What does the Australian republic movement mean for young Australians today?

This article was published by The Vocal on February 19, 2016.

When you travel, almost the first question you get asked is, “Where are you from?”

For Australians, producing a satisfactory answer can be a struggle because it is not necessarily based on the nationality of your passport. Australians’ diverse ethnic backgrounds don’t always match expectations; the outside understanding of national character is frequently at odds with the individual. What does it mean to be Australian?

A little more than a century ago, it no longer seemed logical for Australia to be ruled by a monarch on the opposite side of the globe. Sounds sensible enough. The thing is, at the time of Federation the King was still a hot favourite, so a constitutional monarchy was created. The British Crown remained the head of state, but Australia governed itself.

The Australians got to create their own laws: one of their favourite policies was the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act – colloquially known as the White Australia Policy, leaving little room to ponder just how racist a policy this was – which aimed to limit non-European migration, at times including non-British “white aliens”, for more than 60 years, while they paid for the British to move to Australia.

But the world caught up and the White Australia Policy was no longer tenable. The 1960s heralded the beginning of a golden age for Australia, when people of all the colours of the human rainbow settled in, with their wonderfully diverse foods and cultures and genes. But Australia’s struggles relating to identity, history and culture, however, are still front and centre today.

But let’s go back to where it all began

About 230 years ago, the British invaded the land they would later name Australia. Going against their own policy of only taking terra nullius (unoccupied territory), the Brits killed a bunch of the black folk they found-but-didn’t-find-coz-there-were-no-people, rounded up and interred/enslaved those they didn’t kill, took their children and went about their business of creating a penal colony for the poor folk from their own lands they couldn’t fit in their over-stuffed jails full of other poor people. For many happy years the white folk, with the British Crown as their head honcho, did as they pleased with their giant colony.

In the space of a century or so, Australia went from being a colony to being self-governing. The transition didn’t require a violent revolution – something of a rarity. But the move to independence was not absolute. In 2016, it makes bugger-all sense for Australia to remain an outpost of a washed-up empire. So where to now?


The Australian head of state is still to this day the British crown. It might seem weird that a democratic country has an unelected head of state – even stranger, one who attains the position by bloodline.

This, according to the Australian Monarchist League (championed by none other than RWNJ Alan Jones) safeguards Australian democracy. “[T]o remove the Crown from our Constitution will be to eliminate the main safeguard against absolute control by politicians,” the league argues. A president elected either directly or via parliament would necessarily have to be involved in politics – which is bad, you understand. “Our present system may not be perfect, but it is far superior to a political republic, which is what we would become,” the monarchists believe.

Equally, the league says Britain’s influence on Australia’s political structures means it is “a beacon of democracy in the world. Becoming a republic would negate much of this.” They say the Queen offers her protection to all, making no distinctions between her peoples, before making a point that is at the heart of the debate: “Republicans want Australia to be completely independent of the UK but this has definitively been the case since 1986. The UK has no involvement with Australian government at all”.

So, if the crown doesn’t have any power in Australia, why become a republic?

It’s high time Australia removed itself from the bosom of its old colonial masters and created a new identity for itself. The Australian Republic Movement say they’re not against the Queen, but her position is preventing Australia maturing from its teens to adulthood.

Despite Australia’s multiculturalism, its image is that of a bastion of the British. “The Queen represents British values, British spirit and represents the United Kingdom to the world,” the movement argues.

“We need someone who can do for Australia what the Queen does for the UK… [W]ho we are as a nation is important for our long-term unity and health as a community, as well as sending a strong message about our pride as a people and our standing in the world.”

The post-referendum years

You might remember way back in 1999, talk of a referendum around this issue. The referendum failed because the political model put forward was unpopular – despite this, more than 45 per cent voted in favour of it. The question was not “should Australia become a republic?”, but whether people wanted to replace the Queen as head of state with a President appointed by the parliament.

The concept of an Australian republic is now neither a radical idea, nor a political one – it carries bipartisan support. Every Premier and Chief Minister in Australia, bar one, has signed a petition calling for a republic. Many of the most high-profile federal politicians, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who was a founding member of the Australian Republic Movement, and Opposition leader Bill Shorten, are right into full independence.

The old argument that Australia will suffer economically or politically from removing the British crown as the head of state is erroneous. The Queen herself seems aware Australia will fly the nest one day and doesn’t appear vengeful – not that she has any control over the United Kingdom’s parliament or military.

And the republic movement advocates remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation members join voluntarily, much like the United Nations. Ceasing to be a Commonwealth realm (a country with the monarch as head) won’t preclude Australia from the Commonwealth of Nations – India, for example, became fully independent in 1950 but retains economic and political ties via its membership.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it

The “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” argument is just lazy. This argument only takes into account political structures, and relegates the issue to the too hard basket instead of making changes that are as inevitable as death and taxes. Claiming the system works and shouldn’t be messed with overlooks the wider social implications of retaining the British monarch. The institution responsible for the decimation of the First Australians’ societies, and the corresponding values that led to decades of a White Australia, remains the nominal head of state.

And sure, old Queen Betty has a few fans, and seems nice enough, with her co-ordinated suits and hats, and her corgis. They say any republic debate should wait until she dies, out of respect. That could swing things in the republic’s favour, as the next in line to the throne, Prince Charles, seems less popular with the punters. But this isn’t a popularity contest. This is a much-needed conversation about the future of an ever-diversifying country and its 24-odd million citizens.

“I will lend my voice to the republican movement in this country. It is time, I think, to at least revisit the question so that we can stand both free and fully independent among the community of nations” – David Morrison, Australian of the Year 2016

What worked in 1901 at the time of Federation doesn’t work now, obviously. It’s kind of like those religious texts that were written millennia ago and include social norms that have long disappeared. The system as it stands creates an us-and-them dichotomy: The whites rule the roost and everyone else gets to stay at their beneficence.

