The Love Commandos – protecting India’s persecuted Love Birds

What if falling in love meant fearing for your life and fleeing from your family? In India, many young love birds are calling on the Love Commandos to rescue them from dire and dangerous situation.

In many areas of India, love is a taboo and choice in marriage is as whimsical as rainbows and pots of gold.

Marriages are arranged along cultural, caste and religious lines, with 90 percent of Indians marrying through arrangements. But for couples who fall in love outside their permissible contexts, they may challenge traditional and family ideologies and traditions, and for too many, this can mean the difference between life and death. These marriages are called love marriages; something implicitly implied in our western culture.

Physical abuse, imprisonment and even honour killings are not uncommon responses from parents, siblings and extended family members who fear the stigma of an unsuited marriage. There are daily reports in local and national newspapers of horrifying retributive attacks. It was in response to this steady stream of bad news that the Love Commandos arose.

The Love Commandos are an unlikely group of modern day heroes who are stepping in to help India’s star crossed lovers. A group of middle aged men; former journalists and businessmen, who are tired of living in a society where young couples are killed or separated because of their love, banded together to employ non-violent action to rescue and save India’s persecuted love birds.

Founder, Sanjay Sachdev, a journalist, who himself married for love, is a passionate advocate for love and equality.

“Love is our nature. We cannot deny our nature. We live in a world of love, and yet our cultural, historical and political systems try to destroy love.”

The Love Commandos was born literally overnight. As one particularly disturbing case was reaching the news, Sachdev decided to do something about it. A hot line was set up to help couples escape dangerous situations, and within a few days news had spread throughout India. That was four years ago, and the phone hasn’t stopped ringing.

“We receive between 90 to 400 calls each day from distressed couples asking for help, advice and in many cases, rescuing.”

The donation funded volunteer organisation has helped countless couples escape, fight harassment, and marry in safety.

Sachdev interrupts our meeting to take a phone call from his phone that rings incessantly. When he returns he explains;

“A young man has been put behind bars and his girlfriend has to make a statement to the Magistrate that they were in a consensual relationship. He is being accused of rape and kidnapping by her family. She is very distressed and doesn’t know if she will ever see him again. She took a risk just calling me! I think she is being beaten by her mother.”

The Love Commandos will work with the young girl to get her to a safe house, where she will be protected and arrangements made to save her love.

But it isn’t just a fairy-tale love that Sachdev and his band of Commandos are fighting for. The very fact that a group of undercover Love Commandos exists, not to mention its continuous demand – highlights some deeply societal and political inequalities within the world’s largest democracy. Such inequalities are perpetuated by the caste system and instilled through gender inequality.

For Indians, marriage is considered the transition into adulthood, and is virtually essential for everyone. Although illegal, dowries – money, goods or an estate that the girl or women is expected to bring into the marriage – are still common place, resulting in harassment and domestic abuse. This practice, along with arranged marriages, places women and girls in severely disempowered and vulnerable positions. Their choice and freedom is willed by their family and their husband’s family.

Sachdev believes it is this practice that is reinforcing a draconian caste system, and disabling the full empowerment of women in India.

“The caste system is dividing our nation and political parties are maintaining a criminal silence on the issue of protection for the rights of lovers in order to protect the ancient system. This just further entrenches the inequalities for women in our country”.

From the time they can walk, girls in India are being prepared for marriage. According to UNICEF, 47 percent of girls in India are married without their consent before they are 18, making India home to one-third of the worlds child brides. The average age of marriage for females globally is 22 years.

“When a girl falls in love she becomes a target of violence. She is detained in her home. Her education stops. Her employment stops,” Sachdev explains passionately. “We talk of freedom for women, but they have no freedom in their homes. Why are girls married so much younger than boys? We cannot talk of equality and yet have such vast discrimination.”

From the government, to law enforcement, to families, each member of society has a responsibility to uphold India’s constitution; which states that men and women can choose whomever they want to marry, without threats of violence or acts of harassment.

However in villages and cities, the police and magistrates are complicit with families and communities who perpetuate violence and harassment towards couples who choice love marriages or individuals who refuse arrangements. Whilst they fight the implementation of the law, India sits on a volcano.

“Love is natural. Every heart needs to have a love relationship. I do not believe that there can be any heart of earth that does not want love.”

