At the Brisbane Writer's Festival a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting Ben McKenzie, and we established early on that we were both Doctor Who fans and self confessed nerds!
To celebrate the occasion we had a lovely chat about it, and it was made into this podcast for the "Splendid Chaps" program Ben runs, celebrating 50 years of the Tardis...
Listen here! (My section starts at 12:38 seconds in)
Well, in three weeks time in front of a live audience and a BBC viewership of 70 million, I will be arguing against the hypothesis that God and His Prophets should be protected against insult at the Intelligence Sqaured Debate in Sydney on the 7th of November.
To be honest, it is a slighty scary prospect, mostly because...
1. This is a pretty nuanced issue, and can be pretty well misconstrued;
2. I imagine many in the Muslim community feel that in fact God and His Prophets should be protected against insult and will see my taking this position as an insult to Islam (!)
3. It is probably the largest audience I have had the humbling honour of speaking to!!!
At the end of the day, I am no Islamic scholar and speak about this issue as purely an interested individual and a Muslim woman who feels a sense of shame every time there are riots and people are killed because of a set of cartoons or an amateur video. We should be better than this!
I feel I should mention that my taking this position does not mean I do not feel that Allah and his beloved Prophet Mohammed (SAW) are not sacred and revered. This is about our actions in this world rather than debating the sanctity of who we worship per se...
Alas! I am getting ahead of myself. I am working on my angle at the moment, and would love to hear your thoughts on the matter... what do YOU think?
Maybe you can watch it?
This post appeared a little while ago on the SBS Online blog, check it out! :D
I like to think of it as a detox for the soul. Ramadan is the 9th month in the Islamic lunar calendar, and to fast during Ramadan is the fourth pillar of the five pillars of Islam. It's a month that's celebrated and venerated by Muslims worldwide.
Historically, Ramadan is the month where the first verses of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon him). It is a time of spiritual reflection for all Muslims, it's about self discipline, restraint and empathy. Fasting is merely a physical form of restraint; Muslims are also encouraged to guard their speech, actions and thoughts from engaging in 'despicable acts'.
Fasting also allows us as Muslims to understand the plights of those less fortunate than ourselves and become more appreciative of the blessings we have. It's an opportunity to focus on our actions and spirituality, almost like a 'refresh' for your beliefs.
The month brings people together, across cultural, political and ethnic divides. We are encouraged to forgive and seek forgiveness of others and in doing so build bonds that will continue when the fasting ends. Even the 'Iftar' (breaking of the fast at sunset) provides a platform for sharing and a peaceful tranquillity.
Over the 28 or 29 days, good deeds are rewarded many times over, and the gates of Paradise are open, while the gates of Hell are closed. What better time to reorganise your spiritual affairs?
SOLITARY REFLECTION
This Ramadan, I find myself out in the field, working as an oil and gas engineer in regional Australia, with no-one on the rig quite understanding the ritual. It feels strange, not having iftar with the family and heading to the mosque to pray 'Taraweeh', the additional nightly prayers that one can take part in during Ramadan.
It is however, an opportunity to be more mindful about my fast, reflect and pray, away from the distractions of everyday life.
I do small things in my own way to make the month special; buying dates to break my fast with as is tradition, playing Quraan in my room when I'm off-shift, waking up early to lay out the praying mat my mother bought me and pray before the light turns. It isn't the same of course, as being with my family and the community; the shared experience of fasting is absent and the men on the rig generally find it 'crazy'.
"Why would you do that?" they tend to ask, when I explain the reasons I am not having lunch or rehydrating. "It sounds crazy. I'd never do that. Doesn't sound very good for you either."
One or two, will ask for more details. "So what is the point of it?", after which I explain the importance of being grateful, of self-discipline. Some do understand, particularly those who have their own religious identity and it is nice to be able to share the tranquillity that fasting brings.
We are lucky in Australia though, because at the moment the days are short. I imagine it will be quite different on the rigs when Ramadan moves to the summer months.
Perhaps night shift might be the best option!
***
Triple J kindly did a story on this as well, which you can listen to here (language warning!!)
The piece was originally posted on SBS News Online!
Since the announcement of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's one-woman cabinet, the discussion around quotas and representation of women in levels of influence has been rekindled with passion. Both sides of the debate have defended their position with vehement enthusiasm.
"Oh, I am all for equal and fair representation of women - but quotas? No, I want women based on merit", is the most common argument.
Women themselves - even those who would be in a position to benefit - seem particularly sensitised to this argument. They'll shy away from being given an 'unfair advantage' or reject it outright, presumably in the belief that to do otherwise would be to affect their perceived legitimacy.
Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop is a strong opponent of quotas. ''I never want to see affirmative action - that is, you got the job because you were a woman - because that makes you a permanent second-class citizen,'' she says. Her fellow Member of Parliament, Julie Bishop, shares this sentiment.
