Popular Culture

...now browsing by category

 

Are Housos out to get the PM?

Saturday, March 30th, 2013

This article contains strong language

It’s vulgar, politically incorrect and at times a harrowingly honest look at life in Sydney’s low-income housing areas. Housos, the latest SBS comedy from Fat Pizza creator Paul Fenech, has divided both critics and the general public (even Today Tonight and A Current Affair have been torn with the former calling it ‘degraded’ and the latter hailing the ‘edgy’ comedy). The show is unashamedly crass as it parodies the lives of public housing occupants who are portrayed as lazy, petty criminals, welfare cheats and neglectful parents. Nevertheless, there are a legion of passionate Housos fans who claim the show highlights the realities of a society fractured by deep economic divisions.

Housos has certainly been a commercial success with two television seasons, a stage show and a feature movie. Although combating authority has been a recurring theme, be it the police, Centrelink, or politicians, the show has been largely neutral regarding partisan politics. Relying ultimately on government money through SBS, this should come as no surprise. The official Housos Facebook page, however, has proved an effective outlet for degrading, misogynist attacks on the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

It is not clear who the administrators of the Housos Facebook page are but their political affinity is crystal. Far from acting as moderators, deleting inappropriate comments and censuring repeat offenders, the administrators orchestrate ad hominem attacks and provide a safe space for the most feral and sexist comments. Objections are brushed aside and objectors are subjected to similar abuse.

There are too many examples to cite but a brief perusal of the Facebook wall makes the Housos political stance evident. On 8 February the page posted a picture of Gillard in flames which received hundreds of likes. Later that day the status asked, ‘Who’s the biggest cockhead in straya ATM’. The comments overwhelmingly stated it was Gillard. Anthony Mundine, who had fought a few days earlier, and Tony Abbott also received several nominations.

Earlier in the year a status read, ‘gonna thong the fuk out of sum c*nt’. Again, the comments were filled with anti-Gillard hate. One even contained a death threat that was not reported or deleted – indeed it received several likes:

fucking Ginger bitch julia, taking money off us & our defence force, & giving it to other countries & fucking illegal boat people,i cant pay my rent & feed my kids on $225.50 a fortnight gimme a gun & a ticket & i’ll shoot the bitch, yep ill go to jail but ill have food n a roof over my head & me kids will be housed & fed cos they’ll be in the welfare system.

H2C

Seemingly buoyed by the chance to attack the Prime Minister with impunity the statuses and comments became increasingly vile throughout the year. In response to Gillard’s recent visit to West Sydney the administrators claimed, ‘Even the PM watches Housos!! Where else did she get the idea of living in Rooty Hill for a week to mix it up with the locals?? What a plagiarising stooge! Someone go thong slap the bitch’. A few days later the status read, ‘Gaaaaaan gittttttfucccccckeddd …. That’s what Julia’s neighbors will be sayin’.

The commentators tried to outdo each other for vulgarity, misogyny and sheer meanness. One wrote, ‘Just faaaaarkin thong the dirty slut aye’, while another brain had this to add, ‘get back in ur kennel lmfao’. Egged on by the administrators, comments on more recent statuses include, ‘Don’t worry houseos your to good for that Ranga rat ill thong that bitch any day’, ‘Julia Gillard sucks dick!’, ‘thong the fuckwit pm’ and ‘julia gillard is a ranga her voice annoys the fuck outa me she needs a good kick up her ranga twat she is a LYING MOLE’

Some fans do highlight the irony of supposed housing development occupants championing a Liberal government. One commented, ‘how do you think Tony’s going to treat most of your fans? like dogs, that’s how. so stop the fucken political bullshit’. Another drily sated, ‘didn’t realise A Jones ran this page’. The administrators had this reply to those who complain, ‘to all the haters …. And critical pricks… kiss my ass’.  Unperturbed, the invective remains clearly aimed at Gillard. On 30 March the administrators again exhibited thinly veiled misogyny writing, ‘i wanna thong a rangas booty… jus sayin’. It was obvious who they had in mind. Comments included, ‘I’m Sure Gillard will stick it out for thongin!!’ and ‘Thong gillards face’.

The Houos Facebook page seems to have taken its lead from Larry Pickering, the political cartoonist who returned from retirement to attack Gillard by drawing her in sexual positions. While Pickering has a bizarre fixation on the image of Gillard wearing a strap-on dildo (the subject of many of his cartoons), the Housos cater to a more general misogyny with repeated references to Gillard either being beaten, performing sexual acts or having them performed on her.

The glaring question is why? There is no ready answer. Everything about Paul Fenech’s career and work hitherto suggests he is either apolitical or sympathetic to the political left. What is the motivation for these vile and sexist attacks on the Prime Minister? Is it possible he is completely ignorant of his own Facebook page? If not, why would he want to provide a safe place for comments that would be deleted from all but the most vicious right wing blogs?

It will be a gruelling six months for the government as it prepares for the September election in the face of persistently negative polls and a hostile mainstream media. Gillard, however, appears to be facing a war on two fronts. She must not only endure the trials common to all world leaders, she must also endure the tasteless sexism from a noisy minority who still cannot abide a female Prime Minister. Gillard is not a perfect leader and she has not led a perfect government. She deserves the full scrutiny of the media and the public for her political performance. She does not deserve the gendered and sexualised language directed at her. To use the vernacular, Paul Fenech and the administrators of the Housos Facebook page deserve a good thongin.

