Section 18C, Free Speech and Judeo-Christian Heritage

Politicians clambering to water down section 18c of the racial discrimination act needs to understand that the right to free speech is not boundless. This is clearly seen in our parliamentary debates. The role of the parliamentary speaker is to ensure that members of parliament exercise their rights to free speech in a way that honours the parliament and all Australians for whom her members ultimately serve. In addition, the saying: “play the ball and not the man” is universally accepted to imply that free speech is never meant to be a free for all.

This short essay raises two questions: Can we exercise free speech without reference to history and our responsibilities to our fellow Australians? How should free speech be exercised in light of our Judeo-Christian heritage?

In the recent Queensland University of Technology (QUT) discrimination case: One of the student involved, Alex Wood, is supposed to have complained on Facebook that QUT (is) stopping segregation with segregation. Presumably Wood tried to say that the preferential treatment given to indigenous students is a form of discrimination against non-indigenous Australians. The three QUT students involved do not seem to understand that the general public actually practice “positive” decimation. Australian society’s treatment of disabled Australians is an example of positive discrimination. If these three students were to be denied access to a disable parking at QUT, would they still be complaining about discrimination? They would not because they would immediately recognise that disabled Australians are disadvantaged. Are these students, their legal representatives and the judge (judge Jarret) in the initial trial even aware of the plight of indigenous Australians? Are they not aware that indigenous Australians have a much lower life expectancy than the average Australians? Are these students not aware of Australia’s poor treatment of indigenous Australians? If they are then is it not reasonable to expect them to be careful in how they exercise their rights to free speech on Facebook? Is it not reasonable for them to have some empathy for indigenous Australians and therefore defer their rights to access QUT’s computers designated for people less fortunate than them? 

If these students, their legal representatives and judge Jarret are not aware of the plight of our indigenous Australians then should they not be? George Santayana said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. It seems that Santayana is right; we are no longer telling the next generation about some of the unsavoury parts of our history? White washing our history does not help anyone. A functioning democracy requires citizens who not only are aware of their rights but who are also willing to excise their rights within the context of their responsibilities to their fellow Australians.

Freedom of speech and many rights that we now take for granted actually originated from the Magna Carta. Lord Denning described the Carta as the greatest constitutional document of all times. Moreover, he argued that it is the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.  2015 was the 800th anniversary of the founding of the Magna Carta. In that year, Thomas Andrew of the Theos think tank wrote “The Church and the Charter: Christianity and the forgotten roots of the Magna Carta”. Andrew wrote: “without the support of the Church, and without the theological developments which provided the Magna Carta’s authors with their intellectual framework, it is doubtful whether 2015 would be remembered as the 800th anniversary  …” If the Magna Carta is so closely linked to our Judeo-Christian heritage then should we not exercise our rights to free speech that is consistent with the same heritage. The rights to free speech empower those under oppression to speak out against their oppressors. In the QUT discrimination case, it seems free speech has (perhaps by ignorance) become a tool to distort history and to perpetuate old racist attitude. How then are we exercising free speech in a way that is consistent to our Judeo-Christian heritage? Or in common vernacular, have those QUT students, their legal advisors and even Judge Jarret given Indigenous Australians a fair go?

Finally as we approach Christmas, we need to remember that Jesus was born in a manger and not a palace and did not grasp on to his rights as the Son of God but instead he gave away his privileges so as to server all mankind. 

Can Disruptive Technologies Change the way we see Road Safety?

Wikipedia describes disruptive innovation as an innovation that creates a new market and value network that eventually disrupts an existing market and value network, displacing established market leading firms, products and alliances. It is therefore easy to see why the taxi industry has such a dislike for Uber.  Aside from the taxi industry disruptive technology might have even more far reaching impact. The Committee for Economic Development of Australia predicts that up to 5 million jobs are likely to be automated by 2030. Disruptive technologies have certainly a very large negative impact on the taxi industry but could disruptive technology actually have benefit for the general Australian public? Could it even change entrenched attitude?