The non-violent movement by the Love Commandos is much more than romanticism and ideology. Sachdev believes that Love Marriages have the power to challenge the political and cultural systems, dismantling the pervasive caste system so entrenched in tradition and active in oppression. Just as Gandhi peacefully fought for equality and liberty, the Love Commandos advocate against a system that purports classism, sexism and intolerance, through love.

“One day we will have equality, freedom and choice. In the meantime we continue helping the one.”

The Love Commandos operate at their own financial cost, and own risk. There are bounties on their heads and they survive on donations alone.

If you would like to support this work please donate at: http://lovecommandos.org/

Terrorist plans in Australia and how we treat our Muslim neighbours

It reads like a plot from a Denzel Washington action film; an Islamic extremist group plan to execute western civilians in a busy city square, while the Federal police battle the clock to protect the nation and bring the perpetrators to justice.

But it wasn’t a blockbuster film.

Yesterday the media flung Australia into a frenzied fear with its reporting on the counter-terrorism operations against a plan by the Islamic State to behead civilians in public. It was a sickening report, and I’m sure we were all grateful that our government acted so rapidly, ensuring our safety and national security.

But what is the fallout from media and politicians who invariably insight fear towards Muslim extremist groups and how will it affect the way we treat our fellow Muslim citizens?

In communities around Australia, Muslims residence are feeling the attitude of Australians shifting further, with demonising images of burqa-clad women holding guns being shared on social media by politicians and statements that ‘our people come first, before foreigners, asylum seekers or migrants’.

Meanwhile, western soldiers are bombing and killing thousands of Muslims in their home towns, in ongoing ‘peace keeping’ missions. Civilians become collateral damage in a fight against terrorist groups who are in the minority.

In the wake of 9/11 and the ensuing terrorist attacks on the west, more innocent civilians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by western forces than those killed in all the terrorist deaths combined.

The Islamic State is a dangerous and frightening extremist group, and we absolutely must oppose them. However we must also consider the global headlines that insights and propogate fear towards ‘Muslims’. There is an irrational fear growing globally about what could and might happen. This behaviour is driving a dangerous and counterproductive wedge within society; an ‘us and them’ mentality that will only result in what we fear the most.

When a group is stigmatised, marginalised and humiliated due to religion, race or culture, it breeds a human desire for acceptance, most often at any cost. Those who are marginalised and humiliated will form groups within their cultural or religious identity. This is a breeding ground for gangs and ideological movements, formed to fight that which oppresses their identity, human rights and freedom. (Let me be clear however, this is not a statement that in anyway supports terrorist groups and activites.)

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, making up 23 per cent of the world’s population. Extremist groups make up less than 2 per cent of this figure.

Western nations are not alone in the ‘fight against terrorism’. All over the world, from the villages in Somalia to the streets of London, the security of communities and countries are threatened by terrorist groups. You don’t need to be a developed, Christian nation to fear terrorism. Terrorism occurs most commonly between Muslim sects, government forces and rebel groups and nations at war. Think Syria, the Gaza Strip and ongoing Sunni and Shia clashes.

Terrorism is about fighting for an ideology. It is a reaction against a fear towards the ‘other’; those who do not share in the same ideology. If we, as a western community, insight fear against Muslims, terrorising them on the streets because of their choice in clothing, or their culture and beliefs, are we no better?

At the end of the day are we not also opposing an ideology and way of life? Though we may not activate our opposition through brutality, we have allowed our ideologies and expectations of what is ‘right’ to dictate our behaviour, discriminating and stigmatising the ‘other’.

We must see our fellow Muslim residence and citizens in Australia (and around the world) as our comrades rather than enemies. Was it not family members and friends who raised the alert of the foreboding terror attacks?

Let us not allow our own ideologies and the propagated media further instil fear and segregate a group of people for their culture and beliefs. In the end we will only breed and insight the very thing that we oppose; further segregating our society and increasing the risk of retributive attacks by a marginalised minority.

(Just so we’re clear, I in no way support terrorist activities, and am incredibly grateful that I come from a nation with such excellent security.)​

Why we need to talk about the Tamil asylum seeker boat

Since the public was first made aware of the  153 Tamil asylum seekers who were on a leaky boat off the coast of Christmas Island, the Australian Government has refused to provide further information about the fate of the boat. Today however, more troubling reports are emerging about the fate of the Tamil boat, and the Australian Government is remaining silent.

