Tag: Politics

What Happened to the Live Exports Debate in Australia?
October 8, 2017 10:00 pm Comments Off on What Happened to the Live Exports Debate in Australia?
A couple of years ago, live exports were a hot topic of conversation, and for a good reason. Scandals such as the MV Cormo Express incident and the ban on Indonesian live exports in 2011 exposed the poor standard of welfare inherent in the industry.
Australia has been a major supplier of livestock, particularly sheep and cattle, to overseas markets through the live export industry, and the industry contributes an ‘average of 1 billion in export earnings annually for the Australian economy.’ Yet, countless examples of animal cruelty arose during the transportation of animals and upon arrival at overseas destinations where there are poor or non-existent animal welfare standards.
At this juncture in time, it is interesting to see what has been happening since, if anything.
Exports have continued
Unfortunately, deaths at sea have been continuing to occur. In 2016, up to 3,000 sheep died from heat stress on a vessel bound for the Middle East, with many sheep unaccounted for because the bodies had already decomposed.
In 2017, a live export ship travelling to Malaysia from Darwin had its certification revoked after, of the 1,236 cattle on board, 95 died. The cattle die because they are ‘unable to keep their feet due to unsuitable flooring’ and, as a result, develop open wounds, septicemia and respiratory diseases. In that trip, 7.65 per cent of the population onboard died – way above the legal threshold of 0.5 per cent for trips that last than 10 days.
The laws are not stronger
To be frank, the inherent nature of live exports makes it impossible to achieve substantive animal welfare: being shipped for ten days or more in confined conditions across oceans will never be a pleasant experience. It seems unlikely that the government will ban all exports and, disappointingly, efforts to place stronger laws in this realm are failing.
So, what is wrong with the legal framework?
It’s voluntary and reactive
The latest liberal governments have placed more focus on the industry becoming more self-regulated – establishing new export markets in China, Cambodia and Thailand. Disappointingly, the government has removed some of the key frameworks related to ensuring better protection in foreign countries – something we should be aiming for as a country with a growing animal welfare culture.
Importantly, most of the additions to the live export regulations operate in a manner that is reactionary rather than preventative. For example, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) was introduced to monitor the whole live export process. Exporters are required to submit an end of processing report and an independent audit report to show compliance with the animal welfare, control, and traceability objectives of the system.
However, what use is there in producing this information when sanctions are hardly ever enforced? The whole system is not designed to prevent the mistreatment of animals – if the cruelty has already occurred, it is of little benefit to the animal that has already suffered.
It treats animals as property
Though not related to animals in particular, the Export Control Act is the legislative framework that governs the export of ‘prescribed goods’ – of which an animal is one. All vessels ‘carrying livestock’ must have an Australian Maritime Safety Authority license, and must comply with the provisions of the Navigation Act that specify the ‘requirements for animal pen sizes… and the possession of humane destruction equipment.’
This distinctly ‘non-living’ framework breeds an attitude that animals are property and commodities, which unfortunately helps legitimise the lack of legal protection that animals receive.
It’s complex
Because many different instruments govern the live exports trade, the focus on animal welfare can get lost quickly. There are the Animal and Meat Livestock Act, the Export Control Act which is both administered by Biosecurity Australia. Then there are licensing orders, Cargo Handling and Navigation Acts involved.
Finally, because there is no national animal welfare framework, state-based animal welfare law applies to the trade with regard to loading, transportation and handling of animals on Australian soil. This starts to get much more complex once animals reach their overseas destinations.
We have no control over foreign laws
There are no legal requirements that animals, once they reach foreign jurisdictions, to be stunned before slaughter. Animals get sent to countries where there are no laws surrounding animal welfare.
While the ESCAS intends to meet the animal welfare recommendations and standards in the World Organisation for Animal Health, Australia cannot interfere with foreign jurisdictions, and international law is largely unenforceable. The welfare of animals is therefore out of Australia’s control when they are no longer subject to our animal welfare laws and associated standards in.
It is morally inconsistent and unfair to allow welfare standards to apply to animals while in Australia, but then allow the treatment of animals to be significantly crueller in destination countries.
Where should the debate go?
At this point, the live export trade seems like a futile exercise from the perspective of animal welfare. It is a difficult issue to debate in Australia, where we celebrate agriculture and consider the economic interests of farmers.
Recently, the Australian Farm Institute report called Enhancing the Competitiveness of the Australian Livestock Export suggested that the animal welfare regulations, such as the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance, were reducing the competitiveness of Australian livestock exporters. While it is true that other countries with little regulation of the industry can provide cheaper animals, there is little merit in any argument for even weaker animal welfare protections.
I would argue that, at present, the economic benefits felt by the industry do not justify the suffering of animals. Reports have shown that, in fact, the live export trade is not hugely significant to Australia. Farmers do not rely on it as their main source of income, and it equates to a very small percentage of overall livestock production in Australia. Furthermore, there is a viable alternative to live exports which ensures the greatest amount of benefit to both economic interests and animal welfare.
Australian farmers can transition from live exports to the export of boxed and chilled meats, like our friends in New Zealand did a long time ago. A ‘gradual reduction leading to an eventual termination of the entire industry could improve the long-term condition of farmers’ through the expansion of domestic processing facilities.
While it isn’t ideal for an animal lover, local processing facilities ensure better animal treatment as animals are slaughtered (humanely) at close as possible to the point of production, rather than being transported to foreign destinations first.
It is also more economically sound. Not only does it ‘support growth in regional economies’, but it also has the potential to generate better economic returns. Interestingly, live exports are the lowest form of commodity export, and the domestic production of meat produces more economic value.
Overall, the stagnation of the live export debate is disappointing and symptomatic of the slow progress regarding animal welfare law in Australia. There is scope for a much better system; hopefully, the debate will grab the attention of lawmakers again before thousands of more animals experience the inevitable terror of live exportation.

