ANZAC, Virginia and the Hydra Heads of Violence
Violence, like a multi-headed hydra, surrounds us.
In one sad week we had a mass shooting at Virginia Tech, USA that rivaled Australia’s notorious Port Arthur massacre; more suicide bombers in Baghdad, Iraq; the Palestine/Israel violence took the life of a kidnapped BBC journalist; and preparations for Australia’s (and New Zealand’s) observations of ANZAC Day fill the airwaves.
Some say that the problem with violence is that it solves nothing. I think that adage is wrong. I believe humanity’s problem with violence stems from the the truth of a different adage “violence begets violence”.
I heard a comedian defend the invasion of Iraq by saying “violence solved the second world war” and I couldn’t disagree. If your ultimate aim is regime change then violence can be one ruthlessly efficient way to achieve that goal.
Violence put an end to Germany’s Third Reich, but would Hitler ever have grown to be head of a democratic country if there hadn’t been a World War One? Many historians doubt it.Violence has put an end to Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq, but that nation is now caught in the uncivil teeth of civil war.
There are some things that violence can ’solve’. But like the mythical hydra that grows one or two more monstrous heads for each one chopped off, violence brings forth the cancerous mutations of more violence that is even harder to put down.
The problem with violence is not its ends but the method itself. It can ’solve’ problems, but it is such a blunt instrument it creates more problems along the way, including damaging those who perpetrate it.
This is seen literally in the individual: the loyal young Australian bleeding out on ANZAC cove, the desperate suicide bomber making an ultimate cry for self determination, the deranged gunman claiming his last victim - himself.
It can also be seen in our societies: the courted hoard applauding a bloody war or the normalising of violence that occurs when baring arms becomes a right.
Shane Claiborne, author of The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical, made some insightful comments after the Virginia Tech shootings about why violence begats violence. He said it killed the image of God.
We read the news through acts of violence rather than the hidden acts of love that keep hope alive. But there is a common thread in many of the most horrific perpetrators of violence that begs our attention – they kill themselves.
Violence kills the image of God in us. It is a cry of desperation, a weak and cowardly cry of a person suffocated of hope. Violence goes against everything that we are created for – to love and to be loved – so it inevitably ends in misery and suicide.
When people succumb to violence it ultimately infects them like a disease or a poison that leads to their own death.
Violence is the voice chosen by terrorist, soldier and solo shooter alike. Weapons and other instruments of war can amplify that voice so that the most powerful, most cunning or most determined perpetrator can have its way. But violence does not bring redemption, it doesn’t transform lives in a way that encourages wholeness.
When Jesus told one of his disciples “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”, he was neither cursing people, nor being a soothsayer. He was reflecting on the self-destructive path of choosing violence as the way to ’solve’ the world’s problems.
For the mythical hydra to stop its cycle of violence, it had to keep its wounds. In the story the hero Hercules cauterises its open necks, so it kept its scars rather than grow new heads.
So too, we need to be reconciled to the woundedness of our human condition and stop seeking to solve our own failings or the failings of others with violent solutions.
Maybe this is what a wise prophet meant when he is said of God’s suffering servant: “by his wounds we are healed.”
April 25th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
For anyone who’s interested, here’s some interesting stuff on the difficulties with definining ‘terrorist’/'terrorism’ (esp. in the context of Australian legislation):
http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/Publications/docs/pubs/terrorismDefinitions.pdf
http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/publications/anti_t2.html
http://www.ahrcentre.org/documents/Saul_Article.pdf
http://www.crimbarvic.org.au/docs/2006%2005%20New%20Laws%20Relating%20To%20Terrorism%20Offences.pdf
There’s heaps more on the web, but these are some of the more interesting things I’ve found.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
saint my understanding of why Dietrich was hanged is that he was directly implicated in a failed attempt to assasinate Hitler, who ultimately personally ordered his hanging. A BBC article puts my point succinctly:
Many people might have no doubts about being prepared to kill Hitler. But what if you were a prominent theologian? A noted pacifist? What then? That was exactly the dilemma that faced Dietrich Bonhoeffer, born 100 years ago, and one that led to his own death.