“We are experiencing huge waves and very bad conditions”, came the call from a man on board the boat. “We are very afraid and at threat. We have only three litres of water left. We can only manage for today, and tomorrow we will have nothing to drink.”

There were 37 children on board, two were sick with vomiting, fevers and headaches.

Since Saturday little more has been made known about the fate of the boat and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has continued to treat the Australian public with contempt. He refused to comment on the situation, as “no boats have arrived”, explaining that the government’s policy is that it does not comment on on-water activities in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders. “I am advised that I have no such report to provide to you today”.

But last night new and disturbing reports emerged that the silent boat has been handed over to the Sri Lankan military.

Has Australia committed a deliberate breach of the Refugee Convention?

By failing to allow people to lodge their claim for asylum and sending them back to a country where they may face persecution, Australia could be stepping over a line – breaking international law and the Refugee Convention.

The Refugee Council of Australia has released a statement saying, “As a Refugee Convention signatory, Australia has a clear obligation not to send asylum seekers back to danger without giving them a chance to put their case for refugee protection.”

In international law there is a term called non-refoulement, which forbids the return of a person to a country where they are at risk of persecution.

And Tamil people in Sri Lanka are at risk! In fact, according to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance, Sri Lanka is ranked second for unexplained disappearances of civilians, second only to Iraq.

Returning a group of people at risk of persecution, demonstrates an outright and blatant disrespect for international law by the Australian Government.

What’s more, it is a clear indication of the true objectives and interests of the Abbott Government. If ‘saving lives at sea’ was the ultimate objective of Operation Sovereign Borders, then wouldn’t that concern extend to the lives beyond the threat of drowning at sea. Nauru and Manus Island OPCs act as deterrents to boarding a boat to Australia, but the Government maintains the argument that Offshore Processing is a necessary deterrent to ensure no one takes a risky boat journey to Australia.  But how does sending people back to a place where they could be imprisoned, tortured and even killed pertain to the objectives of saving lives at sea’? Just as rescuing a person from shark infested waters by placing them in a jungle with leopards is not a safeguard against death, just a removal from a certain kind of death, rescuing people from the ocean and returning them to their former place of persecution does little to protect their lives.

It does however protect our borders. And at the end of the day, that is what is important.

This latest chapter in the ongoing Morrison vs. Asylum Seekers war is perhaps the darkest. If these reports are confirmed to be true, what has happened will open Australia up to international criticism, as the country that has blatantly ignored the international obligations of the Refugee Convention.

 

One Too Many – World Refugee Day

This morning I went to the World Refugee Day breakfast hosted by the UNHCR. The theme of World Refugee Day is:

“One family torn apart by war is one family too many”.

It’s a clean sentence. Simplistic, consisting of 11 words and it rolls off the tongue easily.

But think about its implication. What if that hypothetical ‘one family’ were my family or yours? It certainly would be one family too many. If my brother was killed by a suicide bomber, or my mum went missing, a suspected kidnapping because of her political affiliation, the reality of the theme would be anything but a compilation of marketing words.

There is an important question we should be asking the decision makers of Australia so vehemently dehumanise asylum seekers for political advantage:

“If you had to flee your country, how would you like the rest of the world to treat you?”

Instead of harping on about the threat to our borders, or the deaths at sea, it’s time, as a nation, we step back and adopt a new perspective. Asylum seekers are human beings just like us. The only difference is, they were unlucky enough to be born into a precarious situation. Forces outside of their control – famine, war and global climate change – push people out of their homes and into a world where empathy is quickly overwhelmed by power.

Today, Australia sent troops back to Iraq. They also plan to send rejected asylum seekers back there.

There are three things wrong with this.

One – if we want to stop the global movement of desperate people seeking asylum, we need to stop war. Before sending armed troops, we must consider peaceful diplomacy, a concept conspicuously missing from the current international Iraqi media coverage.

Two – if we are going to so rapidly deploy troops to Iraq to mitigate the threat of a terrorist war, then where are the troops in DRC, Central Africa, South Sudan and Syria? Aren’t all of these places facing the same fearful reality? What does Iraq have that these countries do not? (Yes that is dripping in hypothetical sarcasm).

