Simon Copland – Page 19

The environment movement shouldn’t have supported Direct Action

Originally published in SBS News, 7 November 2014

The Government’s Direct Action legislation passed through Parliament last week, with the Government receiving support from the Palmer United Party and Independent Nick Xenephon.

Even with the concessions given during the negotiations, Direct Action is still likely to be a disaster. It is anexpensive and ineffective policy that will cost billions of dollars with little to no environmental gain.

Despite this however some of the weirdest supporters of the bill have come through the environment movement. Key figures within the movement have played a crucial role in negotiating the passage of the legislation – forming unique alliances with The Palmer United Party in particular to see Direct Action become law. For many other organisations and progressive academics, the critique of last week’s deal has been muted, with a positive focus on the Government’s concession to hold an inquiry into international emissions trading schemes – an inquiry that will likely lead to nowhere.

These environmentalists argue that while Direct Action is weak, in the current political climate it is an important step. It is crucial, they say, that Australia has a ‘national policy’ on climate change, and as Clive Palmer argued, even though Direct Action wont work, something is better than nothing. For others, the establishment of the enquiry into emissions trading is a key victory – an opportunity for Australia to once again reach ‘consensus’ on the importance of the price on pollution. This is an important incremental step.

These arguments are symptomatic of serious failures within parts of the environment movement – failures that are becoming extremely dangerous as our planet continues to warm.

From its early activist roots over recent decades much of the environment movement has become caught by insider politics. Some of the largest, and importantly best funded environmental NGOs, have moved from the streets to the halls of Parliament – “NGOs have abandoned activism for the techniques of lobbying and media management and are now dominated by people with lobbying and media skills.”

“The time is now for the environment movement to leave the board rooms and halls of Parliament and to head back to the streets.”

This became the norm in particular during the recent ALP Governments, where after years of campaigning against the Howard Government the movement shifted to Parliament to negotiate the terms of an emissions trading scheme. Many rightfully criticised this tactic, seeing the lack of campaigning that came with it as being behind many of the ALP’s failures on climate change. With the election of the Abbott Government this process has continued. Backroom tactics drove Al Gore to stand next to Clive Palmer in a press conference earlier this year, and has now led to some environmentalists lining up to support Direct Action.

While in some areas these sorts of tactics can be useful, when it comes to climate change that time has long past. Insider politics is inherently limiting – a game defined by the rules of those who run the system. It limits the opportunities for progress – narrowing a movement to what is seen as possible within the confines of the system. As Guy Pearse argues, this is where the environment movement has headed:

“Rather than asking ‘What needs to be done?’, they’re (the climate movement) asking ‘What’s possible soon, given the lie of the land?’”

With the ‘lie of the land’ in our political system being dominated by the interests of the fossil fuel industry, ‘what’s possible’ now means negotiating with a mining billionaire to give out billions of dollars to the fossil fuel industry to effectively do nothing. That is the best our system will allow, and the best sort of outcome a focus on insider politics will give us.

Unfortunately we have long passed the time where that is enough. As Clive Hamilton argues – “in the case of climate change gradualism is fatal”. Climate change requires something much bigger- a complete rethink of how our our energy system, society and economy operates. This is something most environmental campaigners will admit – even as they negotiate incremental outcomes such as the passage of Direct Action. Our actions have become deeply disconnected from our beliefs.

Here is the biggest failing of all – because this is the best time for us to achieve that shift. As Tony Abbott highlights the very depths of destruction of our current system – as he promotes how “coal is good for humanity” – we have the best opportunity possible to reframe the debate. As Abbott cosies up to the fossil fuel industry more closely every day we could highlights the depths of the destruction of our current system — setting ourselves up for the massive shift required in the near future.

This means building a movement from the ground up – one that changes the fundamental ideas of what is possible when it comes to climate action – a movement that tackles the influence of the fossil fuel industry from the outside rather than trying to work with them from the inside. Negotiating over Direct Action is not the way to do this. Negotiating over almost anything with this Government is not the way to do this. Instead, through legitimising the way they operate, it actively hurts our attempts to do so.

The time is now for the environment movement to leave the board rooms and halls of Parliament and to head back to the streets. It is the only way we will see the shifts we need to secure a safe climate.

Welcome to Fetish

Welcome to Fetish was published in the Summer Edition of Archer Magazine, 2014.

Over the past couple of years, more than any other time in my adult life, I’ve made some important discoveries about my sexuality.

This time has been marked by an increased interest in new and different forms of sex. It has been marked by my entry into what I call the ‘fetish life’.

