In defence of Brisbane

You know, one could say that you're not much of a looker yourself Mr de Botton - but I'm sure you're a very nice person and I'd never call you ugly.  Brisbane might not be 'pretty' on the surface, but if you got to know her, I think you would come to love her as I have.

Of course it could be argued that the aesthetics of a city, as opposed to an individual, are open to critique as they are the product of the conscious choice of the city's planners, but that is not quite true.  Whereas an individual's appearance is largely a product of their genetic inheritance, so a city's is a product of it's history.  Founded in 1824, Brisbane is less than 200 years old and yet you seek to compare her to grand old dames, millennia in age.  In that sense it could be said that she is currently going through the kind of awkward puberty that we all must endure.

Time is but one factor.   A city's beauty should not just be measured by it's outward appearance, but also by the people who choose to call her home.  I think I objected most to the use of the word 'ugly'.  To my mind this word describes not only appearance, but also character.  I appreciate that wasn't your point, but I still felt the sting of the insinuation that nobody could possibly love her because she is so ugly.  I love her.  She is vibrant and friendly and warm and caring and it doesn't matter to me that she's got a few, superficial, blemishes.

I thought the point of The Philosophers' Mail was to provide news with compassion, truth, justice, complexity, calm, empathy and wisdom.  To that end, you could still have made the point that we need to have a discussion about design and civic beauty, but done it by focusing on the positive characteristics of a city still finding herself and urging her to consider the choices she will one day make.

Here, I'll give you a hand.

Brisbane is a city coming of age.  Blighted by some poor choices in the past, which still stain her landscape, she could yet rival the great cities of Paris or Siena.  This will only be possible if her leaders accept that good taste is not relative. Thankfully she is populated by committed, hard-working and forward-thinking people who are willing to leap to her defence.

* This post refers to an article published today at http://www.philosophersmail.com/280314-utopia-design.php and promoted by @alaindebotton via Twitter.

Call for Campbell Newman and Jarrod Bleijie to resign

It's been nearly six months since I've written.  My silence wasn't driven by apathy or lack of time, but more a sense that I needed to wait and see how this played out.  My concern levels have been steadily rising but I kept quiet - waiting and watching.

This morning I woke to discover that the Premier of Queensland believes that I am a criminal.  My alleged crime?  Daring to represent those accused of criminal offences and, shock horror, expecting to be paid for my services!  To be fair to Mr. Newman he did try to limit his comments to lawyers who represent bikies, but the principle can be universally applied to all criminal defence.  Somehow, in his twisted mind, a lawyer can be complicit in criminality simply by doing their job.

I am an Officer of the Supreme Court of Queensland, that is, I am admitted as a Solicitor.  My primary duty is to serve the administration of justice and uphold the rule of law.  I take this duty very seriously.  Sometimes, when that duty conflicts with my duty to my client, then I cannot continue to represent that client - my duty to the court is paramount.

Not only am I personally offended by the Premier's comments, I am both appalled and frightened that both he and the Queensland Attorney General seem to have absolutely no idea how our legal system works.  Hundreds of years of checks and balances thrown out on a whim because it's popular or politically convenient.  I could perhaps forgive Mr Newman, but Mr Bleijie has a law degree - he's been trained to understand how and why the system is the way it is. It's not perfect, but there are good reasons why it has developed as it has.

Let's take a look back at some of the things Campbell Newman and Jarrod Bleijie have been saying over recent months (most of it in relation to the absolutely insane, poorly drafted and downright scary "bikie laws").

Campbell Newman on judges who apparently live in ivory towers, The Australian (25/10/2013) http://goo.gl/X0aZwb:

"They go home at night to their comfortable, well-appointed homes, they talk amongst themselves, they socialise together, they don't understand what my team and I understand, and that is Queenslanders have had enough."

