Welcome to Country - a Respect that is not so welcome by some

Welcome to Country - a Respect that is not so welcome by some

By Ranting Panda

16 November 2024 (Updated 5 January 2025)

It has become the norm for venues to present either a Welcome to Country or an Acknowledgement of Country prior to an event starting. Welcome to Country is always presented by a local First Nations Person who has the authority to welcome others to their land. An Acknowledgement of Country can be delivered by anyone else in order to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which the event is taking place. 

Unbelievably, Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country are labelled as divisive by many conservatives. Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country are designed to be inclusive and welcoming for all; it is not their purpose to divide the nation. 

Following European settlement, Australia's First Nations People were displaced from their traditional lands, they were prohibited from practicing their culture and speaking their language. Their complex marriage system was destroyed through this displacement when they were forced into communities with First Nations People of other traditional lands and were not allowed to marry without the permission of the local police. First Nations People were treated as inferior, as lesser than. They were whisked away to communities and institutions, so they weren't seen. Their culture was ignored and banned.

One of the purposes of Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country is for First Nations People to be acknowledged and to feel proud of their culture, which is the longest surviving culture in the world. 

Charlotte Allingham: Always was, always will be Aboriginal land

https://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/always-was-always-will-be-aboriginal-land

Unfortunately, far too many people in Australia complain that the Welcomes and Acknowledgements are just part of a 'woke agenda' and that they should not be held. Whenever people complain about having to sit through a Welcome or Acknowledgement, it sends the message that First Nations People are still inferior, that their culture isn't important, that they are rejected in their own land. It reinforces the racism and cultural destruction that underpinned European settlement. Some politicians have even called for Australians to 'turn their backs' on the Welcome to Country ... at least brain-dead racists can out themselves by doing this. 

In January 2025, conservative media breathlessly reported the 'staggering' amount of taxpayers' money spent on Welcome to Country ceremonies. The amount was a mere $450,000 over the previous two years. Opposition government spokesperson, James Stevens, declared Welcome to Country ceremonies to be a 'multimillion dollar industry'. The spend was across 21 federal government agencies, with many spending around $30,000 or $40,000 for 30 or 40 ceremonies over the two-year period (Wang, 2025). The average spend was $1266 per ceremony. The media and the Opposition would have taxpayers believe that this amount was significant. Australian Government revenue for the financial year 2023-24 was $232 billion. The annual spend on Welcome to Country ceremonies that year was around $225,000 ... less than 0.1% of government revenue. Many conservative media outlets did not report this objectively. Media reports were full of sensationalist, dog-whistling to excite any racists paying attention to them. Given the number of ceremonies that were undertaken for this amount, the low cost of each one and the percentage of government revenue that it constitutes, it is hardly significant or 'staggering'. It is important to recognise Indigenous culture. Why is this such an issue for conservatives? 

Australia's First Nations People want acknowledgement, they want their history recognised, understood and appreciated. This should not be hard in this day and age where racist laws and policies are no longer in force or acceptable ... laws and policies such as the White Australia Policy, the Aboriginal Ordinance Act 1911 (NT), Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) and other so-called 'protection' Acts which gave Australian governments the power to control Indigenous people, forcibly remove them, and prohibit their cultural practices. The Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) wasn't repealed until 1969.

Yet, a lot of Australians seem to want a return to those days. At least, that is the message that is sent every time someone complains about a Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country.

We saw just how touchy some conservatives are following a Welcome to Country by Indigenous Elder Brendan Kerin at an AFL game in Sydney between GWS and Brisbane Lions on 14 September 2024. Kerin attempted to address some of the misgivings that people have about the Welcome to Country. He explained its purpose, he explained that contrary to some commentary the Welcome to Country had existed for thousands of years, preceding the arrival of Captain Cook. He explained it was a formal process for welcoming a person from one traditional land to another. Disappointingly, although not entirely surprising, a lot of the sensitive and easily offended conservatives took offense. Apparently, history is something that they neither like nor want to hear ... unless it tells it's all about them and in a manner that caters to their ignorant and selfish sensitivities. Their reaction reinforced just how deep racism is still entrenched in Australian culture, society and psyche. If anything, the reaction of conservatives reinforced why Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country are necessary and relevant. 

The racists were out in force during the 2023 referendum into giving First Nations People a place in Australia's Constitution and formal representation through a Voice to Parliament. It would have had no impact on non-Indigenous people but would have helped to improve the lives of First Nations People and ensure their voices were heard through better representation of their needs. Fearmongering and lies that were outright racist and wrong permeated the country, resulting in the majority of Australians rejecting a Voice for First Nations People. More detail on this was covered in our article: Hear the Voice, not the dog-whistle (https://thepandarant.blogspot.com/2023/04/hear-voice-not-dog-whistle.html).

'We shouldn't live in the past'. 

How often do we here this said about Indigenous issues, including the Welcomes and Acknowledgements. It was the conservative mantra during the Black Lives Matter protests, it is howled in derision whenever there's talk of moving Australia Day, and it is repeated ad nauseum by those who refuse to respect Indigenous culture through a Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country.

Ironically, by rejecting the Welcome to Country, conservatives are keeping the past in the present-day ... just like the laws of the 20th century when First Nations People weren't allowed to practice their cultures, the conservatives of today want to perpetuate that. It's the conservatives who are living in the past, not First Nations People.

It's almost as if these conservatives want to white-wash history. Remember how there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when statues of certain racist colonisers were torn down? The conservatives squealed that tearing down the statues was 'erasing history'. Of course, it was no such thing. Removing those statues was acknowledging history, not erasing it. It's conservatives who want to erase history. There's a funny thing about history, not all of it is pleasant. We need to acknowledge history in its entirety, not water it down so as not to offend a pearl-clutching conservative.

Those who say that we shouldn't live in the past could do with a history lesson or two. For instance, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison tried to claim that 'both sides' (i.e. First Nations People and settlers), suffered in the early days of British colonisation. He was referring to the Australia Day 2021 protests and stated that the convicts on the '12 boats' of the First Fleet weren't having a 'particularly flash day either' when they landed in Botany Bay. Well ... firstly, it was 11 boats, secondly the settlers were responsible for multiple massacres of Indigenous people, so of course the local population was going to defend their own land ... that's what people do when they're attacked by a foreign force.

Those who say we shouldn't live in the past will then put on rose-tinted glasses and fondly recall Gallipoli and talk of Australia's gallant war-time efforts. Certainly, we should remember the sacrifice made by Australians in military service. Of course, not all of those who served did so gallantly. Some committed atrocious crimes, but to raise that is living in the past and unpatriotic according to conservatives who don't want to hear about Australian war crimes. Conservatives only want to remember history when it suits their narrative ... and to be quite frank, they often rewrite history to suit that narrative so that Australians are never portrayed as committing war crimes, massacres or genocide ... either overseas or against the First Nations People of Australia.