And finally – if Iraq is dangerous enough to permit the deployment of military, risking the lives of men and women, whilst expat workers are rapidly being evacuated, how is it safe enough to return ‘failed’ asylum seekers? Non-refoulement (a principle of international law) forbids the return of a person to a place where they are at risk of persecution.

I was brought up believing in justice and that the means should never justify the end. As Australians isn’t it time we wake up to ourselves and decide that our moral compass must be realigned?

No one is asking for a better life for themselves. They are asking for a better life for their children. Wouldn’t you do the same?

Dedicated to Leo Seemanpillai, the young Sri Lankan asylum seeker who died after setting himself on fire, and to his family, who were denied visas to attend their sons funeral.

Who Made The Clothes You’re Wearing Today?

Published in Junkee 23/4/14

If you have taken an interest in the ethics of the fashion industry in the past, you’ll be well aware of some of the impacts of Fast Fashion on the planet and its people. As Maddy Newman wrote in the wake of H&M’s Melbourne launch a few weeks back, “Fast fashion’s seductively low prices encourage us to buy things we don’t need (and sometimes don’t really want), with little regard for the enormous environmental and human costs of this rapid-fire supply chain that squeezes margin from those who are most vulnerable.”

What’s less clear is what can be done about it.

Changing the way we buy clothes isn’t as easy as choosing free range eggs at the supermarket. Especially when we have such a huge smorgasbord of cheap and easy wares to choose from. Spending money on fashion shouldn’t be like buying a burger: cheap, spontaneous, and consumed within minutes.

But the fashion game is changing, fast. With rapid advances in technology and global communications, trends move quickly. From catwalk to store within weeks, the notion of two seasons per year is virtually obsolete — and with fast fashion retailers like Top Shop releasing 300 new styles each week, competition is fierce. The game is now who can get the latest style out faster and cheaper than any other retailer.

On April 24 2013, the world watched in horror as the Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh collapsed, killing 1,133 people and injuring over 2,500. Tomorrow is the one year anniversary of that tragedy, and Fashion Revolution’s #InsideOut campaign is asking you to ask the question: Who Made Your Clothes? The focus is on increasing transparency in the supply chain, and encouraging retailers and designers to consider the story of the clothes they are producing.

As consumers, where we choose to shop and what we choose to purchase can make a big difference in the supply chain story.

Buy Organic, Fair Trade, Or Second-Hand 

I’m not talking about tea and chocolate here; organic cotton and fair trade clothing are viable, ethical alternatives to fast fashion.

The environmental footprint and social injustice that the production of our clothes leaves behind incriminates us all. Cotton is a lucrative crop that has a devastating effect on those involved in its harvest; using more insecticides and pesticides than any other crop, the production of cotton severely impacts the environment, affects food supply and results in illness, disease and birth defects. Shockingly there are 250 million children around the world estimated to be involved in the growing and harvesting of cotton. In Uzbekistan, children are taken from school each year to harvest cotton. Many die or suffer injuries working in tough conditions, and are poorly compensated for their labour, leaving them without an education or an income for their families.

Meanwhile, factories like Rana Plaza — which continue to be employed by most major Australian brands – exploit men, women and children to produce faster. These people work long hours, with little to no compensation.  After the collapse, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh was established, with the aim of ensuring all garment factories in the country were safe workplaces. While they have no plans to stop sourcing from Bangladesh, Target, Big-W, K-Mart and Cotton On were among the companies that signed on to the accord. (Best and Less and Just Group refused). For those who signed, it’s a good first step, but it doesn’t solve everything: these companies, and many other retailers, are not transparent in their supply chains, and without transparency it is impossible to know who has made our clothes and under what conditions.

The benefits of Fair Trade clothing means that there is a focus on what’s known as the triple bottom line, or the ‘3-Ps’: pro-people, pro-planet and pro-profit. Programs that work with vulnerable communities to teach them how to sew or create garments helps protect these people from being exploited or embedded in a cycle of poverty. When we shop organic and Fair Trade, we are placing our consumer dollar behind companies that add value to the farmers and artisans who make our clothes. We are ensuring that no child was involved in the manufacturing of our products, and we are working in partnership with producers, enabling communities to invest in environmental initiatives and establish community development programs.

