Showing posts with label Australian politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian politics. Show all posts

Saturday 6 October 2012

PM Gillard's 'persecution' silence broken calls for change in political media culture -"civil language in political discourse"

Opinion (contains previously censored content)


By Ruth Skilbeck 
Women voters worldwide it’s time to give media misogynists the “boot” and say no way to their symbolic violence against women- a verbal culture of gendered personal abuse and disrespect that is part of a wider spectrum of violence against women.

The personal has entered the political in an ugly form of personal abuse directed against Australia’s first female PM by radio talkback host Alan Jones, 71, who has built a long career on controversial broadcast commentary in Australia.

This week in Australia, highly controversial remarks by the 2GB radio talkback host, Alan Jones, a Liberal supporter, that the Prime Minister Julia Gillard's father had “died of shame” caused by “his daughter's lies”, just weeks after the PM’s father's death and as the PM is grieving, has caused widespread public condemnation- and also brought to the fore of public debate the urgent need to counter increasing levels of sexist oppression, and persecution, of women in politics, and in the public sphere- through channels such as talkback radio and political organisations, in Australia.


The radio broadcaster, Jones, made the inflammatory statements at a speech he gave to a Young Liberals function at the Sydney University Liberal Club, reportedly not knowing a journalist was present and recording his words.

Jones has, notoriously, also made repeated suggestions to tie the PM in a "chaff-bag" (sack) and "dump her out to sea". Auctioned at the Young Liberals  $100-per-head function, was a jacket made of chaff bags and signed by Alan Jones, supplied by Woolworth's community and government relations manager, and Liberal member, Simon Berger. 

Only in September Jones was condemned for misogyny when he accused "women", not only the PM, of "destroying the joint". He targeted the Sydney Lord Mayor, Clover Moore and former Victorian Police Commissioner, Christine Nixon in sweeping statements on a breakfast show at a time, when critics pointed out children and young people may be listening in cars driven to school with the radio on.


In a sign that equity is entering the political workplace, women are finally starting to break through a tightly guarded wall of sexist exclusion, in Australia. Gillard is the nation's first female PM and there is currently a female Governor General and Attorney General in Australia. These are signs that political representation is (rather belatedly) changing to more accurately reflect women’s very high participation in the workforce in Australia. Yet this is just the latest incident in a discursive political environment and culture that many are now acknowledging and condemning as increasingly toxic to women who are working in these roles: 

"We can also make the case that the Prime Minister has been subject to sexual harassment in her employment as set out by sections 28A and 28B of the Sex Discrimination Act," said author Anne Summers AO PhD in her 2012 Human Rights and Social Justice Lecture, on ‘Her Rights at Work: the Persecution of Australia’s First Prime Minister” at Newcastle University, in August (31/8/12), an abridged version of which was published by the Sydney Morning Herald.

Summers said: "It is well accepted under the act that the sending of sexually explicit material via email or text to a person constitutes sexual harassment. The definition also covers accessing sexually explicit internet sites. Therefore, creating sexually explicit internet sites or posting such sexual material to Facebook pages would easily fall within the definition of sexual harassment".

Summers reported that in the PM's press conference on Thursday, August 23, the PM said that ''for many, many months now I have been the subject of a very sexist smear campaign from people for whom I have no respect''. The PM identified cartoonist Larry Pickering as someone who publishes ''a vile and sexist website.''

Summers added: "For many months, Pickering has regularly bombarded not just Gillard but every member of Parliament with emails containing hate-filled commentary about the Prime Minister. Often these commentaries have been accompanied by cartoons, many of which depict Gillard naked and wearing a huge strap-on dildo."


There is a history in Australia of not talking about "embarrassing" behaviours of bullying and dominance (which is part of the colonial backdrop) and which allows perpetrators to get away with cruelty often with only a few people knowing or publicly recognising what is going on. Last weekend the Australian media and public woke up.

Whereas verbal abuse, and gender-based denigration of women in politics was one of those things that was not talked about (much) in the media, and was an embarrassing phenomenon, media research reports - as well as eye witness reports and incidents such as this speech at the Sydney University Liberal Club to Young Liberals by an influential media figure, shows that gender-based verbal attacks on high profile and political women, aimed to be demeaning and belittling of their authority, have become increasingly prolific, crude, and personally abusive- and commonplace.  