'Aborigines are lucky it was the British that settled here, and not the Dutch or the Portuguese', is a mantra that some conservatives like to bandy around. Apparently, British colonisers were magnanimous people who helped First Nations People grow and develop. Of course, this ignores the genocide that the British unleased on Indigenous People. It ignores the fact that colonising nations, including Britain, did not treat local populations well. They enslaved them, they brutalised them, they raped them, they stole their children, they massacred them! 

Sensitive conservatives (who always argue about political correctness gone mad), have their own form of political correctness, and so when the ABC reported on BOTH Australia Day events and Invasion Day rallies (as called by the organisers), the pearl-clutching conservatives lost their proverbial and claimed the ABC had renamed Australia Day to Invasion Day. The ABC had done no such thing. They reported the rallies as Invasion Day rallies because that is what they were called by their organisers. But noooo ... the pearl-clutching, forever-offended, ABC-hating conservatives misrepresented what was reported, as they always do in their witch-hunts for leftist, do-gooding, virtue-signallers so they can unleash their dog-whistling falsehoods and fearmongering to the perpetually frightened.

The following illustrates the massacres of First Nations People following European settlement.

Reconciliation requires more than token gestures. Addressing the injustices of the past and present that Indigenous People have suffered, and many continue to suffer, requires more than symbolism. However, Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country are important elements in demonstrating to First Nations People that they and their culture and history are acknowledged, respected and welcome; that they are an integral part of Australian society. 

Appreciating Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country are ways that non-Indigenous Australians can show respect to First Nations People, show that we actually care about them and their long, proud culture, and that they are part of Australia's history, as well as are included in our present and our future. We should not whitewash our history to avoid offending the racist or ignorant in society.  

References

Wang, J, 2025, Coalition reveals government departments have spent $450k on Welcome to Country ceremonies in two years, News.com.au, 5 January, https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/coalition-reveals-government-departments-have-spent-450k-on-welcome-to-country-ceremonies-in-two-years/news-story/3f8d1fdcce46ff65e2170e73e7314909, accessed 5 January 2025.

--o0o--

The rise and fall of crime

The rise and fall of crime 

Crumbling crime rates in the face of media sensationalism

By Ranting Panda, 14 July 2024

Every day we are saturated with media reports of violent crime, youth crime waves, car-jackings, home invasions, murders, and on the list goes as journos breathlessly sensationalise the gory details in an effort to instill fear in the viewer. 

Much of this reporting is politically motivated. Certain right-wing media outlets are constantly reporting on any crime they can sensationalise while charging Labor politicians with neglect and responsibility. Of course, they don't hold Liberal party governments to the same level of accountability.

In 2013, when Campbell Newman romped to power in Queensland, he took the 'pooper scooper' (in his words) to the public service. One of the first groups to go were child safety workers. He also decimated police inspectors and shut youth mental support facilities. Each of these actions directly removed the very support that young people needed that would help them avoid a life of crime. Did the media hold him to account? Of course not. Instead, they blamed the incoming Labor government for the youth crime 'crisis', as did the LNP from the opposition benches. 

Be that as it may, is it true that there is a crime crisis? Is it true that crime is worse now than ever before? 

These are important questions because if the answer to this is 'no', then we risk politicians implementing laws that are merely knee-jerk reactions to media sensationalism, which may exacerbate crime rather than reduce it. If the answer to these questions is 'no', then we need to consider what has been happening to reduce crime over the years and ensure that those factors are either encouraged or at least not hampered. 

Similarly, it's important to understand the demographic of the people responsible for crime. If we blame the wrong demographic for the rise in crime, then the real perpetrators may not be adequately addressed. For example, is there really a youth crime wave, or are there other demographics responsible for a larger volume of violent crimes?

The answer to these questions depends on the time period that crime is measured over. Crime, like other things in the world, tends to fluctuate. Given that there are also different types of crimes, there may be a spike in one type while others fall. 

Let's look first at whether there is a youth crime 'crisis'. Youth crime is actually at an all-time low. This is based on the number of unique offenders. What we're seeing is that there are fewer young people committing crimes than at any other time in the last 20 years. 

Sato (2024)

The demographic responsible for much of the crime is aged between 30 and 39. Out of 19,977 assaults in Queensland, the 30-39 age group committed 4,761 of the crimes, while those aged between 10 and 17 committed 4,041.

Sato (2024)

Although there are fewer younger people are responsible for the assaults, that demographic has a higher rate of recidivism than adult criminals. This is also reflected in data across Australia, which shows that the average age of offenders is increasing, while there are fewer young people offending (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 102). The higher recidivism rate gives the appearance that youth crime is out of control, when in fact, there is less likelihood of a young person being involved in crime and an increasing likelihood of someone older being involved in a crime. 

Recidivism rates (Sato, 2024)

Everywhere we look, there are reports of youth crime being out of control. To reiterate the above, youth crime is trending downwards. The following table breaks youth crime down by Australian states. Despite the occasional fluctuation, youth crime has described dramatically over the last 10 years. 

Goldsworthy, Brotto & Cawthray (2023)

It's important to understand these figures because it determines how governments should be responding to crime. If they were to only address juvenile crime at the expense of adult crime, it is clear that crime will continue to rise. If they simply target juveniles, then that would also be a mistake, because juveniles are less likely to be engaged in violent crime. However, there should be programs in place to address the recidivism rates in young people. 

Let's look at other crimes. 

The last person to be executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan at Pentridge Prison, Victoria, in 1967. He was hanged for murdering a prison guard. In the 20 years or so after capital punishment was finally abolished in all states of Australia, murder rates dropped. The following charts were produced by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 1987, showing that numbers of homicides increased since 1965, but as a rate per 100,000 of population, homicides had actually decreased. 

Potas & Walker (1987)

Further to this, murder rates in Australia have continued decreasing since 1986, when there were 2.19 murders per 100,000 of population. By 2021, murders had reduced to 0.74 per 100,000 people (Macrotrends n.d). In 1993, there were 697 murders in Australia. In 2023, there were 409. In the 20 years between 1998 and 2018, the homicide rate declined by 67% (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 245).

Data sources from Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020, 2024)

One of the explanations for the decline in murder rates is improvements in emergency medical treatment. However, attempted murder also declined significantly. Between 2001 and 2017, murder rates in Australia dropped by 50%, while attempted murder dropped by 70% (Weatherburn & Rahmann 2021, p. 24). 

Since 2008 in Australia, assaults have declined by 45%, from 3.1% of persons aged over 15, to 1.7% in 2023. Threatened assault has declined by 43%, from a high of 4.2% to 2.4% in 2023. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

During the same period, robberies decreased by 67%, from 0.6% to 0.2%.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

Sexual assaults, however, saw an increase of 67% since 2008. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

 

There have been significant declines in almost all other crimes in Australia, which is also reflected across other western nations. In the United States, between 1993 and 2017, violent crime rates fell by 74%, while there was a 69% reduction in property crime rates. During that period, crime rates significantly dropped in other western countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 5).

Timings of the crime rate drops differ from country to country. In Canada and the US, it began in the early 1990s. In the UK, it began in the mid-1990s, while significant declines in homicide in Australia began in the late 1980s. Property crime rates began declining in Australia from 2001 and declines in assault began in 2008. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 5).

