After all, this is not an academic exercise

What makes music boring? 

Fleet Foxes, the National, Bon Iver, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah: my friends really rate these bands, but I’m a bit meh about them. In What Makes Music Boring, Steven Hyden notes that describing a piece of music is boring doesn’t refer to its inherent characteristics, but simply means that it didn’t resonate with us. When Hyder thinks a piece of music that other people like is boring, his main feeling is disappointment, rather than superiority because he’s more discerning or has higher tastes.

Non-fiction writers, particularly reviewers and journalists, tend to frame their critique around a piece’s supposedly objective qualities. It’s true that expressions like ‘I feel’ ‘I think’ ‘It seems to me’ ‘I guess that’ can be tiresomely repetitive, and come across as self absorbed. Representing things as personal opinion/experience, rather than fact, could also be perceived as undermining the reviewer’s authoritativeness: i.e. why don’t they just back themselves by making a judgement?

In my view, non-fiction writing that takes a experiential, subjective approach is more meaningful. Debate and analysis of facts has its place, but is ultimately limited given that things don’t exist independently of how they’re experienced. I find writing most interesting when the author interrogates their own experiences openly, as well as imagining how others in the story might be feeling.

How did they conceive of the issues they protested about?

Media coverage of the pay dispute between Victorian nurses and the government has so far been limited to recounting the history of the dispute and outlining the competing positions of both sides, with a little analysis. I appreciate that journalists probably don’t have the time or inclination to do a Tom Wolfe or Joan Didion for a state industrial dispute. But in addition to the recounting of facts and arguments, it would be interesting to find out more about the underlying ideological frameworks, perceptions, and experiences of the various participants in the conflict.

It’s a fight of sorts, so the parties in dispute take diametrically opposed positions and argue over the facts. The structure of the situation means that they’re not interested in exploring ambiguities (although perhaps they do need to consider them in anticipation of an eventual compromise). But how do you get the truth when neither of the sides have any motivation to find the murky truth that exists in between their polarised positions?

It’s my experience that being politically active, either party-political or issues-based, makes it easy to jump on a bandwagon. Sometimes you need to. As an advocate, lobbyist, or a decision-maker representing one side of a conflict, spending too much time pondering the grey areas can do your head in.

My instinct is to sympathise with the nurses. The government (simplified version) wants to reduce nurse numbers, replace nurses with ‘lower-skilled’* assistants, and reduce nurse-patient ratios, in order to save money. I’m not sure whether the money saved will be thrown back into the health system. It kind of sounds like a bad idea, doesn’t it? If something sounds like a bad idea, and you don’t have the time to find out the facts, is it fair enough to assume it’s a bad idea?

But surely there are certain tasks, like cleaning, wiping up, etc, that could be done by other workers that haven’t gone through nurse training, and hence are paid less. And is it necessary to have a completely inflexible nurse-patient ratio; are there absolutely no settings where numbers could be reduced?

I really do hate the word ‘efficiently’, I feel like it probably represents an ideology that don’t agree with. But if you’re the government, and you have a certain amount of taxpayers money to spend, don’t you have a responsibility to make sure money’s not being wasted?

There are a few problems with the government’s position though. What are they doing with the money they save? Will it be thrown back into the health system, where the funds are desperately needed? (Sorry if there’s an obvious answer to this that I don’t know, but I’ll bet there’s not). And how will the added ‘flexibility’ by implemented in practice? Given the shonky ways things are often done, it seems inevitable that corners will be cut, and patients’ care compromised. Maybe it’s better to have inflexible rules when it comes to heathcare, even it does mean that the government’s not saving every possible penny.

A friend told me he overhead a conversation between a young nurse and an old nurse on the tram yesterday. You could tell by looking at them that they were really nice people, he said. One of the nurses saw the other wearing a red shirt and then asked if she was going to the protest, and pulled out her own red shirt from her bag, taking it out of its wrapper.

He found the subsequent conversation disappointing. His description of it was something like: Old nurse: Are you going to the protest? Young nurse: Yes. Old nurse: hopefully a lot of people will be there. Young nurse: Yes… and on like this, in a kind of repetitive way. He’d been hoping to hear some discussion about the issues and their perspective on them.

Now it’s not like these guys exist for the purpose of holding ‘interesting conversations’ to appease bored commuters. But this story interested me, becuase when I was at the protest yesterday, I was wondering how many of protesters had formed their views by reflecting upon the issues in light of their own healthcare experiences, and weighing up all perspectives. Or was it more about banding together, doing it for the team?

I always get caught up in protests; they have a grand narrative feeling, giving me the sense that you’re immersed in a reality larger than yourself. I feel like there’s a war and I’m on the right side; a problematic feeling, I think. This one had a wholesome, celebratory feel. The music was perfectly rousing – they were playing ‘I see Red’ – and the protesters reminded me of a lovely, usually political dispassionate mum or aunty who’s been stirred into action on this one occasion by the absolute worthiness of a cause.