Organic cotton is another solution, reducing water supply and taking 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per acre out of the atmosphere each year. When we pay a higher price for an organic t-shirt, farmers can invest it into organic farming, helping them to become financially and environmentally sustainable.

The Ethical Fashion Guide provides an insight into some of the brands we most commonly shop, helping us make more informed choices about where we spend our money. The more we shop ethically, the more likely companies will begin to make changes to their own supply chains.

Ethical fashion in Australia has become much more common place than a few years ago, meaning we no longer need to compromise too much on style or budget.

Here are a few of the best of Australia and New Zealand’s sustainable fashion labels, resources and market places:

Indigo Bazaar: a selection of organic and ethical labels

Alas The Label: sustainable sleepwear

Kowtow Clothing: Fair Trade and organic clothing

Lalesso: wonderful Fair Trade designs made in Kenya

Gorman Organics: beautifully designed and made organic items

Ethical Clothing Australia: a guide to ethical shopping in Australia

Red Threads: Red Cross op-shops around Australia with a boutique/vintage feel

Do you have your own recommendations? Take them to the comments section!

In the meantime, ask your favourite retailer who made your clothes, and get your friends thinking about who their consumer choices might be affecting. Our clothes tell a story. What do yours say about you.

Thursday April 24 is Fashion Revolution Day. Take a photo of yourself wearing your clothes inside out, and share it on social media with the hashtag #InsideOut. To find out more, head here.

Cambodia agrees to resettle Australia’s refugees

Australia is shirking its responsibility to protect refugees, again. This time, Cambodia, one of Asia’s poorest countries, is in the process of signing an agreement to resettle Australian-bound asylum seekers.

In a move that has been condemned by activist and human rights groups, it is expected that Cambodia will offer permanent resettlement to people seeking asylum from war and persecution. Details of the agreement are yet to be released, but late Tuesday night the Secretary of State, Ouch Borith confirmed the agreement, stating that his government would “do the work according to international standards”.

So what is so wrong with this agreement? Isn’t it good that desperate people who are seeking safety will finally have access to the constantly evasive legal protection?

The thing with refugee resettlement, is that countries that offer resettlement are required to provide education and labour opportunities, not simply safety. As Phil Robertson, deputy director Human Rights Watch in Asia says, Cambodia’s “capacity to take care of asylum seekers or refugees is low”.

The kingdom of Cambodia is still recovering from its own history of civil war and violence.  It was only a few decades ago that scores of people fled the nation as it was consumed in brutal violence, genocide and war crimes under the Khmer Rouge regime. With one of the worst human rights records in the region the nation is still recovering. Many Cambodians live in abject poverty, surviving hand to mouth while children and women are vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking. Australia is consistent donor to the nation, providing more than $244.5 million in aid over the past three years.

Human rights lawyer, David Manne told ABC radio that “there are real concerns about people’s safety [in Cambodia]. Beyond that, there are indeed other obligations that Australia has committed to at the international community in relation to refugees”, including a commitment not to move refugees around the world to precarious situations where their safety could not be guaranteed.

The Human Development Index in 2013 ranks Cambodia at 138 out of 187 countries. And guess where Australia sits? Second. In case you didn’t get that, I’ll repeat. Second. Meanwhile the two other countries Australia has shirked its responsibility of protecting asylum seekers to, Papua New Guinea and Nauru, sit at 156 and 164 respectively.

Considering asylum seekers are currently living without basic human rights in Australian run offshore processing centres in the aforementioned Nauru and PNG, perhaps the Cambodia agreement is a positive step forward for those who are found to be refugees.

But the answer to these issues should not come down to an either or.

Australia has an obligation, not just to humanity, but to an international convention it helped to draft, to provide protection for people fleeing war and persecution.

I have worked with people who have come to Australia by boat, both those living in Australia and those in the offshore centres. Not one of these people I have met took a boat journey because they wanted better economic opportunities. They came because they cannot live in their homeland. They feared for their lives. That journey across the ocean on a small boat is not a choice. They are aware of the very real reality of death and those who do make it, often begin to grow grey hair, a physical sign of the internal stress they experienced during the week long journey. But rather than Australia recognising the bravery and acknowledging our commitments of the convention, they are treated to a hostile reception and tossed between political policies like a pig-skin on a football field.

