A Public Shaming

Like a caricature of an evil conniving politician Christopher Pyne flashes his smug pearly whites as criticism for abandoning the Gonski reforms wash over him like water off a duck's back.

I may have a bias here, I went to public schools and have only just ceased working in a public school for the last seven years. The only time I've been on private school grounds is when we were playing footy against them, and losing so badly it was hard to walk out with your head held high. Their team had a coach, they trained regularly, their players were fit and skilled, their players belonged to strong local clubs with good coaches and their ground was level and immaculate. We had me and a teacher who liked soccer. We weren't even playing soccer.

I don't want to bag private schools because they obviously do so much right. For example, they valued their footy team enough to invest in it properly so that those players could reach their full potential. And the parents value their child reaching their full potential hence they paid to have their child attend a school which offers them the best opportunities. But they don't do everything right either.

Our school like any had a litter problem but it was next to nothing to what I saw at one private school this year. When the students who were watching the game from the boundary (and might I add sledging our players more ferociously than we'd ever consider sledging someone, there was some racism present too); when they went back to class, the rubbish they left strewn in their wake was akin to a music festival. I felt righteous indignation at the time. We had copped abuse, some of it way too inappropriately personal and we had been thrashed on the scoreboard but we, we were still better people than these toffee nosed privileged barbarians that would leave such a mess behind for low payed workers to clean up after them. That's what I was thinking, that's how I felt. And I was the School Chaplain.

I am very protective of those under my care and to those I've built a relationship with. We all get protective of our tribe and my tribe has been a bunch of misfits made up of those that ranged from overweight to aggressive to fearful and shy and to students shaped like sticks. I do not want to paint a picture of a rabble however because in that tribe we did care for each other and through whatever scars and bruises everyone brought some special skill or character or insight to the group – they brought themselves. And we were led by a teacher and teachers that passionately cared about inspiring young people to grow and reach for their full potential.

The music teacher who did amazing things getting students who would barely raise a squeak to sing or perform in front of hundreds of people. The art teacher that praised creativity and hung it high on the wall for all to see. The woodwork teacher who helped students to learn skills and create something that they were proud to show their family. The English teacher that got a students poem published and the staff member that would make lunch for someone who had no money and nothing to eat and would protect that persons privacy. For many students a public school can be a safe haven from home. It is a place where the messages they've been told about themselves that they will never amount to much are challenged with messages that they are more than what they think they are and that they are valued.

For the last couple of years I was working closely with a student with cerebral palsy. He has an incredible support structure in fantastic parents and his presence brought out the best in the other students in that they chose to support him too. In spite of all this he still saw himself as limited as to how he could contribute to this community because of his disabilities, fair enough. I loved challenging him though and helping him to run for a spot on the student executive council. We had to level the playing field for him a bit but he got there on his own merit and I loved watching his picture of himself change as he revelled in his new responsibility. And watching him challenged and inspired me because in a sense we are all somewhat disabled when we carry around and energetically maintain the picture we have of ourselves instead of breaking out of the box and growing to our full potential.

I love my public school and I love that they love the students. And with every school being it's own little tribe then it's probably the same within every school community. But therein lies one of the problems – a tribal mentality. It seems the privileged suits and blue ties of the Government haven't grown out of their tribal mentality looking down on public schools with Christopher Pyne critising the quality of the staff as the reason behind society's ills. Staff that I have seen work their backsides off in oversized classes, staff that may not have been half as effective if they hadn't received funding from the previous government to rebuild the music department so students didn't have to sit in boredom for hours waiting for their turn on the old donated acoustic guitar.

Gonski is an attempt to level the playing field so all students get a fair go. Here are two excellent articles helping to coherently cut through the confusion of what is going on.

from the canberra times -inequality at the heart of rejection of gonski program   
from the guardian - Australia's schools are underfunded, undervalued and, yes, unequal 

Does a level playing field scare the upper classes because then they would have to face up to the reality that society's ills are not because of the poor, that the poor are a just a symptom of society's ills? Maybe they would have to look at themselves. And that is what happens in a tribal mentality, we project on to the other claiming they are at the root of the problem so we don't have to question our part in the problem. I do this. I say I believe that all people are equal and deserve human rights and dignity but I still fantasise about Pyne, Morrison, Abbott, Murdoch and Rinehart being put in a chaff bag and dumped into the sea leaving the world a sudden utopia.