The discussion around targets, quotas or affirmative action is extremely polarising, yet the underlying question seems to be unclear. What exactly is it that we are trying to achieve - and why? If quotas are not the answer, what is?
If "more women in leadership positions" is the overall aim, then the data from around the world proves that the concept of affirmative action appears to be working.
Norway is touted as the classic global example, having introduced a mandatory quota for women on boards in 2002 and passed by the Norwegian parliament in 2003. In this Scandinavian nation, the percentage of women on boards did in fact increase from 9% in 2003 to 39% in 2009. The first study on the effects of the quota was undertaken by the Norwegian Institute for Social Research and the results reinforced the benefit of affirmative action on the 'bigger picture'. It was reported that the majority of directors surveyed indicated that more women on the board led to new perspectives and more issues being added to the board agenda. A seeming win-win situation, right?
But if the aim is about promoting those with this intangible and extremely subjective criteria of 'merit' - well, perhaps our society's entire process of promotion needs an overhaul!
In pure numbers, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that women have the edge on their male counterparts in Bachelor degrees and higher qualifications. 27 per cent of women compared to 24 per cent of men hold these type of tertiary degrees. If we are looking at entry requirements for merit, wouldn't these numbers reflect an even - or even female oriented - outcome? Understandably, leadership positions aren't just based on degrees. Industry and management experience and networks play a significant role, as well as the fact that often women take time off work to raise families. But if we are talking about 'merit', qualifications are surely an indicator.
If society functions by promoting, hiring and being led by the best, why do all our 'best' look so similar at the top - but things work so differently at the bottom? The difference between entry points is striking.
The Australian Financial Review's 100 Women of Influence, for example, is a list of some of the most inspiring ladies around the country. Yet the significant contribution and capacity of women doesn't seem to leave the impression that it should. Whether this is because we, as females are predisposed to more nurturing roles, or whether this is because people hire and promote those who are like them is up for debate - but it remains a thorn in our sides.
Jane Caro asks some of these questions in a timely piece, where she also highlights that the idea of quotas and targets are not new and they continue to be utilised for a variety of representations. It would be inconceivable for a regional representative or a youth representative for example, to refuse a position solely because they were selected on the basis of location or age.
Why is gender different? What makes us all so uncomfortable with forced structural change around gender? I struggle to understand the deep seated resentment against the idea. Is there a sense of illegitimacy if a woman feels like she is only there to 'fill in a quota' and if so, where does that sense of illegitimacy come from?
I am not a social engineer and don't have the answer. I am simply a 22-year-old who wonders: is inducing change to have women around the cabinet table and in the boardroom the best way to achieve our collective desired outcome? Quite possibly yes - if the aim is for our leadership and the pipelines to these positions to be fair, equitable and representative.
By equity and fairness, I mean that the characteristic of gender is not an obstacle to being considered, and that a woman's capacity is readily identifable. Of course, removing unconscious bias is easier said than done. By representative, I mean that our leadership reflects the makeup of those being led. Given a majority of our population is women, a largely male dominated leadership is not really representative at all.
One thing is for sure : affirmative action makes the talents of women more visible. It is a mechanism to force people to look outside the usual traps for talent, and that is what gives the concept potential.
Philosophically, we might not feel comfortable with it - but if the aim is to have our leadership as diverse as our population, perhaps the end justifies the means.
I stare into my bowl, the steam slightly clouding my glasses.
'Should have just gone with the beef tepanyaki'...my mind wanders.
***
I enjoy taking a punt on foods and eating things that I don't recognise (as long as they are Halal!). It keeps life interesting and I've had some great experiences and well, some not so good ones.
This was shaping up to be a 'not-so-bad-but-should-have-gone-with-something-else' category.
I'm sitting at an 'authentic' tepanyaki house, if by authentic it means frequented by locals and staffed by people who look like they know what they're doing.
It is in a mall in Kuala Lampur though, so I am not sure how 'authentic' it can be called really, in the grand scheme of things. 10 meters away from this step into another world is a Burger King. The magic of globalisation...
***
It was the first non-franchised chain I had come across in the mall and seeing I was running out of Rinngets in cash and didn't want to exchange any more money the prices were relatively reasonable I stopped and looked at the menu.
Beef Tepanyaki - something I'd never had but was always curious about, 12.90 RM. Sukiyaki, a dish I had never heard of with an interesting looking picture in a pot, 10.90 RM.
Ah, the bottom-line wins! Sukiyaki it is!
I mumbled to the man standing at the entrance, he nodded, ticked a box on a paper and handed me the slip.
I stood there, waiting and looked expectantly.
He gestured again, slightly impatiently. I ventured into the restaurant, bumped into a lady holding hot tea - sorry! ah, terimakasi! - and sat on an empty stool, one of the many at the large oval table surrounding the cooking surface in the middle. I placed my paper in front of me, hoping that was the right thing to do. Do I talk to someone? Who knows. Let's just look at what everyone else does...