On the 21st of July, I was riding my bicycle on my daily commute from work to home. Part of my home commute involved riding along Benson St footpath (marked with bicycle symbols) between Archer St and Glen Rd in Toowong. Unlike the now much improved Coronation Dr bikeway, this bicycle-symbol laden footpath is interrupt by no less than half a dozen driveways. During peak hours pedestrians, cyclists and cars (leaving and entering driveways) compete for this narrow footpath. On this day, as I approach one of the many driveways, I was suddenly cut off by car a moving very fast into the driveway that I was about to cross. I jammed hard on my brakes and thank God because I was only inches away from smashing into side of this car. Far from apologising, the driver defiantly asked why I was on the footpath. His wiser wife quickly corrected him and pointed out the bike symbols on the footpath. Initially I was upset that I didn’t see the car’s flashing indicator. Did I pay enough attention? The truth only became apparent when I review the video recorded on my helmet mounted video camera (The Contour Roam3). The driver had driven across three lanes traffic in order drive into the driveway that I was about to cross. Another word there was nothing wrong with my peripheral vision. My camera has a wide angle (170 degrees) lens enabling it to pick up objects outside of my peripheral vision.

In August, I came into contact with Jasmin Lill from Quest Community News. I sent her the youtube link to my video and she interviewed me. Subsequently her article was published in the Westside News. The story also appeared on the Courier Mail facebook page. I was very grateful that my dangerous encounter turned out for the good. I was able to explain to Jasmin the threat those driveways posed to both pedestrians and cyclists alike.  Furthermore the so-called bikeway from the Regatta City Cat terminal to the University of Queensland (St Lucia campus) is both dangerous and difficult to ride for the average university students. The Brisbane City Council Active Transport Chair may claim that most of the distance between the city and St Lucia are covered by off-road facilities. The reality is that a significant portion is either too dangerous or too steep for the average cyclists.

Many of the comments on my youtubevideo are supportive but some still hold on to entrenched bias against cyclists. The irony is that cycling could potentially save Australia’s health care system. Recently University of Queensland researchers found the link between physical activity and chronic health conditions. The researchers recommended the equivalent of about 1.75 hours of running a week is needed to stay healthy. How many of us spend that much time in the gym? And yet, I am already doing close to 5 hours of exercises by simply riding to and from work.

 While the struggle for safe cycling is ongoing. The use of helmet mounted camera is to me the disruptive technology that Australia need to shake up the reckless attitude we have to road safety. In particular, the cyclist finally has the ability to show the hostile and irresponsible attitude that many motorists show towards cyclists. No longer can motorists use aggressive manoeuvre to threaten cyclists. With Gopro style cameras being so widely available such reckless behaviour will be exposed. Past technologies such as speed camera have had little effect on road safety but the combination of helmet-mounted camera, social media as well as technology savvy journalists could be the game changer to improving road safety but the final piece of the puzzle – the authorities need to get on board. As the famous Time Lord (Doctor Who) once said: No one is going to died today!

The politics of blame

Like many Queenslanders, I was shocked when Liberal Party state president Bob Carroll announced last month that he would direct preferences to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation ahead of Labor. But nothing prepared me for the supposed high support that One Nation has in regional areas such as Gympie and Hervey Bay.
One wonders whether regional voters understand what One Nation really stands for and what the true impact on regional Australia would be if its members should gain office.
In September 1996, Hanson shot to fame through her attack on Asian Australians and Australia’s multicultural policy. In her maiden speech to Parliament, she said: ‘Immigration and multiculturalism are issues the Government is trying to address but for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. I and most Australians want our immigration policy reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.’
Like many on the far-right, Hanson and One Nation attack multiculturalism for favouring migrants over ‘ordinary’ Australians and for being divisive.
The previous government has been attacked for having high immigration at a time of high unemployment but the criticism ignores many studies which show that from increasing unemployment, immigration can have a positive effect on employment opportunities.
One has to look no further than Gympie for record unemployment rates, particularly among the young Gympie’s high support of One Nation implies that the residents have swallowed the line that migrants and multiculturalism are the cause of all their problems.
What right-wing groups such as One Nation have failed to explain to voters is the true reason for their suffering. Are Asian immigrants to be blamed for the closure of the local bank, Australia Post, employment agency or Medicare office? Are Asian immigrants behind the conservative Government’s competition policies, which have seen the downsizing of government services?
The pain caused by globalisation cannot be solved by attacks on immigrants and yet it seems that John Howard’s government has been rather slow to defend minority groups such as Australians of Asian background. Could it be that Howard’s government hopes it can continue its conservative policies unhindered while the immigrant community bears the blame for Australia’s unemployed?
Professor James Jupp of the Australian National University listed the dimensions of multiculturalism as:

• The right of all Australians to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion.
• The right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, gender or place of birth.
• The need to maintain, develop and utilise effectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless of background.