134066889615_Housos

Posted in Politics, Popular Culture | No Responses »
Tags: , , ,

Fear and Loathing in Liverpool: My Evening with Geert Wilders

Monday, March 25th, 2013

It was always going to be an awkward night. The arrival of Geert Wilders in Australia had been met with widespread condemnation in the media. Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, roundly denounced the Dutch parliamentarian’s fierce anti-Islamic views but chose not to deny him a visa. Tony Abbott was more cautious, stating simply that Wilders was “substantially” wrong. A small few were willing to publically defend Wilders. Controversial Liberal Senator, Cory Bernardi, broke party ranks to support his right to be here. Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt spoke in his defence and Alan Jones’ 2GB radio gave the Q Society (who organised the visit) airtime. For my part, I wanted to hear him for myself and make up my own mind. What was he actually proposing?

As soon as I parked my car I could hear the loud chants, “Muslims are welcome, racists are not”. Getting closer, I could see around 50 protesters separated from the delegates by a line of police officers. I was temporarily afraid to walk through the protesters who were screaming abuse at delegates as they arrived. As I write regularly for the online political journal Independent Australia, I decided to stand with the other members of the press and compose myself. As the journalists took turns interviewing protesters with their expensive cameras and voice recorders, I pulled out my mobile phone and decided to do the same.

The first protester I spoke to was a friendly young man named Abdul-Salaam. He was wearing traditional Islamic clothing and handing out pamphlets. I asked him what his motivation was. He replied that he wanted to address the misconceptions about Islam propagated by people like Wilders. I then spoke to another young man named Patrick who proudly announced he was a member of the Socialist Alliance. He commented on the ethnic and racial diversity in Sydney and insisted that Wilders’ racist views were harmful. He also had pamphlets that explained why anti-Islamic sentiments are racist.

I spoke with the protesters for over half an hour, partly to understand their point of view and partly to avoid having to cross the police line. I hoped that they would see me as a reporter, a genuine observer rather than a Wilders sympathiser. I eventually gathered my courage and approached the line. I was stopped by the police and could feel the protesters’ eyes on me as I produced a receipt from my registration and explained I was a paid delegate. I was allowed past but the end of the line was only five or so meters from the protesters. I was not spared their wrath. “Nazi skinhead scum,” one woman screamed at me. I wanted to run over to her and explain my short hair was purely a result of my balding head, not a sign of any extreme political ideology. I wanted to tell her that I abhor racism, that I support refugee rights, that I have done charity work in Africa but I knew it would do no good. Instead I looked shamefully at my feet and accepted the jeers and taunts, wishing desperately the line would move faster.

Security was extremely tight as delegates were required to produce their receipt, photo identification, pass through a metal detector and a bag search before entering the conference room. As I waited in line I began to chat with the delegate next to me. He commented on the hypocrisy of the protesters, claiming tolerance while being intolerant. When he mentioned he had flown down from Brisbane, the large gentleman standing behind us introduced himself. He explained that he was keeping a low profile but was in fact the Liberal National Party member for Dawson, George Christensen. As the two Queenslanders spoke I noticed the Reverend Fred Nile was being ushered to the front of the line. Although I oppose most of what he says, I did feel a moment of sadness observing his dignified and defiant presence. I could only imagine what was screamed as he and his wife braved the protest line.

Inside the venue, a stage was adorned with the flags of Australian, Holland, the United States and Britain. A speaker from the Q Society explained that they had been denied the use of over 30 venues. Freedom of speech was under attack we were told. It felt like we were a group of underground freedom fighters. The rhetoric of the speaker made you temporarily forget we were already living in a free and tolerant society. Wrapped up in the cheers of the enthusiastic crowd, it was easy to believe we were part of a noble struggle for rights.

The first speaker was a Muslim convert to Christianity named Sam Solomon. Articulate and charismatic, he made a clear distinction between Islam as an idea and Muslims as people. It is not racist to be against an idea he assured us. Coming from an Arab and former Muslim, the argument certainly carried more weight than it would have from Wilders. The problem with Islam was that it was not just a religion but an entire political ideology as well. In the West, religion is a small and private part of a person’s life whereas Islamic ethics cover every aspect of an adherent’s life.

I knew from my own experience that what he was saying was wrong. I thought of my friends from Hillsong Church. Their religion absolutely does consume their life. In the Evangelical/Pentecostal vernacular, a Christian would be called a “backslider” if they fitted Solomon’s description. I thought then of my Muslim friends for whom the religion is but a small part of their identity. Nonetheless, I had a lot of sympathy for Solomon. As an active supporter of Open Doors, I knew the terrible persecution Christians, especially converts, did face in some Islamic countries.

Solomon was a polished speaker. He quoted the Qur’an in Arabic and made a convincing case that Islam was not a religion but an intolerant, expansionist ideology. The crowd was cordial but gave only half-hearted, awkward support. Solomon was an evangelist at heart. When he passionately declared that he could be put to death in his home country for boldly declaring that “Jesus is Lord”, the many atheists in the room could only muster a polite clap of approval. When he proudly asserted that the morality of the West was based on Judeo-Christian values, he again clearly isolated himself from many. Having said his piece, the stage was surrendered for the main event.