[news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4906502.stm]
My contention is that discussing this matter in the blogosphere is one thing, even if you are a convinced and noted pacifist - but dealing with the raw reality of brutality and evil may lead you to an altogether course of action if you felt that using [or being involved indirectly in its use] lethal force could lead to LESS death.
That there are examples of the opposite does not in my mind invalidate Dietrich’s or the multiple examples being used right now as we speak across all our cities by our police force, or across our region by our soldiers and AFP. Tonight in the Solomon’s people will NOT be killed, thanks to some highly trained soldiers and police brandishing lethal force weapons.
Imagine a police force organised along the lines of thought being expressed here? “Excuse me sir, I must insist that you drop that gun, or else I will refuse to go away!!!”
April 25th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
hi rev re 60 and 62 .. quite agreed.. learning to communicate with thosewho are postmodern some find difficult but i have had a lot of success with discussions around the definition of truth as an excellent starting point
April 25th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Nigel - you said, “rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence” is the definition you chose. Then by that token if I grab a two year old who suddenly runs off into a city street with heavy traffic and in doing so I bruise his arm then I am violent. If he’d been hit by a car would that have been violent?
Nope.
I cannot separate the use of physical force so easily from all the other factors that I have outlined in other comments. There is no way I would say our defense forces have the same “voice” as terrorists. I don’t hear the same message from our troops serving in East Timor as I do from the Bali bombers. To even open the door to that notion (as some do and to which you do in making those statements) makes it easier for terrorists to undermine our society and gain (illegitimate) authority for themselves. It starts blurring boundaries where boundaries should be set.
#89 Emma said:
Actually I was making a joke by using French and then referring to the French paper Le Monde with reference to a stereotype of the French. Obviously it was too obtuse. My bad. My apologies. I withdraw that.
But I would say that your views on this and others like it expressed on this post are really nothing more than sola cultura. And frankly those sorts of views are exactly why many churches are empty. Because they have been lead by people espousing nothing different to what I read in the papers every day.
I notice generally it is the pacifists (of the sort I am criticizing in this thread), the inclusive, the why can’t we all get alongers…that are the most sensitive and read everything as a personal insult whether it is intended or not. All of us are inconsistent and incoherent to a degree, but it does make me wonder about the extent of incoherence and inconsistency of ones views. Words and actions go together.
#90
bec Says:
April 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
“…Oops sorry, lets make that woman, as in the case of Emma.
Congratulations Emma. You who want to be so “radical” or “subversive” or “counter cultural” or whatever else is the mot du jour have just spouted the prevailing view of le monde.
But then, you said you were a journalist, right? Although even Le Monde has more sensible journalists than you.
No doubt that is why most churches in the West are empty. Hec, you get the same reasoning down at the pub on Saturday night. Why bother going to church on Sunday morning?”
Just a preemptive strike against those who see every reference to “man” as some patriarchal conspiracy.
Um, google up the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” or variations. Oops she was.
Made a correlation between her statement and her profession given who spouts the fashionable politics the most. (Later also pointed out the logical inconsistency in that statement)
Nope, mentioned that view point which is indistinguishable from le monde (=the world) is what has emptied many churches, although I don’t think I said that as clearly as I should have. And I concede the joke was incomprehensible and have withdrawn it.
None? None at all? Tu coque.
Oh weren’t you not going to talk to me again or something? Well kudos to Emma, she didn’t run off and cry. (and yes Bec, that was baiting you. But somehow I don’t think you have learnt to pick your fights yet so I better tell you that to save you the self immolation or whatever)
#92 - Zulu, thanks. I do suspect there is a more complex story behind Bonhoeffer (and one of my all time favourite books is by him). And I agree with your sentiments.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
saint just two things…I actually never googled “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” and I’m guessing your premptive strike to those who see “man” as a patrichal conspiracy wasn’t aimed at me, seeing how’s I used the term in the first place…but I haven’t found the other women on this site to care about stuff like that.
anway will brush up on French to avoid communication errors
April 25th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I’m happy to take at face value Saint’s claim that gender has nothing to do with his response to Emma, which was set off by particular “trigger” phrases she used.