Multiculturalism is limited in that it is based on the premise that all Australians should have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia’s interests and future and requires all Australians to accept the basic structures and principles of Australian society.
It also imposes obligations as well as conferring rights - the right to express one’s own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the rights of others to express their views and values. Hanson ignores such principles and makes a simple-minded comparison to Ireland and Bosnia as reasons for opposing a multicultural Australia.
The residents of Gympie, Hervey Bay and other regional areas must ask themselves whether attacking Australians of Asian background is the only policy that One Nation has for countering the effect of globalisation and whether attacking Australians of Asian background will solve Gympie’s unemployment.
Voters should be aware that the politics of blame is far more divisive than any policy currently in place, spreading swiftly to all sections of the community. Arguments which separate Australians and pit them against one another can have terrible results.
Without the migrant community, One Nation will simply exploit the division between urban and regional Australia, which could result in urban Australians turning against regional communities because of misconceived notions of wealth and mismanagement within farming and regional communities.
The resounding vote for peace in Northern Ireland shows that even once bitter enemies, the Catholics and the Protestants, can live together. If there can be unity in Northern Ireland, why not in Australia?

Published in The Courier Mail, 27th May 1998

by Anthony Lee Australian Democrats (Asian) candidate for the state seat of South Brisbane.

 Anzac Sacrifice or Go Our Own Way

Lately carmakers have realised that they could entice us to buy their product if they can connect their brand with musical hits by famous bands like Fleetwood Mac. In 2015, Isuzu UTE Australia associated their Ute with Fleetwood Mac 1977 hit “Go Your Own Way”. Just like many recent 4-wheel drive advertisements, Isuzu wants us to associate their Ute with “our own way”. Only with an Isuzu can you really go your own way! The irony is that lyrics of “Go Your Own Way” were really about the souring of the relationship between of two band members. Somehow Australians in the 21^st century seem to place personal freedom and personal enjoyment at or near the top of our lives. The endless footage of similar 4-wheel drive advertisements lends weight to this observation.

As we approach ANZAC Day and the remembrance of veterans who sacrificed their lives for their comrades we have to ask ourselves what is more important. Is it self-sacrifice? Is it personal freedom and personal enjoyment? There is no doubt that ANZAC Day is important to the vast majority of Australians. It is certainly more than just a holiday. The spirit of self-sacrifice and mateship really does define our nation. But does self-sacrifice only have significance on the battlefield? Is it only significant at times of natural disasters? When one use terms such as “spirit of self-sacrifice” and “national identity”, they seem to be such esoteric subjects. However a recent RACQ commissioned research (“Road Karma” Road Ahead April/May 2016) shows that even a little self-sacrifice may actually have significant impact on our health. The study shows that aggressive driving behaviour (when we assert our own way – to get ahead) can lead to short and long term negative health effects for the initiators and recipients. Conversely friendly driving behaviour must surely be better for all concerned. If something as mundane as driving (nevertheless road safety is an important issue) can benefit from a little self-sacrifice then isn’t that more reason why we need to consider that going “our own way” may not always be the best for ourselves and those around us.

Beyond the daily issues of driving and the lofty question of our national identity, there are a whole host of related issues like domestic violence and mental health. We do need to re-balance the self and the community. Are we putting the wrong message on social media or even the traditional media? What is good for shareholders of car companies may not be so good for the community.  When we extend this from Australia to the world the same principles do apply. Our World War One veterans are no longer with us and our World War Two veterans are also disappearing from our mist. Are we starting to forget the horrors wars? The horrors of ISIS no longer shock us and it seems we are starting to think that the terror at Martin Place will not happen to us. And yet the United Nation is ever weaker and unable to rein in nations like Russia and China. No one is willing to sacrifice just a little of their economy to arrest the havoc of climate change. In such uncertain times, perhaps nations also need to think more of the world and also ask their people to do some self-sacrifice.