I am in no way an expert on fetish. I am not an experienced dominant or submissive, I have limited bondage and rope-work skills, and I don’t have a huge collection of toys, gadgets or gear. In terms of experience, too, my connection to the community is limited. However, I have overcome some deeply embedded perceptions about the fetish community. And in doing so, I have dramatically transformed my sex life.

You can read the full copy of the article by purchasing Archer Magazine here.

We cannot expect another Gough, nor should we want one

Originally published in SBS News, 22 October, 2014

The groundswell of political nostalgia in response to Gough Whitlam’s passing is profound – but also a necessary mythology out of step with contemporary politics.0

“A giant of his time.”

It is the perfect way to describe the former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who passed away yesterday. He was a man who had a great impact on the psyche of the country – one who inspired an entire generation. Yesterday, we lost a great politician – potentially our last.

As we reflect on Whitlam’s legacy it is worth asking the question, what happened to our politics? Despite some glimpses – the hope that came with the election of Kevin Rudd in 2007, for example – Australian politics has seen no one like Gough since he was sacked from office. The inspiration of his time is distant, with our politics and politicians caught in a deep malaise. As former Howard Minister ruefully Philip Ruddock commented: “I’m not sure there are many Gough Whitlams in the Parliament today”.

“The desire for ‘great politicians’ is simply a desire for a member of the elite who can make us feel better about business coming ahead of all others. Great politicians are great because they make us feel good about the elite coming first – a greatness we should not want anymore.”

I doubt many would disagree with Ruddock. Politics has never been more cynical, and politicians hardly ever more unpopular. In doing so, many are desperately hoping a new Gough will emerge soon. A new hope to get us out of our malaise. I can’t help but think that we will never find one, and that necessarily isn’t a bad thing.

Our current unravelling is due to a deep crisis in our politics. Our political class is losing the authority it needs to survive, as the realities of who they represent are becoming more real. Recent ICAC hearings and donations scandals have highlighted this best – politicians who are wholly embedded in the interests of the 1%. Our politicians represent the interests of capital and business over the interests of people.

Many have been ready to blame this crisis on a few ‘bad eggs’. The ‘faceless men (and women)’ of the ALP who became more concerned about power than principles. Those in the Coalition who have become too connected with the big end of town. All that is needed is to weed out the corrupt politicians and for a return of a principled, Gough-like figure. But the political crisis is much deeper than that.

This unraveling is an exposure of a problem that is inherent within our political system. Our state, based in capitalist society, is one that is deeply connected to business interests — interests that outweigh those of the general population. In capitalism the state is there to support capital, not people. Despite his massive social reforms, we can even see this in the Whitlam Government. Whitlam was extremely ‘pro-business’, implementing many anti-worker policies in his term. His social reforms were grand, but when it came to the crunch, business interests came first.

This is the reality of politics. What has happened in recent years is this reality has become clearer. We have seen an exposure of our politicians interests — an exposure caused by the breakdown of the social bases that politicians such as Gough Whitlam have relied on for years. The Labor movement, for example, has seen a significant drop in membership and influence over recent decades. This movement provided an important base for the ALP to manage its political representation — the movement provided ‘social cover’ for politicians’ business interests. The growth of neoliberalism, and the ‘anti-society’ approach to it, has seen many of these bases break down – social bases that politicians needed to hold up their authority. As they have collapsed so has the authority of our political class, and the popularity that came with that.

That is how Gough became the last great politician of our time. He was the last great politician before this political crisis kicked in – a degeneration that doesn’t look likely to be disappearing any time soon.

While some may mourn this, I don’t think we should. Under our current political system we cannot expect another Gough, nor should we want one. Another politician like him would simply cover up the realities of politics today – the realities of a system designed to favour the elite at the expense of everyone else.

What we need is a movement of people who can change that system – not hope for a saviour within it. The desire for ‘great politicians’ is simply a desire for a member of the elite who can make us feel better about business coming ahead of all others. Great politicians are great because they make us feel good about the elite coming first – a greatness we should not want anymore.

Gough was a great politician. He should be remembered for many of the great things he did. Within this system he did manage to achieve some real change.

But instead of hoping for another one like him, I’m hoping for something a little more substantial.

The Bachelor highlights our confused relationship with love

Originally published in SBS News, 8 October, 2014

Reality television has highlighted the many contradictions we hold with sex, relationships and love.

It was the perfect romantic fairytale. Then it wasn’t.

The drama of the split of The Bachelor’s Sam and Blake – who got engaged on the final episode last Thursday – has continued in full force. Rumours have swirled over what happened, and on Monday the two appeared on the The Project to tell their story, revealing a relationship that hardly lasted the end of filming.

As an outsider it has been fascinating. Like many others, I cannot help but ask the question, what did we expect? Did we really think this ‘love competition’ would result in a fairytale romance? The whole thing seems ridiculous.