Those judges were previously lawyers.  As a lawyer, I can tell you that I spend my working life in and around criminal courts, and yet you seem to think that I just don't get it.  I see it, day in and day out.  I see the regret, shame, mental health problems, drug addiction, family breakdowns, stress, disgust and sometimes sheer idiocy in my clients.  I cannot help but see the impact that has on the victims of crime (I see them in court, see the pictures of their injuries, read the Victim Impact Statements).  I also see the impact on the community as a whole (yes, I live in this community too). I am not blind, but I am compassionate and I believe in the rule of law.

One of the foundations of the Westminster system is the Separation of Powers between the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive...  Quote from the same article linked immediately above:

Mr Newman also dismissed the premise of the separation of powers - between the government and judiciary - saying it was "more of an American thing", and that the parliament's decisions were "supreme".

Mr Newman, if you have such a limited understanding of our system of government, you should resign - right now.  You do not deserve to hold the office of Premier of Queensland if you do not even understand the separation of powers.

Which brings us to the presumption of innocence.  The bikie laws reverse the presumption of innocence so that if you are accused of criminal association, you have to prove your innocence (http://goo.gl/sg9SCV).  On top of this, the Attorney General recently had the hide to suggest that the fact that the charge had to be proved in court, notwithstanding the reversal of the presumption, was a safeguard to ensure that innocent people weren't caught up in this witch hunt (http://goo.gl/2JpV26).

Okay, so now we've got a Premier who doesn't know that the Separation of Powers is a critical foundation of our system of government, and an Attorney General who has absolutely no regard for the presumption of innocence.  And that's not to mention that the VLAD laws are so poorly drafted that nearly anybody could be caught up and accused of criminal association.

Here's what you really need to know:  the police can come knocking on your door, allege that they have evidence you associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs, charge you and hold you with a presumption against bail, under the threat of mandatory sentencing if the charges are proven (remembering that you have to prove your innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove your guilt).  Moreover, Legal Aid do not provide assistance for bail applications, and it's a bit of a lottery as to whether you would get assistance for your substantive matters given current, restrictive funding policies, which include a merit test.

The general public like to think that they have nothing to fear from these laws if they are law-abiding - that is simply not true.  The police aren't infallible, sometimes they get it wrong.  There is no reason to expect that they won't come knocking at your door.  If you have the deck stacked against you, and no legal representation, how are you going to prove your innocence?  Legal Aid won't come to the party if they deem that your case has insufficient prospects of success.

I really wasn't going to get into all this because I have faith that the High Court will overturn these egregious laws - but when the Premier of Queensland calls me a criminal, and he and his ministers demonstrate such an appalling lack of understanding about the justice system and our system of government as a whole - I just can't remain silent.

Mr Newman and Mr Bleijie - on behalf all fair-minded and sensible Queenslanders I hereby call for your respective resignations.

Don’t be an idiot on Saturday…

I used to pride myself on the fact that the thing that I loved about politics was that everyone was entitled to their opinion, and that I enjoyed the debate, for its intellectual stimulation alone.  I liked the idea that I could say just one thing that could potentially make someone re-think their position, or go away and research it a little more.  Similarly, they might say something that made me think again, as I was never under the misconception that I knew it all, or that I had nothing left to learn.

This election though I have watched closely and read widely, and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would even consider voting for the Coalition.  If you read beyond the Murdoch press, and look at the policies, the answer is so very, very clear – and I can only assume that those who do not see it have been brainwashed by our dominant press. But the fact that I think I see it so clearly has itself caused me great concern, because it is against my basic nature to be so self-assured.

I’m not just talking about the press in this election campaign – I’m talking about the press for at least the last 3 years who, unhappy with the result of the 2010 election, campaigned fervently for an ‘election now’ for at least the first 12 months of the Gillard government.  Then, when that didn’t work, they sought to de-stabilise Julia Gillard with constant leadership speculation.  Am I saying that Gillard never did anything wrong – I’m not, but I am saying that I don’t think that she was given a fair chance, nor fair credit for her achievements.