Australians might know about the ANZACs but what about the rest of the world? Can we bring a model of this ANZAC spirit to a world of many different cultures? Australia is in a great position to introduce this ANZAC spirit because we have an Anglo-Saxon heritage and yet in geographic proximity to Asia. This is reflected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics finding that 28% of Australians are born overseas. The difficulty is how we overcome the many barriers that separate us? How can we be more inclusive so that we can really shine not only as a nation of natural resources but also as a nation where the ANZAC spirit is celebrated by all our cultures? Is this an impossible dream? Perhaps not, the solution actually may lie in a part of our tradition that has been significantly side-lined. For many decades Australians have been leaving the suburban churches. Many have been hurt by supposed Christians who abused children. And yet a new breed of churches is appearing in our midst. They are not Anglican. They are not Greek Orthodox. Instead churches like Parkside Sydney and International City Church Brisbane have up to 50 cultures all sharing together. In an Australia where personal enjoyment is pushing us apart, there are alternatives like these multicultural churches that show it is possible to have inclusive communities that embrace all people and that might make the ANZAC spirit shine in an otherwise broken world.

Radicalization Prevention – How?

The Immigration Minister Peter Dutton sure has a sense of humour. According to a recent report form the ABC[1] his department is considering enhanced refugee assessment and the monitoring of migrants after they're granted citizenship. Is this a response to recent terror attacks in Beirut, Paris and Jakarta? While Australian security and intelligence agencies have done their utmost to prevent similar attacks in Australia, the death of Curtis Cheng at the hand of a radicalized Sydney teenager Farhad Jabar shows just how much more work need to be done. How exactly does Minister Dutton decide who to monitor? The failure of the Arab Spring had led to the collapse of Libya and Syria. The pace of events is such that the world has been caught flat-footed and not ready for the barbarity of Daesh (ISIS). Our understanding of the world has been turned on its head. Farhad Jabar is of Iraqi Kurd descent, the very group of people who are the victims of Daesh (ISIS). Logically Farhad Jabar should not be your typical Daesh follower. Furthermore the very notions of enhanced citizenship tests invoke memories of the White Australia policy. The monitoring of new Australian citizens has questionable value. Rather than integrating these new Australians such monitoring could alienate them and push them into the hands of terror groups.  

In order to prevent radicalization, we need to know what attracts people like Farhad Jabar to Daesh. In the report on the 2015 anti-Charlie-Hebdo protest (Lakemba, Sydney): SBS highlighted the organiser’s (Hizb ut-Tahrir) attack on Freedom. Sofyan Badar (Hizb ut-Tahrir’s spokesman)[2] said:

“Freedom is the smokescreen with which Western politicians and media conceal the underlying issues.

“In reality free speech is one of the many political tools that are used to maintain dominance over the Muslims.”

I suggest that free speech is not the main issue. Rather Badar’s central accusation is that Christians and Jews have compromised their faith. Badar said:

“Unlike Christianity and Judahism, which has given into the secular worldview, Islam and Muslims have refused to accept this worldview.”

Badar wants to argue that only Muslims are righteous in God’s eyes. Badar is right about the West being secular but he is dead wrong about our sense of righteousness. Yes the West is secular but our Judeo-Christian heritage so permeate our history that even the most ardent of Western atheists find themselves regularly exercising Judeo-Christian righteousness.

In what ways does the Judeo-Christian culture manifest itself in the secular West? I can think of at least two. Firstly it is inherent in the Australian values of “a fair go” and “mateship” and secondly even in the way we swear.