There are a variety of factors that have contributed to this. Some theories postulate that the crime drop was a result of the decline in the crack cocaine market. That might explain the United States, but doesn't explain jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. There have also been improvements in home security and in tracking stolen goods which may have contributed to a reduction in property crimes. Since 2002, pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers in Australia are legally required to be presented with proof of identity and ownership (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 168). A possible contributor to the reduction in property crime is the rapidity with which products are bought to market and the use of perceived obsolescence. In other words, people want the latest 'things', so the time within which to steal and turn around the sale of stolen goods is dramatically shorter than it used to be (Ibid, p. 194). Generally, people don't want to buy, or at least not pay much for the last model of iPhone or other devices.

Theft of motor vehicles has also declined, which may be attributed to engine immobilisers, labelling of parts with micro-dots and stricter regulation of the used car market, such as through the Written-Off Vehicles Register (WOVR), which records if a vehicle has been stolen (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 174). One interesting theory is that the reduction in stolen vehicles has a knock-on effect in reducing other crimes that are reliant on a stolen vehicle to transport criminals or stolen goods. However, criminals are general inventive and would usually find other ways to conduct their crimes (Ibid, p. 176).

Some have even postulated that crime reduction is linked to legalised abortion, so there were fewer unwanted and neglected children going on to become criminals. The evidence on this is inconclusive.

Declines in assaults in Australia appears to be directly related to the lower consumption of alcohol, which is at its lowest since the early 1960s, with noticeable declines commencing in the mid-2000s. This has been primarily driven by significant reductions in alcohol consumption among young Australians (Livingstone & Pennay, 2015), along with the success of lock-out laws in night-club precincts (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 135).

In Australia, some commentators argued that the decline in crime was because of an unwillingness to report it. However, there has been no evidence that there is an unwillingness by victims to report crime (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p 24). The exception to this is the reporting of sexual assault, which is a crime that traditionally has had low levels of reporting. Unlike other crimes, sexual assaults are increasing, which could be an indicator that people are more willing to report it than in previous years. The 'Me too' movement may have provided encouragement for victims to come forward. 

Other crimes that have increased, are those associated with technology. Crimes such as identity theft and credit card fraud, either through cloning of cards or internet fraud have increased. The increased use of credit cards, however, has resulted in fewer robberies of people based on cash, which was a desirable target as it negated the need to sell goods (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 159, 238).

Politicians and the public often respond to sensationalist media reporting by calling for harsher penalties. However, punishment is not a significant deterrent. Yes, people should face justice for their crimes, but crime will not decrease through stricter punishments. Firstly, many criminals don't expect to get caught, so the threat of punishment means little to them. Jail is like a university for criminals. All that it teaches criminals is how to be better criminals. It provides networking opportunities, while also stigmatising prisoners so that they are often unable to gain meaningful employment afterwards. Without meaningful employment, they will return to a life of crime ... often just so that they can put food on the table. 

In 1997, mandatory sentencing was introduced to the Northern Territory in response to incessant media reporting of epidemic levels of home break-ins. The year after mandatory sentencing, the break-in rates were even higher (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 15). Even with the guarantee of harsh prison sentences, as opposed to bail or discretionary sentencing, crimes actually increased under the mandatory sentencing regime. Clearly, sentencing is not the deterrent that people think it is. 

Despite the media claiming that the courts are soft on crime, imprisonment rates have risen by 42% in Australia from 2001 to 2017. Almost 30% of this was between 2012 and 2017 (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 223). It is likely that this has contributed to some of the decline, however, it's also important to note that crime rates were already declining prior to this increase in sentencing (Ibid, p. 232).  

Even punishment as harsh as capital punishment provides little deterrent. In fact, there is some evidence to indicate that it may create a 'brutalising effect' and encourage acts of extreme violence, rather than act as a deterrent (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 4). It will certainly prevent recidivism, but murderers have a very low rate of recidivism anyway (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 4). Studies indicate that globally, jurisdictions that have abolished the death penalty have not experienced any increase in murder rates (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 3). As we saw above, murder rates in Australia have declined significantly since capital punishment was abolished.

Advocates for firearms argue that the right to carry guns reduces crime. This doesn't apply in Australia since the 1996 gun buyback scheme and subsequent ban on certain types of firearms, although there are those here who believe that we should have the right to carry guns. In a study of data over a 14-year period, it was found that violent crimes in the United States were 13-15% higher in states that allowed citizens the right to carry firearms than in those that didn't. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 83).

Media sensationalism of crime has been going on for decades. The following is a list of headlines going back to the 1950s in Australia. They reflect the common trope, 'if it bleeds it leads'. Take away the dates and one would think they were headlines of today.

Brown & Hogg (1996, p. 176)

Politicians, such as Donald Trump and his feckless ilk, have blamed increased migration for increased crime. But as we can clearly see, crime is declining ... perhaps Trump et al should be focusing on maintaining or increasing migration if they think it's directly linked to crime rates. In Australia, the vast majority of our migration program is focused on skilled migration, so there is little need for migrants to commit crimes. Migrants, particularly those from non-English speaking countries, tend to have very strong extended family and community ties and therefore support from a wide network which is a crucial factor in minimising the likelihood of committing crime (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 59). Additionally, any migrant who is sentenced to a period or periods of 12 months or more detention will be removed from the country. It's imperative to note that they don't need to serve the sentence in full; they only need to receive the sentence to face visa cancellation and removal from the country. They could receive four sentences of three months each, all wholly suspended, and still be removed because the total cumulative head sentence is 12 months. While some migrants do commit crimes, it isn't as widespread as anti-migrant commentators would have us believe. 

In summary, factors that could explain the fall in crime, include (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, Chapters 2 and 3):

• Structural ageing of the population. As we saw above, the largest groups committing crime are aged up to 39. Australia and other western nations have more higher proportions of their population aged over 40 than they ever had. This could partly explain the drop in crime.
• Reduction in use of addictive drugs, such as heroin. Numerous studies have found a causal link between drug use and crime. This is partly due to the cost of drugs. The type of drug can also contribute to crime, e.g., methamphetamine which stimulates the user towards more aggressive behaviour. Heroin use has declined significantly, which could be a contributor to declining crime rates. Clearly, this isn't the only factor because crime has continued to decline after heroin use stabilised. Crime also declined in areas where heroin use was rare. 
• Reduction in alcohol use appears to have been a significant factor in the reduction of assaults (Ibid, p. 239).
• Improvements in home and vehicle security, as noted above, which has helped to reduce opportunities presented to criminals. There have also been security improvements in commercial buildings and street monitoring with CCTVs. By 2017, bank robberies declined by 97% since their peak in 1997, while street robberies declined by 86% at their peak in 2001. (Ibid p. 153). 
• Improved economic conditions, such as higher salaries and lower unemployment rates. A study in the UK found that property offending was three times higher when young people were unemployed than when they were employed (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 188). Another study found that where wages fell by 10% there was a corresponding '4.3% increase in property crime and 3% increase in violent crimes' (Ibid, p. 189). Economic factors could be something to watch as economic conditions start contracting. In Australia, housing affordability is declining, rents are increasing, and we are seeing an increase in homelessness attributed to these factors. If this continues, there could be an increase in crime based on this lack of affordability and availability of necessities, such as housing. 
• Increased policing. There is evidence to indicate that better deployment of police in targeting crime hot spots can reduce crime. However, simple numbers of police have marginal impact, whereas there is more efficacy through improvements in policing. Police are held more accountable now than ever following the various anti-corruption enquiries. Police have access to number plate recognition, drones, CCTV, biometric devices, DNA databases, and other technology that contribute to rapid identification of perpetrators (ibid, p. 207).
• Increases in imprisonment rates. As mentioned earlier, imprisonment tends to have only a small deterrence impact. The amount of money spent on incarceration could be better spent on policing or other measures and would likely result in a greater deterrence or reduction in crime. 
• Decline in the demand for stolen goods, because of lower prices for products and the rapid introduction of new products on the market, as well as greater regulation of the second-hand goods market.