However… that in itself is worth reflecting on Saint IMO. It is true that some people mindlessly parrot catchcry phrases of the left… or of the right (one of the funniest ones is Australians who argue about their “constitutional right to bear arms”… bizarrely borrowing American propaganda!)
One cannot immediately assume that the person who uses such phrases is some kind of mindless twat… there are intelligent people out there with considered and nuanced views… who will use certain phrases because they are in public circulation, and they’re generally understood. You can’t jump to the conclusion that use of certain phrases that might “push buttons” for you mean someone a fully brainwashed card carrying member of (faction X, Y or Z). Actually, from what I’ve read of Emma’s posts, her opinions are considered and nuanced.
But even if someone actually IS a certifiable moron… it’s not particularly gracious or charitable to sneer at them… what does it achieve?
Aspiring to be a saint is a worthy aim… it means to aspire to be like Christ…. to steal Zulu’s phrase of the day, there seems to be “cognitive dissonance” when a “saint” starts to sound condescending. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered…”
OK, end of sermon.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Sorry… posted the above before I’d seen Saint’s response (as a consequence of multiple interruptions!) I’ll drop the ball.
I’d have to say… although I largely share Saint’s views on the necessity of force in a fallen world (discussed this with the Rev recently… lesser of two evils etc.) I’m noticing I am largely arguing from common sense while the Rev is largely arguing from the teachings of Jesus.
I think he’s wearing me down. Maybe Christians are called to be utter fools for Christ!!!!!!! Mmmmm…..
April 25th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
#95 Emma, I suspected you didn’t but I suspected you had picked it up in your travels without realising. And no the woman bit was not aimed at you. Thank you. Don’t bother about the French. I will make an effort to express myself more clearly in English.
#96 Janet. Thanks for the sermon. However all of us, me included, tend to absorb stuff around us and parrot statements without sometimes actually thinking through what that implies. Now if we analysed every statement we’d go mad but my own view is that there is a lot of non-thinking, parrotting and sometimes willful deafness (like the morons I pointed out on my blog recently…hope you read the Boxer transcript in the comments…it’s a classic). And yes sometimes you have to point out to people the plain meaning of what they are saying and what that says about them. Sure I don’t claim to have a nuanced approach like Jesus with the Saduccees - but did he love them any less for pointing out their cognitive dissonance?
BTW the full moniker is ’saint in a straitjacket’ and its provenance has nothing to do with sainthood although you can say I’m a sinner with a saint screaming to get out.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
sigh. Aren’t we all?
April 25th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
btw can see my “terrorist/freedom fighter” statement might have sounded like parroting…but as I said later my background is Sri Lankan and I have had a fair bit to do with thinking through that situation (as well as having family members caught in suicide bomb blasts). so it wasn’t meant to be a cheap throwaway line, but something I have actually thought about…about how people do use faith to violence to justify violence which is just about promoting their own agendas. If it sounded morally relativist it wasn’t meant to be. I genuinely find it thought-provoking.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
sorry should have read “use faith to justify violence which is just about promoting their own agendas”. is late. should go to bed.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
No sweat Emma. Can empathize - I have some family history in that department too (parents generation and earlier). And yes time I hit the hay too. Thanks for your gracious repsonses.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Saint, that comment about not speaking to you was directed at a specific conversation, which had got pretty OTT as far as I’m concerned.
Janet, you raise a really interesting point about language - there’s always a tension between finding language which is nuanced enough to say what you really want to say, and using language that can be generally understood.