The opportunities offered by a hung parliament were well and truly squandered by the Coalition who waged a 3-year long war on the legitimacy of the government (i.e. a 3-year long dummy spit).  A hung parliament is the best outcome that the people of Australia can hope for from an election – it means that no one party can push legislation through without scrutiny, and without compromise.  If you were really and honestly truthful with yourself – do you actually believe that either party has all the answers – that you agree with them 100 percent? 

We have all hoodwinked by John Howard’s “mandate”.  John Howard claimed a mandate for the GST – but when I handed out ‘How to Vote’ cards for the Democrats in the next election – I had so many people tell me that they would never vote for the Democrats again because they’d allowed Howard to push the GST through the Senate.  They had voted the Dems into the Senate specifically because they believed the Dems would block the GST.  Howard never had a mandate – he was just the least, worst option at the time for PM, and people thought that they’d made appropriate safeguards in the upper house, only to find that Meg Lees rolled over at the drop of hat.

So why is Murdoch so anti-Rudd/anti-Labor (or at least perceived to be)?  It is not about the NBN, though I suspect that is also a factor – it’s because Labor tried (or at least threatened) to restore balance to media ownership.  Their proposed media reforms were minor, though perhaps ill-conceived, and Murdoch wasn’t having a bar of it, because it would reduce his power, wealth and influence.  Giving Rudd another chance to pursue those reforms is something Mr. Murdoch cannot allow. 

Howard campaigned in 1996 on a platform of removing the media cross-ownership laws, thereby allowing Murdoch to diversify from print.  I remember speaking up in my first year ‘Intro to Sociology’ class about the bias I had observed in the press at the time, and being made aware for the first time that I could not blindly trust the news without questioning the potential bias of the author.  It was a lesson I learned well, because I now read widely and inform myself from a variety of sources.  But when Labor tried to scale back that reform to a relatively miniscule extent, the outcome of this election was decided.   Giving Labor another term would lead to the risk that they would actually succeed in this reform, or potentially seek to go even further.

Why is media ownership such a big deal?    I live in Brisbane.  I walk into my local supermarket, or newsagent, and all I see are newspapers owned by Murdoch, shouting out the Murdoch line.  Even if I don’t open those newspapers and read the stories, I’ve still be assaulted by the headlines and assume that my vote won’t matter, because the result is already a foregone conclusion.  As much as it would be nice if every voter had the time and inclination to research the issues for themselves – that is simply not the work that we live in.  Murdoch himself acknowledged (though, admittedly in 1967), that no one person should control the media, but now he is the one who controls it, his position has changed.

Democracy only works when the populace are informed – but the risk is that when one person or group of people control the media, we cannot be properly informed because we only ever see one side of the story.  The claim that Murdoch owns 70% of the print media has been ‘allegedly’ debunked, because he doesn’t actually own 70% of newspapers – but he does own the newspapers that 70% of the population read – and that’s not to mention his other business interests running a similar line.  To argue that his level of media ownership is insignificant is ‘splitting hairs’.

One of the responses to suggestions that Murdoch has driven this election is that he supported Rudd in 2007 – so why should we question his support of Abbott this time around?  It is true, that the Murdoch press jumped on the Kevin ’07 bandwagon – but was that simply because the result was already a foregone conclusion, and jumping on board sold more papers?  By that stage John Howard was so on the nose with voters that he lost his own seat (only the second time in Australian history that an incumbent Prime Minister lost his own seat).  Is it really such a stretch to believe that it was in Murdoch’s interests to support Kevin at the time?  

I was seriously disappointed in the ABC this week when, on ABC RN Breakfast with Fran Kelly, Anthony Albenese categorically set the record straight about why Chris Bowen was not present at the ALP launch (he was receiving an award from the Coptic Church in his electorate, which engagement was arranged many months in advance).  Yet, on the ABC News that night, the claim that Chris Bowen was absent because he was fighting for electoral survival in his Western Sydney seat was repeated again, even after it had been proven untrue.  If I can’t even trust the ABC, then who can I trust? 