Looking at them, I wondered how they conceived of the issues they were protesting about. Were they really passionate about healthcare, with well-worked out reasons why they didn’t agree with any reduction in the ratios? Were they just there to support their mates? Did they have a well-founded feeling, borne of their experience, that actual implementation of the so-called ‘flexibility’ provisions would result in a reduction of health standards?

One thing I found a bit disingenous was that the speakers kept saying this was not about pay, it was about nurse-patient ratios, which was met by loud cheers from the crowd. But if you look at the Australian Nursing Federation’s log of claims, an 18.5% pay increase is first on their list. Conditions are obviously vitally important too, for both patient and nurse welfare, but perhaps it would have been more honest to say that this is not just about pay.

I understand that the issue of respect and resourcing for nurses is intrinsically linked to their willingness, ability, and capacity to do their job properly, which of course affects patient welfare. And I’m not doubting the commitment of nurses, but I do wonder how many would protest if the issue was purely about patient welfare. Perhaps that’s an irrelevant and not entirely helpful question given that nurse and patient welfare will always be interdependent.

*I’m not totally convinced about calling them ‘lower-skilled’, which implies a hierarchy of professional worth. I guess ‘lower-skilled’ could, in this context, mean something that is easier to learn, i.e. it takes less training? But in many contexts, it seems like ‘lower-skilled’ is used as a lazy synonym for ‘paid less.’

Your honour will see that we are in for some inclement weather: Occupy Melbourne and the right to protest

‘Your honour will see that we are in for some inclement weather’, Ron Merkel QC pointed out at a Federal Court directions hearing today, trying to persuade the judge to make an interim order allowing Occupy Melbourne to put up their tents in Treasury Gardens pending a final decision on their case. Basically, Occupy Melbourne are seeking an order to prevent the City of Melbourne from evicting them, but until such time as the proper trial occurs, they are asking for an interim order to allow them to put up their private tents, a large tent for cooking and eating, and some protest banners.

James Muldoon, the litigant from Occupy Melbourne (as I understand, he’s not representing the group – they don’t do things that way) has challenged the council’s power to evict protesters on the basis that it unreasonably limits the constitutional freedom to political constitution (one of the few human rights protected by our constitution, and it’s not even written there – it had to be implied by judges). The Victorian Human Rights Charter is relevant too – as a public authority, the council is bound to act compatibly with human rights.

On 4 November, the City of Melbourne served a notice of compliance telling Occupy Melbourne that they had infringed by-laws the use of anti-camping and for using portable advertising signs (i.e. political banners). Occupy Melbourne sent letters to the police and council to see whether they could stay in the gardens over the weekend. The council didn’t respond, but the police told the protesters that they could stay there, for now, as long as they didn’t erect tents. Protesters asked police if they could sleep under the tarpaulin, but police said this was also a structure. Signs were OK, but as long as they didn’t put them on the ground or stick them up anywhere. The police said that as long as the protesters complied with these conditions, they wouldn’t be evicted over the weekend.

Yesterday, Occupy Melbourne applied for a permit to camp in Treasury Gardens, which at the trial today, the Council promised to respond to within 48 hours. Last night, the Council of Melbourne submitted an affidavit saying that they wouldn’t enforce the notice. This meant that at the hearing today, Occupy Melbourne amended their application for an interim order to ask for the following specifics:

• A tent not exceeding 8m by 8m to be erected and used for kitchen and sleeping between 9.00 pm and 9.00 am
• Personal tents for sleeping between 9.00 pm and 9.00 am
• Signs on tents not more than 1.5m by 4.00m saying ‘Welcome to Occupy Melbourne, Welcome to Direct Democracy’

Merkel pointed out that occupation of a public place was central to the global occupy movement, and therefore an important aspect of the Occupy Melbourne protest (he also noted that even if there are only a few people actually sleeping out, there’s a social media aspect to it, which involves an even wide group).

Actually, the camping aspect of Occupy Melbourne is something I’ve struggled with a bit. It seemed to make more sense in America, where Wall Street is an obvious symbol of corporate greed. But in Melbourne, I think most people just saw the protesters as an annoyance. ‘Occupy Melbourne’ – it doesn’t make quite as much sense as ‘Occupy Wall Street’. I think that’s why Robert Doyle, an experienced politician, felt like he could say all those ridiculous things in the Sunday Herald Sun, the most widely circulated newspaper in Australia.

Occupation of public space is obviously conceptually related to what Occupy Melbourne are protesting about, ie private appropriate of public goods and unfair distribution of resources, which might well include public land (and note, one of the first motions passed by Occupy Melbourne was to support a Treaty). Members of the Occupy movement also say that camping is an important part of their movement too, in that it creates a unique atmosphere for generating ideas, a sense of community, and that it’s a social leveller.

But  I wonder if, given the political climate in Australia, the focus on actually occupying space that people don’t actually have any negative associations with (i.e. City Square, Bolan Lane, the State Library, Treasury Gardens), will do more harm than good, distracting people from other important issues.

