In opposition or in government it didn't matter to Australian Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison, he happily hammered home the message that boat people, asylum seekers and Muslims migrants were or could be a threat to the nation and to every Australian.
This self-confessed admirer of Donald Trump began his faux election campaign the day he took office shortly after the palace coup removed then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and, almost from the start there has been speculation that he was hoping that his rhetoric would goad someone into committing a violent act of terrorism.
These snapshots below are taken from 15 March 2019 televised remarks by Morrison barely hiding his glee that he finally had the pre-federal election terrorist attack he
had been dog whistling for - even if the fact that this muderous attack was made on people at prayer in two New Zealand mosques allegedly at the hands of an Australian meant he had to do a 360 turn on who he could blame.
 |
| Snapshots by @sarah_jade_ |
Mainstream media has noted the change the change of campaign tactics .......
Something the Prime
Minister said
on Friday has been gnawing at me. For the most part, his statements in
the immediate aftermath of the obscenity in New Zealand were admirably clear.
He identified the victims: those of Islamic faith. He also clearly labelled the
attack for what it was, a “vicious and callous right-wing extremist attack”…..
But another of the Prime
Minister’s comments warrants attention. Speaking of the Australian gunman, he
said: “These people don't deserve names. Names imply some sort of humanity and
I struggle to find how anyone who would engage in this sort of behaviour and
violence … He’s not human. He doesn't deserve a name."
I can well understand
Morrison’s reaction. Watching him respond, it was clear he was moved, and
disgusted. And of course I share that disgust.
But think for a moment
about the implications of such rhetoric. This man is not even human, the Prime
Minister tells us. He is alien, almost literally another species, and therefore
illegible to us, the humans. He is not like us.
Perhaps, at the moment
he fired the gun, that became true. But what about just before that moment -
was he human then, and inhuman afterwards? Did he go from being comprehensible
to incomprehensible in the blink of an eye? Of course the implication of Morrison’s
words is that he was always different: never one of us, always already
separate.
But this is a fairytale
– and like most fairytales, it is there to comfort, with its suggestion that
such violence must have nothing to do with the rest of us. The Prime Minister
meant well. But what he said was absolute rot.
The point has been made
elsewhere that anti-Islamic sentiment is rife in our politics, and that
violence is its logical endpoint. It is a crucial point, it can’t be made
enough,…. But right now I want to briefly examine another dominant strand of
Australian politics.
A few weeks ago, the
political world was aflutter with a single question: was this Scott Morrison’s
Tampa moment? And we know, because Morrison told
us, that he wanted it to be: “Australians will be deciding once again - as
they did in 2013, as they did in 2001 - about whether they want the stronger
border protection policies of…” and you can guess the rest.
The phrase "strong borders"
is heard often in our political debate, but much of the time, especially when
you live on an island, borders are abstractions – imaginary lines drawn on
literally shifting seas. The vague and nonsense phrase is of course a
euphemism, meaning "we are very good at keeping people out". And when
is this an important skill? When the people to be kept out pose some threat.
The beauty of "strong borders" is that it says all of that in two
words.
The same goes for
"Tampa moment", which in fact includes three separate events: Tampa,
then September 11, then children overboard. Howard’s election campaign blended
these events into one overarching
narrative. The demonisation of refugees as ruthless people who would kill
their own children and who might kill you was not a side-effect of the
strategy, it was the strategy.
If our political leaders
remain intent on depicting a world in which people from other countries bring
disease, hatred, and violence to our shores, can they really be so shocked when
it turns out that is precisely the world some people believe in?
[my yellow highlighting]
There’s been less
reflection on the fact that any 28-year-old in Australia has grown up in a
period when racism, xenophobia and a hostility to Muslims in particular, were
quickly ratcheting up in the country’s public culture.
In the period of the country’s enthusiastic participation in the War on Terror,
Islam and Muslims have frequently been treated as public enemies, and hate
speech against them has inexorably been normalised.
Australian racism did not of course begin in 2001. The country was settled by
means of a genocidal frontier war, and commenced its independent existence with
the exclusion of non-white migrants. White nationalism was practically
Australia’s founding doctrine.
But a succession of
events in the first year of the millennium led to Islamophobia being
practically enshrined as public policy.
First, the so-called Tampa Affair saw a conservative government refuse to admit
refugees who had been rescued at sea. It was a naked bid to win an election by
whipping up xenophobia and border panic. It worked.
In the years since, despite its obvious brutality, and despite repeated
condemnations from international bodies, the mandatory offshore
detention of boat-borne refugees in third countries has become bipartisan
policy. (The centre-left Labor party sacrificed principle in order to
neutralise an issue that they thought was costing them elections.)
The majority of the refugees thus imprisoned have been Muslim. It has often
been suggested by politicians that detaining them is a matter of safety – some
of them might be terrorists.