The crowd leapt to their feet as Geert Wilders took the stage and I felt highly conspicuous as I remained seated. The Dutchman was quick to assert he was not part of the “extreme right” but simply someone who stood for “commonsense” and “liberty”. He explained that he was “marked for death because [he] criticised Islam”. He then unleashed the torrent of invective that has made him infamous. Islam was called, “evil”, “intolerant” and a “mental prison”. The prophet Muhammad was called a “war-lord”, “terrorist” and ‘paedophile”. The crowd roared their approval.

Calling for a “spirit of resistance”, Wilders asked the audience to support the only democratic country in the Middle East, Israel. He then passionately declared that “we all are Israel”. As with Solomon’s Christian apologia, Wilders’ support for the Jewish state only received modest support. I wondered how Christensen was reacting. In the lead-up to the 2010 election he was dogged by anti-Semitic remarks he had made at university. Was he now supporting the idea that we are all Israel? Two rows in front of me I noticed a heavily tattooed skinhead with his arms crossed as others clapped. What a conflicted message this must have been for him. Did he dislike Jews or Muslims more?

Like Solomon, Wilders made “a distinction between the people and the ideology”. Also like Solomon, he insisted “Islam and freedom are incompatible … even when the majority are moderates”. Moderate Muslims, he insisted, “are not preaching Islam at all”. Again, I knew this was plainly wrong. Who was he to define Islam? Who was he to say the Abdul-Salaam, peacefully protesting outside, was not a real Muslim?

Having spent the majority of his speech outlining the “Islamic threat” and highlighting its incompatibility with Western values, Wilders needed just a minute to give his solution. There should be “no more immigration from Islamic countries” he flatly declared. He did not expand, except to say, “no more mosques” either. The crowd were rapturous. I was completely disappointed. That was it? For all his rhetoric and grand standing, that was his serious suggestion!

The problem with Wilders and Solomon is that they do, at times, touch on the very real problem of Islamofascism. The death threats both men receive are real. The misogyny and anti-Semitism openly espoused by some Islamic scholars is real. The terrorism committed by al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups is real. But is that really the best solution Wilders could come up with? I wished there was a question and answer time at the end. I desperately wanted to ask, what about the persecuted Christians in Islamic countries? Does he not realise that under his extreme and unworkable solution his support speaker, coming from an Islamic country, would not be allowed in Australia?

The streets where dark and quiet as I walked back to my car. The protesters were gone but the police remained. Driving home, Sigur Rós were playing on the radio which only added to my reflective mood. I thought of my Iraqi barber who is always so friendly and kind to me. He sends his daughter to an Islamic school for the same reason my parents sent me to a Baptist school. There is no evil or indoctrinating intent, he simply believes the standards are better and he wants her to have some grounding in the family faith. I thought also of the many Muslim students I have taught over the years. Thinking of their smiling faces in class, so respectful, so eager to learn, I felt intensely sad for the crude pantomime presented by people like Wilders. Send them all back? What a horrible thought! It is the logic of a person unwilling or unable to look past cultural differences and see potential friends and fellow citizens.

I attended my evening with Geert Wilders with a genuinely open mind but I conclude he is a man with no answers. I openly oppose misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism and religious intolerance wherever I see it but it is wrong to stereotype the whole religion this way. A philosophy cannot be judged by its abuses and it is grossly unfair to use the attitudes of the extremists to characterise the moderates. Imagine if we did that with everyone. Does the Westboro Baptist Church fairly represent Christianity? Was Stalinist Russia an archetype atheist state? Australia had an isolationist and xenophobic immigration policy for far too long. It is not something we want to ever return to. Muslims can and do live harmoniously in Australia and add a layer of richness to the multicultural fabric that makes up this great land.

I’m glad Mr Wilders was allowed into our country. I’m glad he was allowed to speak and I’m glad I was allowed to attend. Most of all, I am glad that this country overwhelmingly rejects his extreme policy. It is not just and it is not right. I’m sorry Mr Wilders, I don’t agree with you.

photo_1361936956565-1-0

Posted in Christianity, Geert Wilders, Politics, Popular Culture | No Responses »
Tags: , , ,

In defence of Australia Day: Keep the 26th of Jan!

Sunday, January 27th, 2013

I am not an Aboriginal Australian. I do not have that honour. But like many Australians I have a deep respect for the ancient culture that possessed this land for tens of thousands of years before the arrival of the First Fleet. I had the privilege of being in the House of Representatives on 13 February 2008 when Kevin Rudd apologised to Australia’s Indigenous peoples. I saw firsthand the incredible outpouring of emotions and am keenly aware of the power of symbolism to assist healing and reconciliation. It has been suggested that moving Australia Day from 26 January will be a similar gesture of respect and goodwill between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. While I understand the argument, I fear it would have the opposite effect.

The most articulate call to change the date of Australia Day was made in 2009 by Professor Mick Dodson. Having won the prestigious Australian of the Year award, Dodson, expressed the view that Australia can ‘do better’ noting that, ‘many of our people call it invasion day’.

