Someone’s bound to rain on your parade, whether you like it or not

Asking those diametrically opposed to one another to walk in each other’s shoes is probably expecting too much. But we can ask that of our friends where we have different points of view, can’t we? Or, are our silos so solid we can’t be tempted out of them?

I’ve been reflecting on the March for Australia protests held across the country on Sunday August 31. I was wondering what were the motivations; I figured there’d be a range of them and I knew the media were unlikely to cover them. I wanted to write something, but ‘the what’ took some time. Finally, I’m ready. Read with an open mind. Like parachutes, minds work best that way.

The Age headlined Melbourne’s march: ‘Neo-Nazi lead violent anti-immigration march as clashes break out in CBD’. It was a headline you might expect of one of Murdoch’s tabloid news sheets, such as The Daily Telegraph. For decades, those tabloids had a monopoly on ‘If it bleeds it leads’. Now they all clickbait panic, mayhem, violence, drama and where possible bloodshed. They spruik a black-and-white view of the world. It keeps eyeballs glued to screens. And because we’re wired to be alert for danger to stay alive, conflict remains front and centre in our lives. Ultimately, it also keeps people in their silos, their safe spaces, not talking to each other. Fear blinds us. The painful truth is when you see the world as black-and-white you will inevitably miss the numerous shades and colours in between.

Now, I don’t know all the motivations for those who attended the marches across the country. And neither does the legacy media, it would seem. Did anyone bother to vox pop the marchers? Ask the punters for their views? Some non-legacy sources did, but they don’t have quite the reach of the big players and you’d have to know how to find them online if you wanted a different take. 

Like many protests, those who marched on Sunday would have held a range of views. 

Likely there would be those opposed to immigration per se; that we have enough people as it is. Let’s pull up the drawbridge before we end up like Europe, some might proclaim. Some would no doubt want to send people “back to where they came from”. That kind of narrative. Were they in the minority or majority? I don’t know. Who does? I know it’s racist or ethnocentric and ignores the fact that most of us — including those who marched — are migrants or descendants of migrants.

Then there would be those who see the issue as a matter of numbers — not race — arguing Australia should stick to its long-term average annual intake, perhaps around 180,000 — or maybe a bit less. They would argue we need to focus on meeting our skills shortage, although with AI potentially replacing more jobs, who knows what that picture will look like not in a decade, but in the next two years? They argue any more than that number strains our capacity to provide enough housing, transport, schools and health care etc — the infrastructure of modern life. You could easily argue that we aren’t coping now with the current intake. Housing is increasingly unaffordable; there aren’t the tradies to build the houses we need now and it will take years to train up enough to build the homes of the future. That’s if we commit to training them and once trained they go on to work in their chosen fields. And we have been somewhere between sluggish and patchy on committing funds to TAFE. Then there’s transport: our networks are already congested. And we aren’t building enough capacity in our schools and hospitals. I haven’t even mentioned the poor old environment! You get the drift. Now, I do have some sympathy for that argument. If we’re not meeting the demand now, is it smart to keep importing more people to add to the problem? A bigger Australia has to be planned for. And we’re pretty ordinary at long-range planning; most governments only think in election cycles. Too much of “no worries, mate, the future will look after itself”. No, it won’t. 

That kind of argument might have widespread support in the community. It’s not anti-immigration, it just argues for a level that is manageable. How many of those who marched were of that view? Again, we don’t know.

Last but not least there’s the role of the National Socialist Movement, the so-named neo-Nazis, who, of course, would’ve had their own motivations for joining such marches, even overtaking them, grabbing positions front and centre and using them to push their agenda. Social commentator and writer on the left of politics, Van Badham opined: “Nazis didn’t turn up to YOUR rally: YOU turned up to the Nazi rally”. I think that’s hyperbole. (Van likes a juicy quote as much as any social commentator.)

