At a Bondi Attack Vigil, Two Politicians Turned Tragedy To Opportunism. This Is Inexcusable.
Grieving individuals gathered amid a sprawling expanse of flowers near the iconic pavilion this week, their tones quietly rising in a timeless song of peace. Shalom, shalom, they intoned in unison, while sorrow settled in like the grey clouds above.
The solemn intensity of the moment was abruptly shattered by shouts: “Albo must go”, and then a rejoinder, “What exactly did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The singing stopped. Bewildered, I looked over.
There, standing at the front of the assembly, surrounded by formally dressed guards and the press, stood two figures seen as some of the most blatant opportunists ever to hold office to the Australian parliament.
Among the press of modestly dressed people, their expressions etched by sadness, the duo were conspicuous, attired as if to play for the media.
Polarizing Language In Shared Grief
One figure, whose political history has been marked by creating discord since entering public life, spoke about liberty and safety and the ability to live “without fear”. She stated she wanted hate preachers “dealt with”. And reiterated the rallying call of her career, “We must return to the Australia I remember from my youth … I consider the people we are welcoming to the country. Some nations they should not be permitted to migrate here.”
A portion of the onlookers, among them a individual in distinctive headwear, clearly welcomed her empty words, raising their phones to capture them and then pressing even nearer for photographs. “We love you”, “You alone who speaks the truth.”
Others present shared this view.
“Australians do not accept extremes,” one volunteer remarked, while he struggled to process her comments. “Under her preferred policies I likely would not be allowed to be here.”
It follows that the nations of origin of the civilians lauded as “heroes” for sacrificing their lives to confront the gunmen—Syria and another—might not be on her approved list either.
An Attack on the Idea of Australia
Following directly of the violence, the predominant public sentiment has been that this was not just a focused act against members of the Jewish community, but an attack on the very idea of the country being an welcoming community where equity and acceptance were considered principles, security for the majority was commonplace, and faith did not play a defining role.
The fact this occurred in a location that brings happiness, a site that vies with the country's most iconic landmark as an international calling card, was profoundly shocking. We know that for terrorism to achieve its aim, iconic locations are often the chosen targets and innocent people the tragic consequence.
That the reaction from leaders should so quickly turn to opportunism, name-calling and pointless debate—about whether to tackle the evident weaknesses in the nation’s much-vaunted firearms regulations or the problem of antisemitism—was an even more powerful indication of the era we live in.
Of course, each issue must be addressed, seriously and substantially, not merely by hiding behind procedure, referring to inquiries or demanding increased surveillance.
A Dereliction of Duty and the Rise of a Cruel Pantomime
The public are not alone in struggling with hard discussions that demand more than superficial responses, but when the major parties—even in the face of such a loss—fail to find consensus on the fundamentals, that is a dereliction of their core duty.
Having listened to the self-promoting remarks, I was still taken aback to overhear a quip as she made her way through the crowd to leave the memorial site: “Next time carry an Israeli flag into the parliament and see what they do.” To turn this profound loss, which speaks to what commentators have called a profound divide in the country's psyche, into a crude performance is beyond the pale.
This past year, so much of what was once unthinkable has become almost normal. Hateful racist, misogynist and antisemitic rhetoric has been celebrated under the false guise of open dialogue, angry mobs on the internet have been left unchecked, and fear has become pervasive. It is hardly unexpected that under these circumstances some individuals become susceptible to demagogues.
Certain analysts call the current era a “hinge year”—a phase when we glimpsed a potential cruel order, shaped by those with untouchable power and wealth. One must hope that the observation of pollsters is correct when they note that people recognize those who “seek to exploit grief, search for easy targets and convert fear into a divisive tool.”
We cannot allow this cruel theatrical display become the accepted standard. Addressing it will require resolve, courage and selflessness, like that displayed by the everyday people who followed their instincts to protect others at any cost.