Every year since, as Australia Day approaches, more room is being provided for Aboriginal voices in the public domain and this is a good thing. The first Aboriginal member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Chris Bourke has recently said, ‘It is simply not right to have this day, with its implicit assumption that the invasion of Australia was a good thing for all concerned, as our national day’. I do not believe this is a fair reflection of what Australia Day means. Australia Day does not celebrate the suffering of Aboriginal people but the beginning of a national story.

As an Australian of European descent, I am sorry for the brutal dispossession that followed first contact. I am sorry for the rape, murder and other acts of violence suffered by Aboriginal people. I am sorry for the families that were needlessly broken apart. But one thing I can’t be sorry for is the arrival of the British on 26 January. I am glad they came. If they hadn’t, I would not be here. I am also glad the Italians, Greeks and other Europeans arrived after World War II. I am glad the Vietnamese arrived in the 1980s and I am glad for the handful of boat people fleeing persecution who manage to negotiate our draconian immigration policy and find shelter on these shores. Australia in the twenty-first century is home to people from virtually every country in the world. Each wave of immigration has enriched Australia as a whole. I am proud to live in one of the most peaceful and multicultural nations on the planet.\

I recently had the opportunity to work on two book projects with a talented Aboriginal academic named Anthony Dillon. In an article for The Drum he has said, ‘It is interesting that some Aboriginal people see January 26 as a source of emotional suffering, while others view the very same day as an opportunity to have fun’. Dillon makes the important point that national days have only the meaning we give to them. Christmas Day has evolved over the years and most non-Christian Australians feel comfortable celebrating 25 December with or without a religious element. Australia Day has also evolved. The 1888 centenary was a celebration of Britishness. By 1988, the narrative had changed. It became a story of inclusion and 26 January is now one of the most popular days for immigrants from around the world to be presented with Australian citizenship.

Many Aboriginal Australians still face incredible hardship and as a nation we should make it our first priority to take steps towards positive change. Changing the date of Australia Day, however, is likely to divide the nation rather than unite it in the way the apology did. When would we change it to? 1 January, of course, is already a public holiday. 25 April belongs to the Anzac legacy and shouldn’t be broadened to include a general celebration. Without a viable alternative, a move away from 26 January will receive a negative backlash, not only from conservatives, but from many members of the community who have only ever seen it as a day to celebrate all that is good about the country. Changing the day will do nothing to address the poverty of many remote Aboriginal communities, the baleful gap in life expectancy or the limited access to health care, good education and quality employment. If these goals were earnestly pursued we would have all the more to celebrate on 26 January.

The national anthem calls on Australians to rejoice for we are young and free. It is our freedom, above all, that is worth celebrating. Australians are free to spend 26 January any way they like. Many take the opportunity to wave the flag and celebrate the nation. Many others do not reflect at all on the national story and simply take the opportunity to have fun with their friends. Others still choose to spend the day solemnly commemorating the injustices suffered by Aboriginal Australians through colonisation. There is no right or wrong way to spend the day and that in itself is a blessing.

The first Aboriginal person to receive a knighthood, Sir Douglas Nicholls, famously said to the greater Australian community, ‘we want to walk with you, we don’t wish to walk alone’. It is a beautiful sentiment. While the wrongs of the past must be acknowledged, the fact that this land has provided hope and home to waves of immigrants from around the world since 26 January 1788 is worthy of celebration. That we have grown into one of the world’s oldest and most peaceful democracies is also worth celebrating. Above all, the fact that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians can walk together, on the sports field, in the business world, in parliament, in our schools and in our communities, is truly worthy of celebration. Let us keep 26 January as the national day and be ever vigilant to ensure that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people walking together is something both sides can celebrate.

Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones is a historian at the Australian National University. His next book, Project Republic, will come out through Black Inc on 2 June 2013.

Posted in Politics, Popular Culture | No Responses »
Tags:

Rod Benson and the non-arguments against same-sex marriage

Monday, September 17th, 2012

As an academic and an educator, I am guided above all by Plutarch’s immortal words, ‘The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.’ This idea sits at the centre of my pedagogical approach. I have been blessed with opportunities to teach in many different settings. I have taught at Australian universities, comprehensive and selective high schools and private coaching collages. In each case my unum ago was never to teach students what to think but how to think. To achieve this goal (and I believe it to be a noble one) I endeavour to teach my students some basics in Western philosophy. In particular, I find it crucial that they understand the logical architecture of a formal argument and understand how it can be tested for fallacies.

Having taught and studied political philosophy for close to nine years, I see the ability to engage in rational discourse as a crucial life skill not a mere academic pursuit. The ability to use reason and logic to test the myriad claims that surround us at both a conscious and unconscious level is key to making informed decisions. This is why I teach philosophy to even my youngest students. At 13 and 14, students have the capacity to weigh claims and to develop critical and creative thinking skills. Many of my most enjoyable classes have involved teaching logical fallacies to young people and then watching them apply those skills to the world around them (California State University has a great summary of logical fallacies).