***
Eventually a chef walks into center of the oval, looks at my sheet of paper, looks at the paper of those sitting next to me, yells a few things at the kitchen behind the counter, and begins cooking.
Ah! The fluidity of the movement! The gestured flippancy in the applications of herbs and spices as if he was merely miming how to put a dish together. I am mesmerised.
He isn't cooking for me though. My pot comes out after a wait, steaming, and definitely not what I expected. It is a bowl, hotter than hot, with at least three servings of broth, random eggs and bits of protein and full of thin, clear noddles that prove to have a very low friction factor.
I struggle slightly, sure that all the staff are secretly sniggering at my balancing attempting to balance a ladle with chopsticks, eating with the right hand and attempting not to splash myself. Such self indulgence, to think everyone is paying enough attention to be laughing at you.
So vain! I mentally kick myself and return my attention to tackling the enormous portion.
A family comes in; mother , father and son, and sit near me on the oval table. They stare at my pot; perhaps I have ordered a family size my accident? I suddenly feel self conscious and clumsy.
***
Having gotten the hang of the noodles and tackled the bits of chicken in the soup, I am left with copious noodles and...a prawn. With the head, tail and shell intact.
This was something I hadn't prepared for. I am yet to see anyone use their hands to peel a prawn, and I don't want to make a mess.
How do you peel a prawn with chopsticks?
I try to spear it with my chopsticks unsuccessfully.
Attempting to remove the head with my ladle isn't successful either.
I end up with a chopstick in each hand, attempting to leverage the shell off. The father sitting opposite me observes me with a strange expression. The wife and son then begin watching the battle in turn...
For the first time in my life, I have a question that I am too embarrassed to ask. How was I expected to eat this prawn?
***
I arrange the chopsticks and ladle neatly next to the half finished pot and scurried to the counter to pay.
The prawn lies in the black pot, its head slightly peeking above the surface of the broth.
Prawn, you may have won this battle...
***
On the taxi ride to airport I ask the driver what he would do.
"No idea! I would probably use my hands. I am not very good with chopsticks..."
Instead of switching on the telly when I got home (post the Brisbane Writers' Festival Great Debate which was much fun...) I flipped my laptop screen open and basked in the cool light of my facebook newsfeed.
Oh the woe.
But then the thought: If almost everyone I know is upset by the election results as per my newsfeed, who on earth voted for Tony Abbott?
(Correction. Who voted for the LNP? Such presidential style language. A political party is a party is a party not a person).
Curious. I think I saw only one congratulatory status update. It could have been because all the LNP supporters were hitting the town in celebration and excitement, but the following few days saw little change in the tone of my feed (with occasional bursts about Syria).
It reminded me of the book published a few years back: "The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is hiding from You", which talks about the Google and Facebook algorithms that 'personalise' what you see in search results.
The synopsis paints a dystopian picture.
[box] Though the phenomenon has gone largely undetected until now, personalized filters are sweeping the Web, creating individual universes of information for each of us. Facebook-the primary news source for an increasing number of Americans-prioritizes the links it believes will appeal to you so that if you are a liberal, you can expect to see only progressive links. Even an old-media bastion like The Washington Post devotes the top of its home page to a news feed with the links your Facebook friends are sharing. Behind the scenes a burgeoning industry of data companies is tracking your personal information to sell to advertisers, from your political leanings to the color you painted your living room to the hiking boots you just browsed on Zappos. In a personalized world, we will increasingly be typed and fed only news that is pleasant, familiar, and confirms our beliefs-and because these filters are invisible, we won't know what is being hidden from us. Our past interests will determine what we are exposed to in the future, leaving less room for the unexpected encounters that spark creativity, innovation, and the democratic exchange of ideas.[/box]
Is it really that bad? Should we be scared? Digging a little deeper, it would seem that the Facebook PR machine has been doing a little work of its own to combat this image, publishing a study that disputes this claim.
But on this I am...undecided. What is it that we are arguing exactly? That the 'online echo chamber' doesn't exist, or arguing about the effects of personalisation on creating such a 'chamber'?
Well, the personalisation exists, there is no question. What effect is this having? Well...
Facebook's research concludes:
[box] Although we’re more likely to share information from our close friends, we still share stuff from our weak ties—and the links from those weak ties are the most novel links on the network. Those links from our weak ties, that is, are most likely to point to information that you would not have shared if you hadn’t seen it on Facebook. [/box]
This links to the concept of EdgeRank (Facebook's algorithm for its newsfeed) . As I understand, it says it doesn't matter how close you are to people in real life, what appears on your feed is what you interact with - whether they are 'strong' or 'weak' ties. Because we share things from our 'weak' ties, it means this is likely to be information we wouldn't have accessed any other way. Therefore, they are saying that in fact, the newsfeed system actually diversifies what you see.