Another contributing factor to declining crime rates is the change in social attitudes. Some commentators may label the current generation as 'woke' or 'politically correct' because of their desire to accept people for who they are (essentially 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'). The current push for so-called political correctness should not be disparaged, because it has resulted in greater respect for other people and a lower tolerance for anti-social and violent behaviour (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 149). The attitude of many now is to 'live and let live', to allow people to live their best lives without interference or criticism from others. It has resulted in people going out and enjoying themselves without tolerating harassment by others. There is less tolerance for violence, for anti-social behaviour and for domestic violence than in generations gone by. This coupled with a decline in alcohol consumption among people under 40, appears to be a significant contributor to the reduction in assaults (Ibid, p. 239).

It's clear that in Australia factors such as capital punishment and the right to carry firearms are irrelevant in explaining the decline in crime, so are not necessary responses to addressing crime in this country.

To truly reduce crime, there needs to be a multi-pronged approach. If we simply put on more cops, they are only going to be pursuing fewer criminals, regardless of what the media may claim. Responses to crime should include programs that proactively address the drivers that lead people into crime in the first place, which we can learn from the drivers of the current long-term crime reduction trends. It should also provide support programs for people once they're released from prison, to assist in reducing recidivism. 

The media should be telling the whole story and not sensationalising or fearmongering. Certainly, they should report on crimes being committed, but this should be balanced with contextualised and responsible reporting that explains why rates of most crimes have declined significantly. 

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020, 27 years of Recorded Crime – Victims data, 16 September, https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data#homicide-and-related-offences, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023, Crime Victimisation Australia - 2022/23, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/crime-victimisation-australia/2022-23#physical-assault, viewed 14 July 2024. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024, Recorded Crime - Victims, 27 June, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/latest-release, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Brown, D, & Hogg, R, 1996, Contemporary comment - Law and Order commonsense, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Volume 8 Number 2, https://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/1996/31.pdf, viewed 14 July 2024. 

Crime Statistics Agency, 2024, Alleged Offender Incidents, https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/latest-victorian-crime-data/alleged-offender-incidents-2, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Goldsworthy, T, Brotto, G, & Cawthray, T, 2023, Is Australia in the grips of a youth crime crisis? This is what the data says, The Conversation, 30 October, https://theconversation.com/is-australia-in-the-grips-of-a-youth-crime-crisis-this-is-what-the-data-says-213655, viewed 13 July 2024.

Livingston, M, & Pennay, A, 2015, Don’t believe the hype, teens are drinking less than they used to, University of New South Wales, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 21 May, https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/dont-believe-hype-teens-are-drinking-less-they-used, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Macrotrends, n.d., Australia Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024, https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate, viewed 13 July 2024.

Potas, I, & Walker, J, 1987, Capital Punishment, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No 3, https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tandi003.pdf, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Queensland Treasury, 2023, Crime Report, Queensland 2021-22, Recorded crime statistics, https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/issues/7856/crime-report-qld-2021-22.pdf, viewed 13 July 2024.

Sato, K, 2024, Violent crime nearly three times worse since 2020, Queensland statisticians find, and it's not youth, ABC News, 22 April, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-22/queensland-violence-on-rise-report-shows-not-just-youth-crime/103751192, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Weatherburn, D, & Rahmann, S, 2021, The Vanishing Criminal - Causes of Decline in Australia's Crime Rate, Melbourne University Press, https://www.mup.com.au/books/the-vanishing-criminal-paperback-softback.

--o0o--

Rinehart, netball & genocide

Rinehart, netball & genocide

- by Ranting Panda, 6 November 2022

'Those that've been assimilated into, you know, earning good living or earning wages amongst the civilised areas, that have been accepted into society and they have accepted society and can handle society, I'd leave them well alone. The ones that are no good to themselves and can't accept things, the half-castes, and this is where most of the trouble comes, I would dope the water up so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in future and that would solve the problem'. 

- Lang Hancock 1984 (Australian Screen Office 1984).

These are the words of the late Lang Hancock, mining magnate, founder & former CEO of Hancock Prospecting, speaking of the so-called 'aboriginal problem'.  Upon Hancock's death in 1992, his daughter Gina Rinehart was appointed Executive Chairman of Hancock Prospecting, a position she continues to occupy. Rinehart, who has a majority ownership of the company. is currently Australia's richest person and among the 10 richest women in the world, with net worth of around $30.2 billion (Sandler 2022). 

In September 2022, Rinehart offered a $15 million sponsorship deal to Netball Australia. Part of the deal included listing the Hancock Prospecting logo on the players jerseys. Donnell Wallam, an Indigenous player for Australia's national netball team, the Diamonds, objected to wearing the logo of a company whose founder had proposed genocide of Indigenous people. The Diamonds stood behind Wallam and protested the sponsorship deal with Hancock Prospecting. As the furore erupted, Wallam decided she would wear the logo on her uniform for the sake of Netball Australia (News.com 2022).

Even with Wallam's concession, Rinehart threw a temper tantrum that a 4-year-old would be proud of. She immediately withdrew her $15 million sponsorship. To make things worse, Rinehart knew that Netball Australia was in dire financial straits and her withdrawal of the sponsorship deal could have caused the organisation to collapse, potentially resulting in significant disadvantage to netball players across the country. One of the world's richest women acted like a bully and a petulant child who can't handle criticism. Rinehart clearly showed she wanted to hide the ugly history of her company and her father's genocidal racism at the expense of a sport that does so much to benefit young women in Australia. 