The next day, before the backlash, the Liberal Club tweeted "brilliant speech by Alan Jones last night. It's no wonder he's the nation's most influential broadcaster." After the recording became public the tweet was deleted and apology issued. 

The social media backlash was swift, with a campaign, and an online petition calling for Jones to be sacked, and for a boycott of 2GB, gathered instant momentum - and 5 days later, over 100,000 signatures and many advertisers and sponsors have withdrawn support from 2GB. Yet the controversy continues.

The many political and media figures from across the political spectrum who have publicly condemned the controversial radio presenter’s remarks include Malcolm Turnbill (shadow minister for communications and broadband) who tweeted: "Alan Jones' comments about the late John Gillard were offensive and cruel. He should apologise to the PM and her family." (29/9/12).

Kevin Rudd (Labor MP and former Labor party leader) tweeted "Alan Jones comments are lowest of the low. Abbott must dismiss Jones from Liberal Party now and ban him from future Liberal events." (30/9/12).

Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott's informal statement on Sunday was  "Alan’s remarks regarding the PM were …out of line” and welcoming Jones’ apology. Two days later, after the incident had erupted into a media storm, he said in a press conference they were “wrong, offensive, unacceptable”.

Sharpening the impact, the reports of Jones’ attack on the PM came in a weekend when Australian media and social media reverberated with the news of a horrific rape and murder of a 29 year old ABC radio employee, Irish-born, Jill Meagher, who was abducted into a laneway whilst walking home alone at night in busy well lit streets in inner Melbourne after having after-work drinks with friends and colleagues. After a week’s search and a massive social media campaign, last Saturday over 30,000 people turned out to march in solidarity against her murder, and violence against women, for safe cities. Suspect Adrian Ernest Bayley, 41 of Coburg, was caught by police and is being held in custody on a rape and murder charge.  

Throughout the weekend the two stories ran side by side and it is impossible not to view, on some level, these two examples of extremes of symbolic and of physical violence against women as connected in a spectrum of aggression and oppression of women who work in the political and media sphere.  


What is at issue here is the muddying of the personal and political in the workplace in ways that are deeply offensive, aggressive and should be illegal, deliberately targeting and attacking women in politics and the public sphere on gendered ground.

 This has gone too far and has to stop.



  © Copyright 2012 Ruth Skilbeck

http://annesummers.com.au/speeches/her-rights-at-work-r-rated/. 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/conspiracy-of-silence-lets-persecution-of-pm-fester-20120831-255tt.html. 


This is a longer uncensored version of an article published yesterday on this blog  ' 'Shameful' Attacks by Alan Jones on Grieving PM Spark Public Backlash' by Ruth Skilbeck. 


Sunday 8 July 2012

Turnbull's Not For Turning: Get Over It 'Left' wingers

By Ruth Skilbeck

There’s a strange phenomenon amongst Australia’s left-leaning chattering classes and that is to profess an emotion for a right-wing politician Malcolm Turnbull that brings to mind fan worship and puppy love. They talk admiringly about his leather jackets and love of contemporary art, his handsome visage and cool demeanor and his enviable relationship with his wife. Why isn’t he one of us – he is one of us! They wail and bemoan, we fancy him, we want him, like teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert.  He likes contemporary art!! Admittedly it is highly unusual for Australia’s politicians to show interest in art, but politics and art are not the same thing.  A leather jacket on Q&A is not a policy decision. And we can safely assume that the man in question has made his political allegiance, not accidentally, or for aesthetic reasons, but for the political rationale that he holds rightwing liberal, that is, conservative* convictions.
Turnbull-love would seem to be an odd form of displacement.  Maybe it’s easier in this time of compromised left wing ideologies and action, for those who still like to see themselves as left to  project their own sense of responsibility for (not) taking action, onto a bizarre desire that a right wing politician should  move to the left!
Maybe those supposed left (non-conservative) voters who have turned Turnbull-love into a fetish, should take their own advice and themselves move to the left.

*Could this be a symptom of a new projection of the confusion of the traditional idiosyncratic use in Australian politics of ‘liberal’ for a set of beliefs that in other western democracies is termedconservative’? Or maybe it also bespeaks the failure and collapse of distinctions between left and right in consumer capitalism?