Look deeper however and The Bachelor – and all the shows like it – actually say a lot about us. In representing both the conservative and progressive approaches we have to sex, love and relationships, these shows highlight deep contradictions running through our society.

WatchingThe Bachelor you can see a very conservative approach to relationships. In a bizarre kind of way the show preaches traditional relationship ideals: we all have one ‘true love’, who after meeting in a fairytale romance we will marry, buy a house with and then have kids. This relationship is dictated by the man, our bachelor, who is the one who has all the choice. The show promotes a traditional linear model of relationships – a model we are all expected to fit into.

There are deep contradictions with this however. The contestants go in with the ideal of finding their ‘one true love’, but do so through a competition which lets the bachelor explore this love in a very open manner. The bachelor has the ability to date more than one woman at a time, accepting both promiscuity (at least for men) and the possibility that we can love more than one person. The show is confused – trying to find ‘true love’ through means that are not designed to do so.

In doing so The Bachelor has become a microcosm of our confused sexual society. The sexual revolution has led to us being more open and honest about sex – accepting the ideas of promiscuity, different relationship forms and more equality between genders and people of different sexualities. But at the same time, we have aimed to fit this openness into inherently conservative institutions – in particular marriage. We have tried to fit a more open approach to sex into institutions that don’t accept that openness.

We have become as confused as the contestants on the show. Marriage for example is still seen as the key institution in our society, even though marriage rates (per head of population) are at a low. We are more open and honest about sex and promiscuity, but still have an ideal that once we meet our ‘true love’, this promiscuity must go out the door. We can be promiscuous, but eventually we have to ‘settle down’. The examples are boundless – a confusion of a society trying to fit more progressive sexual ideals into traditional sexual boundaries and institutions.

For some this confusion means we should look back to the past. As Ben Polbje argues about the Sam and Blake split:

“There may be those who feel sad about the end of Blake and Sam’s relationship, who feel it strikes a shattering blow against the ideal of romantic love. On the contrary, this news is a major victory for that ideal, as the fake version of romance we were being cynically sold has been shown to be a sham.”

I think the opposite is true. Maybe, what the split highlights, is that our ideals of having to ‘settle down’ with just one person is wrong? Maybe it is the ideal that we all need one ‘fairytale romance’ with one ‘true love’ that is causing problems? These ideals are inherently conservative – placing us all into particular relationship frameworks we are not allowed to break from. They are ones that lead to much of the confusion and pain we see so often in our society around relationships.

Behind the drama, this year The Bachelor has managed to say something very profound. It has highlighted our contradictions with sex, relationships and love. Many will be quick to judge the show and talk about how these environments cannot create ‘true love’. I think however they just highlight how ridiculous these ideals of ‘true love’ are in the first place.

Against Experts

Originally published in the Overland Journal, 3 October, 2014.

Whether advocating for ‘evidence-based policy’, demanding people ‘respect the science’, or denouncing those who ‘don’t understand the facts’, we on the Left have placed our faith in experts as a way to build our movement.

We use experts in two ways. Either we base our movements and organisations on ‘science’ and ‘facts’ (see Greenpeace’s claim to be a ‘science-based campaigning organisation), or we emphasise the voice of experts to prove that our position is the right one – and then, when we fail to convince people, we blame their lack of understanding of the expertise. For example, when discussing the Abbott government’s position on climate change, Burkard Polster and Marty Ross argue that:

It is clear that many Australians do not have any great respect for the scientific method or scientific practice. It seems way too common to regard science as just another belief system, nothing but boffin-based opinion. The result is that science is permitted no special claim to truth, which is a very dangerous, essentially mediaeval, state of affairs. What on Earth has happened?

The Left has become reliant on experts in an attempt to build authority we lack. We have placed faith in expertise, making it a core focus of our values. Being ‘right’ has become a left-wing value. We are the ones with ‘reason’ and ‘science’ behind us, while our opposition are ‘crazy ideologues’.

This has become a dangerous position, which not only fails to recognise that expertise is based in our power and value systems, but also diminishes the values that should underpin our movement. In doing so, we have entrenched power structures we are supposed to be breaking down.

Expertise is embedded within our society’s power and value structures. Max Weber described this while defining the role of values in the research process. While Weber argued that researchers should be objective in the ‘presentation stage’ of research, he accepted the ‘discovery’ or ‘decision-making’ stage are deeply informed by social values. Our society defines what is to be researched and to what ends. It is up to researchers to develop the ‘means’ to those ends.