Rinehart's puerile withdrawal of the sponsorship deal only made her look like a racist who agreed with her father's disgraceful statements. However, had she been willing to discuss the issue like an adult, she could have handled this easily by distancing herself from her father's comments. She wasn't asked to apologise for the comments because it wasn't her who said them. However, the statements by Lang Hancock are directly associated with the company she runs. Rinehart could have stated that she didn't agree with the comments and certainly didn't believe in genocide of Indigenous people. In fact, Rinehart had several cards she could have played here, including showing that her actions over the years have demonstrated she has never agreed with her father's proposed genocide. Rinehart has undertaken many philanthropic activities, including sponsoring scholarships for young, under-privileged girls in Cambodia to help them get an education, supporting some of Australia's Olympic athletes, sponsoring programs for domestic violence and at-risk youth, contributing to redevelopment of hospitals, and importantly funding social and education initiatives in Indigenous communities (Hancock Prospecting n.d.). 

In the wake of the Netball Australia sponsorship fiasco, it appears that Rinehart's philanthropy is just a smoke-screen to hide her ingrained racism. 

Why hasn't she ever disavowed the comments of her father? Particularly considering she sits at the helm of the company he founded and which still carries his name.

Not surprisingly, the issue galvanised Australia. Many conservative commentators, politicians, and sportspeople supported Rinehart. Apparently, the Diamonds should be grateful for the handouts; bowing down and kissing the feet of Rinehart, regardless of the abhorrent history of Hancock Prospecting. Many other people however, saw Rinehart as a petulant, entitled autocrat who expects sycophantic fealty in return for her self-serving philanthropy.

Immediately following Rinehart's withdrawal of the sponsorship deal, the Diamonds played a game against England in Newcastle, with debutante Wallam scoring the winning goal. Days later, the Diamonds played England at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre. Wallam was critical in this victory, scoring 25 points from 26 shots on goal, and securing Australia a 3-0 victory over England in the best-of-three series (AAP 2022).

As Netball Australia came to terms with the loss of the sponsorship deal, the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews stepped up to the plate by generously providing a $15 million sponsorship from Visit Victoria (Hytner 2022). This deal will both support the game at elite levels, while encouraging grassroot participation, particularly in culturally diverse communities. Andrews' moral fibre is in direct contrast to the selfish and petulant Rinehart's lack of moral commitment.

Rinehart considered the stance by the Diamonds to be 'virtue-signalling' and that it was 'unnecessary for sports organisations to be used as a vehicle for social or political causes' (Whiteman 2022). Conservatives like to throw around pejoratives, such as virtue-signalling, whenever their myopic, racist, bigoted views are challenged. Why shouldn't athletes be involved in raising social and political issues? They have the public platform and profile to ensure they are heard. They represent their communities and their country. 

Australia is a multi-cultural and highly diverse country. Unfortunately, many conservatives have this naïve view that to be 'Australian' means everyone acting and thinking the same, without ever acknowledging the diversity of the population or daring to challenge Australia's history. Indigenous people are often told to stop living in the past by conservatives who are too gutless to acknowledge some of Australia's unsavoury and racist history. Conservatives certainly have a hard-time of saying sorry, so it is no surprise that they hide their cowardice and racism by hurling insults, such as 'virtue signalling' or 'do-gooders'. They fail to understand that there is still systemic racism in Australia's health, education, employment and legal justice systems. 

Athletes aren't there to be voiceless court jesters, entertaining the rich and privileged. They should speak up whenever they see injustice ... as should anyone. Virtue-signalling? Do-gooders? It is better they have virtue than bigotry. It is better they do good than do nothing, or worse, do harm. 

Source and references

Australian Associated Press, 2022, Wallam puts off-court drama behind her to lead Australia to England sweep, 4 November, viewed 6 November 2022, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/nov/03/wallam-puts-off-court-drama-behind-her-to-lead-australia-to-england-sweep

Australian Screen Office, Couldn't be fairer,  the clip is taken from the documentary Couldn’t Be Fairer (1984), a collaboration between prominent Aboriginal activist Mick Miller and filmmaker Dennis O’Rourke, https://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/couldnt-be-fairer/clip2/#. 

Hancock Prospecting, n.d., Philanthropy - Education and Community, viewed 6 November 2022, https://www.hancockprospecting.com.au/projects/philanthropy/education-and-the-community/.

Hytner, M, 2022, Victoria to sponsor Australian Diamonds netball team after Hancock Prospecting exit, 31 October, viewed 6 November 2022, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/31/victorian-government-to-sponsor-australian-diamonds-netball-team-after-hancock-prospecting-exit.

News.com, 2022, ‘Really naive’: Lisa Wilkinson drops netball truth bomb, 24 October, viewed 6 November, https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/really-naive-lisa-wilkinson-drops-netball-truth-bomb/news-story/cab88ba5e7536a285d5fd824672ff1a9.

Sandler, R, 2022, There aren’t many women billionaires, but the 10 richest are worth $401 billion, Forbes, 5 April, viewed 6 November 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2022/04/05/the-top-richest-women-in-the-world-2022/?sh=5d8c0514446a.

Whiteman, H, 2022, Billionaire dumps Australia netball team in dispute over father’s racist comments, 24 October, viewed 6 November 2022, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/23/sport/australia-netball-rinehart-diamonds-sponsorship-spt-intl-hnk/index.html.

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

By Ranting Panda, 28 November 2021

The Australian federal government recently unveiled its Religious Discrimination Bills. In summary, the Bills propose protection for people to discriminate if their religion gives them the excuse. As an example, the Bills allow certain organisations to fire or not hire people who are LGBTIQ+, or for schools to expel or not enrol LGBTIQ+ students (Elphick & Taylor 2021). The Bills can be viewed at https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/religious-discrimination-bills-2021.

The object of the Bills is to recognise 'the freedom of all people to have or adopt a religion or belief of their choice, and freedom to manifest this religion or belief either individually or in community with others ...'(s 3, Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). This may seem fine in that people should be able to practice their religion or beliefs, however, religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. Well ... Christian religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. It's a different story for people of other faiths who have been persecuted, lambasted and demonised for their religious beliefs. This has particularly been the case for Muslims, who are often the target of horrendous vilification at the hands of right-wing media commentators, Christians and others, who feel empowered to act out their bigotry and xenophobia.

The Religious Discrimination Bills were proposed in the wake of the marriage equality plebiscite, when some Christians were called out for discrimination against and persecution of LGBTIQ+ people. The plebiscite was about equality, which is a bridge too far for many Christians. In a nutshell, a lot of Christians felt persecuted because they couldn't persecute others. The plebiscite resulted in marriage equality for LGBTIQ+ people, who were given the same rights to marry that everyone else takes for granted. Why did Christians feel persecuted? Because they wanted the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ+ people, based on a twisted interpretation of scripture. 

Marriage is not the only area they wanted to be able to discriminate. Christians wanted the right to force their values on others, such as in the area of abortion, and ironically, religious belief. After all, instead of simply loving their neighbour, they only have to love their neighbour who is Christian, not Muslim, not LGBTIQ+, or requiring an abortion. Funnily enough, the bible is very critical of divorcees. Up until the mid-20th century, divorcees were anathema to the church, but now the church is highly accepting of divorcees. There will also come a time when LGBTIQ+ Christians can attend church and be open about their sexuality, gender identification and relationships. 