But it is not our beliefs or our ideals that make the world a better place, it is our actions. They say that what we value is something we do most of the time. I believe that I should buy fair trade products at every opportunity over products from companies with a dodgy history of looking after its employees and the environment. But how much do I truly value that belief when I go and buy another jar of non fair trade coffee? Obviously not enough but at least I question my own hypocrisy and am a work in progress. If you say you believe in climate change, if you say you believe in human rights, in everyone having access to the best health and education we can offer, that we should care for the poorest in the world...If you say all these things and your actions say otherwise then it is not a value.

It seems no matter the issue, whether it is climate change, asylum seekers, gay marriage, health, education, bushfires, the economy etc. that this regressive Government refuses to listen to experts in those respective fields and instead adopts its tribal mentality, taking their supporters who have been whipped up into fear, into the need to protect their tribal identity with them. What worries me is that I hear no one with credibility championing their ideas as worth pursuing. Though it may seem so at times, they are not stupid but they do not want to face their own demons, they are wilfully ignorant, projecting onto the other the imagery of horns and a pitchfork. And in so doing, in this case in particular they are saying 'we do not value equality and we do not value public education.'

They are saying to a generation that we don't care about you enough to invest in you properly. There is no place for you, you will not amount to much. And then we wonder why our young people are plagued with depression and anxiety, suicide, self harm and attention disorders. We just go on creating more problems for our future. If we value everyone getting the best start in life then we should invest in it, we should go above and beyond what even the Gonski reforms offered us because it is a smart investment and because it is the right thing to do. But no, what do we really value? We bitch and moan about a billion dollars towards education and we subsidise mining companies with tax breaks and cheap fuel to the tune of four billion dollars a year. We need to ask not just of the government but of our ourselves as a nation what it is we believe that is fair and just. We need to ask ourselves why we don't value education as much as we should.

If the educators go on strike, I'll stand with them and I'd encourage everyone with a progressive bone in their body to stand too because all schools and public schools in particular need our support. They are at the core of communities and at the core of helping people discover that they are more than who they think they are, that they can reach their full potential and we can all have a better future.

Great Scott! Morrison's at it again...

Would dehumanising the dehumanisers be a useful practice? Cos I really want to point out just how far of a failed human being that Scott Morrison is. I want to say that if I bumped into him in person I'd likely vomit at his feet involuntarily from being in the presence of the stench filled meatbag. But the cliches our parents imprinted us with that 'two wrongs don't make a right' squeezes it's way through the seething anger in my mind and I have to check myself. This man has thoughts and feelings, he has a family, maybe a dog or a cat or a hamster called little johnny. He has dreams and desires. He has needs. Like the need's of safety, of belonging, of being seen, of contributing and being productive, even of being loved. He has a right to that - but apparently not all people are created equal.

Today it was revealed that Scott Morrison has issued a directive to his party and to those in the field that work with asylum seekers that they are to be referred to as illegal arrivals from now on and that no longer will asylum seekers being moved to or kept in detention centres be referred to as clients, they are transferees and detainees. 

Scott Morrison's leaked directive from the Sydney Morning Herald 

As is pointed out in the article by a psychiatrist it is important what language we use and this directive from Scott Morrison dehumanises these people. I would go so far as to say that it is a deliberate act on his part to do so and is reprehensible. Why would any decent human being want other human beings dehumanised? Well, it serves his political purpose that we as the voting public come to see these people as less than human so we will not care what happens to them. There was even a report recently that one detention centre was referring to it's clients by numbers rather than names and that included children.

What happens to a person who is being systematically dehumanised? Psychiatrists say that dehumanisation ignores the person's individuality, their ability to be creative and make choices and ignores them as being part of a network of people who care for eachother – a community. A person denied their individuality and sense of belonging to a community often reults in them no longer showing compassion and other normal moral responses which can then lead them on a road to becoming violent or accepting violence upon themselves. Are we trying to mentally injure people towards responding with violence so we can dehumanise them even more?

And Scott Morrison is not only wanting to dehumanise asylum seekers but he wants everything that we do to them to be done in secret. He doesn't want the government to have to tell the public when asylum seekers are arriving on our shores, he doesn't want to tell us what happens to them after they do and he doesn't want to tell us of problems arising in the camps. 

Scott Morrison on secrecy from The Guardian Australia 

He doesn't want to tell us because he says it fuels the people smugglers and asylum seekers with information they can use to their advantage. Yet whilst in opposition he was the man announcing from the rooftops through his righteous spittle every day to anyone who would listen whenever an asylum seeker issue raised its head.