Grace Dudley
Qatar Will Not Capitulate
September 20, 2017 7:28 pm Comments Off on Qatar Will Not Capitulate
When Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members cut diplomatic relations and imposed a blockade on the small neighbouring Arab Kingdom of Qatar, many observers expected swift concessions and a rapid resolution. Now more than three months have passed and not only has Qatar resisted the demands of its traditional allies, but it has actively defied them and shows no signs of capitulation.
Although the official reason for Qatar’s ostracism is its failure to implement a GCC agreement from 2014, there are a number of disagreements between Doha and Riyadh at the core of this feud which has been simmering for years. Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, the long leash of press freedom granted to the Al Jazeera news network, and its flirtations with Saudi Arabia’s regional contender, the Islamic Republic of Iran, have put the kingdom at odds with the interests of the regional hegemon. However, Saudi Arabia has failed to coerce Qatar because the Qatari economy is not vulnerable to the sanctions in the first place, and the coalition has failed to consider their target’s domestic interests.
The problem with the sanctions is that for Qatar the costs of accepting the demands are higher than the cost of simply resisting. The ultimatum of thirteen demands issued at the beginning of the crisis ranged from the imposition of rules for Qatari citizenship, to how the kingdom should conduct its foreign relations. Qatar could never have accepted the onerous demands without effectively subjugating itself as a suzerain to Saudi Arabia.
It was likely never expected that Doha would accept the full list of demands, but even those who are more valuable to Saudi Arabia’s national interests were unrealistic as they failed to consider the contextual influences in Qatar. For instance, members of the coalition have repeatedly emphasised that Qatar must stop funding the Muslim Brotherhood, however, failed to recognise how deeply unpopular this would be amongst the Qatari population. The Muslim Brotherhood is widely respected amongst the general populace, and thus the political classes advocate for the government to maintain a strategic balance preventing popular unrest and terrorist activities. Implementing the demands would erode support for the monarchy in multiple sectors of society, potentially destabilising the regime.
Paradoxically, the blockade and sanctions which were designed to garner domestic pressure on the government have resulted in a rise of Qatari nationalism. The ‘rally round the flag’ effect has been bolstered by the unified solidarity of the ruling classes in resisting, the sudden and disproportionate appearance of the blockade.
The Saudi-led group also underestimated the versatility of the Qatari economy. The food shortages and fall in financial confidence showed that the economy was clearly sensitive to the initial impact of the sanctions, but the success of Qatar in withstanding and bouncing back from the sanctions demonstrates that the economy is not as vulnerable as initially thought.
The country swiftly rectified the food shortages by sourcing alternative suppliers, notably the very countries Saudi Arabia opposed Qatari trade with. New trade routes have been established with Oman to bypass the UAE, the government has increased public spending, and the impact on the economy appears to have been temporary, with Qatar’s economy still expected to expand ahead of the GCC countries. Additionally, the state-owned Qatar Petroleum announced plans to massively increase export of liquefied natural gas, which will drive down natural energy resource prices and impact the resource-dependent economies of its neighbours.
Doha’s defiance has also manifest in its complaints to numerous international organisations such as the World Trade Organization, the UN Security Council and others. By doing so, Qatar has shown that it is unwilling to settle on the coalition’s terms and that Saudi Arabia’s threats lack credibility.
The coalition’s threats lacked credibility from the start because a very similar situation played out in 2014. Many of the same underlying issues prompted the same actors to action against Qatar in 2014, withdrawing their ambassadors and cutting diplomatic ties. However, relations eventually returned to their normal state without Qatari compromise, indicating that the bloc is unwilling to bear the long-term costs of maintaining coercive economic policies.
The economic coercion attempt has failed to damage the Qatari economy, or destabilise its regime substantially, and the situation is unlikely to escalate militarily. The Saudi led bloc cannot afford to become militarily involved, and Qatar and Turkey have rushed to deploy Turkish troops on Qatari soil in a show of defiance and force. Already Saudi Arabia has indicated it will ease its hard-line approach by opening the border to Qatari hajj pilgrims.
If the goal of the five sanctioning countries was to force Qatar to realign itself with the core of the GCC, then they have failed. Qatar has proven resilient and defiant. It has increased its diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia’s regional competitors, and thus far sanctions have proven ineffective in generating direct or indirect pressure on the government. The blockaders are in for a long wait because the costs for Qatar to accept the demands are higher than the costs of resistance and endurance to both the government and the general populace.