I recently discovered the blog site of Baptist minister and ethicist, Rod Benson, who, among other things, is Public Affairs Director for the NSW Council of Churches. Benson is generally left-leaning (by Christian standards) and is a noted activist for several laudable causes including ‘climate change action, justice for Palestinians, religious freedom, and gambling reform’. Despite this, he is a staunch opponent of marriage equality for homosexual couples. Benson has recently published an article listing his five ‘non-religious’ arguments against same-sex marriage . For a person in such a position of authority, with such influence and education, it is truly sad to see him put forward this impotent apologia for prejudice. Sadder still, the youngest of my students would be able to identify the blatant logical fallacies passed off as arguments.

1. We are told that marriage ‘is intended as the lifelong union of one man and one woman’ and that this is the ‘natural basis of the family’. This fallacy is known as the appeal to nature and it should set off alarm bells for two reasons. Firstly, Benson seemingly believes that monogamous, heterosexual relationships are always the case in nature. If we leave aside the animal and insect worlds which certainly have a different interpretation of natural, Benson’s false premise can quickly be revealed if he flips through his Bible where polygamy and concubines are the order of the day. Benson is trying to suggest that Victorian era concepts of marriage are natural while (ironically) Biblical ones are not. The second inherent fallacy in the appeal to nature is that it presumes that natural must be better. This is clearly not the case. Hospitals regularly keep people alive with pig’s arteries, pacemakers and a litany of very unnatural devices. This is not an argument.

2. Benson tells us that marriage is ‘deeply embedded in human history and culture’ and that ‘those who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they respect the wisdom of hundreds of generations of human tradition’. This fallacy is called argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). I’ve already mentioned that Benson is guilty of historical anachronism when he suggests monogamous, heterosexual marriage has always been normative. King David had at least eight wives and ten concubines (2 Samuel 3:2-5), however, his son King Solomon took polygamy to the extreme with over a thousand wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3). It was not just kings, though, polygamy was acceptable for any man who could afford to care for more than one wife. Leaving that aside, the appeal to tradition is about as weak as arguments can be. Slavery was condoned by hundreds of generations of human tradition also. The oppression of women has also been around for centuries. One might expect that an ethicist such as Benson would know that an injustice with great longevity remains an injustice.

3. Next, Benson looks into his crystal ball and tells us with unnerving certainty that ‘once the law is changed there will be calls for group marriage and other variations devaluing the meaning of marriage’. Really? What possible evidence is there to support this? Leave aside the stinging irony that so many of Benson’s Biblical heroes where quite the fans of group marriage, is there a lobby group for group marriage or have any of the same-sex rights activists ever indicated this is on the agenda? This logical fallacy is worst of the lot. It is called a non sequitur (does not follow) and means the conclusion does not follow the evidence. This is bottom of the barrel stuff. No attempt is made to explain how or why a heterosexual marriage will be devalued if loving homosexual couples are afforded equal rights and no attempt is made to justify the claim that this will inevitably lead to a push for group marriage or anything else. In the absence of a single logical argument, the strategy is to spread fear that the sky will fall in if homosexual couples are afforded the same rights heterosexual couples have always enjoyed.

4. We are told that ‘in the absence of children conceived and born through natural means, same-sex couples may resort to IVF or surrogacy to procure children’. Benson immediately stumbles into his own contradictions here and makes no attempt to explain why it is ethically fine for a heterosexual couple to explore these ‘unnatural’ avenues but not for homosexual couples. We are left with nothing but a value statement and a false, prejudicial binary. Heterosexual couples will be loving, nurturing carers of children. Homosexuals will not. Benson claims to worry only about the wellbeing of the children, noting the possible commodification of babies and human rights abuses in other countries. The most petty and cruel of his non-arguments is that IVF or surrogacy for same-sex couples would involve ‘the allocation of scarce medical resources’. Would he dare to tell a heterosexual couple using IVF that they are wasting scarce medical resources? The argument is completely invalid as Benson makes no attempt whatsoever to justify his premise.

5. Despite the promise, Benson does not have a fifth argument. Having exhausted his ideas he embarks on a short tirade against those who compare the struggle for marriage equality to the fight for civil rights in the 1960s. It is curious to note that the same logical fallacies, the appeal to nature, tradition and the ‘opening the door to other evils’ argument were all used by conservatives as they fought against racial equality. Desperate to avoid sounding like a bigot, Benson closes his article declaring, ‘to hold that marriage is the exclusive union of a man and a woman is neither discriminatory nor unjust, but common sense’. The article finishes as it began, with a logical fallacy, in this case argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularism). Just because something appears to be common sense and a large number of people agree does not make it true.

We were promised five but Benson has failed to present one single logical argument against same-sex marriage. His blog promises that he will soon present five religious reasons to oppose marriage equality. This is telling and I suspect he will feel on much safer ground if he can appeal to the Bible rather than logic. The argument against same-sex marriage is not rational or logical, it is grounded in bigotry and Christianity, sadly, has been partly guilty in spreading and perpetuating this needless prejudice. There is a large and growing wing of Christianity which is able to see this discrimination for what it is. I truly hope that Rod Benson, who fights for so many wonderful causes, will eventually reconsider his position on this one. The psychological trauma this draconian attitude causes for same-sex couples, especially Christian same-sex couples, is enormous. If you do believe in a creator God, then God made homosexuals that way and He doesn’t make mistakes. I would encourage you to listen to Matthew Vines excellent response to years of institutionalised homophobia in the Church. When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said simply ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and … Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Matthew 22:37-39). If more Christians were dedicated to loving their neigbour rather than judging their sexual preference, the world would be a better place.