Phil Robertson describes the Cambodia agreement as “absolutely shameful and [deserving of] public condemnation across the region, from Phnom Pen to Canberra and by the UNHCR”.

Only time will tell what the response to this agreement will be, but if history is any indicator, it will somehow slip through legislation, just as the Offshore Solution did in 2012.

All of these policies serve one explicit (political) purpose; to stop people dying at sea. The means should never justify the end, particularly when we are discussing the lives of the most vulnerable people in the world and a nation still developing.

We can do better Australia, can’t we?

What is our love of fast fashion costing us? Hint: Don’t look in your wallet.

Published: http://www.mamamia.com.au/style/clean-cut-fashion-week/

Australia is a little Fashion-occupied at the moment. With the opening of H&M and the Mercedes Benz Fashion Week Australia in full swing, news feeds on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram seem saturated with updates and #MBFWA.

But today, something a little different took place at Carriage Works. Clean Cut showcased a movement in fashion that is picking up momentum and driving change.

Sustainable fashion.

Exhibiting the best designers, with strong ethical production, and stunning aesthetics, Clean Cut is connecting Australia with a global movement away from Fast Fashion and towards a more sustainable future.

So what exactly is Fast Fashion?

It is to shopping is what the burger and fries combo deal at Maccas is to restaurant dining. Instead of purchasing timeless, well made pieces, consumers are opting for cheaper and low quality items.

The problem is, while the price tag might only say $49.95, this is rarely an accurate reflection of the true cost of the garment. There are hidden environmental and social costs that no one is talking about, because no one can see them. They are hidden behind glossy marketing campaigns, in the back of developing nations.

Remember the Rana Plaza disaster last year where 1,200 garment workers were tragically killed when it collapsed? They were making clothes for UK brands such as Mango and Primark. And if you’ve shopped in any of these stores, you will know, there is nothing slow about the rate in which new styles are added to the floor.

Here in Australia it is astounding how rapidly stock is turned over in stores. Instead of having four seasons of fashion there are over 400 new items each month in Witchery, while Topshop releases a staggering 300 styles a week. Fast Fashion giant Zara has a short 13 day turn around between design conception and being placed on coat hanger in a store. Just 13 days.

With these kinds of demands, and retailers competing to be the cheapest and quickest, all the pressure is placed at the end of the supply chain. Men, women and children, who are earning very little, if anything at all, work long days, cutting, sewing and dyeing. And meanwhile the products they are using, from the cotton to the dyes are full of harmful chemicals and pesticides, are infecting them and our environment.

So what can we do about it? Glad you asked.

As consumers, we have a lot of power. It’s called our money, and where we choose to spend it. Here are a few top tips for doing your bit for humanity and the environment when we shop.

1. Choose carefully: Buy one well-made piece each month, instead of several items. Instead of purchasing several cheap jackets that stay in fashion for as long as Beyonce has the same hair style, invest in a beautiful coat that will last you all season.

2. Recycle: Don’t throw out your old clothes. Pop them in a charity bin instead. They’ll either end up clothing someone who can’t afford to shop, or they’ll go into an op-shop that will raise money for it’s charity work. Win/win!

3. Buy ethical, fair trade and organic: There are so many labels around now that offer this option. Check out some of the labels that were featured to at Clean Cut: Kowtow, Desert Designs, Rachael Cassar, Lalesso, The Social Studio, Bhalot and Indigo Bazaar.

4. Research: Ethical Clothing Australia provides a comprehensive list of who’s doing what so you can make more informed consumer choices.

And finally, enjoy that sense of altruism mixed with delight when you purchase something that is helping keep the planet beautiful and it’s people happy.

Why did the #nomakeupselfie go so viral?

In the last few days my Facebook news feed has been filling up with photos of friends taking #nomakeupselfie to #beatcancer. The accidental campaign that started a week ago has gone viral, and as a result $3 million has been raised for a Cancer Research UK charity.

So why has this campaign gone viral? I dare say it wasn’t the fact that people were desperate to donate to something or that they were passionate about cancer research. It’s a wonderful outcome, which is being applauded by the CRUK and anyone with a vested interest in cancer research.