This dynamic creates power-structures within the research community. Sasha Vongehr examines this in what is supposed to be the apolitical space of the hard sciences. Vongehr looks at a number of new discoveries in physics that for years were resisted by the elite in the field. The resistance was subsequently covered up when the new theories became impossible to deny. The elite took ownership over the ideas, pushing out those who had been agitating for change. Vongehr concludes by noting the role the elite play in defining the ‘truth’:

We are to believe that the experts have the best approximation to the truth, which is the only truth we may hope to attain. In reality, the experts have first and foremost one thing: Attained a position of power where they may call themselves experts.

Experts produce expertise that entrenches their position of power. In the case, Vongehr mentions experts blocked change because it was likely to challenge their own research and careers. In other cases experts back up the values that underpin our society.

Up until 1973 the American Psychological Association – the premier experts in the field – deemed homosexuality to be a mental illness. This was ‘expertise’ based on conservative social values rather than any real medical evidence, an expertise that reinforced the power of the straight people who were making the decision.

Similar examples can be found today. For example, a recent Senate Committee hearingfound that intersex people in Australia, including children and newborn babies, are often subjected to unnecessary surgery and hormone therapy. The committee heard testimony from representatives of the Organisation Intersex International Australia (OII), who said that every one of their members had at some point experienced non-consensual medical intervention. The OII representatives discussed how an intersex man agreed to hormone therapy after his doctor insisted that it would ‘turn him into a real man’. His testimony is chilling:

It was insinuated, even blatantly stated on occasions, that my life would be worthless; that I would be a freak; that I would never achieve my potential, and that I would never have any self-esteem … So, eventually, from the age of 28, after about six years of constant threats and ‘counselling’ by my medical specialists, I began testosterone therapy. And I found it to be a horrifying experience.

As OII points out, these procedures are not required for the health of intersex people. The experts have defined the ‘need’ based on the social norms and power structures of our society.

While few on the Left would accept such expertise, in other areas we blindly jump on to the bandwagon. Climate change is a perfect example. Many experts have presented options such as carbon pricing and geo-engineering as solutions, solutions that are are fully in line with neoliberal thinking. The Left accepts this logic, often using right-wing experts for support.

In so doing, we have bought in to an elite culture we are supposed to be fighting. We have turned expertise into an article of faith, reinforcing the neoliberal power and value structures it often represents. In trying to create our own authority, we have given authority to the values of our opposition. This is clearest in the way the Left treats those who don’t agree with us on ‘the facts’. Our faith in expertise has lead us to develop abourgeois superiority complex – a value system that directly contradicts the anti-elitism we are supposed to represent.

Again, climate science provides an example. Despite the claims of many on the Left,climate denialism does not occur because people are ‘stupid’ or ‘don’t understand’ the science. Rather, it’s that the findings of scientists go directly against our social values, primarily those of unimpeded economic growth. Climate change challenges our power structures, naturally leading to those with power to question the logic behind it.

The Left has failed to recognise this, treating science as an objective fact that only a stupid person wouldn’t understand. We have placed ourselves into a position of the elite – the educated – and scoff in derision at those who don’t understand the science. It is no wonder people get turned away.

The Left needs to abandon our blind faith in facts, evidence, values and reason. That doesn’t mean we can’t build evidence and use tools like science to our advantage. Nor does it mean we shouldn’t believe in things like climate change and advocate for action on it.

But we’ve spent too long trying to make ourselves objectively right. Expertise, science and facts can be useful, but they certainly don’t offer the basis for a movement.

I’m glad Abbott didn’t attend the NY Climate Summit

Originally published in SBS News, 25 September, 2014

Yesterday 125 world leaders converged in New York for the UN Climate Summit. The meeting – convened by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon – was an attempt to forge a new way forward on international negotiations on climate change.

One notable absentee was Australia’s Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Abbott skipped the meeting even though he was in New York only one day later, drawing criticism from climate campaigners and other global leaders.

Abbott deserves this criticism. Yet, at the same time, I for one, am happy he missed the meeting. It is certain he would only have been a blocker – making any positive shift that more difficult. It’s better he stayed home. It removed one element of resistance we simply don’t need.

More than this however, I cannot help but feel refreshed by Abbott’s honesty in his position. Of course, his position is deplorable. As the world heats up our Prime Minister is putting his head in the sand. But at the same time he is also more honest than most other leaders about his real willingness to take the action we need – an honesty we desperately need.

Take a look at the G20 for example – where Abbott recently dropped climate change off the agenda for the next meeting. While he has rightfully received criticism for his move, it seems unlikely to change the outcome of the meeting. Climate change has been on top of the G20 agenda for years now, with little to no action. In 2009 for example the group pledged to abolish inefficient fossil fuel subsidies – subsidies that five years laterare largely still in tact. The same goes for much of the UN process. Despite the bold talk of world leaders these meetings often amount to little. While of course it is important we push for results in these forums, we should also be realistic. Our international processes are all talk, no action – an opportunity for global leaders to spruik their concern about climate change without actually doing anything about it.