Note to Rod: If you feel I have taken you out of context or if you would like to reply to this article I would be more than happy to publish your response in full on this site.

Posted in Christianity, Politics, Popular Culture | Comments Off

Manufacturing Magic and the Australia’s Got Talent Circus

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Australia most certainly does have talent. We have so much talent that the Channel Seven producers, seemingly oblivious to the irony, booked Canadian teen sensation, Justin Bieber, to ensure their grand final episode is a ratings bonanza. Now enjoying a successful sixth season, Australia’s Got Talent has been in the front line of Seven’s ongoing reality wars with rival networks. The real talent on display, however, does not come from the singers, dancers, illusionists and comedians but from the show’s producers and their slick marketing campaign.

The formula is simple, generic and applicable to the X Factor, the Voice, Australian Idol and every other reality talent show on television: find a Susan Boyle. All of these shows represent a business alliance between a television station and a record company, so the winner needs to appeal to both groups. For the station, they need an inspiring story, visual appeal and captivating character. For the label, they need a distinctive look and marketable sound but most importantly to be submissive, compliant and willing to forfeit a huge amount of creative freedom to the executives.

An insider from Owen Campbell’s camp recently contacted Independent Australia to express his dismay at the plastic experience known as Australia’s Got Talent. Campbell is a gifted singer and songwriter and one of Australia’s best slide guitarists. Independent Australia published articles on his awkward, confrontational audition and his subsequent sackcloth apology and redemption all caught on AGT. Both episodes looked scripted and fake and one of Owen’s close supporters has revealed that the whole set up of the program is designed to manufacture magic. The emphasis is very much on the story not the talent.

One might assume that AGT is a talent show and that any talented artist who wins over the judges and ultimately gains the most public votes will win. This is a misconception. At the very beginning Campbell signed a waiver that stated the producers can remove any act at any time. Interestingly, another talented artist, Josh Owen, successfully auditioned at the same time as Owen Campbell but never performed in the televised series. Were the names too similar? Did Josh Owen not meet the needed criteria in some way apart from talent? The Josh Owen Band declined to comment.

For whatever reason, the producers decided the Owen Campbell was a marketable commodity and they tried desperately to create a classic rags to riches story. Campbell is a professional musician and by Australian standards he is very successful. His latest album, Sunshine Road, is currently sitting at number 9 on the ARIA Australian Albums charts. Below the Hilltop Hoods and above Cold Chisel he is in pretty good company. According to an insider, Campbell ‘couldn’t understand why they wanted to portray him as just a poor busker.’ Evidentially this was the angle the producers thought would work best.

During the televised heats, Campbell’s performance was unexpectedly brought forward by three weeks. This caused great distress as he was forced to cancel a film clip he was scheduled to shoot. More importantly, Campbell complained that he had planned to gig heavily, garner support and campaign for votes. Campbell approached the executive producer to explain he might be voted off if he loses those three weeks. The executive producer coolly replied, ‘I don’t think that you have to worry about that Owen.’ The producer, it seems, was able to assure him that he would progress.

I asked the insider from Owen’s camp if he thought at that point that the show was rigged. He replied:

‘I don’t think that it is rigged in the sense that it breaches any terms of broadcast or rules of the competition. Not obviously anyway. But I do think that there are things that they can manipulate to their benefit and that they probably wouldn’t want made public … albeit done within the rules. I am sure it would only be taken as rigged by the audience … of AGT.’

Owen Campbell has undoubtedly done well from his time on AGT. He has earned an endorsement from Lowden Guitars, an estimated $70 000 in album sales and gained mass exposure. The reason for his success, however, is that he was a professional to start with. He already had the talent and the experience and he already had a professionally produced album ready to sell. For a genuine amateur discovery, the show could be a poisoned chalice. The ‘prize’ includes a contract to Sony which gives the artist virtually no creative control on anything from film clips to the album tracks. Without the power to demand original songs, it is virtually impossible for a new artist to make money from royalties. The ‘prize’ is simply to be an indentured servant to a major label until next year’s show and the new talent is found.

Back in 2002 when Popstars was Channel Seven’s reality talent show of choice, John Safran sought to expose the hopelessly one-sided record deals offered as a ‘prize’ on these shows. In his humorous and classically awkward style, he approach then Labor leader, Simon Crean to discuss forming a union for winners of these shows. It is not a bad idea. AGT is not about discovering but exploiting talent. Campbell, it seems, has been lucky. Already an established professional, he hit the ground running and has used the powerful medium of television to promote himself. For most others, it is neither a launch pad nor a ‘prize.’ Traditionally, businesses would pay focus groups to sample products. With shows like AGT, the audience is literally paying the companies to be part of their market research.