But I can’t make the link between posting a selfie sans make up to cancer. And does it not perhaps trivialises the very painful and all too real experience of the hideous illness? If you’re suffering from cancer, a #nomakeupselfie it isn’t a glamorous, soft light experience.  Although the campaign has done no harm, and it’s great to see people jumping on board to support a good cause, perhaps the success is not driven by the cause, but rather because it taps into a social media recipe for success. Self-glorification, validation and altruism.

“To support cancer research, here is a selfie of my with #nomakeup”.

Are we not posting this photo in the hopes that friends will comment with phrases like; “Natural beauty!” or “You don’t need make-up babe!”  We are wanting the Likes to hit a person high, and for personal validation to flood in. Is it narcissism blanketed by social good?

This morning I had coffee with a mentor and fellow activist. We discussed the apathy that is so prevalent in our society – indigenous children are still being stolen from their mothers, Australia is perpetrating human rights abuses on asylum seekers, atrocities unimaginable are taking place in the Congo – and yet for the most part, action from the people is minor and in some cases non-existent.

My mentor grew up during a time when everyone was fighting for something; from Free Mandela campaigns to anti-war marches, people were passionate and used their voice and feet to make a stand for something.

Today a ‘Like’ or a ‘Retweet’ is a sign of solidarity and appeases our moral conscience. An army of Armchair Activists. Comfortably aware and happy to parade our social concern on the internet, so long as it doesn’t require too much of us.

Something happened a couple of years ago that I believe changed the way we advocate. The Kony 2012 Doco went viral, igniting a fire. All over the world people heard about atrocities that were happening during our life time to young children. Perhaps the worst atrocities in our modern day history. The campaign primarily targeted students who believed that their actions, voice and solidarity could be crucial in ending this war. They shared the link and ordered ‘action packs’. They educated themselves and talked about it with their friends. It made international news and the documentary made its way from Youtube to primetime commercial TV. But just as quickly, the criticisms flew in. Within a week we had learnt about a situation so horrific we had to respond, and just as quickly told it was all a sham; a complex situation many could not understand, let alone activate a change.

And poof. Just like that, those who had believed that they could make difference and that their voice was important, were now being told that their actions were trivial in light of Africa’s longest running war.

It is easier not to care and even easier not to take action. Caring is complicated. Action is uncomfortable. Much easier to take a photo of myself and hashtag a reason.

Codes of Conduct & Free Speech

Over the weekend it was revealed that new guidelines from the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet threaten employees with discipline if they are “critical or highly critical of the department, the minister or the Prime Minister” on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Pinterest, Flickr, blogs or any other social media outlet. This includes posts made in a personal capacity and even those made anonymously and public servants are also urged to dob in colleagues they might recongnise.

If it wasn’t so terrifying it would sound incredibly elementary, wouldn’t it? It reminds me of a punitive teacher controlling the science lab.

But the fact is it is both terrifying and hypocritical.

In a speech at the Institute of Public Affairs in 2012, Abbott said:

“There is no case, none, to limit debate about the performance of national leaders. The more powerful people are, the more important the presumption must be that less powerful people should be able to say exactly what they think of them”.

Well it seems he has a different tune now that he is that ‘more powerful person’.

These new codes of conduct seem contrary and in opposition to the current war on freedom of speech; namely the repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Introduced in 1994 as a “safety net for racial harmony”, it makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate someone based on their racial or ethnic origins.

Senator Brandis says that the problem with the law is that it deals with racial vilification in “the wrong way” by “political censorship”. He then goes on to say, “People have a right to be bigots, you know”.

Prime Minister Abbott chimed in saying, it was “in the nature of free speech that sometimes some people will not like it”. But in his case, he can threaten people whose free speech he does not like. Which brings me to my point.

Although free speech is believed to be a basic democratic virtue, this should not remove the fact that not everyone in society has an equal footing in order to assert that free speech. Those with an obvious platform (typically white males) will have the same freedom of expression as the Sri Lankan asylum seeker, which in theory looks and sounds perfectly egalitarian. But what freedom of expression does aSri Lankan asylum seeker for example, have when he is living in squalor in Western Sydney, barely able to offering a morning greeting let alone defend himself against racial vilification by politicians and journalists alike?