Ben Lawrence
The right direction on climate change
7:04 pm Comments Off on The right direction on climate change
SOCRATIC QUESTIONING IN WORLD POLITICS
Richard is a second-year student studying Finance and International Relations. He is an international student with a very broad experience with NGOs and academics. His articles will analyse global affairs from a political and economic point of view. He uses the Socratic way of questioning to provide a philosophical perspective in perceiving contemporary global affairs.
Many countries are trying to transition from fossil fuel and gas power. Following the G20 summit, numerous countries have made a bid to tackle climate change in this aspect. China is one of the biggest fossil fuel consumers and produced 11.2 trillion USD (GDP) by 2016. China recently claimed that they would end the sales of combustion-engine vehicles to push electric cars. The successful implementation of this policy might alleviate domestic air pollution, and perhaps have a positive impact on climate change.
Despite the allegedly good intentions by the Chinese, a specific deadline on the sale of fossil fuel-based cars has yet to set. Cynics perceive that the successful implementation in such massive market will take until the 2040s to accomplish, and therefore cannot fulfil the 2-Celsius goal set by Paris Agreement. Some even say that to implement this policy, China will have to face severe market failure and market inefficiency in the short-run. Thus, it is significant to cautiously consider whether ending combustion-engine vehicles will combat climate change and ultimately fulfil the Paris Agreement.
It is important to assess what the main contributor to climate change is. Despite the lack of a unanimous agreement on this issue, it is widely believed that the excessive emission of carbon dioxide causes climate change. Interestingly, according to US Environmental Protection Agency, the world major CO2 emission industries are Electricity & Heat Production (around 25%) and Industry (21%). In contrast, the Transportation Industry (which contains air, rail, road as well as fossil fuel-based vehicles) only contributed 15% of the global greenhouse gas emission in 2010. With this in mind, perhaps the goal of transitioning motor vehicles from fossil fuel to electricity might not be as efficient as changing and targeting other significant industries, such as Electricity & Heat Production.
Additionally, as mentioned above, electricity production contributes around 25% of CO2.In other words, if we replace combustion engines with electricity, this will reduce the CO2 from transportation but increase the amount in the electricity industry. Ultimately, this measure of replacing combustion engines cannot necessarily reduce the emission of CO2, which is still the key contributor to global warming.
Another consequence of this policy in both China and other same-vision countries might be the potential economic loss. Per the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 51% of households in Australia have access to two or more motor vehicles, and the majority are combustion engine based (these engines use fossil fuels). This number will arguably increase as countries develop more. Thus, if we introduce electric cars, this indicates that more than half of the household might need to either shift their transportation or spend more money to pay the electricity bill. Indeed, CO2 emissions can potentially drop because consumers use less fossil fuel. Notwithstanding, markets might be less efficient because ultimately consumers are getting the same thing but having to pay more money.
On the bright side, such gesture might stimulate the innovation on alternative energies. Norway, the most ambitious country, set the deadline by 2025, which means all the sales of the conventional cars will be banned in the next eight years. This indicates that motor companies in Norway must produce a solution on alternative energy cars if they want to survive in the market. A rational choice for those companies would be increasing investment in research and development in the electricity sector or other alternative energies.
As a result, it is uncertain whether ending combustion engine vehicles will alleviate climate change. However, it is important to recognise the pitfalls in this policy or mindset. Firstly, we need to recognise that transportation is not the major mean for climate change. Secondly, the potential economic loss and market failure that needs to be considered is the decision-making process. Therefore, the policy itself is controversial to various extents. If the policy is going to shift our focus on research and development on alternative energies, it is most definitely not the worst start to combat climate change.

