Post by Willow on Mar 25, 2014 10:01:16 GMT 9.5
THE unedifying banners littered throughout the March in March last weekend distracted from the message most of the crowd who took to the streets presumably hoped to send. That is, they were ordinary voters representative of wider public discontent with the policies of the new government.
But was that really the case?
While there will be inevitable debate over how mainstream much of the up to 100,000 who attended the marches across the country actually were, those who stole the headlines with their offensive banners undoubtedly were anything but mainstream.
These protesters served up the sort of bile that sometimes passes for commentary on social media — also overshadowing the many free-flowing exchanges on mediums such as Twitter and Facebook that can occur.
While sections of the commentariat praised the protests as some sort of transformative moment when social media protests migrated into the mainstream, many of the messages were subversive as well as offensive, anything but representative of the approach mainstream members of the public adopt.
Signs describing Tony Abbott as an “evil fascist”, replete with a cartoon image of the PM with a Hitleresque moustache, do nothing to advance the public debate. Nor do many of the other signs that made their way into the crowds — “ignorant pig” and “racist sexist elitist homophobic fascist” are just two examples of a multitude of signs directed at Abbott that were designed to cause offence. A small number of attendees at the rallies wore “F. k Tony Abbott” T-shirts, replicating the clothing with body paint and hastily drawn posters.
“The protests were a perfect example of free speech in action,” says new Freedom Commissioner Tim Wilson. But he points out “people had their right (to free speech), but they didn’t exercise responsibility, expressing absurd, insulting and unreasonable commentary. Therefore, no one takes them seriously.”
Other signs went further than simply causing offence, such as one that included the phrase “Kill Abbott”, inciting violence, no less, as did the comments from the secretary of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council, Gary Kennedy, who told protesters from the podium that Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce “should be shot somewhere in the back of the head”.
While the long-serving union secretary withdrew his comments in the days that followed the march, the applause in the crowd widened the ambit of poor judgment on what is and is not appropriate to the listeners, not just one of the keynote speakers.
“It is unrealistic to expect that passions won’t be a factor within political debate,” Labor member for Chifley Ed Husic argues.
“But we have to reinforce in our minds that there are boundaries people shouldn’t over step, because it risks deepening the partisan political divides that are increasingly plaguing public debate.”
Banners denouncing the value of democracy because it has resulted in the election of the Abbott government — which were also on display last weekend — suggest discontent with an electoral system that neatly balances majoritarianism in the house of government (the House of Representatives) with the sorts of checks and balances political scientists appreciate in the Senate (elected via a form of proportional representation).
This sort of attack on our political culture and systems is anything but mainstream, all the more coming so soon after a clear-cut election result.
Conservative commentators have inevitably decried the failure of sections of the media to condemn the March in March the same way protests associated with the Convoy of No Confidence outside Parliament House were quickly condemned. On that occasion, banners such as “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s Bitch” were used to vilify then prime minister Julia Gillard. They were described as sexist and outrageous, which they surely were.
But is there a double standard? Was indignation towards signs attacking our first female PM greater than the reaction to even more offensive signs now being directed at Abbott? Wilson says “the conduct of protesters at both events went beyond what Australians think is fair”.
One important difference between the reaction to the material directed at Gillard and that now being directed at Abbott is that Labor politicians were clever enough not to attend the rallies with the bad-taste material last weekend.
Perhaps they learnt from Abbott’s mistake in early 2011 when he spoke at the main Convoy of No Confidence rally in front of Parliament House and one of the offensive signs was hoisted behind him while he and other opposition ministers were on the podium.
Abbott has claimed he didn’t know that the sign was there, and we can only take him at his word. At the very least, it represented poor advancing work from the then opposition leader’s office.
A number of Labor MPs voiced support for the March in March rallies, but none appears to have attended the events. Certainly not Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. Deputy Greens leader Adam Bandt, however, did attend one of the rallies (careful not to appear alongside one of the offensive banners, mind), where he described the protests as the compassionate and humane side of the Australian population, notwithstanding the inappropriate signage.
Another potential difference between the protests against the Gillard government and those now being directed at the Abbott government is that talkback radio played a lead hand in the Gillard rallies, using their programs to whip up interest for the events.
But left-wing commentators used the online media as well as social media to do the same for the March in March. The messages are similar, and both remain inappropriate. Only the medium has changed.