Waleed Aly writes a compelling piece where he describes it as; “the whitest piece of proposed legislation I’ve seen during my lifetime”. I urge you to read this to understand the full impact of the legislative changes.

So between improving freedoms to express opinions that hurt and degrade minority groups and silencing public servants from having political opinion, I am sure I am not the only one in a head spin about what the Abbott Government is actually standing for. Progressive Egalitarian Freedom of Speech or Totalitarian rule of law protecting the public image of the Government?

But one thing is clear; Tony Abbott understands the power of words to create worlds and to destroy individuals. Silence is a powerful alley to the very thing we may in fact be in objection to.

I was always taught as a kid to use my words to ‘say nice things’. Perhaps as an adult, saying nice things should now expand to include ‘speak out against not nice things’.

Gen Y Women – Published in Cosmo

“Honestly, Gen Y, can’t you be more like your mother?” “Why can’t you sew on a button?”, “What do you mean you’re changing jobs again?” Hmmm. Sound like something you’ve heard before? If you’re yet to hit your thirties, chances are you’ve heard this a lot.

 

I’m certainly proud to be a Gen Yer. However it’s impossible not to notice how often the finger is pointed at us, branding us as an instant-gratification generation, or individuals who are losing their practical skills, take commitment lightly and are obsessed with the latest technology.

I had firsthand experience of this criticism after I agreed to appear in a newspaper article about the choices of modern young women. I felt happy to contribute to a positive piece about how I chose to prioritise my time. For example, I don’t spend lots of time cooking, even though I can – because I’d rather focus on my career, friends, charity work and a gym class or two. But when the article came out, it focused on the domestic ‘shortcomings’ of Gen Y and reported that eating out was replacing cooking at home. The point I was trying to convey was that Gen Y women have greater freedom of choice now and surely that was worth celebrating. But I was portrayed as a kitchen- hating, oven-illiterate 20-something Gen Y girl. 

The article opened a Pandora’s Box of debate as comments flooded in from women who wanted to share how they managed to work, have children and still put a meal on the table. Then there were comments from Gen X women who felt Gen Y were unappreciative of the efforts of former generations to provide us with the opportunity to choose where we spent our destiny, in a kitchen or behind a desk.

Perhaps what it comes down to is that Y Gen have greater freedom for choice. The launching platform for Gen Y has been established by the efforts of generations before. We simply step up and launch off. We have freedom so that we can just make the choices that suit us.

There are two ways to look at the criticisms leveled at us. To those who see Gen Y as commitment-shy – maybe it just makes sense to keep our options open. While our parents may have had the expectation of finding and keeping one job for life, we’ve seen for ourselves that businesses don’t work that way any more. So shouldn’t we try out a number of career options – and develop other facets of our lives – so we’re not only defined by our jobs?

 And to those who think we’re losing domestic skills – how come no one ever mentions the skills we’re gaining? It’s my 20-something friends who can build their own blogs or multi-task across their iPad, smartphone and interactive digital TV all at once. And with the cost of supermarket food these days, is it little wonder that, with our more-limited 20-something budgets, we’re often better off financially if we eat out rather than make everything from scratch?

 My grandmother left school at 13 to work so her older brothers could continue their education. She went back at age 37 to complete her studies, gaining a Masters in Education, and becoming a Uni lecturer. Growing up, she’d remind of the opportunities ahead of me. Though she was a wonderful cook, I don’t remember spending time with her learning how to beat egg whites. Instead she would sit and  encourage me to dream about my future. Now I’m returning to Uni to do my own Masters whilst maintaining my full time job, a choice enabled by the generations of women before me.  

 We definitely need to thank the women who have paved the way for us Gen Y girls to have freedom of choice. Baby boomers and Gen X pushed the boundaries for us to live our dreams. We are individuals but we are also a product of our culture with social networking, technology at our finger tips, more acceptance for eating out and more probability that we will change our job if we feel dissatisfied or our skills aren’t being used. We’re a generation who are confident to take on a challenge and where we see less gender lines as men and women now share a more equal status in society. My hope is that those who have gone before us applaud Gen Y’s efforts to continue to work towards the goals of gender equality and women’s empowerment, whilst proudly being their own women.