Ruth Skilbeck 2012.

Monday 12 September 2011

Refugee Roulette? Power and Change in Australia

I used to teach a first year course called Power and Change in Australia. It was a popular course that’s no longer running; the reason given was that it was time for a change. Anyone following the unfolding-refolding Asylum law debate in Australia over the past weeks may be forgiven for thinking that title rather aptly alludes to the practice of those in power to effect change, an example being the ways a ruling government has the power to change laws if they become inconvenient.  Even if that may mean by-passing prior international human rights obligations and changing the Migration Act, through exercising sovereignty.
“This is something else. This is about government having power to act” said  Prime Minister Julia Gillard when announcing today the government’s intention to change the laws to by-pass the High Court decision that the Malaysia Agreement is unlawful.  
The government’s announcement was condemned by the Greens and by refugee action groups.
Greens leader Senator Bob Brown accused Labor of moving “to the right of Tony Abbott” on refugee policy.  Senator Brown criticised Ms Gillard’s determination to pursue her  government’s failed ‘Malaysia Agreement’:
“She is out of touch with the Australian people. The Green will not be supporting this position.”
In what is one of the most controversial aspects of the move, concerning  the protection of refugee children recently raised by the High Court, the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen's confirmed the governments's intention to amend  legislation to ensure that unaccompanied children could be processed offshore. This would require changing the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act so the Minister can make “blanket decisions” to send unaccompanied minors off-shore despite the conditions or lack of safeguards that might exist in any third country.
The government’s controversial ‘Malaysia Solution’ - a deal to swap up to 800 asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia for 4000 processed refugees from Malaysia - was this month overturned  when the High Court ruled that it contravened Austraia’s legal obligations as signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention - through refoulement, sending away asylum seekers without considering their claims. The principal of non-refoulement  - "not driving back”- is an essential component of asylum and international refugee protection. A State may not return a person to a territory where they may be exposed to persecution. 
The High Court ruling also raised questions of the legality of all off shore processing of asylum seekers. In response, the Labor government has now revived its plans to send asylum seekers to Malaysia, through amending the Migration Act. Unlike Australia, Malaysia is not signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Many commentators including former Liberal Prime Minister (1975-83), Malcolm Fraser have criticized the government’s proposal for not adequately considering the humanitarian implications of sending away vulnerable, traumatised people including unaccompanied children to countries that are not signatories of the UN Refugee Convention. Mr Fraser's government implemented policy thirty years ago in accordance with the Refugee Convention admitting almost sixty thousand Vietnamese refugees including  2059 'boat people' from Vietnam.
In an unusual ‘bi-partisan’ collaboration, Ms Gillard has been in discussions with Opposition leader Mr Tony Abbot, to devise a strategy to enable continued off-shore processing which they both support - albeit favouring different off shore centres. Today Ms Gillard said that Mr Abbott opposes her choice of Malaysia, she opposes his choice of Nauru, yet apparently they compromise over Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. As the Greens oppose offshore processing, the support of the Coalition is crucial to the government’s proposal passing through Senate.
Refugee action groups also  condemned the Gillard government’s announcement.
“The Gillard government is following the long and dishonorable history of the Howard government changing refugee laws whenever courts found their actions to be unlawful,” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action Coalition.
“We hope Labor’s proposed amendments will be defeated in the Parliament, but the choice is not between Malaysia or Nauru. The government should drop all third country and offshore processing.”
Asylum seekers have been processed on shore in Australia for 46 of the 53 years since the Migration Act was introduced.
The Age/Nielsen online poll reported  53% of those surveyed said that asylum seekers should be processed onshore; other online newspaper polls have been varied.
Meanwhile the impasse that began with the Howard government's controversial introduction of offshore processing known as 'the Pacific solution', ten years ago, continues. 
The ongoing controversy in Australia over allowing asylum seekers to land  began with the Howard government's introduction of offshore processing known as 'the Pacific Solution', never challenged in court, but that would now likely be ruled  "unlawful" given the High Court's ruling of the Malaysia Solution as unlawful.
Ten years later,  the impasse continues. Plus ca change, plus ca meme change; the more things change, the more they stay the same? 

The roulette wheel spins again, and with it spins in hope and dread, the lives and fates of untold refugees.

© Ruth Skilbeck, 2011