I would recommend reading this slate article, which is a good summary of the research and findings. I tend to the opinion that it isn't as fabulous a result as it is painted to be. Although both strong and weak ties are sources of information, it would seem likely that weak ties would also include those who largely share ideologies...
Regardless of what the research says though, something doesn't feel right.
Yes, it is great that my friends seem to share my ideologies (judging by what I see/read on facebook for example), but the fact that rarely are widely differing ideologies presented (or any that seem to reflect a popular ideology outside my immediate circles) seems disingenuous. There might be other answers. Perhaps my strong and weak ties are by and large young people who have similar concerns on the whole or those who don't share my opinions don't spend their time on facebook, or I don't actively spend my time interacting with perspectives/videos/links outside my ideologies so I don't get shown these on my newsfeed...
The question then becomes, how do I make sure that I don't fall into the trap of group think? Punters have talked about the narrowing of perspectives that is caused by a possible filter bubble, but what concerns me more is the increased likelihood of 'willful blindness'.
If everyone around you agrees or shares a similar world view, how will you be exposed to 'disruptive' views?
It is reminiscent of the story of a scientist whose partner's sole job was to disprove her theories and find the flaws until the theory was solid and foolproof. Only then did they publish the work.
It is so important for us to actively listen to opposing views and try to understand where they are coming from, right? Isn't that the way we will truly broaden our scopes and try to bridge those chasms? Otherwise we are just looking at shades of the same primary colour, forgetting there are two other colours out there...
The Quraan says:
[box] O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. (49:13) [/box]
We are all different, but ultimately human. Getting to know each other is part of the deal.
What do you think?
Originally written for Westpac's Ruby Connection
'Everybody else was doing it'...
That was the first answer that popped into my head when asked by my parents why, at the ripe old age of 10, I had decided to don the hijab. The first answer, but definitely not the whole story…
***
The hijab is an Islamic head covering and an all-round code of dress that encourages modesty and self respect. A simple piece of fabric and a mindset perhaps, but one that carries connotations and political ramifications beyond what I understood at the time. It is now, 12 years on, it is an irremovable part of my identity and expression as a Muslim, but the decision to wear it is something that is constantly under question.
***
As I attended the local Islamic primary school at the time, the hijab was part of my school uniform. It wasn’t therefore a huge jump; I was already a part-time ‘hijabi’ and this was my conversion to full time. It was the year 2001, and the date I chose for my conversion was November the 10th. Why? It was the federal election, and I wanted to choose an auspicious date just in case I forgot. Forward thinking, always!
I walked to the house door wearing a huge white scarf, wrapped clumsily around my head and shoulders, pinned at the base of my neck. I distinctly remember my father looking at me with slight concern and asking,
“Are you sure you want to do this? This is it?”
“Yes, yes, I am sure”. Off I went…
What I didn’t realise at the time of course, was that I had chosen to wear the hijab in a politically charged environment. It was only a few months after September 11 and Muslims were now sharply visible and constantly in the media. However, wearing the hijab for my 10 year old self wasn’t about political statement or being forced into following a cultural expectation. I believed I had come of age and it was time for me to wear the scarf! Other girls might have wanted to start wearing makeup out or be allowed to date as a way of ‘growing up’; I chose to cover myself.
***
Why? Why do you do it, people ask. Doesn’t the concept oppress women? Don’t you miss the wind in your hair? Don’t you miss wearing a bikini to a beach?
To be perfectly honest, I don’t think I understood the full implications and reasons behind the concept when I made the decision, however I have settled into it with heartfelt conviction.
***
The concept of the hijab is cushioned in the value of modesty and of personal freedom. It means something different to each individual who wears it, that is certain.
For me personally, the hijab is about being judged for who I am rather than what I look like. There is extraordinary freedom in that, especially in a society where a woman’s looks, physicality and beauty are of such ‘importance’.
It is about being visible and proudly so, of my religion and what it stands for.
It is about saving my body and its womanly ways for those who I choose to see it (i.e. the eventual husband! Women, children and family are also allowed the hijab-less experience. The idea is to be covered from those who are marriageable).
That is not to say that those who don’t wear the hijab or choose to interpret it differently are any lesser, let me make that point clear. We tend to get very defensive about personal choices such as dress. I have respect for every woman’s choice, and that respect is the basis of all interaction. This is just how I choose to express myself.
***
Yes, some versions of hijab, such as the Burqa, are used as tools of oppression and invisibility in places such as Afghanistan. However, this is not the case around the world! Particularly in the West, those who choose to wear the hijab are most often following a personal choice and conviction. For some, it is their way of becoming closer to God (Allah), forgoing the material obsessions of this world. For others, it is about public expression as a Muslim. The reasons are as many and as varied as the women themselves.