It’s not like we should be surprised. World leaders do not have the commitment required to solve this problem at an international scale. Our political system is not built to deal with the issue. As Naomi Klein argues:

“We are stuck, because the actions that would give us the best chance of averting catastrophe – and benefit the vast majority – are threatening to an elite minority with a stranglehold over our economy, political process and media.”

Big business – the elite – have become completely and embedded within our politics, being “part of the nexus of power that creates policy.” And this role is holding us back. From the business-focused solutions such asemissions trading schemes or geo-technological fixes, to the influence the mining industry has on emissions policy, it is the corporate world – the fossil fuel industry – that dictates our policy. And they have done so to ensure that climate change is swept under the carpet. The state is designed to maintain corporate interests, and that means largely ignoring the significant shift we need on climate change.

Abbott is just different because he has the guts to be open and honest about this. While other leaders greenwash their lack of action through phony statements and weak policies, Abbott is skipping over the charade. He is making it very clear where he stands – in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. It is something I wish more Governments would do.

Of course it would have been great for him to go to the UN meeting and take this international process seriously. Of course we should want climate change on the G20 agenda, and that real action be agreed to. But we should be honest with ourselves. In our current political system – one heavily influenced by corporate interests – these outcomes are unlikely.

Abbott has just opened us up to the reality of the situation. He has shown us that we cannot rely on Governments to save us anymore. Governments have, and continue to fail, meaning we can only rely on ourselves to solve this problem.

Luckily, while world leaders talked at the UN, people have shown we can do it. In the People’s Climate Marchhundreds of thousands of people took the direct action we need to solve this crisis. The march has been followed by events such as Flood Wall Street, targeting the power nexus that is holding back real international movement. Whether it is through the direct action we are seeing in places like Maules Creek or throughdivestment campaigns, it is people power we need to solve the problem.

Abbott skipping the UN meeting has sent a subtle but powerful message. We cannot rely on our Governments to solve the climate crisis. His position is deplorable, but at least unlike other leaders, he has the guts to be honest about it. It’s an honesty we need, and one that highlights that we can only rely on ourselves to solve this problem. It will only be a ‘people’s climate movement’ that will give us the results we need.

We need a Scotland-style national debate in Australia

Originally published in Junkee.com, 17 September, 2014

On Thursday voters in Scotland will head to the polls to decide whether they should separate from the United Kingdom and break up the 307-year-old union. After years of debate it looks like the vote will come down to the wire; the last couple of weeks have seen late surge by the ‘Yes’ camp (those who are pro-independence), with polls tightening significantly. The vote will come down to whether Scots think they have wherewithal to go it alone, or if, as the pro-unionists argue, they are ‘better together‘ with the rest of the UK and vote ‘No’.

The vote, whilst historic, seems extremely distant from Australian shores. Despite Tony Abbott’s feeble and embarrassing intervention on the side of the union on his recent trip to the UK, where he claimed ‘‘the people who would like to see the break-up of the United Kingdom are not the friends of freedom,” whichever way Scotland votes is unlikely to have any real impact for us.

Still, there’s a lot Australia could — and should — take from what is happening in Scotland. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the vote has opened up a vast and imaginative debate about the future of Scotland — the sort of debate we are desperately lacking in Australia, and which we should be doing more to try and have.

–

An Intoxicating Debate

Watching the debate unfold since the referendum was announced I can’t help but feel envious; the independence referendum has triggered an expansive and mature debate about the future of the nation. Scots have spent years having passionate and difficult discussions about the shape of its democracy, the provision of welfare and public services, the protection of the environment, the shape of its economy and the role of a Scottish nation in the broader world.

Just have a look at the discussion around the future of Scottish democracy; the referendum has required Scotland to think about how they would shape their potential democratic institutions, especially how they would write their new constitution. One idea that is gaining prominence is for the constitution to be ‘crowdsourced’, bringing in not just business groups, organisations and politicians, but thousands of Scottish citizens to work together to draft the country’s founding document. This is a potentially inspiring approach to direct democracy — giving people genuine, significant control to shape the future of the nation.

The same can be said about the economy; new and imaginative ideas are starting to be talked about where none were before. Activist group Common Weal have actively advocated for a significant rethink in the way the Scottish economy operates; a reduction in working hours, a minimum income for all, an expansion of welfare state and significant changes to the Scottish taxation system. Describing their goal as helping Scots to “see that there is a different way to run your politics”, Common Weal have gained support from much of the Scottish political establishment.