On the other hand, perhaps if Occupy were able to camp in public for a while, public attitudes would become more positive, as people see that they’re not a bunch of dirty hippy layabouts, or that even if some are, that’s not necessarily such a threatening thing. Actually, my experience so far is that, while there are naturally the usual freaks that are always attracted to these kind of things, there are some smart, switched on people involved in the movement.

Merkel’s arguments about the council by-laws seemed, broadly, to be as follows (and please excuse me if I have not got them quite right, my head was swimming a bit with the legal stuff):

• Prima-facie (on the face of it) case that political signs are not caught by the clause in council by-laws that prevents advertising, because advertising tends to be commercial in-nature.
• Even if anti-advertising provisions are interpreted to include political signs, they are invalid under the Commonwealth Constitution to the extent that they limit political communication.
• The Council, in the way they apply the law (and the decision about the permit), have a duty to act compatibly with the Victorian Human Rights Charter, including the freedom of association and political communication.
• The anti-tent provisions may be invalid to the extent that they are used to prevent political protest, and therefore infringe the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication.

Merkel also referred to the Evans case, in which the Sydney Federal Court struck down World Youth Day Regulations that made it a crime to ‘annoy’ participants at World Youth Day, allowing political protesters at the event to hand out condoms without fear of punishment.

The hearing today touched on bigger questions about who controls public space, and how we should cooperate to share public space. Merkel’s lawyerly rhetoric was entertaining too; I generally find such words lofty and elite, but in this instance it was comforting to hear those words of power turned around to make the less powerless seem like the legitimate and genteel ones, those on the side of common sense.

In Merkel’s words, the police eviction of 21 October (‘the October regime’) was ‘unseemly’ and ‘disastrous…the public believed it was a public place, but Doyle seemed to consider it his private backyard.’ Letting people camp in the Gardens, but denying them shelter for health and hygiene, was ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and not letting people put up a tent after 9.00 pm in a public gardens was ‘absurd’ – after all, how could that possibly interfere with the amenity or beauty of a public area?

Having to protest without identifying yourself with banners was ‘the antithesis’ of a political protest, he said. He said that there was a ‘reasonable apprehension’ that if the Occupy Melbourne protesters were not granted a ‘minimal subsistence level’, they might take the view that they have a constitutional right to put up tents and the police can’t stop them. And then it got a bit dodgy. Merkel pointed that he didn’t represent the movement, only the litigant, and suggested that there might be ‘mayhem’ if the protesters were not allowed to put their tents up, and that if forcibly removed, the protesters may feel they are ‘entitled to physically fight my learned friend’s [the other lawyer’s] authorised officers.’

Merkel seemed to me to be implying that the protesters would riot if they didn’t get their way, and that’s how the judge interpreted it too. This was a bit out of the blue given that one of the Occupy movement’s first resolutions was that their protest would be peaceful, (and having met some of them, I can tell you they’re not the rioting type). But that said, Merkel was, in general, excellent.

The City of Melbourne lawyer’s main arguments seemed to be that it would be an inappropriate exercise of judicial power for the judge to the protesters ‘extra’ to what they had now through an interim injunction allowing them to put their tents up, i.e. to change the ‘status quo’. He argued that allowing the protesters to stay (for now), but not put tents, signs, or any other infrastructure up, did not infringe on their right to political protest. ‘There is no evidence that not having a tent will stop anyone protesting’, he said. This was met by sighs and shaking of heads from the Occupy Melbourne people in the back row, who’d actually experienced the reality of sleeping without shelter.

In support of this argument, the City of Melbourne lawyer relied on the litigant’s affidavit, which said that he would personally keep protesting even without a tent. However, the lack of security in their accommodation, combined with being forbidden to put tents up, has actually discouraged a lot of Occupy Melbourne people, existing campers and, I suspect, potential campers. In City Square, there were 70 or 80 people camping, and now there are only 20, despite Treasury Gardens seeming like a lot nicer place to camp.

The judge seemed unwilling to grant the interim injunction allowing protesters to set up tents, particularly as the situation was likely to change depending on whether or not Council would grant the permit. Merkel asked for an adjournment to allow Muldoon to prepare an affidavit about why not having a tent would actually impede on their ability to protest. The Council wasn’t keen on the adjournment, accusing Merkel of ‘keeping his powder dry.’ In the end, a compromise position was reached and the directions hearing was adjourned until 2.15 pm on Friday. ‘Unusually’, noted Merkel during the case, ‘Occupy Melbourne come to seek rule of law, rather than the rule of power or the rule of men.’ I’m not sure the distinction is so clear-cut.

And at Occupy Melbourne’s General Assembly that night, the ‘inclement weather’ Merkel was referring to arrived in the form what was, for Melbourne at least, a fairly dramatic thunderstorm. Still, Occupy Melbourne voted to respect the authority of the court, and opted not to put up tents.