In fact, the concept of wanting to ‘free’ the ‘oppressed’ covered woman is insulting to the personal choice being made. It is presumptuous; assuming that one idea of freedom of expression is socially acceptable. If it strays from such a path, it clearly must be backward and oppressive, right?
Women do not give up their voice and their thoughts when they choose to wear the hijab.
In fact, part of its intention was to give woman more agency and capacity to interact in a society, taking out the judgement of beauty.
I personally find it freeing, and it allows me to be more creative with my outfits!
***
So when you ask if me and my hijabi sisters are oppressed, I’ll likely just cock my eyebrow at you.
Who was it that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011? Three women, all who were covered when they received their awards.
That’s what I thought.
Let’s move away from the conversation of being ‘saved’. There are thousands of more constructive dialectics to be had – ones were hijabed women are partners rather than mere silent victims.
Isn’t it ironic that in the very act of ‘saving’ women from oppression silences them?
This is the second half of this piece: Check out Part 1 here.
***
As an asylum seeker who has arrived by boat to Australia, under either the Labour or Coalition, you will be treated as a second class asylum seeker, be discriminated against due to your mode of arrival, possibly be settled in a third world nation without the infrastructure to support you OR be allowed into Australia but only on a temporary basis, until you can be sent back.
WHY does this policy standpoint seem to work? The arguments used by voters include:
Mate, there is no queue. If that doesn't answer the question, let's look at reasons people decide to jump on a boat.
Problem 1 - Difficult access to UNHCR processing locations. In some cases, like those from North and East Sri Lanka, the only place where you can apply for refugee status via the UNHCR is in Colombo, down in the South and in the heartland of the 'enemy'. The number of checkpoints between where the refugees are coming from and where the UNCHR processing location is means that more likely than not, you won't make it through. What is your other option? Jump on a boat somewhere and try your luck.
Problem 2 - No camp nearby. The UNCHR has a number of refugee camps and processing locations around the world. However, if you are in a situation where a camp is inaccessible, or worse, you find one and it is full, where do you go?
Problem 3 - The length of wait to be resettled. This is one of the wedge issues. If the average wait in a refugee camp is 17 years, does it not make sense that individuals will try other options to start their life? Yes, there are those that go through the system, wait in a camp and get duly processed. It is pure folly to believe though that everyone has equal access to the UNHCR's processing pathway. If there is an option - no matter how dangerous - that means you may be accepted into a nation in a shorter period of time, that option will be taken.
This is an aspect of the issues that requires a concerted international or regional effort to tackle. It is a major factor which means that if resolved, or even partly so, asylum seekers will not have the same incentive to risk their life by jumping on a boat. They will have belief in the system and will wait - if they believe the system works. This can be done by substantially increasing the capacity of the UNHCR to allow them to process individuals at a much faster rate, something Australia can work on.
Both of these countries are not signatories to the UN Convention and as such, offer no rights and protection to asylum seekers and refugees. This means that they live on the edge of civilisation, unable to work or educate themselves and their families and in the constant fear of detection and persecution. This lifestyle is simply unsustainable. Many are often recognised refugees and are simply waiting to be resettled, however, it can take them up to 20 or 30 years to be resettled into a third country.
Burnside says it best here.
"Border protection" is a grossly misleading term, used by both major parties. It implies that boat people are a threat to us. They are not. We do not need to be protected from asylum seekers: they need to be protected from their persecutors.
We need to stop this defensive, exclusionary discourse that implies this is an issue of national security. If it were, it would be under the Department of Defence. It isn't. It is under the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Which means it is an issue of immigration!
Some say that if the refugees were white, this wouldn't be a problem, alluding to this issue targeting the xenophobic vote. This is true, to a certain extent. Interestingly,
***
There is no doubt there are people who will try to rort the system, individuals who take advantage of kindness.
However, this should NOT dictate our behaviour as a nation.
If we want to be world leaders, if we want to play a part in the region as part of the 'Asian Century', we have to show that we are willing to take our share of an international situation that isn't going anywhere.
***
At the end of the day, the attitude towards refugees and asylum seekers in this country may be deemed as legal, technically. It may be deemed as politically savvy, for winning votes in this election.
However, at the end of the day, there is no way it can be deemed as fair, just or morally correct.
For a nation with the resources that we have, with the pride in ‘fairness’ we tout, with the capacity to take on refugees and provide them with the opportunity to start a new life, it is sad that we are not willing to take part of the international responsibility to protect properly. Particularly as in some cases, our armed forces contributed to the situations that are forcing people out of their homes (Afghanistan, Iraq).
…and they wonder why people are disengaging from politics.
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. UN Declaration of Human rights, Article 14 (1)
How have we come to this point?
How is it the the nation of Australia, which hosts 0.3% of the global total of 45.2 million refugees (Source, 2012), has resorted to disregarding sense, moral obligation, compassion and fairness?