For professional musicians like Campbell, these shows can be a means to an end. It is sad, though, that talented Australian acts feel they have to jump through these ridiculous televised hoops to gain exposure and a fan base. While these shows are extremely popular, people should be aware that they are not watching a genuine talent show where the judges simply choose the best performer from a group of amateurs. Between the television producers and the record label executives, so many strings are being pulled it is hard to know where reality stops and fantasy begins. At best we are watching savvy professionals playing a role, at worst we are watching young dreamers being exploited. Either way we should remember that when the stirring music starts, when the slow motion shots begin, when the parent’s tears, the audience cheers and the anxious face of the performer are all flashed before our eyes, we are not witnessing the results off a fair competition but the product of manufactured magic.

Posted in Popular Culture | Comments Off

The Redemption of Owen Campbell and the Sorry State of Australian Music

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

Owen Campbell returned to the stage of Australia’s Got Talent, won the judges heart and won himself a place in the next round. The real winner, however, was channel 7 which has masterfully manipulated what was little more than a confrontation between a no-nonsense busker and precious B-grade celebrities into a feel-good story with weeks of potential yet. It is hard to know whether to feel joyful or resentful after Campbell’s second audition. On a personal level, it is wonderful that an extremely talented singer and songwriter has been given the chance to receive national exposure and is a potential winner of AGT’s lucrative grand prize. On a more contemplative level, it is a grim reminder of how the music industry works. The heads of the major labels sit happily at the top of the pyramid, the radio chiefs and concert promoters are below, next are the record chains, the managers of local venues and finally, the indentured servants who prop up the entire industry, the musicians themselves sit pathetically at the very bottom.

The response to my article on Campbell’s first audition was completely unexpected. Within hours the article had received thousands of views, shares and retweets. What seems to have struck a nerve more than anything was the lack of fairness in the judging. It seemed such a miscarriage of justice to have an extremely talented artist rejected from a talent show for not pandering to the fragile ego of B-grade celebrities. As a blues artist, slide guitarist and songwriter, it was painful to see Campbell berated so severely by representatives of the plastic pop world.

The second audition began with Campbell offering a humble apology for his behaviour. Just as he sharply interrupted him speaking in the first audition, Brian McFadden again cut Campbell off. Assuring him he had a fresh start, McFadden got to the heart of the issue quickly noting, ‘If you hadn’t of talked last time and just performed you wouldn’t be here right now, so just perform’. Campbell did just that. Although he sang well, the guitaring was less impressive and the overall performance lacked the sparkle of his opening audition. The crowd clapped along but did not jump to their feet as they had done last time. McFadden, however, did jump to his feet, clearly applauding, not the performance, but the new deferential and subservient attitude begin displayed.

Channel 7 have in place all the ingredients for the perfect redemption story. The ‘controversy’ created interest, the prodigal son has now returned and may even complete the fairy tale by going on to win the show. McFadden, despite being the main antagonists last week, had nothing but praise for Campbell following his second performance. Dannii Minogue was terse but positive. Kyle Sandilands could not help but remind Campbell of the key to success in the music industry. He is a genuine contender to win AGT because, ‘you’ve now learned to keep the attitude under control’. The message could not be clearer. Never mind the audience, the performance or the songs, schmooze the industry gate-keepers and you’re halfway to fame.

So what can we make of all this? Why are musicians at the bottom of the music industry, obnoxious B-grade celebrities in the middle and faceless moneymen at the top? Campbell, for his part, has done what any sane person would do. He is a street busker being offered $250 000 and a record contract if he plays ball. It was inevitable that he would return in sackcloth and repent before a boy band singer, playboy stripper and shock jock. If the blame lies anywhere it is with all of us for failing to support the arts and thinking that sitting at home watching television somehow constitutes caring about music.

Owen Campbell has played countless times at Canberra’s Phoenix pub and other small venues, yet he has gained a bigger audience in 5 minutes than the previous 5 years of non-stop gigging. How many people take an interest in local Australian music, turn up at the small pubs to see live performances and call the radio stations to ask for local bands? How many go that step further and fork out $20 to buy a new artist’s first album. For most new artists, the first album is a labour of love, usually costing them thousands from their own pocket. It means the world to them when someone buys it but so often they leave the near empty pub with as many albums as they came with. When it comes to music, Australians seem to be vehemently against giving people a fair-go.

The reason live music in Australia is in such bad shape is simply because we are not getting out and giving new local artists a fair go. Why is it that our radio and music television shows are inundated with a virtual replica of the United States Billboard chart? Because we are not supporting out local music scene. Sydney in particular is guilty of effectively killing off live music due to apathy. The music stage in countless pubs has been replaced by pokies. Musicians are increasingly giving up on their original material and resigning themselves to playing well-worn covers to a crowd which has decided it has lost its patience for new material unless it comes endorsed by a major radio station and preferably hot off the charts in the US.

If we want to have a thriving local music industry where talented Australian artists are celebrated and allowed to be successful then we need to start supporting the local scene. We need to check out the local indie press, find the quality local bands writing original music, buy their albums and give them a chance to compete with foreign music. If we do that, then the Owen Campbells all over the nation will have a chance to be heard and to approach the record labels as successful, valuable assets. If we don’t then we doom our artists to live in a country where stroking the ego of B-grade celebrities is the best path to getting noticed. If only to wipe the smug look of self-righteousness off the face the AGT judging panel, let’s start supporting Aussie artists.