*Update: I wasn’t able to go to the adjourned directions hearing on Friday but apparently Occupy Melbourne’s request for an interim order so they could put their tents up was denied. However, the substantive case will go ahead, with a trial date yet to be set.*

The legal basis for Occupy Melbourne evictions

I’m still not quite sure why the Occupy protesters insist on camping out. I guess it’s mainly a symbolic gesture about reclaiming what should rightfully be public, in this case public space. Does that mean they believe that anyone should be able to camp in a public space, or is it only acceptable as part of a political protest? So, for example, if backpackers wanted to save money by pitching a tent in a public space, should they be allowed to? What’s wrong with people camping in the streets anyway? I guess it does pose some issues in terms of waste disposal, but couldn’t they use public toilets? Are there public toilets open 24/7 in the CBD?

As I understand it, Melbourne City Council evicted the protesters was the Melbourne City Council Activities Local Law 2009, specifically section 2.11:

Unless in accordance with a permit, a person must not camp in or on any public place in a vehicle, tent, caravan or any type of temporary or provisional form of accommodation.

I’m interested these anti-camping laws impact on homeless people – how many have tents? How often councils enforce it against them? My sense is that instances of the council using the laws to evict homeless people would be rare, and vary depending on the reaction of constituents and other council priorities. In the United States, anti-camping laws have frequently been challenged by homelessness groups, with mixed results, see eg here  and here.

The state government and local councils gave conflicting reasons about the legal basis for the eviction. The council referred to the activities law, while the state government referred to section 6 of the Summary Offence Act, which gives the police powers to move someone if they’re breaching the piece, likely to endanger safety, or a risk to public safety. When introduced in 2009, these ‘moving-on’ laws were criticised by homelessnesses groups who were concerned that they would have a disproportionate impact on homeless people. However, as The Age reported,
protesters are exempted from the laws under section 6(5), so the state government cannot rely on it.

According to The Age, the police’s Assistant Commissioner Stephen Fontana said Victoria Police used a combination of trespassing law in the Summary Offences Act and breach of the peace common law to move the demonstrators. I’m not sure about the common law, but breach of the peace and trespassing provisions are contained in section 9 of the Summary Offences Act, with s9(d) making it an offence to ‘wilfully trespass’ in any public place [not sure what constitutes 'trespassing' in the context of a public place – given that it's public, anyone presumably has access] and s9(g) making it an offence to enter any place, whether private or public, so as to cause a breach of the peace or ‘reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace.’ Again, not sure what constitutes ‘breach of the peace’. What constitutes a ‘peaceful’ public space? Does it just mean non-violence, does it mean not getting in people’s way, or does it maintaining an ‘orderly’ space, with nothing unexpected? Perhaps there’s something in case law that the Victoria police were relying on.

Apparently after the eviction, protesters were served a notice banning them from the CBD until 23 November, a move which the Australian Lawyers Alliance condemned and suggested that was of dubious legality.

Occupy Melbourne – consensus decision-making and public space

This weekend, Melbourne’s City Square is taken up by a booze bus, a tent where one of the Transport Accident Commission’s ominous videos plays, and a model of a crashed car. Melbourne City Council launched the road safety exhibition exactly a week after mayor Robert Doyle ordered the forcible evictions of Occupy Melbourne protesters from the square (you can read my account of it here), and a day before the protesters were set to occupy Treasury Gardens. The display emphasises law and public safety, implying that the government has things under control. But a government display about drink driving, death, and legal punishment doesn’t seem like the ideal way to create a lively public space. I wonder what the tourists think.

I went to a General Assembly at the State Library on Tuesday. There were a few hundred Occupy people there, but the first thing I noticed was the overwhelming police presence. It wasn’t necessarily the numbers, but their positioning; the way they stand in lines, surrounding the protesters. It’s slightly intimidating, and I suspect that’s the intention.

The rules of the general assembly are that working groups, or individuals, put forward proposals, which can only pass by consensus. If the group can’t reach consensus, the facilitators take requests for modification or clarification. If they still don’t agree, the motion can pass with a 90% majority vote, or at lowest, 60%. At Melbourne’s general assembly, each new speaker must declare their political affiliation. I heard that this rule was brought in as a result of concerns about certain interest groups, particularly socialist groups, dominating the group. As you can see there were quite a few people at the meeting.

Much of the assembly dealt with the fall-out from Friday’s violent eviction. It started with Sarah Harmer, a domestic violence counsellor, talking about how to recognise and deal with trauma, and how people could get through it. And sure, the protest wasn’t Syria, but violence from an authority figure, and the experience of being a victim of organised violence, is no small thing. Depending the person and their previous experiences, it could be extremely traumatising. The working groups reported that out of 17 trucks of stuff confiscated from the City Square camp, only three ended up in storage. The rest, including all the books from the group’s library, and their first aid supplies, had been sent to landfill.

The indigenous working group presented the group’s first substantive proposal. I was quite surprised to see three Aboriginal people get up and speak – I had unthinkingly assumed that the working group would be made up of well-meaning white people. Viv, the speaker, seemed nervous, and the young guys standing next to her kept putting their arms around her shoulder for support. But she spoke beautifully, asking the assembly to seek the truth about colonisation and suggesting that the City Square evictees may have a sense of how indigenous people felt. The indigenous working group then proposed that Occupy Melbourne recognise the custodianship and sovereignty of the Aboriginal people and stand beside them in fighting for a treaty.