Richard Haowei Hong
Why Neo-Nazis Love Taylor Swift’s New Hit Single
12:48 pm Comments Off on Why Neo-Nazis Love Taylor Swift’s New Hit Single
Last Friday, the notoriously far-right Breitbart News’ Twitter account started the morning tweeting out stories as normal. But by the end of the evening, whoever was managing the account decided to have a bit of fun with the captions: one article (‘German Left Wing Magazine Cover Portrays Trump Giving Hitler Salute’) was captioned with the lines ‘The role you made me play/Of the fool, no, I don’t like you’. Another piece (‘Majority of Australians Support Public Ban On Islamic Burqa’) was captioned ‘But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of time’. All in all, 30 consecutive Twitter posts from Breitbart News were captioned with song lyrics – song lyrics, as you might have picked up, from Taylor Swift’s very new, very popular single ‘Look What You Made Me Do’.
The song is already a massive hit – it made the biggest debut of any video in YouTube history, getting over 43 million views, and it’s also broken Spotify’s single-day streaming record.
And the far right – Breitbart’s audience of Neo-Nazis and white nationalists – love it.
The Daily Stormer, which paraded itself as the ‘the world’s most visited alt-right site’ before it was taken down following the violent Charlottesville protests, frequently posted content of quotes from Adolf Hitler that were superimposed on pictures of Swift. It’s the same site that has published articles such as ‘Taylor Swift, Avatar of European Imperialism,’ ‘Aryan Goddess Taylor Swift: Nazi Avatar of the White European People,’ and ‘Aryan Goddess Taylor Swift Accused of Racism for Behaving Like an Ape in a Music Video’.
Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin explained to Vice’s Broadly that ‘Taylor Swift is a pure Aryan goddess, like something out of classical Greek poetry…. Athena reborn. That’s the most important thing’, ‘It’s incredible really that she’s surrounded by these filthy, perverted Jews, and yet she remains capable of exuding 1950s purity, femininity and innocence.’
Milo Yiannopolous, a libertarian Internet icon, wrote in a Breitbart column that ‘Swift is covertly ‘red-pilled’, concealing her secret conservative values from the progressive music industry while issuing subtle nods to a reactionary fan base’.
It’s strange that Taylor Swift has been taken up as a symbol of the far right, considering the status she has developed as an empowering, feminist figure who battles and wins, against men in courts, business and romance.
In her recent sexual assault trial, where Taylor Swift countersued a Denver DJ who attempted to sue her for $3 million, she released a statement saying:
‘I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this. My hope is to help those whose voices should also be heard. Therefore, I will be making donations in the near future to multiple organisations that help sexual assault victims defend themselves.’
And she received praise from commentators who were definitely, absolutely not Neo-Nazis: ‘In speaking out about sexual assault and encouraging other women and girls to do the same… Swift has, at last, done something truly feminist,’ wrote Claire Cohen in The Independent.
BuzzFeed’s Lauren Yapalater wrote, ‘Right now, I’m pretty much giving Taylor’s testimony a standing ovation from my desk’.
Why is Taylor Swift one of the only artists in the world who is adored by both conservatives and liberals?
One explanation is that all of Taylor Swift’s songs – and in particular ‘Look What You Made Me Do’ – are deeply projective. As listeners, we demand repetition and predictability. In 2012, the Spanish National Research Council looked at 464,411 recordings from 1955 to 2010 and found that popular music these days had “less variety in pitch transitions” than preceding music. And we listen to the same music over and over again: the top 1 per cent of music artists receive 77 per cent of the revenue from the industry.
Any ideology can think that their values, or concerns, are reflected in music that has gotten increasingly bland, even if the composer intended for it to be seen otherwise. In Swift’s ‘Look What You Made Me Do’, the you could be anyone, and the me could be any of us.
Another explanation is that the relationship between politics and pop culture is symbiotic: for the far right to be seen as a legitimate force, one of the easiest ways for them to insert themselves into the ‘mainstream’ is to latch onto the largest cultural icons available. It’s a cheap tactic, one that has more often been co-opted by liberals – such as in the star-studded 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Only now is the far right catching on.
Taylor Swift is often presented in the media as a divisive figure, but the reality is that she unites the poles of politics in a way that culture rarely does.
Love or hate her new song; it shows us that we can all be Swifties.

Max Koslowski
In Defence of a Republic
12:37 pm Comments Off on In Defence of a Republic
Kain O’Dea is a member of the Australian Labor Party and the Treasurer of the ANU Australian Republic Association.
The recent Woroni article “Don’t Let Hacks and Sycophants Ruin What Already Works’ proposes an antiquated and confused response to what is perceived as a renewed, leftist ‘hack’ push for a republican debate. With all due respect to the author, the article missed the point entirely, as a young Republican, I want to put forth the case for change.
The republican debate is about a unified progression as a nation, not a repudiation of our marred colonial history, birthed from the massacre of Australia’s First Nations. No one is attempting to erase the importance of the Crown from our collective cultural memory – it’s there, for better and for worse.
I find it interesting that its author chose to base a majority of his argument against the republican movement on the report of one particular Australian Republican Movement fundraiser, and then fill in the gaps with strained hypotheticals. ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ he preaches. Yet, in the same article, he laments about ‘another week of political dysfunction in Canberra’, While they may claim that the system is not broken, they can clearly see the cracks in its façade. I think it’s pretty obvious that while our constitutional monarchic system may not be broken, it sure as hell looks like it is breaking.
Perhaps it is just me, the leftist ‘hack’, who is confused by the suggestions that Queen Elizabeth’s position as head of state prevents political corruption. We still had a monarch when Bronwyn Bishop used tax-payer funds in the ‘Chopper-gate’ scandal. We had a monarch during the Tampa affair, and we had a monarch this week when we were unable to resolve LGTBQIA* peoples’ civil rights through regular parliamentary procedure. For an even more recent example of such Constitutional antiquity, we need not look further than the past month where the Section 44 provision that has claimed numerous parliamentary careers. 116 years of monarchic rule has, in no way, prevented corrupt politicians or special interest groups throwing their weight around to achieve their own ends. Conversely, the Republics of Switzerland, Ireland and many other nations have not succumbed to total despotism.
Democracy should always be at the forefront of our political systems. Incidents such as the 1975 Constitutional Crisis show us that relying on conventions that come with the antiquated British monarchy can be risky and that the will of the people can be overridden. A reformation of our constitutional makeup provides the Australian people the chance to remove opaque powers assigned to the Executive, to recognise indigenous peoples as Australia’s first and to add to s.116, making more rights expressly protected at a constitutional level.
Right now, the monarch may be non-partisan and incorruptible in its place as Australia’s head-of-state – but so what? How does that affect the day-to-day running of the Parliament right now? Where was Lizzie when our Deputy Prime Minister was discovered to be a citizen of a foreign country? Was she fanning the flames of chaos? I don’t think so. What purpose does the monarchy serve?
While pro-monarchist may paint Republicans as toffee-nose Turnbull-ite Tories (pardon the alliteration) praising each other as the future masters of the world once the monarchy is out of the way. I can very much assure him that, even in 1999, when the referendum unfortunately lost, 45 percent of the Australian population did not exist as part of some shoulder-rubbing elite community. They were people just like everyone else who are sick and tired of political games and wanted politicians to just get on with it. 18 years ago, a lot of us could barely form complete sentences and look how far we’ve grown. So too has Australia, Britain has become even less relevant. We are more multicultural, we do more trade within the context of our Asia-Pacific region and increasingly hold our own on the world stage.
It is not news that the general population do not all share my love of the Labor party or some pro-monarchists’ love of the former Director of Australian’s for Constitutional Monarch – Tony Abbott. People no longer like ‘politics-as-usual’. Therefore, to say ‘nothing to see here, move along’ to the Australian population is a non-sequitur. A debate about the potential for an Australian republic should be exactly that – A debate. The chance for people to express their views and for us as a nation to work out what works for us now. Not what worked 116 years ago. The British monarchy is an anachronism, a remnant of a bygone era – no longer fit to have Constitutional ties to a separate sovereign nation. The fact is, this debate provides politicians with the opportunity to discuss ideas, ideas that mean something more than the day-to-day news cycle and Newspolling. It gives everyone a chance to contribute to redefining the idea of what it means to be Australian, what our values are and what kind of country we want to be.
We should have a head-of-state who is Australian born. A position to which any Australian can aspire, be they born in an Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, or an LGBT-identifying teenager in rural Queensland, a newly settled asylum seeker who is proud to call Australia his/her/their new home, or even conservative monarchists themselves! A position from which no one is excluded and for which everyone can be proud; not a figurehead who was alive when taking Aboriginal children from their families was considered best practice and when the White Australia Policy was very much in force. One who reigned over States that jailed homosexuals and whose family, lineage and patrimony represents the suffering and subjugation of millions of native people.
I feel like it is also important to point out that even if the British monarch loses their position as the symbolic ruler of Australia, which the Queen has stated is a matter for Australia as a nation, the British monarchy will still be our celebrities. We will still be able to avidly follow the livers of their young children (which I deem inappropriate, in any case, but if that’s your prerogative – go for it), watch their weddings on television. It’s not as though the Republican movement wants to kill the British royal family. I don’t understand what people think is going to happen afterwards. We will just be a Republic and the sky will not fall in.
In a period of such divided public opinion, wouldn’t it be better to set our own rules to suit Australia’s path into the future, rather than clinging on the past?
Maybe we should have a debate about it?