Of course, the debate hasn’t been without its flaws; some leading economists have accused the ‘No’ campaign of fear-mongering around the impacts of a ‘Yes’ vote on the Scottish economy, with many predicting absolute disaster if Scotland goes independent. The campaign has seen breakouts of violence as campaigners take to the streets, and ugly instances of overt racism and Islamophobia.

But overall, it has been highly mature and thoughtful debate – one that is “intoxicating the people of Scotland”.

Our Not-So-Exciting Alternative

Compare this to Australia and we can only feel deeply disappointed; rather than being a forum to argue about big ideas and the country’s future, Australian politics has become a bleak game that benefits no one.

We’ve become obsessed with constant leadership speculation, whether it be the fight between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd or the rising speculation on the strength of Tony Abbott’s Prime Ministership. For years our politicians have found convenient scapegoats like asylum seekers as a distraction from dealing with the serious issues we face. Political and policy apparatus are used to attack the government’s enemies, like Tony Abbott’s Royal Commission into unions. Add in a dash of corruption (hello ICAC) and a huge amount of influence in our system from elites like the mining industry and it’s no wonder people are feeling disillusioned.

While it’s easy to blame the actions of a few politicians for this malaise, the problem goes much deeper than that; this is fundamentally a symptom of our entire political culture, which is designed to limit the very debates we can have in the first place. We live in a world where the market reigns supreme, and by consequence, in a political system that dictates that markets are the only solution to our economic, environmental and social problems. In accepting the primacy of the market as a given, instead of one alternative among many, our political culture actively shuts out those who want to tackle the big problems with big and expansive solutions. Everything must be seen within the lens of the market, and if it isn’t, it’s ignored.

Maybe this is best highlighted by the endless articles where columnists bemoan that “complaint has become the national default position” in Australia, using economic indicators like GDP and unemployment rates to argue that “we don’t realise how lucky we are”. The market is going well we are told, so why aren’t we all shutting up and being happy? It’s as if the broader issues — economic justice, the environment, welfare, health and education, and the health of our democracy — simply don’t matter so long as the market keeps humming along.

But there are reasons people are complaining. Our politics has become extremely disconnected from the lives of real people. Inequality is on the rise, mental health issues are running rampant, people are depressed about the future and our environment continues to be trashed. Whether it is (amongst many other examples) the illegal donations exposed through ICAC or the influence of the pokie or mining industry, influence and corruption are rampant in our political system, leaving power in the hands of the political and business elite, whilst ignoring the rest of our community.

Our political debate refuses to let us deal with these issues. With no room to move away from market solutions we have become obsessed with personal politics, ignoring the big questions because our culture leaves us without the capacity to answer them.

Time To Take A Leaf From The Scottish Book

Scotland certainly hasn’t solved all of this; the market fundamentalism that underpins all Western democracies has still dominated much of the debate around the referendum, and the limiting political culture it inspires has yet to be fully challenged. But simply through asking themselves a very big question, the Scots have shown us the possibilities of what a real debate about the future of our world could look like. No wonder turnout at the referendum looks like it will be extremely high — when there is a debate of importance to people’s lives, people switch on. The Scottish vote has unleashed a potential wave of hope in the community.

It is about time Australia took some cues from Scotland’s example. Our world is about a lot more than basic economic indicators, and politics is far more important than the personal debates that dominate our headlines. We have huge issues to face — climate change, the strength of our welfare system, future education and health needs in an ageing population, and the sustainability of our democracy in an age where corruption and influence seems to be endemic.

We don’t need an independence referendum to stand up to these challenges. All we need is the ability to think bigger than we currently are. That means breaking with our dominant political culture to one that is more expansive than just the market.

This is what a real debate about our future could look like. It’s not been too radical, but it has been real.

Read more at http://junkee.com/we-need-a-scotland-style-national-debate-in-australia/41835#cV25pOT8usPLPxtH.99

A conversation can change a life – R U OK Day

Originally published in SBS News, 11 September, 2014

Today, people around the country will be asked to turn to their friends, family and work colleagues and check in on their mental health – R U OK Day has arrived, encouraging people to start a conversation that could change someone’s life.

With growing awareness about our mental health crisis, our responsibility to look after those around us are more important than ever. It is up to all of us be there for those who are suffering.

Despite the value of R U OK Day however, it is important we realise these sorts of individual approaches are not going to solve the larger problem. Much of our depression problem is social, and therefore the solutions must be social too.

For example, a recent survey found that increased work stress and insecurity are driving up depression rates.The survey “found a significant decline in workplace wellbeing with workers being driven to despair as more pressure is put on increasing productivity and jobs become increasingly insecure.”

We see similar trends in different areas. Financial insecurity for University students for example is causing significantly increased stress, which has a strong correlation with depression. The threat of climate change and future economic insecurity is leading to worry, pessimism and depression in many young people. Look around and we can see underlying social causes for many of the people who are suffering from mental illness.