The proposal passed with consensus, with no objections, clarifications, or debate. I don’t know if anyone would have felt comfortable speaking against it. It’s difficult to argue against something that calls for power and voice to be given to the most hard-done-by, and least listened to, group in Australia. For all I know, this is something that Occupy Melbourne had discussed extensively already, and indeed, why shouldn’t they act on the advice of indigenous people involved in the movement?

But I’m not sure, is there broad-based support for a treaty Aboriginal people and their various ‘countries’? What would a treaty look like? How does Occupy Melbourne plan to engage with Aboriginal groups and find out whether they want a treaty, and what such a treaty would look like? Perhaps I’m probably being too analytical about the whole thing.

The assembly highlighted some familiar frustrations about consensus decision-making. Invariably there are always some people who believe the group must participate in every single decision, even simple operational matters. The resultant fixation on process can make meetings so frustratingly cumbersome that people stop participating. For example, the logistics group proposed that they be delegated the responsibility of preparing the set-up for the planned Treasury Gardens occupation the following Saturday. But there was no consensus on this. One woman said passionately that this was the first important test of the group’s democracy, and suggested they needed to put the layout plan to a separate general assembly. After a prolonged discussion, the motion passed with a 90% majority.

There was also no consensus on whether the group should march through the city on Saturday before setting up camp at Treasury Gardens. ‘I have no affiliations, but I’m a member of the human race,’ said one guy speaking against the proposal to march through the city, ‘And I like what I see here.’ People laughed. But quite a few agreed with his subsequent point about maintaining the city’s functionality and not disrupting the traffic, which would inconvenience the general public and possibly turn them against the movement. As an alternative, some of the crowd were yelling out a suggestion that they march on the footpath, which just seemed ridiculous – what about the pedestrians?

I also overheard the girl next to me explaining to a first-timer that some of the disagreement about the march reflected a concern that Socialist Alliance would take it over with their red flags and banners, and that it would make the movement look bad. I don’t know whether this is true or not.

A young girl with dark wavy hair got up and said she thought marching was just a replication of the old forms, and that the group should be thinking creatively, like artists not bureaucrats. This attracted some interest. One thing I noticed about the assembly was that people listen fairly well; and I wonder whether this is a product of the fact that everyone needs to be involved in the decision-making.

Another person proposed that the group hold a protest at lunchtime on Thursday calling for Doyle and Baillieu to resign. People spoke against this was two reasons; firstly because Baillieu’s involvement in the forcible eviction from City Square was unclear, and secondly because it was seen as a diversion of the group’s energies. Again, no agreement. By 8.30pm, it was freezing outside. The facilitator noted that one of the problems with consensus decision-making is that people get tired and disengage (or leave), and then decisions get rushed through undemocratically. She asked whether the group wanted to continue for another half an hour, and to my surprise, they did. I wasn’t quite as dedicated, and left.

Consensus-decision making definitely has its frustrations, including the slowness of process. But Australian politics sees so many decisions rushed through as apparently ‘urgent’, often as a means of shutting out public participation. In my view, the extra time is worth it to get more people involved. Whether Occupy Melbourne will manage to do that is another question.

Yesterday, over 1000 people marched through the city to Treasury Gardens. It was an unexpectedly day, spirits seemed high, and the gathering in Treasury Gardens felt a little like a carnival. After lunch, the General Assembly was presented with three options for occupying. First, Treasury Gardens, which had been their initial plan, but they’d served with a notice by City of Melbourne saying that if they set up camp their belongings would be confiscated. Second, Edinburgh Gardens in Fitzroy. Apparently this was the option preferred by the police, perhaps because the protesters would be hidden away there. Apparently the logistics working group had spoken to Yarra City Council, which had expressed slight trepidation, saying that their response would be dependent on the response of their constituency.

There were different views about whether North Fitzroy dwellers would be likely to call for their eviction. ‘The area is surrounded by some very highly strung, wealthy, privileged individuals, who up until now have been supporting the movement,’ suggested the logistic coordinator, yelling into a rolled up bit of paper after the PA system had died. But things might be different if the events moved to their own neighbourhood, he suggested, ‘let’s remember, these are people who complain about a game of football in the park.’

Yarra City Councillor Stephen Jolley also spoke against the Edinburgh Gardens occupation: ‘Reality check – you can’t buy a house for less than 1.5 million around Edinburgh Gardens.’ While it seems a bit simplistic to equate wealth with intolerance, the reaction of some Fitzroy-dwellers to noise from long-established pubs does suggest that they’re slightly averse to disruption in their neighbourhood. One girl spoke in favour of going to Edinburgh Gardens by saying that Yarra City Council had gave them permission. When corrected, she laughed, said that she was talking shit, and left the floor. It’d be nice if politicians would do that sometimes.