No-one.  The answer is that we can trust no-one.  We have to simply research the issues ourselves, and accept that our allegedly ‘free press’, is nothing of the sort.  The ABC has gone soft because they know they’re on the chopping block if Abbott wins.  The Fairfax press is holding out to a large extent, and trying to offer balanced coverage, but have a maximum of 30% of the market share, and no real influence given their limited market.  I’m not even sure that I can trust the polls, because I know how easily that they can be manipulated simply by the way that a question is phrased, or who you put as the number one option. 

So, to get back to the point, do I actually think that you’re an idiot if you vote Liberal on Saturday?  I don’t, but I do think that you are a victim of the state of the Australian press.  Please inform yourself.  Please read beyond the Murdoch press.  Please listen to the international community about the state of our economy.  And please, please, please, don’t assume that the result of this election is a foregone conclusion.  You’re vote counts – you can make it count. 

The PNG Solution

To start with the honest truth - I'm a raving lefty, so it is to my own surprise that I find myself in support of Mr Rudd's announcement regarding asylum seekers being processed and re-settled in PNG.

I am disappointed that Australia has such a poor human rights record, that we treat asylum seekers so terribly, and that they have become pawns in Australian political discourse.  It is, however, a simple fact that 'boat people' are a political issue and there is no easy or quick escape from that reality.  You can thank Mr Howard for that, Pauline too, and the media who used xenophobia to sell content rather than to educate and inform the Australian people.

Whilst our focus should be on protecting those fleeing persecution, the debate has deteriorated to such a point that there didn't seem to be a way that a Labor government could sell that to the Australian people.  We've had nearly 20 years of indoctrination reinforcing the idea that 'boat people' are 'bad'.  Should they have tried to re-frame the debate?  Perhaps, but in the context of the current debate, and all the other political issues at play, wouldn't that have simply handed Tony the keys to the Lodge?

And where would asylum seekers be under Mr Abbott, with Scott Morrison in charge of their interests?  I shudder to think about that.  I believe with the Greens that a strong regional (preferably global) solution is required - but to expect Mr Rudd to pull that off in under 100 days, and then change the thinking of a seeming large majority of the Australian population in the same time frame, is bonkers.  It is a sad indictment on Australia, but with this solution Mr Rudd is protecting asylum seekers from the Liberal Party, from people smugglers, and from the people of Australia themselves.

The Greens objection to this plan seems to be that PNG is such a horrible place that we are subjecting these refugees to further trauma.  It is true that PNG has many problems - but might it not also be the case that by assisting asylum seekers to resettle in PNG, we could also assist our closest neighbours in some of their issues?  And if we're saving the billions of dollars that we otherwise spend on processing and housing these refugees ourselves, then couldn't this money do wonderful things in PNG?

What if some of the money we give to PNG in compensation goes towards expanding their police force so that they can address the high crime rate?  What if this new influx of potential citizens helps build their economy, and drives growth?  Multiculturalism has done wonderful things for Australia - might it not do the same for PNG?

But we can't stop here.  We should view this as the beginning of a true regional solution and an opportunity to re-frame the debate.  I was overjoyed to read many comments online today from people who would like to see the asylum seeker debate move more towards the left.  I've always been there, but I felt pretty alone.  It's nice to know that I'm not.  We also need to increase our refugee intake. 

If this debate has ever really, truly been about protecting asylum seekers from risking their lives on dangerous boat trips, then this solution will work.  If this has ever been about making sure that those waiting in refugee camps are not disadvantaged by 'queue jumpers', then this solution will work.  If this has ever been about breaking the people smugglers business model, then this solution will work. If we can at the same time help PNG overcome some of it's problems, then this solution will work. 

That said, I don't for one minute think that those reasons were true for anyone.  Those arguments were simply useful ways to appear compassionate without actually having to be compassionate.  Now that we've disposed with that facade, perhaps we can actually move towards a real solution.

I applaud Mr Rudd.  It's not a perfect plan - but it's a hell of a lot better than anything else that came before it, and a hell of a lot better than the alternative under an Abbott lead government.  Onwards and upwards Australia! 