It’s likely many of the marchers who want a smaller migrant intake would be aghast at any suggestion they were neo-Nazis. It doesn’t matter, though. If some group wants to piggyback or even hijack a protest and they have the sheer force of will, they will do it. And there’s little organisers can do. Nevertheless, the legacy media will brand them anyway. They can’t win. The Age says they’re all Nazis, others such as Reuters and Sky were more measured in their reporting. Unfortunately, it’s rare to find an old-school balanced report about anything these days! In these terribly divisive times, a lie, even a partial lie is half way round the world before truth gets out of bed, to paraphrase an old proverb.

Protests bring out the piggybackers 

For decades, various political organisations of the right and left have piggybacked off protests. I saw it during the organising for the Palm Sunday peace rallies in the 1980s when hundreds of thousands of people rallied against the then Cold War between the US and the former Soviet Union. The left was very much involved in organising and participating in those rallies and perhaps saw them as opportunities to expand their influence, direct the narrative and recruit. The same is arguably true of climate change protests and other social and political movements. How often do you see socialist banners in these marches and rallies, right up the front?

Now, I’m not suggesting it’s a bad thing. Everyone has a right to argue their point of view, to hold up whatever banner they like, shout/sing/chant whatever slogans they like. And to even get upfront to lead the protest. All protests attract a diverse range of people with a diverse range of perspectives. They may or may not get along. They may or may not be happy to be seen together. Democracy and freedom of expression are messy. And earnest people will be earnest people and advance their particular cause or slant. So too with ‘far-right’ groups such as NSM and ‘far-left’ groups such as Antifa.

And remember, all of us deep down inside think we’re right!

Nevertheless, and maybe I’m terribly old-fashioned but I like Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”* The key word is “say”. No one has the right to force anyone to believe anything or do anything, nor to take over, to dominate. As long as the discourse is polite and plays the problem not the person, good. Problem is, the world right now isn’t like that. ‘Extremists’ of both left and right aren’t about to be polite and listen to each other or anyone they don’t agree with. They will continue to be shouty; it’s probably in their DNA. I’m not holding out much hope of a change of heart there. However, I will say, in my experience, the socialists tend to be pretty polite; they don’t tend to shove their placards down your throat, so to speak. Perhaps they’ve learned that doesn’t get people on-side. Not so sure about the crowds that went ape-shit and chucked a tanty after Trump got elected in 2016, though!

The upshot for me

We humans are a very diverse lot; we want to be right; we think we know what’s best; we like being in our group and so on. On the other hand — and I know this is a huge ask in these fractious times — we could also aspire to step out of the comfort of our silos and walk in someone else’s shoes. It does require listening, which, I know, is an even bigger ask! I suppose it begins with not tarnishing everyone who goes to a protest with the same brush. Not blindly accepting some screaming headline from a legacy masthead that has long lost its claim to be a journal of record. Sure, read or watch what they report, but also look for alternative views and what they have to say; it means going online to places such as Telegram, Rumble, BitChute, Odyssey, Substack etc. I’m not asking you to blindly accept those perspectives either. Just be aware of them. (Or, maybe go to a march/rally/protest and observe from the sidelines.)

One thing we can all do is we can start with our friends, especially those we may not see eye-to-eye with on everything. We can have respectful conversations, we can learn to walk in each others’ shoes. Ask what’s behind how they see an issue. And ask them to hear you. Hopefully. I know it’s a dream!

When we take off our binary caps, leave our silos, wipe away the frenzy and fear of black-and-white thinking, and step into the sunshine what do we see? For me, I see a world that is truly a rainbow of colours waiting to be explored. Stripped of pre-conceived thoughts, I’m free to let go of judgement, free to ask and therefore to learn, to understand and to grow. However, there is a pretty decent-size ‘but’. It ultimately only works when we all learn to do it . . . But, I’m not waiting around for that day.

---

* Most people are under the impression Voltaire (1694–1778) said that. However, there’s no evidence he did. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre, provided the now-famous quote summing up Voltaire’s attitude toward the writings of French philosopher, Helvetius, in an anecdotal biography of a prominent circle of 18th century European intellectuals who knew and corresponded with Voltaire. It was published in 1906. The truth can often be more complicated and fascinating.