What happened to 'we've boundless plains to share?'
There are no words to describe the ridiculousness of the current asylum seeker policy debate. In fact, to call it a policy debate in disingenuous. This isn't about policy. This is about, as others before have stated vehemently, a race to the bottom. A way to capture a vote in the conservative, close minded and those who feel threatened. A way to talk about 'security of our borders', as if the asylum seekers that arrive on our shores via leaky vessels are invading our nation when in fact they are seeking our protection.
***
It is an issue that evokes a strong almost visceral emotional response in almost every individual. Good policy isn't about emotional pleas though. 'Good' politics on the other hand...well, it seems that all our politics relies on is emotion.
Emotion aside however, the facts are simple.
***
The question that is often asked is 'why then have boat arrivals increased substantially since the Labor government came into power? Is this not due to the dismantling of the Howard Government's Pacific Solution?'
That is highly unlikely.
There are a number of factors that have contributed to the increase. This includes better organisation of the 'people smuggler' business, increase in zones of conflict (in 1999 we had yet to enter Afghanistan and Iraq) and the fragmented policy positions of the last few years. There have been multiple changes in the last three years – this encourages people to consider the option and helps the smugglers sell the proposition.
***
There are two aspects to the discussion. One is the morality of treatment of those who make the journey and arrive to our shores on boat. The second is the international effort to reduce the numbers coming by boat for their own safety, if this is something the Australian public truly wants (for the right reasons).
The policies being suggested may 'work', if by 'work' we mean reduce the number of individuals who arrive by boat, but this is to be seen. The true issue however, is the intention behind the policy and the treatment of those who have already arrived and the opportunities they are afforded.
The Coalition's policy is a step backwards to the world of Temporary Protection Visas. These reviled visas, implemented in 1999 by the Howard Government defeat the purpose of being granted asylum.
Being given a temporary visa means individuals are unsure as to whether they should start a full life in Australia or if they will be deported the moment the Government decides their country is safe to return to. It meant that you were effectively separated from your family permanently as you are not allowed to leave, but not given permission to help bring your family to Australia. In this edition of the policy, refugees will also have to work for the dole indefinitely.
The only slight tinge of silver lining is that boat arrivals won't be counted under the 13, 750 humanitarian visa allocations for the year under the coalition government, meaning more refugees can arrive through the UNHCR process. Ideally, this number should be increased substantially.
''The essential point is, this is our country and we determine who comes here,'' Mr Abbott said.
Well considering the largest proportion of illegal migrants are actually British and European visa overstayers, maybe that is who we should be turning our attention to.
***
I had too much to say, so find Part 2 of my thoughts here.
When I answered my ringing phone in early May, I had no idea that I was about to be offered the opportunity that every young politically-engaged Australian dreams of.
‘Hello Yassmin, I am so-and-so, one of the producers from QandA on the ABC…”
Almost had a heart attack!
***
The opportunity came up to be a part of the panel in mid-May, but a late confirmation from a well known politician (Queensland's own, Bob Katter) meant that I was briefly bumped from the line up. My rig job meant that the next two or three opportunities were also impossible. I didn't know if I should begin to despair: after all, one can only say 'no' so many times...
Eventually, we found a date that worked. August the 5th.
It was only confirmed a little over a week before the announcement: given the responsive nature of the show, panel members are drafted in quite close to the air date. The producers do an amazing job in this sense; sourcing and organising a new panel of people at such short notice week in, week out, must be exhausting.
So it was, on July 29th, the announcement of the 'next week's panel' that my name was announced...Ah! Let the games begin.
The ads were up and the news was out, but I still had no idea what to expect. I frantically began to read and research all manner of topics. I met with migration agents and department officials to learn about the true facts behind our asylum seeker and refugee policy, conducted little surveys via twitter and Facebook. Reading, reading, reading...
We were never given the questions that would be asked, but on the Friday before the show the producers send out an email with a variety of topic suggestions to the audience participants (related to the areas of interest for the panellists). This is to prompt questions from the audience. The topics were extremely varied - from the 'youth vote' (mine) to Fairfax to the umpiring decisions in cricket. My favourite topic of the moment, the PNG policy - not in sight!
At this point, I was simply holding my breath...
By some twist of luck, the election was announced on the Sunday afternoon. Just my luck :)
Monday rolled around and I hopped on the plane to Sydney (with 5 different outfit options to boot!). I dallied around a little, had a chat to the producers on the phone and began to get dressed. Admittedly, it took a few goes to settle on the option I did, but my op-shop-red-jacket is a favourite. The white dove brooch? Totes the statement piece!
So. Dressed. Break my fast (it was still Ramadan). Pray, ask for forgiveness and a little bit of on-screen luck.
Next stop, ABC Studios.