While it would be easy to blame individual workplaces, particular economic crises, or specific large issues (ie. climate change) for these connections, the cause goes much deeper than that. These factors all have one common thread – our culture.

‘It is up to all of us be there for those who are suffering’

Our dominant culture is one based on the idea of ‘market fundamentalism’ – a story that tells us that the market and it’s ‘produce and consume at all costs’ mantra can solve all social, economic and political problems.

It turns us into economic beings above all else – ones who’s sole purpose is to be economically competitive and to consume.

This is perhaps strongest in the workplace, where we are constantly forced to compete to prove our worth to our bosses and our organisations. Recent decades have seen a significant increase in working hours, all driven by the need to produce more and more.

This constant drive for productivity has seen the workplace has be “overwhelmed by a mad, Kafkaesque infrastructure of assessments, monitoring, measuring, surveillance and audits, centrally directed and rigidly planned, whose purpose is to reward the winners and punish the losers.” It’s no wonder we’re all feeling increased insecurity and stress while we are at work.

When we leave work it hits us as well. Our leisure and family lives are dominated by consumerism, where we are told consuming is the most important thing to make us happy. Consumerism replaces the things that nurture happiness – in particular our friends and family – in turn leaving us feeling unhappy.

‘It’s a big problem, but one that we must face up to’

Given our largely social nature, it’s no wonder this has lead to what Richard Eckersley calls our Western Cultural Crisis. People are angry and anxious with what’s happening in our world, deeply concerned about the dominance of excessive greed, selfishness, consumerism and competition in our society.

Our focus on work, productivity and economic growth is disconnecting us from the things that matter in our lives – our friends, family, society and the environment. It is fueling a depression crisis as we become more socially isolated from the people around us.

It’s a big problem, but one that we must face up to. When we do though the solutions become easier to see. It is about a re-imagination of what is important to us, a shift in the values that underpin how we work together.The evidence suggests that most us already know this – we’re already sick of the culture that is bringing us down. It’s just time for us to act upon it.

R U OK Day is great for dealing with people who are already in the depths of depression. A conversation can change a life. But as the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. And it is time to come to terms with reality that it is our culture that is causing much of this problem.

If we really want to tackle this crisis we need to look at the bigger picture of how we operate as a society.

Lumumba and Collingwood AFL drama more than just a casual homophobic incident

Originally published in the Sydney Star Observer, 9 September, 2014

ON Friday, it was revealed that Collingwood player Heritier Lumumba was due to leave the club over a disagreement regarding a homophobic slur in the club.

Lumumba complained over graffiti on a promotional poster of Scott Pendlebury and Dayne Beams in the players’ rooms. Someone had written “off to the Mardi Gras boys” on the poster, and although Lumumba complained about it, very little was done. The event has set off a chain reaction, which will likely lead Lumumba to be traded by the club in the off-season.

The announcement has caused significant confusion, and some outrage, within AFL ranks. Many have questioned why Lumumba would part with a club over one small piece of graffiti.Susan O’Brien, for example, argued in The Age: “By reacting in the way he has, Lumumba risks becoming a laughing stock in the eyes of his fellow players and fans of the game.

“Yes, there is homophobia in the AFL; that is undeniable. But if players react to every single slight or slur, then they risk not being taken seriously when they raise issues of more substance.”

In some ways her argument makes sense. This was not a huge slur or a significant attack. And given this you can see the argument that it is probably not an issue worth quitting over. It’s great that Lumumba is standing up against homophobia but he should be saving his energy for the “real fights”.

However, what these arguments miss is that this probably isn’t just about one poster or sign, but rather something much larger and more sinister — a culture of homophobia that permeates throughout the AFL and our entire society.

When we think about homophobia we think of the direct stuff — the emotional and physical abuse targeted at people because they are LGBTI. It’s people getting bashed on the streets, denied access to work or sporting teams, or being emotionally abused and excluded because of their gender or sexuality. It is the person being screamed at that they are a “faggot”, a “poofter” or a “queer”.

But while the more direct form of homophobia is what we talk about there is more to the problem than that. The note on the poster is the perfect example. It’s what we call casual homophobia and it takes on many forms — assumed stereotypes (i.e. that feminine men are clearly gay), sly jokes, and outright insults. The outcome however is always the same: to subtly and casually put queer people down in some way, shape, or form.

The use of the term “that’s so gay” (where gay means bad) is a perfect example. Most people who say this would not consider themselves homophobic — it is just a turn of phrase supposedly. But it is a turn of phrase that actively puts gay people down, casually noting that they are synonymous with being bad. The poster is just the same. While the intent was jest, it was jest designed to tease and mock and that is what it achieved. Look around and you see this everyone — the subtle putting down of LGBTI people in ways you wouldn’t notice unless it was directed at you.