So I can't trust the hypocritical bugger because every decision he makes with these people's lives in his hands seems to be to exploit the issue for political gain. Today's news just imprints in concrete for me like little doggie footprints that this is his pattern. If truth is beauty then the works of Scott Morrison are filthy rags.

I don't want to be alarmist and I hate slippery slope arguments but dehumanising others puts in place an atmosphere where further human rights abuses can take place.

I wont make the absurdist leap to Hitler or Nazi's that others do when the idealism of a group conflicts with their own (The Daily Telegraph for one) but I do want to stress that the UNHCR was set up in the first place after what Hitler did to the Jews because the world decided that never again would we let people be so dehumanised and turned away from borders when fleeing persecution and death. Rightly we ratified that treaty. Have we forgotten what happened in the past? Have we forgotten what we agreed to do?

Our last report card from the UN gave us an F for our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. As the richest nation in the world per capita we should be deeply ashamed. But this is what happens when we dehumanise others and become insular and selfish...it just breeds more selfishness and insular thinking till we can't see the forest for the trees. What did we fight for all those years ago? freedom for just the entitled or freedom and human rights for all? Lest we forget. 

I am a Christian but I never thought I'd be rocked and swayed by the way a Catholic Pope dealt with the same issues on the same day in another part of the world. It was a fantastic speech and I urge you to read it The Pope in Lampedusa on the globalisation of indifference To summarise it though he felt he needed to hold a Mass on Lampedusa, a small island in Italy that a boatload of refugees was attempting to reach because it has an immigrant reception centre (note the difference in terminology) but the boat was lost at sea and over 300 asylum seekers perished. 

The Pope spoke out about the globalisation of indifference to the plight of these people that has been spread in part by those that wish to dehumanise them. He said (and whether you believe in the story or not it is still a powerful metaphor) that at the dawn of humanity God asks Cain regarding Abel “Where is your brother? The voice of his blood cries even to me.” And he goes on to say that this question is being asked of all of us even now. “Where is your brother?”

The Pope went on to pray at the conclusion "we ask forgiveness for the indifference towards so many brothers and sisters, we ask for forgiveness for those who are pleased with themselves, who are closed in their own well-being in a way that leads to the anaesthesia of the heart, we ask you, Father, for forgiveness for those who with their decisions at the global level have created situations that lead to these tragedies. Forgive us, Lord!

I would've thought that any response akin to 'Am I my brother's keeper?' should be for the Christian at least answered with a resounding YES! Yet it seems like many Christians want to wash their hands of the problem like a Judean Prefect. It doesn't mark them as evil but for the Christian it is not what God calls you to do. I'm encouraged that this new Pope is not one of those Christians.

When we dehumanise others, others ultimately will begin to dehumanise us. It is like there is a natural law at work, like a law of social physics. I once heard a quote from a historian (I cannot find the source unforunately) “Nations rise and fall depending on how they reflect the Kingdom of God” (I am sorry if I am delving too much into God stuff, for the non believer you may read God or the Kingdom of God as the Kindom of the values that we share in justice, mercy and compassion).

That quote has the ring of truth to me – a seed of truth rooted in the earth and growing to a towering tree with branches that reach out and shade all that reside under it. Call it karma or call it Isaiah 60:12 “For the nation that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste” And I don't see that as an interventionist God reaching in and exacting revenge. I see that through the perspective of that if you live by the sword, so you die by the sword. The social law at work – if your nation is defined by greed in that greed gives it it's power then greed is what will kill it one bleeding cut at a time. Hate begets hate, greed begets greed, sefishness begets selfishness, violence begets violence and dehumanisation will lead to more and more dehumanisation. The reaping of the environment will see the environment turn on us. I'm not personifying the environment for example and this isn't some weirdo new age idea, this is basically the science of cause and effect. For every action there is a consequence be it a social action or a physical one.

The sins of the father are visited upon the son is not a curse, it is a consequence. When you beat or neglect your son that will leave scars that carry over into the next generation. When we dehumanise others on any basis be it wealth, race, religion, culture or sexuality then we are all poorer as a result going forward. We need to acknowledge what we have done and do all that is in our power to treat others how we would wish to be treated if we want a better world and a better future.

Because genorosity begets generosity and love begets love. It is in our interest to have the others interest at heart. Should we not, by turning our backs on others in need we will find that they have turned their backs on us in our need.