The Bills make it legal for a religious school to require all staff AND students to be adherents of that religion 'if such a requirement is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of people of that religion' (s 7(1), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). How weak does your religion have to be, that your feelings may be hurt or your beliefs susceptible to injury by allowing someone not of that religion to work at the school? Similarly, s 9 of the Bill allows for religious hospitals, aged care providers, and disability services providers to discriminate based on faith. What value does it add if a Physics teacher is a Christian or not? Teaching English, Physics, Biology and so on, has nothing to do with the teacher's religious beliefs. Obviously, if the class is a religious education one, it may help for a teacher to be of that religion, but other subjects should not be even discussing religion, let alone requiring the teacher to adhere to that faith.  

The Bill does however, state that while people can make statements of belief that could be seen as discriminatory, they can't make those statements if they are malicious, threatening, intimidating, harassing, or vilifying others (s 12(2), s 15(3), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). 

The Bill is part of a package of three Bills. One of those is the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, which amends various federal legislation, including several human rights laws, namely Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Marriage Act 1961, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Charities Act 2013, Age Discrimination Act 2004, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. To be fair, some of the amendments reaffirm the universality of basic human rights. However, if enacted, these amendments would allow for such things as educational institutions being able to refuse to provide goods, services or make facilities available for LGBTIQ+ people. 

Not every Christian or Christian organisation agrees with the Religious Discrimination Bill. For instance, the Uniting Church in Australia released a media statement on the Bill, which included the comment, '... we maintain any permission given to individuals or religious organisations that allows them to discriminate on the basis of religious belief must be carefully balanced against the rights of people to be free from discrimination and live with dignity. It is our view that the Religious Discrimination Bill does not achieve that balance' (Uniting Church in Australia, 2021).

By contrast, on 3 December 2021, the Victorian Labor government passed the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, which amends Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act (2010) to make it unlawful for schools and religious bodies to 'discriminate against an employee because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or other protected attribute'. In other words, they can't sack people for being LGBTIQ+ or discriminate in their hiring practices. Additionally, they can't refuse service on these grounds either. (AAP-SBS, 2021). If the Commonwealth's religious discrimination Bills are passed, they would override Victoria's much fairer legislation. 

The Commonwealth's discriminatory Bills come at an interesting time for people of faith. Most of the people who support the Bills are right-wing conservative Christians. For many years, these same people have been forcing their beliefs on others. It is one thing for people to have the right to practice their beliefs without harassment, it is entirely something else for those same people to force those beliefs on others. Yet, that is exactly what has been happening. They have forced women to have unwanted pregnancies, forced LGBTIQ+ people to hide their true sexuality and identity, forced LGBTIQ+ people to comply with the myopic view of marriage that many Christians have (i.e. marriage can only be between a man and a woman), forced other religions out of an area (such as campaigns that prevented construction of mosques), and attempted to tell other religions what they could eat or wear (such as campaigns against halal food and religious clothing, particularly burqas). 

It's not Christians in Australia who need protection against discrimination, it is the people who Christians discriminate against who need that protection. 

Unfortunately, far too many Christians live selfish lives. They wouldn't know what the Bible said if it bit them on their self-absorbed arses. The Bible is clear about sharing wealth with others, yet this is socialism in the minds of many of these Christians, who practically worship capitalism. The Bible says to care for others ... but again, socialism. Caring for the welfare of others is anathema to much of conservative Christianity. 

Coincidentally, it is right-wing conservative Christians who have been particularly vocal and active in anti-vaccination protests across the globe. Vaccinations help to protect the community, particularly those most vulnerable to respiratory conditions, but caring for others isn't high on the list of priorities of these Christians. They vociferously argue against being forced to be vaccinated, claiming it is a violation of their human rights. What privilege it must be to never have experienced human rights abuses, and then claim such abuse when asked to help the community. 

They carry placards claiming 'my body, my choice', which is particularly ironic, considering that these same people have been actively campaigning against abortion, in which pro-abortionists argue 'my body, my choice'. For Christians, other people's bodies are only important when it is their own. Choice is only important for them, not for others who may want to make different choices. 

In fact, the involvement of Christians in anti-vaccination protests highlights that their only concern for human rights is when it is their own. They have never protested against the treatment of refugees, such as Australia's mandatory detention policy, but make a vaccine mandatory and they lose their collective minds. There's a big difference between getting a little prick that will save lives and help protect the community, to being locked up for years without charge for committing no crime while being denied the very basic rights to freedom that most of us take for granted. Yet, these so-called Christians are more concerned with being forced to protect the community, then actually doing something to protect the community. They are more concerned with being given life-saving medication, than caring about the persecution and torture of innocent people. First world problems, much!

(Moore & Risso, 2020)

Many right-wing conservative Christians are selfish. They have no concern for anyone else's rights but their own. No wonder they attend anti-vax rallies and also support the discriminatory Racial Discrimination Bills.

They claim to be pro-life when they oppose abortion, but show they are pro-disease and pro-death when they attend anti-vax rallies to stop people from being given life-saving vaccinations. They want Jesus to save them, but reject life-saving vaccinations. Perhaps Jesus sent the vaccination ... 

Then there are those completely deluded kool-aid drinkers who see mandatory Covid vaccinations as the Mark of the Beast articulated in the Book of Revelation, Chapter 13, verses 16-18. In case you're not familiar with that particular scripture, it states, 'It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666'. The Covid-19 vaccination is apparently the Mark of the Beast. I kid you not. 

Mind you, those who claim this have been eagerly awaiting the anti-Christ because they believe that we are in the end-times prophesied in the Bible ... just like many others before them for the last 2,000 years or so. They have rattled off a plethora of candidates for the anti-Christ. This litany of superstars includes The Pope, Hitler, Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev, and pretty much every American president since the founding of the US, except for Donald Trump, who these right-wing conservative Christians have practically lauded as being Christ incarnate. This hall of fame extends way back for millenia, and incudes Napoleon and the various Caesars. Every generation has claimed they are in the end-times, so pardon me if I'm a little sceptical that this generation is the last one before the Apocalypse ... but I digress ...

There is no reasoning with people who have this mentality. For them, everything is a conspiracy. If you quote fatalities from Covid, they will argue it is government propaganda. If you present evidence of the efficacy of vaccinations and that they save lives, these mental giants will quote some obscure and entirely fictional finding that they saw on YouTube or social media. If you criticise their selfishness in opposing the vaccine, they will argue that they are freedom fighters. Of course, they never argued for the freedom of refugees and asylum seekers who faced mandatory detention, even though the Bible considers refugees and asylum seekers as the 'least of these', and calls for their care and concern by Christians. Matthew 25:31-46 states that, 'whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'.

In fact, this is the parable of the sheep & the goats, which states that the sheep are those who are concerned for others, while the goats are those who are only concerned for themselves. The parable goes on to explain that the goats will be sentenced to eternal punishment. Funnily enough, the selfish anti-vax Christians accuse pro-vaxxers of being sheep. Oh well, this would make the anti-vaxxers the goats in this parable ... I guess they better start cranking up their heaters & get used to fiery torment. They tend to also not believe in climate change, so perhaps their support for carbon emissions is their way of practicing for an overheated eternity in the fires of hell. Just sayin' ...