Thank you Julia

Dear Julia,

I just wanted to say that I think you did an amazing job!  I'm sorry to see you go - but unfortunately it had to be.

I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that some of the commentators were suggesting that it was a sad way to see Australia's first female PM disposed - but given the way that you got the job in the first place, I think they missed the point entirely!  It was no sadder to see an elected male prime minister go in the same way, and to suggest otherwise is sexist in itself. 

You are right though - the fact that you are a woman was a huge issue.  I loved 'the misogyny speech' - you hit the nail square on the head.  It was absolutely appalling for Mr Abbott to use those words in the context that he did, and you were right to call him on it.  Even in some of the commentary surrounding that speech people were using language like "shrill" and "histrionic" to describe it, without actually realising that these words themselves would not have been used if you had been male.  

I also shed a tear when I heard Rob Oakeshott's valedictory speech - and he was right - your father would have been so proud of you.  Whilst I can't speak for the female population of Australia - this Australian woman is proud of you.  And you were right too - it will be easier for those who come after you, and I thank you on behalf of myself, and my unborn daughter.

I hope history will be kind to you.  I don't think anyone else could have lead Australia through this minority government.  We had such a wonderful opportunity for every Australian to have their points of views debated and heard, but the Liberal Party's 3 year long 'dummy spit' saw us squander that opportunity.  Even faced with that constant negativity, and the bulk of the mainstream media against you, you stood firm and pushed us forward.

So - good job, and thank you.

Regards,
Phoebe

Racism in Australia

Yesterday I had lunch with six highly educated professionals in a flashy restaurant overlooking the Brisbane River. 

At one stage during the afternoon, the conversation turned to this week's controversy surrounding the comments made to and about Adam Goodes.

To my absolute dismay, the majority of the group could not understand why "ape" was a racist slur.   Their comments equated with some of the recurring themes from the week, for example "I've been called an ape before and I'm white so what's the big deal" and also "Goodes is supposed to be a big tough footballer but he couldn't take one little word from a little girl".

A 13 year old girl might not have known any better, and Eddie Maguire was just plain stupid to say what he did, but I had expected better from this group of people.  I had assumed that the ones who didn't get it were either stupid or wilfully ignorant (possibly both).  On the whole, I thought that this was a good opportunity to educate them about the errors of their ways.

But now I'm really worried.  I knew the people I had lunch with, I knew they were highly intelligent (or at least I had previously thought them to be) and I knew they were all educated to a post-graduate level. Surely, at some stage in the 20 odd years that they spent being educated, somebody, somewhere, must have taught them about racism, or at least about the history of the treatment indigenous Australians.  Apparently not.

Australia - we desperately need to have a conversation about racism (and also the state of our education system).  We obviously need to talk about what constitutes racism - because it seems that we can't even recognise it when it is staring us in the face.  We have to keep talking about this and we have to educate those who do not understand.

To all those who have been hurt and offended by racism in Australia - I offer my apologies on behalf of my community, I am sorry, and I am ashamed.

Finally, as it would unfortunately seem that it IS necessary to explain why 'ape' is a racial slur, here it is... Historically, society viewed indigenous people (really anyone with dark skin) as sub-human, that is, not fully evolved.  This misguided belief was used to justify stealing their lands, and their children - not to mention genocide and so much more.

When viewed in that context, don't you think that indigenous Australians have a right to be upset at that word in particular?   When Adam Goodes heard someone yell that word at him, wasn't it reasonable for him to draw the conclusion that whoever had said it was not just referring to his physical appearance but alluding to a whole lot more?  The fact that it turned out to be a 13 year old girl demonstrates how necessary it is for us as a society to discuss racism in Australia.

Miscellaneous Musings

First post.  A test.

I eventually plan to write articles and comment on politics and current affairs.  I'm sure no-one will ever read my crazy musings, but it's hard to remain silent when the world is going to hell in a handbasket...