I haven’t really participated in this conversation because I don’t really feel I have a great deal to add, but I’ve also noticed that it’s the Rev arguing from the teachings of Jesus while others’ aren’t (or at least so obviously). This is actually something I’ve noticed more generally in the Christian literature…most of the arguments against pacifism that I’ve come across are rooted in a discussion of the history of pacifism (ie trying to show that it’s relatively recent, that the early Christians were pacifists etc) and a critique of pacifism, rather than actually arguing from the teachings of Jesus or even the New Testament generally. Which is kinda interesting…
Which reminds me - has anyone else read Tom Frame’s “Living by the Sword?”? I keep picking it up and then putting it down again in frustration…maybe I should pick it up again…
April 26th, 2007 at 9:16 am
The problem is, as John Dear (amazing peace activist) says, “well we really like your ideas John, and we really want peace, and we really hate war but…
sometimes you just have to kill someone”
And as I walk further and further in my journey, I realize the fullness of what the narrow path is talking about. Isn’t it interesting that the wide path that most people pick leads to destruction? And is it too much to read into that death, and war? Jesus did exactly the opposite of what everyone expected, then tells His disciples to do likewise.
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am
^ ^ The problem I have is that in general terms, I hear pacifists mounting theological arguments and failing to make a really helpful, practical contribution to public policy etc; while on the other side of the fence, I hear people like Tom Frame making a really helpful contribution to public policy but not really addressing the theological arguments. I might change my mind if I read all of ‘Living by the Sword?’, but I’ve put it down out of frustration several times in the last few months because he seems to focus on discrediting movements and theological arguments, rather than actually arguing a theological position. If that makes sense? I think there’s quite a difference between picking a hole in someone else’s theological argument, and making your own (of course the two can be interlinked).
So that’s basically my issue, Rev…in Australia (and that’s the only place I’ve lived), pacifists seem to be reacting…I applaud that, but the next step is to actually propose alternatives, and I mean more than publishing books and running small-scale dispute-resolution courses (though this is good too). Australians didn’t really pay much attention to what was going on in the Solomons until the Melanesian Brothers were murdered. When RAMSI went in, suddenly the socialist movements were publishing incredibly ignorant propoganda talking about neocolonialism etc, and Christian pacifists were talking about the need for conflict-resolution training…well, where were those guys before RAMSI went in? Why were they silent for so long? I’m seriously attracted to pacifism, but the reason I have started to veer away for it is because while I can apply it in contexts like Credo, I can’t figure out how to apply it in contexts like the Solomons, Rwanda etc. I’m happy to lay down my own life (I hope??), but I can’t stomach making that decision for others.
End rant…I hope I’m making at least some sense??
April 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
The reason I believe that what I am talking about is the way of Jesus, is because is doesn’t have an answer for what you are talking about, atleast not in the short term. Now there are people like Shane Claibourne who went with a christian peace keeping force to Iraq to be with the people there when the bombs started falling. But I don’t believe that is what you are talking about either.
What I believe is that whenever we try to establish more “practical” means of dealing with mans inhumanity to man, we always dehumanize people in the process. So the system actually continues to support what we are trying to stop. What Jesus did was focus on a very small group of people, and changing their hearts, and they followed the same pattern. And very soon what was a small number of devotees became an unstopable movement. If we can end violence here in Australia, we will influence other places. If people learn Jesus path of loving your enemies and are willing to die for that in our communities here, others will be inspired to live this way in other places.
War tries to address a long term problem with short term solutions that fuel further problems. So what can we do? I believe the first thing it truly give ourselves to the idea of nonviolence in our own lives. I also believe that the Jesus’ answer is always, God sent His only Son, and His only Son now sends us. Christians must be willing to go into these areas and be a nonviolent presence, teaching love for our enemies. This is why I have moved into areas of violence in the states, and even here, though it is a bit different here, and I don’t want to get into the other forms of violence in our societies. Of course it is a long cry from living like this in Afganistan, and I know people will die if this plan is implemented. But people die in war as well. I do believe there are alternative plans to this, that would “limit” war, but this can always be co-opted by “inteligence” as happened with Iraq.
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Oh and Bec, by endorsing even UN peace keeping forces you are making that decision for others, because people will give their lives in those situations.
I know I am a complete and total dreamer, totally disconnected with reality, but what if rather than sending armies with guns, we sent unarmed people, with food and medical supplies, that were willing to lay down their lives for peace? Do you really think that the people of these communities would allow for these people who have come to help them, and were willing to give their lives to do so, will allow the killing of them? When Gandhi went on a hunger strike to end the fighting between muslim and hindu, they both stopped fighting. Perhaps the problem is we haven’t truly embraced the call to be Christ to the world as Gandhi did?