8pm - I head into the make up room. I say hello to fellow panel member Greg Hunt on the way in. 'He seems like a nice enough chap', I think. 'I wonder what he'll be like on the panel!'
The make up lady - Maureen - was fabulous. She was actually married to a race car driver who raced against the likes of Martin Brundle and so on in the UK. Naturally, we talked cars and got on like a house on fire! It was ironic that two ladies in a makeup room were waxing lyrical about Chevvy Stingrays and Fastbacks. She highlighted my cheekbones, left my lipstick as it was and sent me on my way...
8.30pm - Green Room, meeting the fellow panellists.
I was clearly the new kid on the block - each politician had their handler ('media advisor'), and Pamela and Grahame had history with everyone else. I introduced myself to everyone ('shaking hands, hello hello), and they were all lovely. I suspect Morris spent the time wondering when my parents (or babysitter) were going to arrive...
They all had a good yarn. I interjected every so often with not-so-wise pearls of wisdom ('Oh yeh! I know right?!') and wondered what lay ahead. Doug Cameron and Grahame Morris seemed to get on pretty well for ideologically diametrically opposed individuals. The scene reminded me of the idea 'enemies in the house, drinking mates once the business is done'. Ah, Australia! They laughed together and agreed on their roles. 'I need someone to fight with' Morris had said. Cameron was more than happy to acquiesce to be his on-screen-enemy.
(I am not sure everyone is that good natured about it all. Wong vs Pyne - I would like to see their Green Room interaction indeed!).
We were told we had 90 seconds to go. I left my bag, phone (!!) and got in line to head to the studio...
We got into our seating order and were individually introduced to the crowd as we took our seats. I was right next to Tony. This was it!
(Right next to Tony is a button. It's red, and has the label, 'The God Button'. Oh, I wish I got a photo. I wonder if he's ever had to use it? Probably at the shoe throwing incident...)
There were only a few minutes between us being seated and going on air. Maureen and the makeup army came back on stage and 'powdered our noses'... then 5, 4, 3...
Tony Jones' introduction began!
Oh wow. Can I be perfectly honest and say that my heart has never beat as fast as it did during that first question? I don't even remember what it was about or who asked it.
All I could think of was 'right now Yassmina, you're on TV!! Don't do anything stupid! Don't fidget! Stay coooooool!'. I am pretty sure Tony could hear the Da-dunk, da-dunk... In fact, I'm actually surprised it doesn't come up as background noise in the filming.
Off it went. I wasn't asked any direct questions off the bat (thank goodness!) but by the time Hunt had finished his answer to the first question, my pulse had settled down slightly and I had forgotten about the cameras. 'This is just like any other random panel', I told myself 'Except I am surrounded by people that are talking and not making ANY sense! Let me have a word to them about this...'
It was a fair bit of electioneering, as one would expect. Being pretty disillusioned at the moment at the disgusting amount of partisan politics that is going, I had no agenda other than to say - 'no, stop! We (the people!) want wholesome, meaningful answers! Stop treating us without respect!'
A good friend/mentor/amazing woman in general, Anne Summers, who has been on the panel before, had given me the advice not to stay quiet. 'Just jump in if you have something to say, otherwise you won't get any airtime at all'. Another friend had said 'just smile', and my mother cautioned 'don't try be anyone you're not - just be yourself and be genuine, otherwise people will see right through it.'
Those are the three bits of advice I remembered and channeled - and boy, I was so happy to be there I had no problem keeping a smile on the dile Alhamdulilah! (I would actually call it a grin. A smile is much more demure...I was just flashing the pearls with pure abandon!). I jumped in whenever I thought they were talking rubbish (often) and tried to talk to the panel members in the same way that I would argue with the boys on the rig (perhaps with less invective though).
I haven't rewatched the episode or even remember what I said, but I remember feeling more comfortable as the night went on. It only felt like 20 minutes had passed when Tony wrapped it up. 'That's all for tonight...'
It was all over!!
We shook hands and meandered back to the Green Room for liquid and solid refreshment...
The feedback from the panel members was lovely, and Tony Jones welcomed me to the 'QandA family'. It's a family I am darn well excited and honoured to be a part of!
So thank you Allah! Also to Tony Jones and the producers who were so kind - Amanda and Christine. To the fellow panelists, the make up ladies, my parents, mates (Richard from Richard's F1 who came along and supported!) and every single one of my mates - even those on the rigs! - who watched and wished me luck and supported :) I couldn't have done it without you all! Let's see where this crazzzy journey takes us next aye?!
If you missed the episode, you can read the transcript or download it here! :D
During #QandA on Monday, a lady asked the question about social media that got tongues and fingers wagging.
[box] Leisa O’Connor asked: I have a 17 year old daughter who won’t vote this year but will next time – active debater, articulate, well educated....it’s clear she is influenced heavily because Kevin communicates so effectively in the world where she lives – Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc...Even if she doesn’t agree with the policies – she is swayed because she feels Kevin Rudd is more in touch.[/box]
I completely understood where the mother and daughter were coming from, and was surprised (although perhaps I shouldn't have been) with the response from a fellow panel member.