In the 2005 Boyer lecturer, former bishop of Sydney Dr Peter Jensen lamented how the four highly educated authors of the book “Imagining Australia: Ideas for the Future” did not even know standard Bible quotes. They wrote: 'The modern fair go demands that we should do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves'. Ironically the words 'do unto others' comes from the King James Version of the Bible. In the program Doctor Who, the Doctor uses a perception filter to enable him to stand in the midst of his enemies and yet not be noticed. The aliens just do not perceive his presence. In the same way Jesus permeates our society but we are not aware of him and we do not know him. The many fake Jesus: From David Koresh[3] to Alan John Miller and Mary Suzanne Luck[4] just reinforce our lack of knowledge about the real Jesus.

In “What is swearing?”[5] Annelise Parsons listed many kinds of swearing such as abusive swearing, cursing, profanity, swearing for emphasis, blasphemy, euphemistic swearing and so on. Parsons said what is acceptable can change over time and can vary across cultures. In Australia we use “Jesus” as a swear word. Whereas in Cantonese, “go trip over in the street and die” (literal English translation) is, strangely, a swear phrase. But seriously, I have never heard any Buddhist using “Budda” to swear so why do we say OMG or “Jesus” when we swear? Could it be that the Jesus-perception filter is working so well that we no longer recognise the 10 commandments? Yet its unacceptability is so ingrain into our culture that many of us still have unease when “Jesus” is uttered with disdain – even when we are not church goers.

But even if we accept the pervasiveness of Jesus in our culture, how does that help us to stop the radicalization of young people like Farhad Jabar? Rather than asking for an immediate solution perhaps we need to look at the bigger picture. Right from the start of British colonisation of Australia we have inflicted alcohol and disease on our Aboriginal. In recent times, we have seen the rampant rise of not only alcohol consumption but also alcohol related violence. If the loss of culture can wreck such devastation on our Aboriginal think what it can do to us. Think what it can do to new refugee families. Could this loss of culture also be the cause of corruption and abuse with even the Church itself?

In a public interviewed the author Tim Keller argued that prophetic individuals like Martin Luther King Junior, when facing racial oppression, did not abandon their faith. Instead, Keller suggested that like the Old Testament prophets and Jesus, King’s answer was to call on Christians to return to their Christian roots. Similarly men like John Wesley, in the face of moral degradation, returned to Christ. His action further encouraged William Wilberforce to end the slave trade.

Rather than shallow and short term actions to counter radicalization, is it time we look deeper into the Australian culture and ask whether it is time to turn back to our Christian roots? And in this way we can give meaning to young people like Farhad Jabar.

---

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/leaked-document-outlines-changes-to-migration/7140952

[2] 'Je suis Muslim': 800 at Lakemba protest - http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/01/23/hundreds-pro-islam-rally-sydney

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

[4] http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/jesus-and-mary-cult-followers-buy-up-land-around-kingaroy/story-e6freoof-1226055912664

[5] https://www.afes.org.au/article/what-swearing

Safe Cycling - a continual struggle

A couple of days ago I received a phone call from research company wanting to ask me questions about the Coronation Drive bikeway upgrade (Bicentennial bikeway upgrade). Twenty years ago I started taking up cycling. I even did some racing with UQ Cycling club. Around that time I started working for a major electricity distribution company in the centre of Brisbane CBD. This meant cycling 20km to and from work every day. I soon realised that cycling in Brisbane can be dangerous. A cyclist (see article below) was killed cycling along the original Coronation Drive bikeway. The Internet had only started to be popular. After many messages, the word got around and probably the first even mass bicycle ride in Brisbane rode from Toowong to Brisbane's CBD to protest over the safety situation of the Coronation Drive bikeway. So never take the now safe Coronation Drive bikeway for granted. It cost at least the life of one cyclist before the authorities took notice. Cycling is a great way to travel and why should it be relegated by large car manufacturers?