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Rev, I think you need to look at Indian/Pakistani history again.
Jesus came to earth for a specific purpose.
His Apostles also had a specific purpose too.
I have just been reading John 17 and getting involved needlessly with internal government was not one of the aims.
What do we do when our nation is invaded or a neighbour nation is invaded which is the case for every war we have been involved with sine the 20th Century?
We have to search scripture and put a rationale together and then work on it.
This is the reason why some possibly most Christians examine the just war theory to answer the question should we fight.
It is automatic.
It clearly was the case in most encounters Australia has been in however it most certainly wasn’t in view with regard to Iraq.
This is why I do not believe a christian can serve in the army.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Rev,
I’m not looking for short-term answers - I don’t think there are any. While people in the Solomons are glad that RAMSI came, they are very negative about it because they say they have only “put a lid on the violence”. They talk about how there is “peace without security”, referring to the fact that RAMSI have bigger guns so they’ve suppressed the violence, but nothing’s really changed because of the lack of socio-economic development.
Your post above really resonates with me, but it’s still rhetoric (great rhetoric, but rhetoric nonetheless!) What does this all actually MEAN in the context of something like the Solomon Islands? How does this translate into practice? I agree that perhaps it’s best to effect change by focusing on those around us - but “those around us”, at least in my case, can’t be confined to Australia. How do I, an Aussie Christian, intervene in a situation like Solomon Islands? Do I do what Shane Claiborne did and jump in a plane and fly over? Maybe. What do I do when I get there? I have no freakin’ idea…hang out with people? And what if I can’t get over there? What can Australian local churches, or Christian movements, do to have an impact in these situations? We can talk about peace all we like, but there’s got to be more to it than talk…
April 26th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Rev,
I agree with your post at 107. Interestingly, the intervention in Bougainville was exactly like what you describe - it was made up of a small number of people, unarmed, some of whom had food and medical supplies. I can’t remember how many people went, but it was something minute - maybe 20 or 30? I don’t think anyone died either - although there *were* some close calls.
The interesting thing is, I haven’t seen a lot written on it as (a) a viable peace operation or as (b) an option for other situations, ie the Solomons. That doesn’t mean things haven’t been written - however if things have been written, it hasn’t been much, ‘cos I spend a fair bit of my time reading about conflict in PNG and the Sols!! So what I’m saying is - I don’t think you’re a complete and total dreamer, as it’s actually been done, and done successfully, and more attention should be paid to the contexts and methods that enabled it to be effective.
BUT…do I think that the people of these communities would allow people who’ve come to help them be killed? Yes, I do, at least in the contexts I’m familiar with. Why? Because people in other cultures don’t make decisions the way we do. Australia - particularly Australian churches - only really sat up and took notice of what was going on in the Solomons when the Melanesian Brothers were slaughtered. If you haven’t come across them, the Melanesian Brotherhood is the biggest lay brotherhood in the world - people can go in for periods of 3 years (I think) then come out, and lots of young men do that. Anyway, they’re really highly respected, almost revered, and some of the most senior brothers were slaughtered during the Tensions. Nobody would have seen that coming - it was just unthinkable, given the significance of the Brothers. I think that communities who are governed by fear don’t necessarily make the decisions we think they should.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Whatever we do must value the image of God reflected in humanity, and call us and those we are seeking to help to be more fully human, and therefore more like Christ the perfect human. Organizations constantly dehumanize, and therefore will always be insufficient.
What do we do? What do you propose? more of the same? Perhaps we should adopt Jesus attitude, well, I can only deal with these few people. There were wars, famines and slavery all over the world when he was here, he focused on changing the people in his influence. And the fact is, with all of his work, Jerusalem refused to listen, and was crushed with all the might of Rome. He could have done just a little violence, a few angels, a few angelic peace keeping force, and some good compassionate zealotts with swords, and …
but he chose the way of peace, while allowing other injustices run their course rather than use violence to stop violence.