In the end, they settled on Bolan Lane, outside RMIT University. It was more central and the CFMEU had offered to provide logistical support there. At that stage, a decision was made to march to the university through the city, quickly, so they could get there before the police organised.

As Michael Lallo notes in The Age today, the feeling of the second march was far more strident, but also celebratory, with climate group Beyond Zero Emission’s large tricycle playing rousing songs such as Rock the Casbah, and people dancing around behind it.

At Bolan Place, the protester set up with the policeagain massing in intimidating formations, before a bunch of them left for the old jail, where presumably the would get a briefing on their next moves.

A good-looking newsreader posed silently, awkwardly in front of a camera for about half an hour. The news channel had organised a slightly nutty-looking protester with a sign to stand in the back ground, and she was making noises of impatience. The reason they were waiting is because it had just been announced that the CEO of Qantas had decided to go into lock-down. At this stage, I left.

According to Twitter journalist Asher Wolf, they then had to leave Bolan Lane too, because it was private land, and RMIT would have asked the police to evict them. Given the state of university education, and its growing corporatisation, this seemed kind of ironic to me. The group then split, with some of them going to Edinburgh gardens and others to the State Library. By midnight, about 30 people were camping outside the state library, a small proportion of the 1000 that had marched earlier that day. Soon afterwards, the small group was forcibly evicted, apparently without the same violence as the city square eviction. They then returned the state library lawn, without setting up tents. The police agreed to let them stay there the night. It rained, and they started playing guitars.

And here’s a skit the protesters performed at Treasury Gardens on Saturday.

FuckWalk – protests in poor taste

Protests are a funny one aren’t they? Lately I’ve been to a few that have stuck in my craw. On Saturday it was FuckWalk – a protest against Baillieu’s swear laws, a cause which I wholeheartedly agree with, although the protest was also used to promote a broader social agenda. I didn’t originally intend to go, but found myself at Bourke St mall and the protestors just marched up to me.

It was a pretty young crowd, with a a predominance of hippy left-wing fashions – dyed hair, dreadies, piercings, badges, berets, hoodies, sloganed T-shirts. Socialist Alliance and Resistance spoke at the rally and SA had a large banner right at the front – it seemed like they had organised it.

As I arrived, one of the speakers was yelling ‘Unfuck Victoria!’ and getting the crowd to repeat it after him.  They obliged. I stood on a bench so as to get a better view of the speakers.

One of the girls behind me commented, ‘You’d think they would have thought a bit harder about what they were going to say!’ I turned around and said in solidarity, ‘Yeah, Unfuck Victoria?’ She laughed: ‘Sounds like they’re trying to give back its virginity or something!’ Then she offered me some of her popcorn.

The last speaker compared the laws to Nazism – ‘since when was all these Nazi views imposed on us as a country,’ – and called on the crowd to ‘fuck being a conformist – fight now.’ He compared this amassing of people to the Arab spring ‘All over the world, people are getting together and telling the government to get fucked!.. Fuck you! We are not fucking prisoners!’ He then invited people to come to a  a ‘meeting’ at Melbourne University on Thursday night (I’ve since realised this is the Economic and Social Outlook conference), where Abbott, Ferguson, Swan and other politicians would talk about ‘how they control you and the resources boom.’ ‘Come along and tell them to get fucked!’ he shouted in a sandpaper voice. The aggressive tone was quite brutal on my hangovered ears.

This doesn’t seem like the best tactic to engage people. The aggression is one thing, and to my mind, that’s obviously wrong, although there’s undoubtedly a fine line between revving people up and coming on a bit too strong. The situation with the event being so Socialist is a bit of a different thing though.

It reminds me of the Wikileaks protest, where there was a sea of red Socialist flags and crackly loudspeaker which denounced neo-liberalism and the Northern Territory intervention.  At that protest, it seemed to me like freedom of expression was being claimed as a socialist or ultra-left-wing issue,  which would have alienated some potential supporters. Some of my friends who rocked up to that protest in full solidarity with the cause, but left quickly once they absorbed the tone of it.

But as someone pointed out to me when I was bitching about red flags at Wikileaks, freedom of expression (which is what both of these protests were about) means just that – so you can’t really criticise people for choosing whatever mode of expression they want. Some people feel similarly about Greens triangles – in the past, I’ve heard that some concerned members of environment groups have tried to get people to put them away at climate rallies, for fear that the cause would be branded as a political issue owned by The Greens.

The thing with Socialist Alliance is, whether or not you agree with all of their views, at least they’re out there and doing something about issues they care about (some of which I care about, too, but obviously not enough to organise a protest about it). If Socialist Alliance do dominate protests, isn’t that because they’re the ones that bothered to show up? If more people were committed enough to come, the composition of the crowd would become more diverse. But I know some people, who might potentially come, are alienated by the heavy presence of the Socialist types. So it’s a bit of a Catch 22.