So to my brother Scott Morrison I ask 'where are you? And what are you doing?' Are you attending another wedding on the public purse and escaping scrutiny for it though your party has brought down others in parliament for similar infringements? Are you reliving your private boy's school days in Abbott's boy's club of a cabinate and looking down with contempt on the kids from the public school around the corner? Are you continuing to send heavily pregnant women and children to offshore detention centres where whole generations will be dehumanised before they've had a chance to form an identity? Are you telling asylum seekers they should join an ordely queue (that the UNHCR says is 117 years long at current resttlement rates-how patient are you?)

Will you please make a decision that pulls the brakes on this spiral into dehumanisation and systematically begin to humanise people for the benefit of all. Will you please afford people the same human rights that you feel entitled to. Or when asked 'where is your brother?' will you just smugly shrug and say 'you'll need to fight tooth and nail for a freedom of information clause to get my answer'?

Misrepresenting

The definition of the word 'indoctrinated' on google is given as: to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

In the wake of Monday night's QandA with Kevin Rudd and the whole episode of the question about Gay Marriage I have since seen many Christians attacking Mr Rudd for misrepresenting the Bible. I have found their misrepresentation of Mr Rudd very frustrating. They have focused solely on his summary of a Bible verse stating that 'slavery is a natural condition.' Arguably he may have been a bit off the mark in making this summary but you could make a myriad more by using the book of Leviticus. What was clear to me was that it was not a summary that he was ascribing to believing in. He was pointing out how just taking verses out of the Bible to say what you want them to say is a weak and dangerous thing to do to base your beliefs on.

He actually went on to explain what he does believe and how he forms those beliefs yet in the articles critising him they always fail to mention (even one word) of his summary of the New Testament as having a message of universal love. He explained how he goes about wrestling with his beliefs over time, using critical thinking, using science, using the greater context of the Bible as opposed to singular verses and using his Christian concience. Is it wrong of him to do that as a Christian? I would say that it is imperative that every Christian walks this road.

It seems some Christians give no validity to the rest of his statements regarding the New Testament simply because he said something critical of the Bible. Those people that hold the Bible up as the arbiter of all wisdom are dangerous. Interpretations can be wrong, verses can be twisted to say near anything. If you accept everything as black and white then you miss the nuance of colour and diversity (thank you Cecily Rosol for turning the grey areas into colour for me). The Bible is important to the Christian but it is not to be worshipped lest you make an idol of it, and besides; the Christian story goes on with every new day, it hasn't ceased moving.

The verses most couples use at their marriage from 1 Cor 13:1-13 speak to what love is and from verse 11 (with the danger of using a verse from the Bible) it says “When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.” It goes on to say that all that I know is partial and incomplete and further - that three things will last forever-faith, hope and love-and the greatest of these is love. Was Rudd wrong in stating the message of the Gospel to be one of love? Was he wrong to doubt his earlier beliefs around homosexuality and reconsider?

William Hughes an expert on critical thinking said “If we are not prepared to think for ourselves, and to make the effort to learn how to do this well, we will always be in danger of becoming slaves to the ideas and values of others due to our own ignorance.” I applaud Rudd's faith and logic in arriving to his conclusion on Gay Marriage. And as uncomfortable as it was to see the Pastor who asked the question having questions thrown back at him and the audience turn on him it appeared that in the moment he had nothing much more to stand on than indoctrinated beliefs.

Indoctrinated beliefs are dangerous and not just in the realm of Christianity and other religions. Indoctrination is a controlling mechanism – the google definition of 'indoctrinated' goes on to give an example of its use: “broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses” and by golly haven't we seen that in widespread use over the last few weeks by a Murdoch controlled press that want people to accept its view of the world and its choice of Prime Minister in Tony Abbott. And Christian media is doing the same now with their attack on Rudd, trying to persuade people to vote on their agenda. 

The right's views on asylum seekers and mining and a carbon price and just how badly our AAA credit rated economy is going has seen the public debate around this election as a race to fan the flames of fear in people and then come running in dressed up for the photographers in firefighting gear. Peter Hitchens, brother of prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, followed a different path as an atheist that came to faith. He said “Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” I think that applies here.

So don't attack Rudd for thinking for himself, turn the heat up on those that don't. I'm finding it my responsibilty to no longer stand idly by when a bloke at a BBQ starts spouting that climate change is crap – that is ignorance – as if he knows more than 98% of the world's top climate scientists. Or when someone accuses asylum seekers of clogging the roads despite the fact that they can't afford cars.