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 11:39 am
ofcourse Bec, but then they are forced to deal with their own moral choices. They were not in mutual combat. And I believe that these people were probably moved, and drawn closer to Christ by the actions of these brothers. We must remember we are not called to succes but to faithfulness. And yes, many times the world will kill the non violent prophets, Gandhi, King, Romero are only a representation of many many others.
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
P’raps we need to think about it another way…who/what does our sphere of influence include? I actually think that there’s a place for outside intervention - sometimes an outsider is needed to help resolve conflict in a home, sometimes outsiders are needed to help resolve conflict in a nation (Rwanda, Bosnia and the Solomons would be examples of this). What form should our intervention take? I understand that you think it shouldn’t involve arms - what then should it look like? Yes, Jesus focused on the people in his immediate circle - however he also gave the Sermon on the Mount and healed strangers. What does this mean for us?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:59 am
And Rev, I’m seriously not disagreeing with what you’re saying…it’s just that after coming back from the Solomons, I kept talking to people who were really negative about RAMSI, yet really didn’t know what they were talking about…and when I asked them about alternatives, they’d just talk about alternative dispute resolution…and I’m thinking, “yeah, whoop-dee-doo-dah, there’s heaps of secular lawyers doing that work too…” That’s not a criticism of ADR - it’s really important - but I keep coming across a lot of rhetoric and not much substance, and that’s frustrating when you’re trying to figure things like this out. So that’s why I’m pushing you on this one - it’s not ‘cos I’m having a go, or that I disagree.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Rev - I agree with you at 112 - however I was responding to your suggestion that people who go in without arms but with food and medical supplies won’t be killed by the communities they’re serving.
I agree that people might be drawn closer to Christ - the murder of the Brothers was an enormous wake up call, both for the church in the Solomons and the church here - certainly the church here!!
I agree wholeheartedly that we are not called to success but to faithfulness, and I mourn the emphasis on success in the Australian church. This is my concern with the non-pacifist Christian viewpoint - the emphasis does not seem to be on faithfulness (or theology) but on pragmatism (and critiquing pacifist viewpoints, rather than generating their own).
April 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Well push away, doesn’t bother me. But what I am saying is only rhetoric if I don’t live it. I do live it. I have walked into violent situations. But even that doesn’t get accepted because I am a hundred kilos of trained fighter, so it doesn’t count. I know what Jesus and his disciples did, and the complexities involved if I try to go beyond that are too many and much. What it serves to do is create in people an attitude that says, “well, I guess we are trying the best we can, we should just keep doing what we are doing”.
The fact is people have done it, and rather than follow their example we say, ” that only worked because blah blah blah” or “yeah that was just an exception it would never work in blah blah blah” I am not so concerned with success, but in surrendering my life to Jesus leading. I am not a peace activist, I am a Jesus follower.
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
hey Rev…sometimes people ask questions because they’re curious, and sometimes people push because they want to see where a conversation goes.
I don’t think I’ve ever referred to our weight distances on this board (and in the contexts in which I work, I’m actually not sure who’d have the advantages!) Nor have I suggested you don’t live it - but you’re living it in the context of Australia, and what I’ve been trying to say is that it makes sense to me here, but I’m not sure how it applies to situations that we’re not immersed in 100% of the time. What am I supposed to do about the atrocities occurring elsewhere in the world? How should I act then? See my burbling remarks at #113…
April 26th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
whoops, that was s’posed to be “weight differences”, not “distances”…
April 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
oh…and I don’t think armed intervention is “working” either…at least, it hasn’t achieved what it was hoped to in the Solomons, Afghanistan or Iraq.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Bec, i get told the weight and training thing all the time nothing personally. And don’t forget I lived in the ghetto in Los Angeles before I came here, which isn’t a war zone, but not far from it. I have had people shot in front of our house, two people murdered within a footy field, and the riot police called out to my block 5 times. The fact that I choose to live in these kinds of places is what I am talking about. And I don’t mind the pushing, it is helping me clarify my own position.
rev