Month: November 2007

Guilt is a powerful emotion and leads to behaviours which are sometimes quite irrational and extreme. I was once told that many of the psychiatric wards would be deserted if we could solve the problem of guilt. One of the biggest problems is that those who feel guilty often do not know that that is what is driving them and even when they do they are unaware of what is causing that guilt. It is often for things for which they had no control. Some instances are abusive parents or a parental relationship break down. The list is endless.

But collective guilt…how do you deal with that. The Japanese psyche is still sufering in many respects from WW II and it drives many of their policies. The US is suffering at the moment with the debacle in Iraq and whatever your politics it is not looking good.

What do we as Australians have to be guilty about?

Let me first talk a bit about motivation. I was listening to a discussion on the radio about climate change and the person being interviewed said that the problem was that we were being intellectually engaged but not emotionally engaged. Most of us accept that there is some degree of climate change but very few of us are actually engaged enough to actually care. This was, he explained, because the scientists had intellectually engaged us but it was our emotions that actually motivated us. We needed to be emotionally engaged before we would take substantial steps to react to the problem.

Now with all of this in mind I was asking myself why it was that Australia was on the verge of changing governments? This is counter intuitive. It is almost unheard of that in a time of stability with all the indicators looking positive that a country changes government. Inflation is relatively low, interest rates are resonable, employment s high, peoples quality of life is high, current accounts deficit is not unreasonable – a little high but manageable, and a significant budget surplus. We are relatively safe and except for severe environmental conditions – for which we do not blame the government – we are very well off. It makes no sense whatsoever that the government should be so far behind in the polls – and has been since the new opposition leader was elected.

There is only one reason that this could be the case. We are suffering from guilt. There are three significant issues that are playing out in this campaign but only one of them has been mentioned and then not in a way that would engage us. They are immigration, Iraq and industrial relations.

There are very few people in our community that are comforted by the thought that children may be suffering in detention camps for refugees, let alone all the other problems that have been highlighted. The death of people who were repatriated, the psychological damage done to people who after years of detention were finally accepted as refugees. The illegal detention of Australian citizens. The detention and deportation of people for trivial reasons and for bureaucratic reasons. Whatever you think of detention centers the unfortunate cases that have made the headlines are disturbing.

Whatever the initial reasons for the Iraq invasion where the situation there by any standards is not ideal. Also our association with a country that champions itself as a bastion of democracy on the one hand and is associated with illegal rendition and torture on the other does not always engender a good feeling about that relationship. We are at that point now where the allies do not wish to stay but we know that the situation will descend into total chaos if they leave.

Work choices has been championed by the right as a utopia of industrial relations and condemned by the left as a complete negation of workers rights. The truth is probably at the mid way point but three is a sneaking suspicion in many peoples minds that we may have somehow betrayed the working class without really understanding how. You hear anecdotal stories of abuse but nothing substantial. You see some evidence of people being taken advantage of but it is all quite nebulous. You feel as if you should feel guilty about allowing it to happen but you are not really sure why. Is this because the right have so skillfully manipulated the legislation that you don’t really understand it. Or maybe the left have misrepresented the situation so that it really clouds the good it has done. In any case it ads to the guilt we thing we should feel – even if it does not directly contribute towards it.

So let us assume for a moment that I am right and that one or more of these issues makes us feel uncomfortable with who we are. This creates in us a very subtle cognitive dissonance in that we like to think we are caring and generous people but our government has created these situations for which we feel a portion of blame and so bear a degree of guilt. It is so subtle that we do not realise we feel this guilt. How do we express that guilt without admitting it? Well first of all we find excuses for abandoning our current Prime Minister. We like Rudd. We think it is time for a change. He is not as bad as the last few Labour leaders. He is a moderate and will probably do a good job. Liberal has been in for long enough. Give the other guy a go. All of these reasons sound rather pathetic and are not substantive in any way but we can convince ourselves that this is the reason that we are going to vote Labour.

What of the three issues I mentioned above. Neither party has gotten a real grip on IR. They have really pussy footed around it until it has just petered out. The Opposition do not want to go in too hard since in reality they are in favour of most of the changes – whatever they say – and all they are going to do is “fine tune” it. So to come in too hard will seem a little like rotten eggs. The Coalition is not going to strongly campain on it since it touches a raw nerve with too many people and for every one they convince that the IR changes are beneficial another person feels somehow betrayed – without really knowing why.

Immigration has been studiously ignored during the whole election campaign. One reason is that the policies of both Labour and Liberal are so close that they are almost indistinguishable and again for every vote gained one is lost. It is like opening a raw wound – they really do not want to go there.

So the bottom line is neither party has had the courage to address this collective guilt because to do so would highlight it and thus make them the object of this guilt. Guilt can have unpredictable results when poked and prodded.

So, In my opinion the reason for the swing is quite irrational and as such is likely to produce an unpredictable outcome. However I believe that the guilt which we suffer will only be assuaged with a change of government and we will all wake up Sunday morning to the news that Labour has a small but significant majority and a new era of Labour reign will be ushered in.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the nature of our society, milticultramism, discrimination and immigration. I know, this covers a wide ranging discussion over many areas and I do not hope to discuss the entire field in a short blog entry. What I wish to talk about is our level of tolerance and how this is reflected in our attitudes given world events.

There are more views on these subjects as there are people who hold these views. The topic is wuite divisive but I believe that many people have not really thought through the rationality of their position – and of course the trivializing of the arguments by media and politicians does not help. Not that I blame either of these groups of people. The media wants to sell advertising space and if they can drive up the emotional thermometer then their job is done. Politicians only want your vote so it is in their interest to appeal to the lowest common denominator. No – it is us who are to blame for not raising the level of debate and not demanding that the issues be addressed properly and not to treat us in this shabby manner.