[box]Yeah, look, I hear what you’re saying and I suspect it’s not this election that will be decided by social media but maybe the next one or the one after that but not this one... I can tell you most undecided people do not [tunes in to what Kevin Rudd is tweeting today]. They don't. They don't about care about politics. They are not interested. They are doing other things...You know, I'd like to educate your daughter.[/box]
What was more interesting was the response online. On the #QandA discussion forum and on twitter, people expressed their disdain at young people basing their decisions on social media.
Examples of comments:
[box]Sadly if your daughter bases her votes on who she can see on twitter she won't be a very informed voter. If people's preference is sitting back relying on social media to educate them on issues then they will not be well informed regardless of how well educated they are. It is also highly possible that it is not Rudd posting his tweets but one of his many media staff. Kevin Rudd is currently acting more like a show pony trying to win people over by popularity instead of proving he is a politician with any substance. I hope for the sake of Australia that our youth are not that gullible and make the effort to research the track record of all parties before voting.[/box]
Clearly a little opposition to the idea that us young people have no idea...
***
'Social media' has been discussed, derided, lauded and dissected endlessly since it started taking off a few years ago and began to play a part in 'real' movements.
Perspectives are varied: some see it as the saviour and liberator of the East, some see it as proof of young people losing social skills and capacity to be able to communicate face to face.
At the end of the day, we must remember that social media is a tool, and should be treated as such. A tool itself does not hold any power beyond the power we bestow it through our use. It has natural advantages and disadvantages but focusing on either at the expense of the other in a public role such as politics is not only foolish, it is ignorant.
I feel strange writing about 'social media' as a discernible 'thing': the fact of the matter is, the forum that other generations seem find so hard (by and large) to get their heads around is just part of the natural fabric of our lives. It's not as if I grew up as a child-early-adopter either; my parents only allowed me an old school mobile phone at the end of grade 11 (and only because mum accidentally got sent two!). However, as much as we sometimes hate it, my generation lives and breathes online just as legitimately as we do offline.
Relationships are announced on Facebook, elections on twitter. Is it different to how it used to be? Yes. Does that make it terrible? I don't think so.
When the television was introduced, people cried the death of the radio. When the internet was introduced, people feared the death of television. Now, the latter is yet to be decided but the radio is still around. Sometimes technology is replaced completely, but often new technology simply extends the reach and scope of information through avenues that were previously inaccessible. That is the power of social media.
To the question of social media and politics.
Young people are not stupid. We are not completely ignorant, and although many like to believe it, we are not all as self obsessed as the selfie epidemic would have you think. It is insulting to think that simply because KRudd has an account we will vote for him. It isn't that he has an account, it is what he does and says with it that matters.
Not all young people are the same and are interested and engaged. This is true. However, the youth demographic is a powerful one indeed and ignoring them and their needs is done at your own peril. Half a million young people are enrolling to vote this week. The age bracket of 15-24 year olds is over 13% of the population (ABS, 2013). There are a few marginal seats in that, I would imagine…
Gone are the days of obsession with and loyalty to a particular type of ideology. We care about issues, issues that we feel are important. Whether politicians like it or not, only a very small, engaged percentage of young people will spend the time researching policy and gauging whether or not a particular party aligns with their beliefs. As such, politicians need to be able to effectively community their standing directly.
What better way to do so than through the forum we are all already on?
If you want to hold a party and everyone is already at one location, what is more effective: going to that location and starting the party there, or convincing everyone that they have to come to where YOU are because that's where you have always had your parties?
The same concept applies. Young people are active and engaged on social media – Facebook largely, instagram and twitter for the more politically active. For politicians to be able to communicate effectively, they need to be active on these platforms, and engaged with their audience. We are the shareholders, the constituents. We are electing you to represent us. Show us why you deserve our votes. Earn it.
We aren’t interested in endless press releases about obscure funding agreements and official statements on a Facebook page that is clearly run by a staffer. I want to see the personality behind the politician, engage in discussion and debate that makes me convinced that this person is genuine, going to be a good representative, and eventually, deserves my vote.
In a way, it can be seen as ‘show ponying’ as a tweet described. However, that is campaigning, is it not?
Policies are important, there is no doubt about that. What wins though, is a combination of good policy, good service delivery and implementation, then good communication.
Using social media is simply good communication if you want to communicate with young people.
It may not win you the election, but at least we were hearing what you had to say.
***
Oh, and for all the baby boomers’ disparaging comments about the state of the youth if they are deciding who to vote for from social media let me ask: does your average voter not decide after conversations with their friends and family around dinner tables on these issues? How is this any different?
***
What do you think?
***
