so to try and keep up the momentum for addressing the core of this problem I offered to set out a factual basis for discussion and respond to some of the more common dodges that I’ve seen employed to avoid these facts.
One of the debates we should no doubt be having about the spate of violent and racist attacks on Indian students in this country is around the conditions of service work in the less salubrious bits of the service industries (not that conditions of work in the more salubrious bits are all that fabulous).
If, as we discussed on the previous thread, it is the case that students or recent immigrants working in servos, 24 hour convenience stores, cleaning jobs, taxi driving and so forth are more at risk of assault and abuse, then it follows that working conditions in the night time economy are part of the problem. It’s well accepted, for instance, that highly skilled shift workers such as nurses can obtain, through the industrial system, protections from dangerous journeys to and from work; for instance, well lit and surveilled routes to car parks, security, cab fares home. Similarly, workers in occupations where abuse and threats of or actual violence are likely to be a frequent risk, such as in emergency rooms and Centrelink, also have established protocols and risk management measures (including quick access to police) in place to safeguard their right to work in an environment free of danger and harrassment. Such protections are at the cost of the employer.
There seems no reason, in justice or fairness, why less skilled workers should not be entitled to the same protections.
The tragic murder of Nitin Garg has revived debate about violence against Indian students in Australia, spilling over into a range of statements at Ministerial level in both countries.
I think there is no doubt that hate crimes occur in Australia, and that it would be futile to deny that racism is a real problem in this nation.
However, there are a few issues around these events worthy of comment.
My impression, and it’s only that, is that the majority of these crimes appear to have occurred in Melbourne. I don’t think that’s because there’s a particularly high proportion of Indian students studying there. It may be higher, but there is certainly a large number in Brisbane. Is there something particular to Melbourne that may account for this?
Secondly, I wonder, above and beyond educational measures universities and others may have implemented to advise new students about safety, what can be done? The response to this, and previous incidents, seems to me to carry a demand in its wake that the government take action, but it’s not at all clear to me what action would be desirable or effective. I am sure, though, that the disavowal of racism, which cannot be unrelated to other issues in the Australian-Indian bilateral relationship, and concerns about the image Australia projects more broadly, is not helpful.
Elsewhere: Senator Sarah Hanson-Young at GreensBlog.
Australia has some of the worst racial disparities in the developed world. The average household income of indigenous Australians is only 60% of the average. The proportion with high-school or higher educations is only half that of the average (a fifth for university qualifications), while their unemployment rate is triple that of non-indigenous Australians. Their health statistics are equally appalling, with complication and disease rates at least double the average, with a consequent effect on life expectancy. The average indigenous Australian dies a decade earlier as a result of poverty, disease, poor access to health services and institutionalised racism.
The Australian Federal Government spends billions trying to correct these disparities, with apparently little effect. But that’s because most of the money never actually reaches its target, instead being diverted to buy votes in marginal seats:
THE Northern Territory Labor government has for the past five years diverted $2 billion earmarked for indigenous disadvantage and other key services to mainstream spending in marginal Darwin seats.
Detailed figures obtained by The Weekend Australian reveal that hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars provided by the commonwealth and intended for indigenous health, homelessness, delivery of services and families have been used to service debt and bolster superannuation payments.
The figures come as the Territory government continues to defend its handling of the $672 million Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Project, which has so far failed to result in one new house being built, despite $45m being spent in the first 15 months of the project.
This is not a new story; the National Indigenous Timeshighlighted it back in 2006, the Sydney Morning Heraldin 2005. But still it goes on – and indigenous Australians suffer as a result.
It is time to end this organised racist theft, and for state governments to spend the money they are allocated for indigenous peoples for its proper purpose, rather than misappropriating it. But that would require Australians to accept that indigenous people matter, that they are human beings equally deserving of government attention. And looking across the Tasman, even after Rudd’s historic apology, that acceptance is still a long way away.
In the run-up to the 2007 election, then-Australian Prime Minister John Howard decided to repeat his successful racial wedge tactics with Aborigines as the victims, declaring a “state of emergency” in Northern Australia, taking over townships, and suspending anti-discrimination laws so it could subject aborigines to authoritarian and paternalist controls on the basis of race. Now, James Anaya, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous people, has pointed out the obvious: that this was fundamentally discriminatory. And he didn’t mince his words in saying so:
“There is entrenched racism in Australia,” Anaya told reporters in the capital, Canberra, after visiting several Aboriginal townships in the past week. “These measures overtly discriminate against Aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self determination and stigmatize already stigmatized communities.”
Compulsory income management and blanket bans on alcohol and pornography were “overtly discriminatory” and further stigmatised already stigmatised communities, he said.
“People who have a demonstrated capacity to manage their income are included.
“It’s inappropriate to their circumstances but is also, as expressed by them, demeaning.”
The indigenous rights expert was also scathing of federal Labor’s insistence that housing funds would only flow if indigenous communities signed over their land.
“It’s a mistake to assume that indigenous peoples … aren’t capable of taking care of their homes,” Prof Anaya said.