But it goes beyond that. This isn’t just about the putting down of LGBTI people, but the exclusion of us as well — exclusion through our collective assumed heterosexuality. Our society shuts queer people and our experiences out through assuming everyone is straight. This is best epitomised by the process queer people have to go through in coming out. We assume heterosexuality to the point where we force those who don’t fit the mold to announce themselves to the world and then ask them tireless questions about it when they do so. It’s a subtle form of homophobia but a strong one — forcing people to explain their choices over and over again, hence pointing out how strange and out of the norm they are.

It is this sort of culture LGBTI people face every day. A culture of assumed heterosexuality. One where we are both regularly reminded that we don’t fit into the norm, and then subtly teased every day because of that fact.

We don’t know exactly what happened at Collingwood, but I wonder if Lumumba’s complaint wasn’t just about a poster but an overarching culture in club. One that lets this sort of homophobia happen all the time without anyone doing anything about it.

Good on Lumumba for standing up to it, and shame on anyone who tries to tear him down for doing so.

United by rugby, but a long road ahead to end discrimination

Originally published in SBS News, 27 August, 2014

The Bingham Cup, the “World Cup of gay rugby” is a step in the right direction but more needs to be done to counter hyper-masculine and heteronormative attitudes to sport.

This weekend, competitors will come to Sydney to compete in the Bingham Cup – the men’s Rugby Union Gay World Cup.

Sport is one of the most queerphobic places in our society. A recent survey showed that a huge majority of participants – both gay and straight – had heard or experienced homophobic insults in sporting competitions. This was epitomised recently when a Channel 7 commentator called an AFL player a ‘big poofter’ on live television.

With this context in mind, the Bingham Cup is an extremely important event for Australia. It’s also one that has punched well above its weight. In the lead up to the Cup, the AFL, NRL, ARU, Cricket Australia and the Football Federation of Australian announced the establishment of a joint anti-homophobia and inclusion framework for Australian sports. This is the most comprehensive anti-homophobic policy in Australian sporting history and one that will hopefully have significant impacts on the way sexuality is treated within our codes.

While this policy is essential, it’s important we don’t downplay the importance of the Cup itself. Many might see an ultimate goal where homophobia is eradicated from our mainstream competitions so queer sporting events no longer need to exist, but that would be a mistake.

I joined the gay-friendly rugby team the Brisbane Hustlers last year – sick of homophobia, both overt and casual – in the other teams I had been part of. Whilst the Hustlers gave me a new community, they have also dramatically changed my ideas of sport.

The Sydney Convicts gay rugby club pose with the Bigham Cup in front of the Sydney Opera House in Sydney, Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012. Sydney has been announced as the host the Bingham Cup 2014, the World Cup of gay rugby. (AAP)

When we think of sport there are particular stereotypes that go with it. In particular, our mainstream sports are seen as hyper-masculine. It’s the same for both men, and women – you’ve got to be a blokey man or a butch woman to be able to compete (and if you’re not a butch woman your only role is to be objectified by men). Sport is a world that places masculinity as the ideal trait for the competitor – and expects everyone to fit that mould.

But in the Hustlers that isn’t the case. It’s not just that homophobia isn’t an issue – the stereotypes disappear as well. Our gay men can be butch and our straight men can be camp and no one questions it. This represents the sort of goal we should be aiming for. It’s not just about eliminating homophobia, but allowing people to be free in their personality.

That’s not to say that Bingham is the be all and end all. Despite hosting a women’s exhibition match this year, Bingham is still all-male – leaving women out of the picture. Discussion about issues related to trans* and intersex participants has also largely been missing.

“Sport is a world that places masculinity as the ideal trait for the competitor – and expects everyone to fit that mould.”

But Bingham – and other tournaments like the ‘OutGames’ – represent something very important. They represent the potential creation of new sporting institutions that our existing ones should be emulating – ones that even though they are based in sexual politics remove sexuality from the equation. Ones that don’t just challenge homophobia in sport, but also the accepted norm of heterosexuality – and all of the stereotypes and prejudices that come with that.

Unfortunately, while the new anti-homophobia policies in our main codes are really important, I question whether they can go this far. I worry they could end up forcing queer people into the straight sporting mould – one that is still hyper-masculine and still extremely sexist. Instead of giving more people access to the ‘norm’, I feel we should get rid of the the idea or the norm in the first place.

A lot of progress has been made in challenging homophobia in sport this year. But a lot more can be done. Looking towards tournaments like the Bingham Cup is a great place to start.