Through their support for the Racial Discrimination Bills, anti-vax protests, end-times conspiracy theories, the lies and bigoted fear-mongering of Donald Trump and Scott Morrison, locking up refugees and asylum seekers, or vilifying other races and religions, it is clear that many right-wing conservative Christians lack the ability to love their neighbour, lack grace and humility, lack wisdom, lack critical reasoning, yet abound in selfishness. They wallow in a persecution-complex, while having the freedom to persecute others.  

The Racial Discrimination Bills are not needed. It would be more accurate to rename them the Privilege Protection Bills. The last thing that Australia needs at this time is to further empower discrimination of others. If anything, the government should be providing greater support and strength to those who are truly discriminated against, persecuted and vilified, instead of empowering the privileged and sanctimonious Christian-class. Instead of these unnecessary and damaging Bills, the Australian government should be focussing on the important challenges facing Australia, including equality for all, climate change and Covid. 

References

AAP-SBS, 2021, Victoria has passed new laws that make it unlawful for schools to sack LGBTIQ+ staff, SBS News, 3 December, viewed 3 December 2021, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victoria-has-passed-new-laws-that-make-it-unlawful-for-schools-to-sack-lgbtiq-staff/45e09ac5-f7eb-411b-83cf-d6fc240a7ed7.

Elphick, L, & Taylor, A, 2021, Schools can still expel LGBTQ+ kids. The Religious Discrimination Bill only makes it worse, ABC News, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-26/religious-discrimination-bill-lgbtq-students-teachers-religion/100651222.

Moore, G, & Risso, A, 2020, Anti-vaccination and 5G protesters defy COVID restrictions, 7 News, 30 May, viewed 26 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/anti-vaccination-and-5g-protesters-defy-covid-restrictions-c-1069448. 

Uniting Church in Australia, 2021, Religious Discrimination Bill must protect all, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://uniting.church/religious-discrimination-bill-must-protect-all-people/. 

Updated 4 December 2021

Critical Race Theory - the importance of truth-telling history to address racist systems

Critical Race Theory - the importance of truth-telling history to address racist systems

By Ranting Panda, 21 November 2021

Are you woke? You know, alert to the needs of others and, in particular, to the discrimination or persecution that others may be experiencing. Of course, if you're right-wing, you probably disparage those who are woke as being politically correct do-gooder snowflakes who are trying to take away your right to discriminate or persecute others. Many right-wingers will blurt out the old dog-whistle, 'Wake Up, Australia' ... or whatever their country of choice is. They want others to wake up but not be woke. 

Woke is often used in relation to racism, which seems to trigger those right-wingers who like to portray themselves as never being offended by anything. Yet, the moment that someone criticises one of their sacred cows they splutter and choke like an old hand-cranked car trying to start on a cold morning. Case in point is the removal or criticism of statues of prominent people from days gone by. Many of those people were slave-traders or slave owners, massacred innocent people, or committed other human rights abuses. The woke who raise these issues are accused of 'rewriting history'. The offended conservatives who make this accusation conveniently ignore or are ignorant of the fact that this isn't rewriting history, it is telling history as it was. Removal of a statue is acknowledging the real history, not rewriting history, not glossing over or sanitising it like naïve conservatives would like.

Confederate statues in the United States are treated as sacrosanct by many conservatives. Yet, these statues were not installed by the Confederacy during the American Civil War that raged between 1861 and 1865. They were installed during three critical periods in US history in which racism and slavery were revered. The first period was in the 1880s to 1890s, some 20 years after the civil war, in order to crush reconstruction efforts and continue the disenfranchisement of black people following the end of slavery. The second period was from the 1900s to 1920s, following the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, which saw a dramatic increase in lynching of black people and the establishment of Jim Crow laws that legitimised discrimination on racial grounds. The third period was in the 1950s and 1960s, which coincided with the centennial of the civil war and was used to counter the civil rights movement that was fighting for equal rights for black people who still suffered from racist laws and institutions in the US. This period celebrated white supremacy and installed further confederate statutes. 

The civil war was fought over the right to keep slaves. Conservatives don't like to hear that, so will often argue that any teaching otherwise is rewriting history. However, they are the ignorant ones who refuse to face facts. In defending confederate monuments, they are defending racism, slavery and murder. In 1931, sociologist and civil rights campaigner, W.E.B. Du Bois, commented that monuments to Confederate leaders should be inscribed with 'sacred to the memory of those who fought to Perpetuate Human Slavery'. (Palmer & Wessler, 2018).

This acknowledgement of history is an important element of Critical Race Theory. It challenges the sanitised version that has been taught in schools and which national pride is often based upon. It's obviously much easier to have pride in the nation if it was founded on a wholesome and benevolent settlement in which native populations welcomed colonial settlers with open arms, where everyone was invited to work in harmony for the betterment of a society based on love, equality and unity. Of course, the reality is that most colonisation was based on rape, massacre, subjugation, racism, and white supremacy, often in the name of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, whose teaching of 'love thy neighbour' seems to have been confined to the four walls of church buildings and never applied in the actual encounters with others who may have been of different cultures, beliefs or colour. 

So, what actually is Critical Race Theory (CRT)? It is the telling of history as it actually happened and it goes further to explain the origins and perpetuation of racism in society to identify solutions to dismantling racism. While some may like to think that everyone is treated equally, the fact is that there is still significant racism, and rather than being non-existent, it has been normalised. Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, is one who regularly spouts racist, and often highly inaccurate, vitriol against indigenous Australians and other minorities. It's no great surprise that Hanson put forward a motion in Australian parliament to reject CRT. Disturbingly, the motion succeeded (Anderson & Gatwiri, 2021).

CRT is not just a matter of studying history, but in studying the impacts of it in the context of structural and institutional racism. It originated in the 1960s and 1970s by scholars researching the cause and continuance of racial disparities in the areas of legal and criminal justice, education, employment, and wealth (Anderson & Gatwiri, 2021). Anderson & Gatwiri (2021), describe some of the principles of CRT as being:

• Race is a social construct, rather than a genetic one. That is, racial differences are based on social experiences, rather than biology.
• Systemic racism perpetuates white supremacy through practices of people and institutions, whether deliberately or not.
• People are not defined by one aspect of their identity, but instead by multiple, intersectional aspects, such as race, gender, religion, age, class, disability, nationality and so on. 
• CRT aims to educate people about discrimination and privilege, to question who benefits and who suffers from existing systems.

Many on the right-wing oppose CRT because they claim it is aimed at making white people hate themselves, or as historian Geoffrey Blainey once described this approach, as a 'black armband view of history'. CRT is not trying to demonise white people, which would be counter-intuitive to its purpose. It aims to address existing racist structures and practices, and identify ways to address them. 