“Indigenous control can be appropriate to indigenous peoples’ development, to their aspirations, to indeed being in control of their lives like all others.”
As for compensation for indigenous people taken from their families by government agencies, the UN rapporteur was unequivocal: “There should be reparations,” he said.
That’s a pretty stunning condemnation of a government we all expect to behave better. It will be interesting to see how the Rudd government, which has moved a long way from Howard’s position, responds.
In the Sydney suburb of Manly, hundreds of youths draped in “Aussie pride” livery wore slogans declaring “f–k off we’re full” as they smashed car windows and ran up the famous Corso targeting non-white shop keepers.
A 18-year-old Asian female in one of the cars was showered with shattered glass, giving her numerous cuts to her arms. She was treated on the scene by ambulance officers.
A taxi driven by a Sikh Indian was also targeted while an Asian shopkeeper was reportedly assaulted.
Groups of men jumped up on cars chanting race hate to the terrified passengers within, and were heard singing “t*ts out for the boys” at passing girls and yelled “lets go f–k with these Lebs”.
Prince Harry’s comments were little more than everyday army banter. He’s no racist – his heart is definitely in the right place.
Since the comedy stylings of Professor David Flint AM have been absent from Crikey recently, and wondering what Australia’s leading monarchist had to say about the latest Royal brouhaha, I was lucky enough to happen upon “No Republic!”. At first, I thought Prof. Flint was maintaining a dignified silence. His latest post refers to the important and pressing issue of the refusal of royal assent in Luxembourg. However, scrolling down, I found the Australian monarchist case from the horse’s mouth, and it’s not “he’s just a lad”. It’s all a Murdoch led conspiracy, apparently. And an act of revenge!
There is actually a serious side to Prince Harry’s comments, if not to the Prince. That’s neatly discussed at The Global Sociology Blog.
In the (new) tradition of rich dude saves the world, someone I’d never heard of, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest – apparently Australia’s richest man, has been putting his head together with Noel Pearson and Kevin Rudd to announce a plan to create 50 000 full time private sector jobs for Indigenous Australians. Incidentally, I’m sure Pearson is behind the phraseology of a “covenant”, which no doubt appeals to our religiously inclined Prime Minister as well. No doubt such proposals should be judged on their merits, and the whole thing appears fairly sketchy at the moment.
But it is fair, I think, to say that it’s consonant with not just corporate social responsibility agendas, but also with the broader phenomenon of the privatisation of development assistance which we see worldwide – also in the field of public health. One of the criticisms of such programs – often delivered by NGOs deriving funding from foundations owned by benefactors of great wealth – such as Bill Gates – or foundations which leverage money off showbiz or biz or even political celebrity (as in Bill Clinton’s activities) is their paternalism and the lack of an integrated and properly public focus on the true dimensions of a problem – and the tendency or at least the temptation to focus on outcomes which make for good pr. Of course, in the symbolism driven political environment in which we live, you could make equally telling criticisms of a lot of public sector programs. This proposal also obviously partakes in the notion – beloved of Noel Pearson – that work and all its associated ethical dispositions are the solution to most – if not all – social ills.
Yeah, you might have noticed already. I’m in a Truthiness mood tonight, as Stephen Colbert might say. Remember all the loud denunciations I copped from Harry Clarke, Tim Blair et al et al etc. – all the feminists of total convenience – for not denouncing the female genital mutilation loudly enough? Coz it’s all about teh Islam and threats to Western Civ, etc., and that mob are all on the side of women’s rights, and that manly man of steel John Howard is taking us to war to free Afghani women from burqas. And George W. Bush is going to hunt those Al-Qaeda evildoers down. (And Islam is not a race, and some of my best friends… oops, hang on?) While Laura and Condi look after the oppressed women. Or something… Oh yeah, it isn’t 2003 any more… Remember that word fistula – you might not have read that on teh Blair blog – being a word of three syllables and all. And in Latin.
But I talked about it at the time. Now that Pamela Bone is dead (and God rest her soul, may she be blessed with eternal rest, and may perpetual light shine upon her), where are the voices with the loud condemn? What’s with that Australian crusade for women’s rights in benighted Islamic Middle Eastern countries? After all, we – Dolly Downer and John Howard and Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt and Planet Janet told us so – are all (post?) feminists now. It’s on the citizenship test, dude – and dudette a la 50s pinup style no doubt. (Ps – don’t use that politically correct, activist judge f-word though…)
Well, never mind. Here’s a post from The Global Sociology Blog for the benefit of anyone who wanted to continue highlighting the horrors perpetrated on women in the developing world even if there’s not a convenient culture wars damn the left angle in it. (And that’s not to say that women in the developed world don’t still cop a lot – but there’s something to celebrate about a very large majority of Australians agreeing – at least in theory when asked by pollsters – that women have rights over their own choices and bodies – even if that masks continued gender inequality in oh, so many ways…).
Crikey is reporting today that a leaked progress report demonstrates that the Northern Territory Intervention, now just short of a year old, is “a shambles”. It’s worth reading the full story, but it’s also interesting to note that Mal “who will think of the children?” Brough has admitted that the thing was cobbled together in 48 hours, as just about everyone suspected at the time.