If you want to attack Rudd on his Christian values then ask him why his asylum seeker policy is what it is now or why he has put off increasing aid to the worlds poor, those may deal breakers for you but to turn off him because he espouses loving thy neighbour as a tenet of his faith is just hearing what you want to hear.

Jesus was not about controlling people, he was about freeing people, often from themselves. Christianity is not a cage, the New Testament repeatedly says that we have a new covenant and repeatedly Christians pull out the Old that should have been put to bed around 2000 years ago and frankly I'm sick of it. The Gospels record Jesus saying “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.”

The indoctrinators from what I see around me do not want you to use your heart or your mind or to love your neighbour, just to pay lip service and maybe they'll give you what you want, regardless of what we need.

Profiteering from people smuggling

Kevin Rudd announced today that any asylum seekers arriving in Australia without a visa will be sent to Papua New Guinea for assessment and resettlement from abc news. This is a huge coup for Kevin and Labor and will likely go a long way to preventing the people smuggling business going on in the waters to the north of our nation. This is good news for a political party and a prime minister wanting to be re-elected in the coming months. So, who now is it that will be profiteering from people smuggling? Kevin perhaps? the ALP?

Am I being too cynical?

I don't like us abdicating our responsibility to refugees and sending them elsewhere and I don't like us disempowering vulnerable people and telling them where we think they should live. But I also actually don't mind the whole concept as an attempt to prevent further drownings from happening at sea but it has to coincide with other announcements. The further financial assistance to PNG, that's fine. The proposed increase to our intake of immigrants, that's fine too. What concerns me, no, what leaves me feeling ashamed and angry is who we have turned our back on.

What if you are fleeing a country, a country that wont say 'sure, here's your visa'? How does a person who has had to flee their country without being able to get a visa reasonably apply for asylum in Australia? Our policy as it is now says that you cannot come here and we will ship you off to somewhere else. Can they apply somewhere? And if they can, will they be allowed to resettle sometime in their lifetime? If there was a place refugees could go to, even without a visa, that would see them assessed and resettled within a very reasonable ammount of time then I would consider perhaps supporting our new deal with PNG. As it is there is no such place, no wonder people get so desperate as to risk their lives. I am not happy.

Where is the Kevin Rudd that pleaded with the government when he was ousted as PM that they should continue to be compassionate towards refugees and not sell out their humanity to satisfy the selfish bigotry of way too many fellow Australians (I might be indulging a bit in what he actually said). This political football of vulnerable people who are hardly capable of invading us to take over, hence are not a border control issue has just gone on and on in absurdity for too long. And now Kevin Rudd and Bob Carr can add their names to the list of those who should have restless nights.

I prefer what Julian Burnside had to say the other day, he had facts, he had truth and he had the guts to say it as it is from the age. And I wonder where our leaders are that will take on xenophobic Australia and will deliver us a new vision worth belonging to?

What is really ruining the institution of Marriage?

It's happening in different places all over the world now, you wake up one morning and log in to your computer to find that somewhere it has happened again. It's not just irksome, you fume and bubble over with rage and ball your fists muttering 'when will this nightmare end'? This cheapening of the sanctimony of marriage is an insult. It is a slap in the face to all those who have made a life long public commitment to eachother. This insidious group has been infiltrating our society and flying under the radar for too long now, it's time we confronted their vileness. You all know what I'm talking about...yes...facebook marriages! 

It used to be that two teenagers would just 'go out' with eachother, or in more standardised American terms they would 'date' or 'go steady'. Nowadays they have the option to call their “relationship” a marriage. Surely this will end in misery. I mean they don't even get any pre marriage counselling so it should be no surprise when the teens most probably have to go through a protracted divorce when their gaze inevitably turns elsewhere. And then they have the gall to marry someone else in the following week, just with the push of a button before they go to sleep that night, then they wake up the next morning as if their life hasn't altered dramatically at all. 

It is not just the teens who are bringing the sky falling onto their own heads, our whole society will suffocate under the weight of all those dark clouds. Do they seriously think that their marriage doesn't affect us all? You used to have to be of a particular age - It is redefining the laws that hold our society together. These marriages are happening without the blessing of churches, without the blessing of parents and they are being confirmed not by the government but by a global social networking site that exists in a virtual space. How do you even fight this epidemic that is spreading into our homes through the tentacles that cover our land like a web? 

My marriage will never be the same, your marriage will never be the same. We can however turn around before we start down the slippery slope of facebook marriages to pets or family members and before they provide a loving home to those lost facebook sprites. Pull the plug on facebook marriages before it's too late!