My original article on Owen Campbell is here: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/business/media-2/owen-campbell-has-talent-fragile-b-grade-celebrities-lack/

Owen’s second performance on AGT can be watched here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puS-7hEX4II

Posted in Popular Culture | Comments Off

Australia’s Got Talent (but the judges don’t)!

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

Major international celebrities are known for their precious, often petty, egos. Even more fragile is that of the minor, B-grade celebrity. More often a target of ridicule than veneration, the B-listers are notoriously touchy about perceived insults and desperate to assert their legitimacy. Rather than sell out stadiums or attend Hollywood premiers, the B-listers’ natural habitat is shopping malls, ‘celebrity’ reality television and the judges’ chairs for shows like Australia’s Got Talent. Confronted with a contestant who was clearly not overawed by their minor celebrity, Dannii Minogue, Kyle Sandilands and Brian McFadden were quick to voice their displeasure at ‘cocky’ Canberran busker, Owen Campbell.

Owen is an incredibly gifted singer and songwriter and is probably one of the best slide guitarists in the country. Like many talented people, however, Owen has never had a big break. His regular shows are at small Australian pubs and his world tours involve busking for room and board. From this humble background, he walked onto the stage of his first televised performance in front of a huge audience and three imperious B-listers. Obviously nervous and overwhelmed, Owen sat down and greeted Kyle by calling him Carl. Brian instantly pushed his buzzer to illuminate the large red X. Owen nervously rambled and attempted to make a joke which fell flat. Brian sarcastically taunted ‘that’s a good start mate, you’re on fire at the moment’.

After this awkward opening, Owen commented that he would pretend the judges weren’t there and just play his song for the audience. As he was playing Dannii loudly interrupted the intro, asking Kyle what he had said about the judges. Owen played wonderfully. He won the crowd effortlessly, who clapped along and gave him a standing ovation. Before the applause had died down Kyle demanded to know why Owen had tried to make an enemy of the judges. Brian again took the role of lead attack dog insisting Owen’s actions were stupid and he was an arse. The crowd do not matter, he firmly cautioned, only their three votes. Owen’s reply was quickly cut off by Brian who demanded, ‘do you want to keep talking or do you want us to speak to you?’ Campbell’s simple larrikin reply, ‘ok boss’ drew an audible gush from the audience and Brian’s face was furious, even more so when he added, ‘my aim isn’t to be in a boy band, chief’. That was enough and Brian gave him a No. Kyle gave some hope with a spiteful Yes before Dannii sent him home with a second No.

Now possibly this was all a Channel 7 stunt. Despite being dumped from the show, it has already been confirmed that Owen will appear again in next week’s show. Irrespective, the whole episode gave a humorous (perhaps horrendous) insight into the fragility of celebrity egos. Owen’s real crime in his AGT performance was simply that he did not show the deference and awe this panel of B-listers felt they were entitled to. Despite the crowd howling in protest, Dannii gave Owen the second and fatal No insisting that it was because of his personality (apparently the name of the show was meant to be Australia’s Got Personality).

Brian and Dannii are certainly birds of a feather. Brian became an overnight celebrity at 18 when he successfully auditioned for Irish boy band Westlife. Similarly, Dannii achieved fame as a child singer on Young Talent Time and a soap opera actress. They are both products of instant fame culture and they both have worked hard to keep their celebrity status tenuously in place. Dannii in particular, kept herself in headlines by appearing in Playboy Magazine. Brian and Dannii think of the music industry as a production line of subservient artists who must grovel to the record labels so that they can land a television hosting gig after they pass their used by date. Owen Campbell simply comes from another world. He is a traditionalist musician who believes that good music and connecting with the audience is all that matters. There was bound to be a clash.

The funniest, but also pettiest, moment in the whole ordeal was provided by Kyle who went on a bizarre tangent and complained about the treatment of himself and his fellow B-listers by the media. Despite giving a Yes to Campbell in recognition of his talent, Kyle vindictively remarked that he hoped Owen advanced only so that he would have ‘complete and utter lies’ written about him by the media. The claim and the occasion could not have been more inappropriate. Kyle has made a lucrative career for himself by manipulating the media. His deliberately brash and often offensive behaviour as a radio shock jock and a television talent judge has earned him millions of dollars. To complain to a street busker about the cruelty of the Australian media was narcissistic in the extreme.

Perhaps Owen Campbell is better off without AGT. Arthur Schopenhaurer wisely commented that ‘the longer a man’s fame is likely to last, the longer it will be in coming’. That is the problem with B-listers. Almost without exception they took the fast track to fame. They won a talent show, fronted a commercial pop band, appeared in a big television series and have found themselves forever living in the shadow of their 15 minutes. If you become a star overnight by winning AGT, then the faceless men who run Sony can rightly say that they made you and demand that grovelling respect the judges found lacking. The musicians who grind it out in the pubs and small venues, who build a fan base over years and who make themselves something before the record label comes knocking are generally the ones who are still around years later. No matter what happens on his second appearance, this episode clearly demonstrates two things; B-listers will always be petty and nasty and Owen Campbell has talent.

Watch Owen on AGT here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etmCR_K33sQ

Posted in Popular Culture, Thematic Musing | Comments Off