While feminists have pointed out the language used in banners against Gillard included overt sexist rhetoric, designed not only to cause offence more generally, but also specifically to deliver a sexist message, such double messaging was also on display in many of the signs directed at Abbott.
Not on gender grounds, but as an ideological statement along side personal attacks.
Calling a conservative politician a “fascist” and portraying his image to replicate Hitler’s is deliberately designed to undermine their ideological positioning in the same way that calling a woman a “bitch” or a “witch” carries clear sexist intent.
Both are offensive, but both are also designed (by intent or otherwise) to undermine credibility in a deeper and longer lasting way. Quite obviously, neither form of protest is acceptable and both do more to undermine associated messages of discontent than to advance a particular cause.
“If protesters want to get substantive messages across they should do a better job of holding their own to account for their conduct,” Wilson points out.
It isn’t just Gillard and Abbott who have been subjected to cruel and offensive protests. John Howard was portrayed in both physically and historically demeaning ways, although these sorts of attacks took longer to manifest than the insults hurled at both Gillard and Abbott after each became prime minister.
Early protests in Canberra against the Howard government industrial relations changes even turned into a riot not long after the 1996 election, with protesters storming the Parliament House foyer. On that occasion, opposition leader Kim Beazley made the same mistake that Abbott did, addressing the rally.
“We hadn’t even released the bill yet,” then workplace relations minister Peter Reith points out. He argues that the more over-the-top protests against Howard became over the years, the more considered and reasonable the government appeared by way of comparison.
Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane sees a link between outrage at the sorts of vilification that have occurred in the protests mentioned above and the need for protections against racial vilification.
He points out there are many restrictions on offensive speech that exist in parliament, via defamation law as well as in criminal summary offences laws, causing him to wonder what all the fuss is about when it comes to retaining similar provisions within the Racial Discrimination Act.
“Racial abuse isn’t about mere offence. It is about speech that diminishes the equal standing of others and our cohesion as a society.”
There is little doubt that when protests get out of hand or become dominated by extremists, the mainstream message is lost. Even the involvement of sexist, subversive or ideologically abusive elements can distract from events that might otherwise be designed with a legitimate democratic purpose.
Protest is as important a part of democracy as are institutions designed to uphold democracy, but only when practised within the spirit of Australia’s well established political culture.
I don't agree with everything any government does but I think the vitriol against Tony Abbott is beyond the pale - he's no worse than Julia or Kevin and he has his own failings
But was that really the case?
While there will be inevitable debate over how mainstream much of the up to 100,000 who attended the marches across the country actually were, those who stole the headlines with their offensive banners undoubtedly were anything but mainstream.
These protesters served up the sort of bile that sometimes passes for commentary on social media — also overshadowing the many free-flowing exchanges on mediums such as Twitter and Facebook that can occur.
While sections of the commentariat praised the protests as some sort of transformative moment when social media protests migrated into the mainstream, many of the messages were subversive as well as offensive, anything but representative of the approach mainstream members of the public adopt.
Signs describing Tony Abbott as an “evil fascist”, replete with a cartoon image of the PM with a Hitleresque moustache, do nothing to advance the public debate. Nor do many of the other signs that made their way into the crowds — “ignorant pig” and “racist sexist elitist homophobic fascist” are just two examples of a multitude of signs directed at Abbott that were designed to cause offence. A small number of attendees at the rallies wore “F. k Tony Abbott” T-shirts, replicating the clothing with body paint and hastily drawn posters.
“The protests were a perfect example of free speech in action,” says new Freedom Commissioner Tim Wilson. But he points out “people had their right (to free speech), but they didn’t exercise responsibility, expressing absurd, insulting and unreasonable commentary. Therefore, no one takes them seriously.”
Other signs went further than simply causing offence, such as one that included the phrase “Kill Abbott”, inciting violence, no less, as did the comments from the secretary of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council, Gary Kennedy, who told protesters from the podium that Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce “should be shot somewhere in the back of the head”.
While the long-serving union secretary withdrew his comments in the days that followed the march, the applause in the crowd widened the ambit of poor judgment on what is and is not appropriate to the listeners, not just one of the keynote speakers.
“It is unrealistic to expect that passions won’t be a factor within political debate,” Labor member for Chifley Ed Husic argues.
“But we have to reinforce in our minds that there are boundaries people shouldn’t over step, because it risks deepening the partisan political divides that are increasingly plaguing public debate.”