When Jenny Macklin announced the composition of the panel who will oversee the review of the Intervention earlier this month, commentary predictably focused on whether those appointed were “critics” or “supporters”, which seems an idiotic yet predictable angle given that the whole point of the thing is to see whether it’s attaining its actual goals, something recognised by Peter Yu who was named as the review’s chair. Most of the coverage of the Intervention has continued to be framed in ideological terms, not least from those who claim that we need to move on from ideology.
Hillary Clinton is right about one thing – the question is “where do we go now?”
So should she slot in at #2? I’m not convinced that there are a large number of women who supported Hillary who won’t back Obama. It’s more likely that there are quite a few white men around who… etc. Without dissing at all the women who really are concerned about the incredible wave of misogyny (much more culturally acceptable, it seems, than open racism) that hit the Clinton campaign, as with most of what’s gone on, there’s some positioning going on here from Clinton. Positioning for power and influence. Forget superdelegates for a moment – there are a whole host of ex-thises and thats and a sort of “government in exile” from Bill’s time in office who will be looking for gigs come January, if Obama defeats McCain. And Clinton needs to shore up her own power in the Senate and the party – one way the switcheroo from some Democratic establishment types to Obama can be read is an attempt to protect their power against voters, by going with voters. If Obama continues the movement aspect of his campaign, there really is the potential for a huge shakeup of the hierarchies – and it’s those same hierarchies Clinton will be trying to protect. “Bringing the party together” could well be code for locking the people out.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of her current manoeuvring is the suggestions that she’d like to be asked to be Vice-President, but would turn down any such offer. Continue reading ‘Why Hillary shouldn’t be Veep’
It’s all over bar the shouting (make mine a bourbon) for Hillary. Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte and Katha Pollitt look at the race/gender wars in the context of this year’s primaries at the LA Times.
Pollitt has the money quote:
I can’t tell you how many reporters have interviewed me for stories about “why women are divided about Clinton.” How about a story explaining “why men are divided about John McCain”? In fact, gender as a factor in men’s voting is one of many elephants in the political room, even as male (and female) candidates slaughter innocent wildlife, sit through endless NASCAR races and profess their love of hot dogs and beer.
Remember John Kerry’s bizarre gun/hunting fest from 2004?
A few weeks ago, a woman I know who lives in Indiana had a phone call from Hillary Clinton’s camp in the run-up to the state Democratic primary.
“I realise folks say it would be great to have an African-American president, but wouldn’t it be neat to have the first woman president in our lifetime?” Continue reading ‘Hillary, gender decoy’
The long and short of it is that skilled migration and temporary working visas have been lifted to almost 300 000 a year, with more on the way. Add in international students and those on some forms of tourist visa and you have a very large boost to Australia’s workforce.
Kelly’s correct to write that Howard lifted the migration quota over his term in office, but doesn’t add that he played the politics of it through distracting attention with all sorts of “look! over there! Muslims!” scares. I’m not sure I agree with Kelly that there’s going to be a particular political risk for Labor here. I suspect that Paul Keating took the brunt of it, with his “embedding in Asia” rhetoric and his economic case for migration a long time before the perception of the need for more migration to build a skills base and competitiveness really kicked in. Opposition to the changing face of Australia washed out of the national psyche, largely, one could argue hopefully, with the receding of the Hansonite wave of protest and indignation. John Howard may have had his face turned towards the past in this regard in his last years of office.
We probably should be having a debate on the ecological consequences of increased infrastructure spending for a bigger population (among other climate change related impacts), and on the fact that while “unemployment” might be still near record lows, there are still a lot of people either underemployed or locked out of the labour market for reasons that are fairly intractable to short term policy influence, but I doubt we’ll be seeing much of either.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Recent comments
Mark, Pavlov's Cat, Mark, Fascinated, Pavlov's Cat, Mark [...]
John D, Mark, tigtog, Mark, Pavlov's Cat, Saint Furious of Ikea [...]
Mark, Mark, Pavlov's Cat, Lefty E, joe2, Mark [...]
Guido, pablo, Saint Furious of Ikea, Salient Green, Lefty E, ewe2 [...]
joe2, joe2, Mark, Mark, Ag, joe2 [...]
Ginja, Anthony, Terry, Alison, anthony nolan, joe2 [...]
BilB, OldSkeptic, anthony nolan, mitchell porter, Vanessa, Vanessa [...]
Casey, Liam, anthony nolan, pablo, Ute Man, Col. Douglas C. Niedermeyer [...]
Mervyn Langford, OldSkeptic, Frankie V., armagny, sg, Robert Merkel [...]
josh, Gummo Trotsky, Wood Duck, joe2, tssk, joe2 [...]
Fran Barlow, Jacques Chester, John D, HuggyBunny, Chris, Tim Macknay [...]
Renee, Nay with two gorgeous boys, Lefty E, murph the surf., conrad, conrad [...]