Kain O’Dea
EQ: Emotional Quotient or Emoji Quotient?
September 19, 2017 6:06 pm Comments Off on EQ: Emotional Quotient or Emoji Quotient?
Researchers at MIT’s media lab have been working night and day on a groundbreaking tool which will likely change the world. No, you silly thing, it’s not something to do with space travel, curing cancer or other similarly trivial ideas! This is something that actually matters. DeepMoji is a Twitter-based learning algorithm which is trained to learn and decipher patterns by being fed Tweets. The algorithm has learned to predict what emoji will be used to react to the post. DeepMoji researchers believe that, in this way, the algorithm will eventually learn to determine emotional content.
I’m a deeply nihilistic law student with a strong belief that dank memes are the lifeblood of our generation. Consequently, the idea of learning what ‘emotions’ are, through emojis, speaks to me on a deep level. As a soulless third year, I am only now, through the power of emojis, experiencing the full range of human emotion. So, I personally think that DeepMoji’s work will have stunningly broad application to our everyday lives. And a prime example of one of these applications is political education – a subject which can often be even more confusing than human emotions.
I submit to you, dear readers (hoping that some of you know more about computers than being ‘proficient in Microsoft Office’, as my CV reads), the following guide to emojis and political figures, to be fed, in due course, to DeepMoji:

              The Ginger

Red-y or not, here she comes. The Ginger is most reminiscent of Pauline Hanson. This cheeky emoji hasn’t yet hit our phones (much like the hundreds of politically incorrect bombshells I’m sure Pauline has still to drop) but, when it does, it’s certain to make an impact! Natural redheads make up two per cent of the world’s population, and Ms Hanson is a rare breed indeed. In her maiden speech, she stated: ‘I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the government … under the assumption that Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia.’ Well Pauline, there’s a reason we got some more racially diverse emojis before we got a redhead, as small a consolation as that may be to many people. If only there were a pants down emoji… In the meantime, DeepMoji will have to learn from this fiery emoticon.

              Cowboy Hat

Bob Katter. The best thing about his hat is that it puts another protective layer between his terrifying mind and us. Unfortunately, his brain still remains connected to his mouth. He’s a law school drop-out – so, of course, we knew nothing good could come of him. Among his various nefarious acts, pelting the Beatles with eggs in 1964 is undoubtedly one of the worst. He’s a gun totin’, ‘dewogging’ promotin’ (yes, really, look it up) star who believes that in matters of child support there is ‘an anti-male bias’ and ‘in 90 per cent of cases the bloke has done nothing wrong [and] the woman was at fault.’ But the high(low?)light is definitely the hat.

              Pregnant Lady

The pregnant woman is without a doubt Larissa Waters. The Canadian flag emoji could also work, but let’s shift away from the section 44 debacle. The first woman to breastfeed in Parliament, Larissa took a firm stance for working women. And that step was a wonderful one to support women’s rights. So yes: Let’s just remember Larissa as a mother. Don’t worry about her work as Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens. She’s a woman. So just remember her for her tits and ovaries.