In helping us understand the issues regarding immigration are there historical precedents? Well, yes there are. In the 19th century there was an influx of Chinese immigrants as a result (I believe) of the gold rush. At the time these people were ostracized and isolated. They more or less kept to themselves and had difficulty integrating. Where are their descendants? Many returned of course but many remained and are now contributing to modern society. And then there was the influx of Italians and Greeks post war. I can still remember the criticism that they were taking Australian’s jobs, they refused to speak English, they kept to their own communities. As a child I recall the Italian and Greek areas and the separation of the groups. In reality the fear was greatly overblown and I also remember the relationships that we had with a number of first and second generation Greeks and Italians, only to discover that they were just like us, the same hopes and fears, the same dreams but simply expressed in different cultural terms. They were not so different. And the Jobs? well the injection into our society of a large number of hard working people boosted the economy and strengthened it rather than otherwise.

What of today. There was recently a report of a protest against an Islamic school. This is typical of the attitude of many Australians. Is this type of action reasonable? As a Christian I support the principle of Christian schools, which personally I consider quite reasonable. If I were to live in a country where the population were predominantly Muslim how would I feel if they protested my wanting to open a Christian school? In more general terms, what should the behavioral criteria be for immigrants?

We have laws which have evolved over many years. These laws describe unacceptable behaviour and the punishment for unacceptable behaviour. They describe the constitution and maintenance of institutions such as courts, religious organisations, and schools to name a few. Now the question is should we make demands over and above the minimum requirements of the law? Are there additional rules that we should enforce other than those that apply to the general population. What is it about the recent influx of immigrants that make them different from the previous migrations? Our laws have been sufficient for previous generations and I see no weakness in those laws which make the current situation any different. As long as the rule of law is maintained then they are free to be who they want. That is what the law is for – to regulate unacceptable behaviour – not to change the nature of a person.

The law is not about who you are – it is about what you do and as long as you obey the law you should be free to be who you want to be.

This has been a long discussion with good points on both sides but how consistent have the arguments been. Should we engage with people with whom we disagree in order to influence their ideas or should we isolate them in order not to be tainted and to indicate our disapproval.

For many years we had no ties with South Africa because of their racial discrimination. Did this make a scrap of difference? Would it have made any difference if we had engaged?

Nixon decided that isolating China was counterproductive so opened up a dialogue. Has this helped with the human rights violations? I am not sure but it has certainly helped China industrially.

Personally I think engagement is more often a good thing than otherwise but I have no proof, just a perception. Of course there are exceptions where there is clearly nothing to be gained for either party and something to be lost but in general isolation is not really helpful in my opinion.

So then, if a Christian is invited to address a group of people with whom he has a fundamental difference of opinion what should he do? Should he engage and attempt to influence them in order to enlighten them or should he isolate them. Should that not be his decision as long as his attitude is clearly stated?

In recent days both the prime minister and Peter Costello have been criticised – for what – for meeting with a person who spoke at a group of people who were self confessed anti-semites. So what was the PM,s and the treasurer’s sin? Association… well the PM associates with the Chinese government who engage in terrible human rights abuses. Is he being criticised for that? Why not? I have heard Danny Naliah speak on several occasions and far from neive he is intelligent and astute, but neither is he an anti-semite but he is generous and tolerant. If anyone can engage minds and hearts to open them to a more tolerant attitude then Danny is that man. I think we should applaud him rather than criticise him and I urge the Prime Minster and the Treasurer not to back away from this one but to call the critics to task for their hyprocrasy.

Several weeks ago we had the privilege of eating at the Blanchtown Pub, a small hostelery about two hours north of Adelaide. We were on our way to Renmark where Liesa had two days weekend work.

Now Blanchtown is a small country town located on a very busy road so we thought that it was a resonable bet for a nice bub meal. How wrong we were. As a result of our experience there we have decided to inaugurate a new method of classifyng eating establishments. In short it is the tattoo. If you meat all of the criteria by which the Blanchtown pub is known and justly famous then you receive 10 tattoo.

Here are the criteria,

Cuisine, entertainment, atmosphere, service and environment.

Cusine -  The more sparse the fare the more the tattoos. Schnizel, chips (frozen especially) lumpy mash, grissly roast and tough steak all rate extra points. I have to say in all fairness that I was able to actualy consume some of the powdery chips and several small portions of the gristle that passed as steak. The rancid butter made up for the edibility of the “steak”.

Entertainment – Chook raffles always go down well, especially with vocal patrons who utter inarticulate interjections as their name is called. Also bingo with decrepit wooden balls is a big winner.

Atmosphere – bare tables with remains of several days dining, moist carpet (from the spillt beer) and  buggs falling into the meal from the bug zapper are a definite winner. The patrons can almost constitute a category by themselves. Strong family resemblances help, and multiple relationships per family member both contribute. If the entire pub clientel (except for the tourists) appear to have the same family features then you are in to the semis without dropping a set.

Service – If the waitress is picking her nose at the table you are on to a winner immediately. In our case the tattoos were earnt  when we had to wait an hour and a half for our meals. Surly disposition and insulting behaviour all add to the experience.

Finally environment. For this you need a musty smell, rancid fatty smell from the kitchen which are all good. Dirty walls and ceiling, local TV and/or Keeno on the 17″ TV add to the score. Any appearance of a plasma or LCD TV detract but add points if the aspect ratio is incorrect and if they are all tuned to some looser sports program like WWF with the sound above the threshold of pain, especially if it is mingled with the local country music station.

Blanchtown pub needless to say gets full marks in every category and receives the complete compliment of ten tattoos.

Conclusion – avoid at all costs. Starvation seems to me a perfectly reasonable alternative.