Youtube of the protest

SlutWalk – cos Gen Y feminism is no longer an oxymoron

‘Cos you know how, like, nerds reclaimed the word nerd and Greeks reclaimed the word Greek? Like, anyone who’s been bullied, it’s become, like, a trend to reclaim the word’ (comment overheard at SlutWalk).

Has feminism become such a dirty word that it’s cool? I haven’t seen so many coolsies at a protest since the live music rally. SlutWalk was dominated by females in their 20s and 30s. Despite a few ripped stockings and short skirts, nobody really managed to look ‘slutty’, except in a contrived, costumed kind of way. I’d describe the predominant fashion as Fitzroy cool – you know, understated T-shirts and vintage dresses and colourful woollen scarfs?

In a way, it doesn’t really matter whether people get involved in feminism out of passion for the cause or as a fashion statement. Motivations for these sorts of things are usually mixed, and they change over time. It’s common for people to get involved in social justice issues because they think it’s cool or they want to make themselves feel shiny, but that’s not to say they don’t care about the issue too, and often as they get more involved, this passion solidifies. Why second-guess someone’s motivations when they’re trying to do good things?

Getting Gen Yers to attend the protest at all was a massive achievement. As my one of my fave feminists Monica Dux, who spoke at the rally, explains in her book The Great Feminist Denial, while many Gen Y women subscribe to feminist views, they’re reluctant to identify as feminists. They have capitulated to the propaganda perpetuated by the haters, namely, that feminists are hairy-arm-pitted, man-hating bra-burners.

While SlutWalk wasn’t marketed as a feminist event, I’d like to think that it was a first step towards roping in the youngsters. A big cheer went up when Ursula Benstead, counsellor from the Western Region Centre Against Sexual Assault, identified herself a feminist, and clarified that feminism wasn’t all about hairy armpits: ‘The principle is that women are entitled to all the same rights and privileges, including the right not to be sexually assaulted and not be blamed for being sexually assaulted.’

SlutWalk made feminism feel fun. In her speech, Monica Dux admitted that she wasn’t wearing any undies, but not because of the walk – because she hadn’t done the washing. She pointed out the double standards when it comes to what men and women are wearing: ‘Nobody says to a man, oh look, your jocks are a bit tight, better be careful.’ Someone in the crowd yelled ‘Tony Abbott!’

The vibe was fantastic, and if you got as far as showing up, the message – that it’s men who have to stop raping women, rather than women having to avoid being raped – was clear. Benstead talked about having to turn tell girls who’d been sexually assaulted that they had to wait for six months before seeing a counsellor, because the centre was so swamped with clients.

Clearly, sexual assault is still a huge problem, and so is victim-blaming, including self-blaming. I know several people who’ve been sexually assaulted, and in each case, they blamed themselves – for inviting the situation by being too flirtatious, or not fighting hard enough.

It was encouraging to see quite a few men there too. One of the key messages was that men need to take responsibility for tacking sexual assault. One of the speakers, Cody Smith, a trans man and victim of sexual assault, choked back tears as he called on men to take responsibility for changing the behaviour of their friends. He’s spot on – the most effective way to change the mind of men who think that, for whatever reason, they can take what’s not rightfully theirs, is for their mates to speak up against it. This is why behavioural change programs often use male role models to teach their mates about respecting women – for example, check out the Be the Hero project, which tried to get school boys to teach each other to be respectful.

As I discussed in my previous post, the protest was probably less appealing to older feminists. It seeemed that for some ‘old guard’ feminists, the flippant reclaiming of the tainted word ‘slut,’ and the protest’s ironic, faux marketing, would have been pretty hard to swallow. Nonetheless, it was disappointing to see Leslie Cannold criticise older women for failing to take the ‘activist baton’ that young women had commendably seized. Firstly, there were older women there, and secondly, reinforcing divisions between older and younger feminists doesn’t seem particularly helpful.

As I mentioned earlier, some of my friends, both young and old, refused to go because they felt that the term SlutWalk implicitly sexualised rape and put the focus on women rather than men. They were also confused about the protest’s intent – was it condoning porn? Prostitution? They didn’t want to attend something that might be supporting these things. It’s a pity that SlutWalk turned off potential supporters with its marketing, and in the future I hope they can come up with something equally sexy and media-friendly.

At the same time, good on the organisers for drumming up that kind of buzz for an issue which struggles to get the attention it deserves. And for those who actually showed up, the overriding message was pretty clear – that we need to teach men not to rape, rather than women how not to get raped. If you accept this basic premise, disagreement around the details isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Providing nobody gets hurt and people respect differing views, people learn through conflict. Debate and talking over the issues can help you develop a position, and sometimes, change your mind. As Benstead said, if SlutWalk creates a dialogue about sexual assault, misogyny, and social justice, that’s a good thing. And if equally, if we can use irony, controversy, or fashion to attract people who’ve never been involved in feminism before, that’s a good thing too.