              Incognito

If there is anyone whom this be-trenchcoated, mysterious character represents, it’s Tony Abbott. He’s a Liberal backbencher, didn’t you know? I’m surprised you even know his name. He’s kept to his word and taken a step back to let Malcolm take pride of place. You never hear anything subversive from him. Ever. He definitely does not have a knife destined for the PM’s back hidden in the depths of his jacket.

              Hand and Smartphone

He’s at Lonsdale Street Roasters. He’s at Telstra Tower with Lucy. He’s taking selfies on Sydney’s public transport. He’s a man for all seasons. He’s our Prime Minister. And how do we know all this? Because he’s kind enough to tote around his smartphone wherever he goes and update us on his daily rounds! Although I do find his frequent, #relatable posts quite reminiscent of Brian Schmidt’s blog posts, there can be no doubt that Turnbull is ‘up with the youths’ and knows how the reverse camera works. Unfortunately, it seems that this is the only hip, sick, mad aspect of Malcolm v1 (remember, the one who would cross the floor and wear leather jackets?) that remains. In fact, I’m starting to think the phone is a horcrux of the old Malcolm…

              Mona Lisa

Whether you think she’s a real piece of work or a work of art, there is no doubt that Julie Bishop is something. And, as with da Vinci’s masterpiece, she’s worth getting a selfie with if you have the opportunity. She’s known for her love of Armani, so she at least wears Italian clothes, as Mona certainly did. If that’s not enough to convince you that this is Bishop’s spirit-emoji, with an aloof smile, Jules will keep you guessing, and you’ll never know what she’s thinking. A useful attribute for a diplomat. Finally, in response to Donald Trump’s commentary on Bridgette Macron’s figure, our Deputy PM commented, ‘It’s a rather interesting comment to make. I wonder if she could say the same of him?’ With all the focus on her womanly wiles, I think Mona would have been all about sisterhood; she and Julie would probably have some good bants about our favourite orange overlord.
In a time of increasing automation and the rise of emotionally intelligent AI, it is time that we finally catch up to this miraculous algorithm and gain a bit of EQ. We are facing a real EQ emoj-ency (even more pressing than the section 44 troubles facing out illustrious leaders). So, my dear reader, turn on your phone and scroll through some emojis and learn some emojinal intelligence.

Elizabeth Harris
The Talk
September 13, 2017 9:08 pm Comments Off on The Talk
UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM
‘How can you hate me, when you don’t even know me?’
That’s the question African American musician Daryl Davis wanted an answer to. And he knew there was only one group that could give it to him: the Ku Klux Klan.
Davis started befriending members of the KKK. They became the ‘invite his family over for dinner’ kind of friends. Davis has a level of patience you wouldn’t believe.
He never set out to convert anyone, but Davis ended up being responsible for 200 klansmen renouncing their membership from the Klan.
Davis collects the robes of the klansmen he converts and plans to give them to a museum. ‘I pull out my robes and hoods and say, “This is what I’ve done to put a dent in racism”,’ he said. ‘I’ve got robes and hoods hanging in my closet by people who’ve given up that belief because of my conversations sitting down to dinner.’
If we want to rid racism from the world, it’s imperative that we rethink how we discuss contentious topics. As attitudes toward race and gender have changed over time, words like ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ have rightfully become pejoratives. That’s to say, when somebody is accused of being a racist, it’s interpreted as a personal attack on their character.
Now, you might ask, ‘What’s wrong with attacking the character of racists?’ Fair point. If there’s a character that deserves attack, it’s probably those of racists. And given Australia’s history of racism, it’s an understandable reaction. But we should be less concerned about abusing racists and more concerned about the difficult task of reducing the prevalence racism.
So, how do we do that?
David Broockman at Stanford University shows that it is conversation, not abuse, that allows us to unlearn prejudice. Broockman engaged in non-confrontational 10-minute conversations about trans* issues with 500 voters in Southern Florida. He could have just waited for his test subjects to say something remotely transphobic and pounce, but he didn’t. He found that by having non-accusatory conversations about contentious issues, the voters were more likely to defend trans* rights, even after just three months.
There are lessons to be learnt from the 2016 US Presidential election. During the election, Clinton supporters threw everything but the kitchen sink at Trump supporters. Protestors at Emory College accused Trump supporters of ‘hate speech’ for writing ‘TRUMP 2016’ in chalk. Clinton herself even said: ‘You could put half of Trump supporters into what I call “the basket of deplorables.” They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic; you name it.’
Not only does this tactic shut down debate, but it’s an obvious act of virtue signalling. It makes the person hurling the insults feel good, but it doesn’t do anything to change their opponent’s mind.
When we hear morally objectionable opinions, we seem to catapult the person with the most emotional and aggressive reaction to the top of society’s moral hierarchy. But we never pause and think. Are they actually doing anything to stop that morally objectionable opinion from propagating?
It doesn’t take an expert in psychology to realise that if you insult someone, they become hostile and reluctant to hear what you have to say. Insulting someone is never an effective way of changing their mind. No one cares that you think you’re better than them. Just ask yourself, how many KKK members do you think Davis would’ve converted if he had resorted to insults?
Insulting people probably has the opposite effect. Being constantly insulted, generalised and prevented from speaking, Trump supporters fled to insular online communities that lacked intellectual diversity. Spend a few minutes on YouTube, and you’ll see how popular they still are. Insulting someone doesn’t stop them from speaking, it just stops them from speaking to you.
If we show people with morally-objectionable opinions that we’re willing to listen to them without insulting them, they’ll likely reciprocate. And, if we haphazardly insult everyone we disagree with, they’ll continue doing the same.
Grand Dragon of the KKK Roger Kelly said this of Davis: ‘We don’t agree on everything, but at least he respects me to sit down and listen to me, and I respect him to sit down and listen to him.’ Kelly eventually left the KKK, years after befriending Davis.
I’m not saying we should all befriend our neighbourhood neo-Nazi. I’m saying that if we’re serious about eradicating racism from society, we should use the same rules of persuasion for racists that we do for everyone else. Why? Because they work. Calling someone a racist or any insult is a personal attack, not an expression of disagreement. And no one changes their mind because of a personal attack. It’s called the ad hominem logical fallacy for a reason!
When talking to society’s moral heretics, we should follow Davis’ lead. We should debate facts and ideas, not our personal superiority. Only then, will people genuinely listen.