Second, the 9/11 attacks drew Australia into the War on Terror in support of
its closest ally, and geopolitical sponsor, the United States.
Australian troops spent long periods in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting and
killing Muslims in their own countries. The consequences of this endless war
have included the targeting of Australians in Jihadi terror attacks and plots,
both at home and abroad.
The wars began with a deluge of propaganda. Later, the terror threat was
leveraged to massively enhance surveillance by Australia’s national security
state. Muslim Australians have frequently been defined by arms of their own
government as a source of danger.
Two years after the war in Iraq commenced, the campaign of Islamophobia
culminated in the country’s most serious modern race riots, on Cronulla Beach in
December 2005, when young white men spent a summer afternoon beating and
throwing bottles at whichever brown people they could find.
Cronulla was a milestone
in the development of a more forthright, ugly public nationalism in Australia.
Now young men wear flags as capes on Australia Day, a date which is seen as a
calculated insult by many Indigenous people. Anzac Day, which commemorates a
failed invasion of Turkey, was once a far more ambivalent occasion. In recent
years it has moved closer to becoming an open celebration of militarism and
imperialism.
Every step of the way, this process has not been hindered by outlets owned by
News Corp, which dominates Australia’s media market in a way which citizens of
other Anglophone democracies can find difficult to comprehend.
News Corp has the biggest-selling newspapers in the majority of metropolitan
media markets, monopolies in many regional markets, the only general-readership
national daily, and the only cable news channel. Its influence on the national
news agenda remains decisive. And too often it has used this influence to
demonise Muslims.
[my yellow highlighting]
BACKGROUND
SCOTT Morrison, the
Liberal frontbencher who this week distinguished himself as the greatest grub
in the federal Parliament, is the classic case of the politician who is so
immersed in the game of politics that he has lost touch with the real world
outside it…..
The point of this story?
Morrison is a cheap populist, with form. On that occasion, he was being
irresponsible with the national economy. For him it's just about clever lines.
Morrison was powerless
to influence the bank, of course. John Howard and Peter Costello gave the
Reserve Bank independence to free it from people like Morrison.
The bank raised
rates three days after Morrison's comment.
This week it was race.
Morrison decided to see if he could win some political points by inflaming
racism and resentment. More specifically, he zeroed in on some of the most
vulnerable people in the country for political advantage. Indeed, is there
anyone more vulnerable than a traumatised, orphaned child unable to speak
English, held in detention on a remote island?
Morrison publicly raised
objections to the government's decision to pay for air fares for some of the
survivors of the Christmas Island boat wreck to travel to Sydney for the funerals
of their relatives.
Some were Christian
funerals, others were Muslim. But all of them were foreigners, all of them were
boat people, all of them were dark-skinned, and to Morrison that made them all
fair game. Unable to tell the difference between the Coalition mantra of
"we will stop the boats" and his emerging position that "we will
vindictively pursue boat people suffering tragedy" he went on radio.
As the survivors were
gathering to mourn their dead, Morrison said that with the government paying for
the 22 air fares, "I don't think it is reasonable. The government had the
option of having these services on Christmas Island. If relatives of those who
were involved wanted to go to Christmas Island, like any other Australian who
wanted to attend a funeral service in another part of the country, they would
have made their own arrangements to be there."
All of them were
dark-skinned, and to Morrison that made them all fair game
Again, for Morrison it's
just a tricky game of politics and clever lines. A former director of the NSW
Liberal Party, he inhabits a world where consequences for himself and his
political party are all that matter. There is no other reality. He didn't care
about the boat people, and - being as charitable to him as possible - he mightn't
even have stopped to think about the consequences.
And again, there is a
national interest at stake. Forty-four per cent of Australians were born
overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas. Australia is an
immigrant society. Australia is a multicultural country. That is a simple fact.
To foment ethnic, racial or religious frictions or resentments is deeply
harmful to the national interest.
Kevin Dunn, professor of
geography and urban studies at the University of Western Sydney, who next week
is to publish a study on racism in Australia, says: "Research has shown
convincingly that geopolitical events, political events and political
statements don't affect Australian attitudes on race very quickly, but they do
affect behaviour. People with a grudge feel more empowered to act on it."
Racist abuse and discrimination follow. So again, Morrison was toying with a
deep national interest, but this time, his remarks could carry real force. The
Reserve Bank governor knows his business and ignores Morrison, but the
vindictive and the vicious may feel emboldened to act on their hurtful urges.
Who does this help?....
Morrison next day
conceded that his timing was insensitive, but didn't retract his complaint. He
denied that he had been influenced by One Nation, even though One Nation had
been busily emailing and lobbying politicians on the matter.
[my yellow highlighting]