Slutwalk – people are smart enough to get it

When the SlutWalk event popped up on my Facebook account, it immediately appealed to me. The message, that women have a right to wear what they want, and act what they want, without being insulted or assaulted, seemed clear as mud, and I liked the subversive irreverence of using the word ‘Slut’ in this context. Still, some critics of the protests say the term is too susceptible to misinterpretation – of course, they get it, but they’re concerned about other people.

They suggest that these people will see the large photos of ‘sluttily’ dressed women in the media and assume that the protest’s a mere spectator sport. Lecherous men will see it as a fortuitous opportunity for men to leer at the wayward women, and women will buy into this patriarchal mindset by strutting their stuff for the eyes of their oppressors.

It’s true that we live in a world where AFL players still treat women as pieces of meat and people still sell buy T-shirts which say ‘And U Wonda Why They Call U Bitch’ – another reason why SlutWalk is important. In this context, it’s legitimate to question whether people are really ready for the level of conceptual complexity of the phrase ‘SlutWalk.’

So how would the average person interpret the protest? It’s pretty difficult to tell – I mean, who’s really tapped into the zeitgeist of the suppositious ‘average Australian’ these days? My sense is that these critics are underestimating people – that many people are familiar with these issues, even if they don’t spend much time thinking about them, and they do get it.

And so what if SlutWalk is perceived as a perve-fest? Men always perve, and men who are there will undoubtedly be perving. If I was a man, I’d get right down to the protest tomorrow to fix my appreciative male gaze on many sexy women who will be in attendance, and I might learn something from the speeches, too – there’s a difference been checking a woman out and wanting to take her behind your truck (or BMW, if you like) and have your way with her. And from a woman’s perspective, why is wearing skimpy clothing or heels, even if it’s to impress men, necessarily disempowering?

Which brings us to raunch culture.  In The Age the other day, the protest’s organiser, Clem Bastow, commented, seemingly with a hint of sarcasm, “Who knew that in organising SlutWalk Melbourne, my colleagues and I were apparently just confirming our role as another pawn in the raunch culture game?” Yet surely Bastow, who’s been involved in feminist stuff for a few years now, would have foreseen that the term SlutWalk, which implicitly references raunch culture, would invoke these divisions on an issue where feminists could otherwise present a unified front – after all, who condones rape and victim-blaming?

The strategic wisdom of choosing such a divisive term is questionable. Perhaps courting controversy was the only way to attract attention to the issue – in that sense, it’s certainly worked. But I can’t get any of my friends to come along to the protest. One was concerned that it reinforced notions that rape was about sex, rather than power. It’s a good point – given that the residential house is the most common place for a rape, and in most cases most perpetrators are known to the offender, what place does slutty clothing have in the whole thing? It might send mixed messages – but again, people are, in my view – pretty smart – I think they’ll get it. For other friends, word slut has too many negative connotations to reclaim. This is understandable, although personally, I’d rather reclaim it and then put it through a paper shredder; make ‘Slut’ my bitch and then expunge it from the face of the earth.

It’ll be interesting to see what age-groups are represented at the protest. I suspect SlutWalk is more likely to appeal to Gen Ys than older people, who are probably less likely to find the irony funny or clever, or to reclaim the term with such careless abandon. Julie Szego references her age in The Age today when she explains the reasons why SlutWalk “doesn’t light her fire” (generational differences even implied in the musical reference to the Doors): “I would happily embrace my own inner slut were it not hiding under the weight of motherhood and middle age.” But targeting Gen Ys might be good start; they are receptive to feminist ideals, but have capitulated to the false stereotypes of feminists as hairy man-haters, so many are reluctant to get involved in something ‘feminist.

In Julie Szego’s article today, she goes on to suggest that victim-blaming is a trivial issue, as legally and socially, Western countries have moved on from that. She dismisses the AFL, NRL and Defence Force controversies as a mere aberration, rather than a reflection of deeply entrenched views. Feminists should concentrate on the ‘hard issues’, she argues – rape in the Congo, etc.  But ask sexual assault workers – the issue of victim-blaming isn’t dead, and it’s not trivial. Szego’s comparative argument is overly simplistic – like saying we shouldn’t worry about poverty in Australia because it’s so much worse in India.

Despite its weaknesses, SlutWalk’s unlikely to do any harm, and may do some good – mobilise (some) women’s rights advocates, raise awareness amongst disengaged or uninformed, and perhaps cause a few people to question some of their unexamined assumptions about rape victims. So, you could either get bogged down in arguments, or just show up, and see what happens.

PS. Sweat – by Inner Circle. Can it be reclaimed? I think it is inherently sexist, and ‘offensive’ in a way, but it’s just so catchy. Sorry. For a while, every lunch-time, my friends and I used to dance to it at Primary School, in the same room where we received religious instruction from Supa Club. We even used to do the elbow pumping motions to symbolise getting jiggy. Me and my friend used to be the girl, because we had ‘brown eyes.’ We suspected it might be about rape, but kind of ignored it. Since then, I’ve been exposed to alternative interpretations – that ‘cry out’ is about pleasure, and they’re actually just talking about enjoyably rough sex. I’m not so sure.