Woroni Editor
Why Voting ‘Yes’ Is The Most Liberal Thing You Could Do
September 12, 2017 4:42 pm Comments Off on Why Voting ‘Yes’ Is The Most Liberal Thing You Could Do
The High Court of Australia has confirmed that the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey is valid. As a result, there are going to be some incredibly tough moments for many of our LGBTQIA* friends. I can’t even begin to understand what it feels like to be attacked so personally by ads and brochures that assume everything from your parental ability to living arrangements based solely on one’s sexuality.
But what I do understand is that these assumptions are wrong. I don’t doubt that most of my LGBTQIA* friends would make much better parents than me. I can’t even look after a parsley plant, let alone a child (RIP Marion Parslé). So why should I be considered more fit to parent based solely on my sexuality?
With the rhetoric from ‘the no vote’ gauging attention, it’s becoming clear that the ‘Yes’ campaign needs to mobilise and inspire voters beyond the choir it currently preaches to.
This is a rare thing for campaigners in Australia, because of our wonderful institution of compulsory voting. It’s now incumbent on the ‘Yes’ campaign to not only persuade people to vote in the affirmative but to encourage Australians to vote at all.
And, currently, I’m not convinced the ‘Yes’ campaign is succeeding at doing this.
Because marriage equality is not a politically partisan issue. It’s not a Labor thing or a Greens thing. It’s got nothing to do with free markets, or coal or housing affordability. It’s about allowing two consenting adults the right to marry.
So we’ve got until 7 November to convince every Australian currently sitting on the survey fence to vote ‘Yes’. And to those who are young (say, younger than 60), a little Liberal and a little Conservative, here’s why voting yes is the most Menzie thing you could ever do.
Firstly, it respects freedom.
It is the ultimate hypocrisy to say that you value freedom, particularly free speech, but by the same stroke deny two consenting adults the right to say ‘I do’ at the altar. Of course, freedom of speech is also tolerance to the ‘No’ campaign’s opinions, but it does not provide an argument in their favour. It’s plain and simple – disallowing marriage equality silences a sizeable portion of our society from freely exercising their ability to marry.
Secondly, religious freedoms will be upheld.
In the Private Member’s Bill released by Senator Dean Smith, protection for religious celebrants not wanting to marry same-sex couples was included, as per the recommendations by the Senate Select Committee on this issue. With committee membership from every side of the political spectrum, it’s safe to say that no party wants to, or can, infringe upon the right of Australians to exercise their own religion.
Thirdly, societal progress is not just ok, but normal.
The great western capitalist states of the UK, the US and New Zealand have already legalised marriage equality. And, if you’re worried about changing the ‘family unit’ in the same way, I’m afraid that every state and territory already allows same-sex couples to adopt children. And, trust me, they’ve been raising their own biological offspring for much longer.
The status quo argument also fails, when you consider that the Marriage Act has been changed 20 times since its inception in the 1960s. This included changing the marriageable age of women from 16 to 18 –when it was always 18 for men. Progress happens, and what we are proposing here is once again well overdue.
Finally, a ‘Yes’ vote will only contribute to the marriage institution.
The truth is, my male-identifying gay friends can already get married. To me. I neither love them in that way nor do I ever plan on having children with them. I can also annul the marriage, make a mockery of it, or use it to get more likes on insta (#married #yolo). If you want to reinstate the sanctity of marriage, I think you should start with condemning the heterosexuals who have already been a blight on the institution (hello Kim, hello Brittany).
Allowing more couples the right to marry will only strengthen its tradition. Marrying means commitment, responsibility and, above all, family. That doesn’t change if LGBTQIA* couples marry, it just means that the same values bind these couples.
I think marriage is important, and I think that it should be respected. If you love someone sincerely and truly, and you want to spend your life with them, then entering into a marriage is honouring the institution in its highest form.
And I think that’s the ultimate reason why Liberals and Conservatives should vote ‘Yes’. As the party who saw the first ever woman, Dame Enid Lyons, elected into the House of Representatives, and the first Indigenous man, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, appointed to the Executive, history once again knocks on our door. In the spirit of liberalism, it’s once again time to modernise.
If you’re on the fence, deciding whether or not you want to allow your friends (or maybe even yourself!) to marry, let me leave you with words from the Great Man Himself.
‘More good things in life are lost by indifference than ever were lost by active hostility’.
Robert Menzies definitely wasn’t talking about marriage, but let us take heed. The Yes vote could well and truly lose, not necessarily because of the ‘No campaign’, but because people like us are indifferent to it.

