See? SEE?
Someone asked me tonight why Phil and I hadn’t commented on the riots and violence at Cronulla. The main reason for me is that I can’t really comment sensibly on the situation; I have never been to Cronulla beaches, I have never lived in the Shire, and the most I have had to do with the area is that the only Rugby League game I have ever attended was Cronulla v Manly at Shark Park. So my sensible commentary is kind of limited to “racism and violence is bad, mmkay?”
However I thought about it on the way home in light of the conference that I had with a client just before I was asked this question. And my reflection is this: you can find proof of anything if you look hard enough. The client I was meeting with is one of my main clients and he is a nice guy, a professional guy who tries to do the right thing. He was appointed to a position and another professional, for whatever reason, decided that my client wasn’t fit to hold that position. And then he set out looking for evidence to prove that hypothesis. Sure enough, he found some. My client made a couple of mistakes in his procedures, and because this is an area of the law where mistakes are treated with little tolerance, the other guy might just be able to prove that he shouldn’t hold the position and that he is not doing his job well. All the mistakes happened after the guy had already made up his mind. And they don’t actually prove he is not fit for the position - they are just mistakes which really don’t make a great deal of difference as to whether he is doing his job properly. And yet, there is a decent chance that they will be accepted as evidence of just that.
In the last week, I have seen a lot of commentators using the riots in Cronulla and elsewhere as proof of a lot of things. Proof that Howard has created an intolerant society, proof that multiculturalism is not working, proof that Lebanese muslims are bad news, proof that Australians are racist. I find it hard to fathom. The gangs who have reportedly acted in an extremely anti-social and, at times, violent way are criminals. The louts that violently attacked anyone who appeared of middle easter descent are criminals. The idiots who went on a rampage of destruction and vandalism… well, they are criminals as well. And yet the media, bloggers and all around are holding up these criminals, these anti-social individuals and thugs as proof of their arguments as to what our society is. And in making these criminals so important, they have lent them a loudspeaker to spread their views.
We have criminal gangs in Melbourne, too. They have engaged in a spree of crime and murder over several years which stems from intolerance and prejudice on the part of one group of people against another group. They have caused a heap more death and destruction in our city and suburbs than the Cronulla thugs. And yet nobody is arguing that our underworld killings say anything about the wider society in which they live. Nobody is arguing that it raises a serious question to multi-culturalism that these people of mostly mediterranean background have decided to place themselves outside of the law. Nobody is suggesting that the Williams and the Gattos and all the rest are a symbol of Australians drawing a line in the sand. Because we all know that such arguments are stupid. They are just criminals, who should be dealt with by the police and hopefully eradicated for good.
Instead, I see radio commentators and bloggers and politicians holding up one side or other as being a symbol of the “feelings of Australians” or the “fears and sensitivity of Lebanese muslims”. Rubbish. Do we seriously suggest that the majority of Australians who have concerns about multi-culturalism would advocate the bashing of anyone with brown skin? Of course not. Those people are criminals.
Do we seriously suggest that the fear and uncertainty that is experienced by many muslims would lead them to advocate that their young people form anti-social gangs and hassle people on the foreshore? Bollocks. Those people are criminals.
But is it any wonder when ordinary decent law-abiding people use the lowest common denominators as proof points in their arguments over the direction of society that morons and idiots begin to think that those lowest common denominators are held up as decent role models for the way that differences should be worked out? In the absence of a clear unqualified condemnation that these people are criminals who have no voice in our societal dialogue, is it any wonder that some morons in Perth and Adelaide and Darwin begin to think that flash-bombing the next “kill the wogs” day is a socially acceptable practice?
They are criminals. They should be prosecuted. They are not a symbol of anything except people who are unwilling to behave in civilised manner in accordance with the rules of society.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
Dan, you bring up an interesting point, but I’m not entirely sure I agree with you. Sure, people will use any excuse to add some practical proof to their political/social/racial theories. But I think it’s naive to look at what happened in Cronulla simply as an act of crime by a mob of drunken louts.
I watched Howard on some news show dodging the whole racism issue, and I understood why: nobody wants more violence. I don’t really blame Howard for claiming that the riot was simply “a matter of the law”, but I think we’re selling ourselves short if we don’t examine possible causes of the violence, be it racism/alcohol abuse/inflated and misplaced national pride or what have you.
I mean, the mob in Cronulla weren’t just there to “commit crimes”. It seems clear to me that they had another intent. And the reasons for that are what should be discussed, in my opinion.
December 16th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Yeah I know Joe. But if we are going to examine the feelings behind it, then let us look at the people who turned out for the “Aussie day” and didn’t engage in violent behaviour. I guess my point is that if the day had just been a spontaneous show of people having BBQs and sitting on the foreshore, it would have attracted a lot less attention. And, yet that group would be more representative of the decent majority of people who want to express their concerns in a legitimate way. And I think that is some of what I hear from the people in Cronulla who are claiming that they have legitimate beefs about what is happening with gangs and so on.
The problem is that it is like theorising about the motives of terrorists. It is fraught with difficulties because there is really nothing that justifies that kind of action. So it means that we never really deal with the underlying issues because we hang those issues on the actions of criminals.
In a way, I think that Hansonism was more constructive in generating a discussion about rascism than the post match quarterbacking that goes on with riots like this. She was speaking (supposedly) of the feelings of ordinary citizens and not using criminals to talk about it.
December 16th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Dan ,
The whole disgraceful episode was about what has been brooding for sometime.
Gangs of Lebanese young Muslim males have been roaming Sydney looking to assault Anglos with women a particular target.
They get into a fight and hey pronto within 10 minutes there is about 1-20 Lebanese Muslims ready to tear you to pieces giving some proof it is premeditated.
Comments to women at Cronulla that they are not worth 15 years was simply pouring kerosene on the fire
Cronulla was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
not warranted nor approved but understandable.
Interesting too that Lebanese Maronites who are more populous than Muslims do not engage in such behaviour.
December 16th, 2005 at 9:08 am
As I said above, if what you say is true, then the behaviour of these gangs is also criminal and thuggish.