It is also important to understand what CRT is not. After all, opponents of CRT will often make outlandish claims about what CRT is trying to achieve. Trump inaccurately described CRT as a '... Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation, that even young children are complicit in oppression, and that our entire society must be radically transformed' (Karimi, 2021). The following list describes what CRT is not (Ketchell 2021). 

• CRT does not assert that 'one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex'.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex'. 
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex'. 

One of the many arguments put forward against Critical Race Theory, or for that matter, any attempt at addressing systemic racism, is that people of today are not to blame for the actions of people a century or more ago. However, if those systems are still in place, then they should be dismantled. This can be challenging for some people, particularly those who benefit from those systems. Just because one person has the privilege of not experiencing racism or discrimination, does not mean that others don't experience it. When indigenous people in Australia campaigned for land rights so they could restore their connection with their traditional lands, there were many conservatives who sincerely believed that indigenous people would be legally granted the right to throw them off the land and to take over people's dwellings. You know, just like white settlement did to indigenous people. This acknowledgement of massacres, slavery and displacement is not rewriting history, it is the correct telling of the history of Australia. Some of the racist laws in Australia have been removed, such as the policy of Terra Nullius that was used to displace indigenous Australians, the White Australia Policy that actively segregated and disenfranchised indigenous people, and many other laws and policies (Pearson & O'Loughlin, 2021). Racism continues in the way that policing is conducted, in recruitment practices of some employers, in the attitudes and casual racism of many non-indigenous Australians, as well as in the language used by certain politicians to further their racist agendas in order to secure conservative votes.  

Another argument by opponents of CRT is that people should stop living in the past. Hmm ... those same people usually make a big deal of commemorating Anzac Day, Remembrance Day or other national days of significance. It's not those who which to discuss history who are rewriting history, it's those who refuse to discuss it outside their myopic knowledge of the past. Discussions around Australia Day, usually result in conservatives white-washing history, refusing to acknowledge the past or wanting to understand why anyone is still upset with forced displacement or racism. When Yassmin Abdiel-Magheid dared to raise some less than savoury elements of Australia's military past on Anzac Day, she was literally driven from the country following threats of rape and death by conservatives who refuse to acknowledge that perhaps there have been some unsavoury events in Australia's military history. 

Australia may no longer have a White Australia Policy and terra nullius may have been over-ruled, however, that doesn't mean that racism no longer exists. Racism isn't only confined to indigenous people. For instance, the political discourse in Australia, and for that matter in the United States and many European countries, is full of xenophobic fear-mongering and racist dog-whistling. The danger of this is that it empowers casual and overt racism. For example, Australian senator, Mehreen Faruqi, has described the horrendous racist abuse that she has experienced in Australia, even though as a senator, she is working hard for the betterment of Australian society (Faruqi, 2021). Mehreen is Muslim and was born in Pakistan. She isn't the first or only overseas-born politician in Australian parliament. However, politicians such as Julia Gillard, Larissa Waters, Tony Abbot, and Mathias Cormann, have not suffered the racism that Mehreen suffered. Those politicians are white and born in western nations. Another Australian politician, Anne Aly, is a Muslim who was born in Egypt. She has also reported horrendous racism in Australia. She was called an 'ISIS whore', and threatened with being 'gassed in ovens like Holocaust victims' (Christmass 2021). 

Racism is not something that exists only in the past. It is very much alive in today's society. The first principle mentioned above, regarding race as being a social construct, is extremely important to understand. It considers that while geography does help shape a person's identity, it isn't the only thing. However, we often see racists judge people based on their nationality, colour or religion. They may label black people as lazy, Muslims as terrorists, or, as we saw with former President Donald Trump, label Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals and rapists. Trump got away with it because racism is normalised and accepted. 

A high-profile example of systemic racism was that of Kyle Rittenhouse, a then 17-year old boy who crossed state-lines to attack Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse was armed with an assault rifle, which he used to shoot protesters; killing two and severely injuring a third. A few days ago, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges, including murder. Disturbingly, many conservatives supported Rittenhouse, seeing him as a patriot. Had it been a Muslim who fired shots, it would likely have been treated as terrorism. Meanwhile, there have been thousands of examples of black people who have been shot dead, simply for the crime of being black. Rittenhouse was white, affording him the privilege of benefiting from the systemic racism inherent in the criminal justice system of the US. Rittenhouse has been photographed with white supremacist group, the Proud Boys, giving the white power hand signal (Hayne, 2021). In the trial, the judge banned referring to Rittenhouse's victims as protesters, and stated that they were to be referred to as 'looters, arsonists, or rioters' (Hayne, 2021). This immediately validated Rittenhouse's actions as self-defence. If it was truly self-defence, if the protesters were truly the ones doing the attacking, then how come it was only Rittenhouse who fired on them? The judge was biased and did not afford an objective trial, even allowing Rittenhouse to select his own jury; a job usually left for a clerk of the court (Graham, 2021).

It is clear that systemic racism still exists in Australia, the United States, and other countries. It is important to acknowledge our racist history and the consequences of it, in order to stop the perpetuation of racism. It isn't just that certain individuals are racist, it is the systems that normalise that behaviour, and perpetuate racism and injustice throughout the criminal justice system, education and employment. 

References

Anderson, L, & Gatwiri, K, 2021, The Senate has voted to reject critical race theory from the national curriculum. What is it, and why does it matter?, Southern Cross University, 22 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.scu.edu.au/engage/news/latest-news/2021/the-senate-has-voted-to-reject-critical-race-theory-from-the-national-curriculum-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter.php. 

Christmass, P, 2021, Muslim PM Anne Aly details horrific stories of racism, sexism and death threats, 7 News, 19 March, viewed 21 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/muslim-pm-anne-aly-details-horrific-stories-of-racism-sexism-and-death-threats-c-2388662. 

Faruqi, M, 2021, For eight years I’ve served Australia. The racist hate and disgusting abuse still crushes me, The Guardian, 30 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/30/for-eight-years-ive-served-australia-the-racist-hate-and-disgusting-abuse-still-crushes-me.

Graham, J, 2021, Was it fair to have Kyle Rittenhouse pick the numbers that determined his jury?, Deseret News, 17 November, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/11/17/22787727/kyle-rittenhouse-selected-his-own-jurors-in-a-lottery-is-that-fair-or-a-form-of-punishment-kenosha.

Hayne, J, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of killing two people at Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, ABC News, 20 November, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-20/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-protest-shooting-kenosha/100603512. 

Karimi, F, 2021, What critical race theory is -- and isn't, CNN, 10 May, viewed 21 November 2021, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-explainer-trnd/index.html.

Ketchell, M, 2021, Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn’t, The Conversation, 30 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752.

Palmer, B, & Wessler, SF, 2018, The costs of the confederacy, Smithsonian Mag, December, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731/.

Pearson, L, & O'Loughlin, M, 2021, 10 things that you should know about systemic racism, Indigenous X, 2 February, viewed 21 November 2021, https://indigenousx.com.au/10-things-you-should-know-about-systemic-racism/.