Ally Luppino
Globalisation and International Organisations in the Trump Era
August 24, 2017 10:24 pm Comments Off on Globalisation and International Organisations in the Trump Era
Every year the leaders of the world’s largest and most powerful nations come together for a meeting – called the G20 summit. And, just as reliably, each year journalists and political scientists question the relevance of such organisations and what they actually stand to achieve. However, with the trend toward globalisation coming to a screeching halt, this issue is more important and relevant than ever.
It is difficult to pinpoint any tangible achievements by these organisations. Whether it’s the G20, the G7 or the UN, goals and targets are often set but rarely met. The Millennium Development Goals, created in 2000, had lofty aspirations. They gave the world 15 years to eradicate poverty and achieve universal primary education, among other targets. While almost all of the eight problem areas identified by the goals saw improvements over the 15 years, only one was reached in terms of the numerical growth demanded by the goals. While some may argue that any improvement is success, it is doubtful that the UN can claim full responsibility for this success.
International organisations are often dismissed as useless, slapped with the label ‘toothless tigers’. While they may have the participation and the backing of influential states, they lack power. Seeing as these international organisations have no legislative or authoritative powers, they gain their legitimacy from the participation of important groups. As the global super power of the past 70 years, the United States has been a pioneer for international cooperation as the most important founding member of the United Nations and NATO. However, the US support of international cooperation, as well as their position as the world’s foremost superpower, has been called into question as of late.
Many suggest that Trump’s election marks the end of US global leadership, but the more important question is whether he is even interested in ‘leading the free world’ (so to speak)? It seems that at this point Trump has little interest in being a leader in the international community. We saw this in failure to take any leadership at the G20 Summit where, before entering the negotiations, he said that he would discuss ‘whatever was on his mind.’ This admission led him resulted in widespread mocking from political and media leaders alike. Furthermore, Trump’s dangerous decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord signifies his lack of interest in cooperating with international organisations. While this is in line with Trump’s ‘America First’ campaign strategy, the loss of cooperation from the United States threatens to destabilise the very structure of international politics.
While Brexit and Trump suggest some backlash against globalisation, this may just be a temporary trend. We have already seen an overwhelming sentiment of regret in regards to both those decisions – with UKIP all but disappearing at the June UK elections, and Trump having one of the lowest approval ratings ever for a first-year president. Similarly, France rejected the far right in the convincing defeat of Marine Le Pen and Gert Wilder’s Party for Freedom underperformed in the Netherlands. It is possible that the tide has already turned, and the anti-globalisation sentiment has already calmed in the aftermath of the European Migrant Crisis.
Even if this is the case, without an impeachment, there are at least three more years of Donald Trump being in control of the world’s largest military and economy. These facts will ensure the United States’ relevance on the global stage, despite Trump’s resistance. Although, we are yet to see the damage that he may cause to the already questionable effectiveness of these international organisations.

Josie Ganko
Mark Latham takes a Quiet Night Off Stewing in his own White Working-Class Rage
August 4, 2017 1:24 am Comments Off on Mark Latham takes a Quiet Night Off Stewing in his own White Working-Class Rage
Sitting quietly, alone in the dark, Mr Latham poured himself another schooner from his Coopers Red Longneck. ‘Yeah, every now and again I need to recharge,’ Mr Latham said. ‘So when the wife is on a girls’ night, I send the kids to Nan’s, buy myself the strongest ale I can find, and sit at home thinking of all the things that piss me off,’ Mr Latham elaborated.
Mr Latham was briefly leader of the Australian Labor Party, before Kevin Rudd, and was notorious for having a chip on his shoulder deeper than an open cut coal mine. ‘Fuck the ALP!’ Mr Latham said. ‘Half of the dickheads in it these days have never even been further west than Balmain,’ he continued. ‘I mean fuck me dead; even the ALP has been taken over by political correctness now. Everyone’s acting like we are the fucking Greens; you can’t even call a schoolboy a bloody gay anymore because he says he is a feminist! Everything’s gone topsy turvy’.
Mark Latham ran against John Howard in the 2004 election, garnering much public attention during a confrontation with Mr Howard in which he stared him down like a manic sex murderer.
We approached Mr Howard for comment: ‘Well, the bloke hasn’t really mellowed with age has he? I mean Christ; you can’t be surprised he worked for four years in a Green Valley Pub. Far out … he’s probably rearranged more noses than a plastic surgeon in Double Bay,’ Mr Howard quipped.
Mr Latham is now a member of the Liberal-Democrats, a party that believes it stands up for the freedoms ‘ordinary and decent Australians enjoy and desire.’ Freedoms such as owning your own semi-automatic firearm and yelling racist abuse on a packed morning bus at brown people.
Mr Latham states he has a packed year ahead, with considerable plans for picking on children and yelling at strangers.

Byron Knight