Banners denouncing the value of democracy because it has resulted in the election of the Abbott government — which were also on display last weekend — suggest discontent with an electoral system that neatly balances majoritarianism in the house of government (the House of Representatives) with the sorts of checks and balances political scientists appreciate in the Senate (elected via a form of proportional representation).
This sort of attack on our political culture and systems is anything but mainstream, all the more coming so soon after a clear-cut election result.
Conservative commentators have inevitably decried the failure of sections of the media to condemn the March in March the same way protests associated with the Convoy of No Confidence outside Parliament House were quickly condemned. On that occasion, banners such as “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s Bitch” were used to vilify then prime minister Julia Gillard. They were described as sexist and outrageous, which they surely were.
But is there a double standard? Was indignation towards signs attacking our first female PM greater than the reaction to even more offensive signs now being directed at Abbott? Wilson says “the conduct of protesters at both events went beyond what Australians think is fair”.
One important difference between the reaction to the material directed at Gillard and that now being directed at Abbott is that Labor politicians were clever enough not to attend the rallies with the bad-taste material last weekend.
Perhaps they learnt from Abbott’s mistake in early 2011 when he spoke at the main Convoy of No Confidence rally in front of Parliament House and one of the offensive signs was hoisted behind him while he and other opposition ministers were on the podium.
Abbott has claimed he didn’t know that the sign was there, and we can only take him at his word. At the very least, it represented poor advancing work from the then opposition leader’s office.
A number of Labor MPs voiced support for the March in March rallies, but none appears to have attended the events. Certainly not Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. Deputy Greens leader Adam Bandt, however, did attend one of the rallies (careful not to appear alongside one of the offensive banners, mind), where he described the protests as the compassionate and humane side of the Australian population, notwithstanding the inappropriate signage.
Another potential difference between the protests against the Gillard government and those now being directed at the Abbott government is that talkback radio played a lead hand in the Gillard rallies, using their programs to whip up interest for the events.
But left-wing commentators used the online media as well as social media to do the same for the March in March. The messages are similar, and both remain inappropriate. Only the medium has changed.
While feminists have pointed out the language used in banners against Gillard included overt sexist rhetoric, designed not only to cause offence more generally, but also specifically to deliver a sexist message, such double messaging was also on display in many of the signs directed at Abbott.
Not on gender grounds, but as an ideological statement along side personal attacks.
Calling a conservative politician a “fascist” and portraying his image to replicate Hitler’s is deliberately designed to undermine their ideological positioning in the same way that calling a woman a “bitch” or a “witch” carries clear sexist intent.
Both are offensive, but both are also designed (by intent or otherwise) to undermine credibility in a deeper and longer lasting way. Quite obviously, neither form of protest is acceptable and both do more to undermine associated messages of discontent than to advance a particular cause.
“If protesters want to get substantive messages across they should do a better job of holding their own to account for their conduct,” Wilson points out.
It isn’t just Gillard and Abbott who have been subjected to cruel and offensive protests. John Howard was portrayed in both physically and historically demeaning ways, although these sorts of attacks took longer to manifest than the insults hurled at both Gillard and Abbott after each became prime minister.
Early protests in Canberra against the Howard government industrial relations changes even turned into a riot not long after the 1996 election, with protesters storming the Parliament House foyer. On that occasion, opposition leader Kim Beazley made the same mistake that Abbott did, addressing the rally.
“We hadn’t even released the bill yet,” then workplace relations minister Peter Reith points out. He argues that the more over-the-top protests against Howard became over the years, the more considered and reasonable the government appeared by way of comparison.
Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane sees a link between outrage at the sorts of vilification that have occurred in the protests mentioned above and the need for protections against racial vilification.
He points out there are many restrictions on offensive speech that exist in parliament, via defamation law as well as in criminal summary offences laws, causing him to wonder what all the fuss is about when it comes to retaining similar provisions within the Racial Discrimination Act.
“Racial abuse isn’t about mere offence. It is about speech that diminishes the equal standing of others and our cohesion as a society.”
There is little doubt that when protests get out of hand or become dominated by extremists, the mainstream message is lost. Even the involvement of sexist, subversive or ideologically abusive elements can distract from events that might otherwise be designed with a legitimate democratic purpose.
Protest is as important a part of democracy as are institutions designed to uphold democracy, but only when practised within the spirit of Australia’s well established political culture.
I don't agree with everything any government does but I think the vitriol against Tony Abbott is beyond the pale - he's no worse than Julia or Kevin and he has his own failings