A fair-go is the answer to IS

Given the massive military operation undertaken by a coalition of countries to defeat the Islamic State (IS), one would think that the war against IS has already been won and Iraq restored. Alias no, U.S. officials conceded that Islamic State fighters still control large parts of northern (including the major city Mosul) and western Iraq (“U.S., Iraq Prepare Offensive to Retake Mosul From Islamic State” the Wall Street Journal 22/1/2015). More importantly, the counter-insurgency analyst David Kilcullen (“Remote Control Terror” The Weekend Australian 17-18/1/2015) wrote:

“Finally, it should be clear that there’s no magic bullet here: no technological fix,  … that can protect society from this threat (terrorism). … We need new approaches, designed to break the escalatory cycle of threats and counter measures seen since 9/11. ..” But I believe Kilcullen’s real message is that the front-line of the battle against modern terrorism is neither on the battlefield nor the Internet because Kilcullen went on to write:

“It might also involve a debate on ways to detect and intervene in the radicalisation pathways of at-risks individuals …”

Clearly the International community needs to do more to address why seemingly rational individuals (and even Western educated youths) are being radicalised (“Drop the idea of the lone wolf as a madman: most terrorists think rationally” The Weekend Australian 24-25/1/2015). The problem of radicalisation is further highlighted by the fact that young Australians, in spite of massive Australian government effort, continue to be attracted to IS.

The problem of IS has its root in history. The backlash over the invasion of Iraq (supposedly to rid Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction) and the Syrian Civil War created the prefect condition for the rise of IS. However even before the appearance of IS in 2014, Australia has already have de-radicalisation programs (“Investing in Mentoring and Educational Initiatives:The Limits of De-Radicalisation Programmes in Australia” Shahram Akbarzadeh  Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs Vol. 33, Iss. 4, 2013). Researchers such Dr Clark Jones (“Terrorists can be turned around - here's how” ABC The Drum) also advocate de-radicalisation programs.  If de-radicalisation programs have worked why then does the secular West continue to bleed their youths to the IS cause?  Henry Ergas (“Islamists cannot be permitted to abuse our tradition of tolerance” The Australian 26/1/2015) on the other hand argued that it is “… impossible to lull the intolerant into tolerance …” and therefore “… no Islamist should qualify for Australian residence or citizenship. “ But must Australia’s or even the rest of the Western world be forever polarised between the liberal left and the conservative right? Should we perhaps first ask the Islamists what is it they are riling against? The answer to this question can be found in the media reports on the Anti-Charlie-Hebdo protest at Lakemba on the 23/1/2015. It is interesting that both Associated Press and SBS chose to highlight the organiser’s (Hizb ut-Tahrir) attack on the Freedom of Speech.  At the protest Sofyan Badar from Hizb ut-Tahrir argued that Free Speech is a smoke screen for Western politicians and media to hide the underlying issues.  He further suggested that the West use Free Speech to maintain dominance over Muslims. The idea of the alienated youth is clear but the media completely missed the earlier part of his speech where Badar accuses Christians and Judaism of compromising their beliefs with secularism. Presumably Badar is suggesting that only Muslims (Sunnis? Shiites??, others???) are true believers. So while Muslims argued that it is wrong denigrate the prophet Mohammed but is Badar suggesting that it is OK to denigrate other religions? At the very least his comments show a complete lack of understanding of the Christian faith.  In the Gospel of John, just before Jesus execution on the cross, Jesus explicitly stated “My kingdom is not of this world.” Christians do not need to live in a theocracy. Christians believe that the Good News Jesus Christ is spread by reasoning and love rather than through the threat of violence.  That is not a compromise to secularism rather it is a realisation that God is love.   

Finally Ergas rightly pointed out that the founders of the Australian constitution ensure that Australia is religiously diverse, not favouring one faith or denomination over any other. However Ergas is wrong to suggest that we are to practice our faith privately. No, because this is exactly what Badar riled against. For too long Australians, whether they are secular, Christians and other faiths have been silent on justice and righteousness issues. Australian Christians, in particular, need to stand up when asylum seekers are being denied justice. Australian Christians need to stand beside Australian Muslims when they are being attacked for living out their faith.  After all, our Lord Jesus himself calls on us to “seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness”.  Australians have taken the lucky country for granted, failing to realise we must continue to uphold the Fair-Go idealism. Interestingly, the Fair-Go idealism has its root in the Good News of Jesus Christ.  Perhaps it is time for all Australians (Christians and non-Christians) to revisit Peter Jensen 2005 Boyer Lecture (The Future of Jesus http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/boyerlectures/the-future-of-jesus/3339436) to see how much our contemporary Australian culture is rooted in Jesus because on this Australia Day we need to realise that a fair-go is for all Australians.