This extends to a community that is often over-looked in the republic debate: Indigenous Australians. In a moving speech on whether racism is destroying the Australian dream, journalist Stan Grant said racism was “there at the birth of the nation. It is there in terra nullius. An empty land. A land for the taking. Sixty thousand years of occupation… None of it mattered because our rights were extinguished because we were not here according to British law.”

Imagine what a new political model could do for the reconciliation process. Indigenous Australians would no longer have to live under the tokenistic hand of the people who trashed their communities, cultures and languages. An intended referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition has split the community, with some opposing it on grounds it takes the focus off a treaty establishing rights and recognition of Indigenous sovereignty. Others, such as Reconciliation Australia, believe references to race must be removed from the document for the benefit of the Indigenous community.

But a republic, while unable to change current ethnic ratios or rewrite history, could present a chance to more fully incorporate Indigenous people into Australia’s political and social structures – some suggest by mandating an Indigenous head of state. Jakelin Troy, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research director at University of Sydney, supports recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and a treaty prior to, or as part of, the move to becoming a republic. “[A republic is] an opportunity to finally recognise and enshrine our sovereign rights, by developing a 21st-century treaty that gives the original Australians a political and legal platform that includes us in its leadership in perpetuity,” Prof Troy said. “Let’s draw on this energy and together lift Australia to a position of world leadership in human rights.”

Anita Heiss, Wiradjuri woman and author of ‘Am I Black Enough For You?’, praised Stan Grant’s speech for its ability to rally people. “Words can be powerful,” Dr Heiss said. “They can make us change the way we think. They can help us understand and feel empathy, but what are words without actions? I think the real power will come now, post Stan’s speech in a call to action to all those tweeting and Facebooking to actually do something!”

Important historical changes don’t occur when people sit on their hands and say “uff I dunno, that seems like a lot of work”. It’s time to create a nation that puts First Australians, and those who followed, on an equal footing. It’s time to again consider the chance to form a truly independent national identity.

Read the full story here


How social media is redefining our narrow representation of beauty

This article was published by The Vocal on November 18, 2015.

Do you have brown eyes? Wild, curly dark hair? A wide nose, brown skin or small eyes? Do you feel there’s something about you that makes you different? Do you live in the West but look like you come from somewhere else? Then you may never have seen someone with similar features advertise beauty products, adorn the cover of magazines, flaunt the latest couture, or be the object of desire for hormonal teens across the land.

Who or what is the cause of this narrow representation of beauty? And what is being done to put all types of faces and bodies in the spotlight?

Culture-tinted glasses

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but eyes see what culture socialises, psychology of race and ethnicity lecturer Mikhail Lyubansky says.

Beyond individual assessments of beauty, he says, are “cultural messages about what is and is not attractive”. Lyubansky was writing in response to the controversial evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s article ‘Why are black women less physically attractive than other women?’. Kanazawa drew on a study that rated the physical attractiveness of subjects, concluding the data proved black women were considered the least desirable of all the races. Lyubansky criticised Kanazawa for failing to consider the backgrounds of respondents.

“Standards of beauty, like most other beliefs, are socialised and change not only from place to place but also over time,” he said. “In both the United States and England, (where Kanazawa lives and works), standards of beauty are essentially ‘White’ standards, because whites comprise the majority of the population and have disproportional [sic] control over both media and fashion.”

Those who control the media, then, have greater cultural control over the versions of beauty we see.

Enter social media

Criticised by many – most recently Instagram starlet Essena O’Neill – for presenting a distorted view of reality, others are using social media as a way of changing the messages of what is beautiful. Far from being a tool that promotes one version of beauty, social media provides alternate versions which, to the surprise of the mainstream, are proving wildly popular.

In September, four girls living in North America created a hashtag that trended across the world.

“Growing up I never saw a woman who looked like me on TV, and because of that I felt like I wasn’t beautiful,” Palestinian-American Sara Mahmoud, 17, said.

“I felt that my looks weren’t normal and weren’t okay because all the girls on TV would be pretty, blonde, thin girls with blue eyes. Middle Easterns and North Africans don’t get enough representation in American pop culture and American media.” Co-creator Maryam Alhajebi said the tag helped display and appreciate different versions of beauty around the world. “It showed us that it’s okay to not all look the same, it’s okay for us to be different,” she said. “We need to come together as one to break stereotypes.”

Not fair, but still beautiful

Skin colour prejudices don’t just exist in the West. About six years ago Indian group Women of Worth launched Dark is Beautiful, to campaign “against the toxic belief that a person’s worth is measured by the fairness of their skin”. Several prominent Bollywood actors have joined them, including Nandita Das, who spearheaded the group’s 2013 ‘Stay Unfair, Stay Beautiful’ campaign.

In a recent blog post, The Times of India senior journalist Shuma Raha praised the success of the campaign. “We need more public interest movements like that,” she said. Raha railed against the pan-Indian preference for fairness as “our ancient and atavistic intolerance towards dark skin, an intolerance that’s spawned a [$635 million] skin-lightening cream industry”.

Raha says the skin-whitening product industry kicked off in 1975 with Hindustan Lever’s Fair and Lovely cream, and has been breeding brands and fans ever since. “Notice,” says Raha, “the racism implicit in the nomenclature too — these are skin ‘whitening’ creams, promising to turn us brown skins into the superior white variety.” Women, especially, are susceptible to the pressure of cultural beauty ideals. “In India, they have to deal with a double whammy – they must not only be beautiful, they must also be fair,” Raha said. “Indeed, society conditions us to believe that the one is impossible without the other.”

“I would say that regardless of what the media says, you define your beauty. There’s a whole community out here on social media ready to help you embrace said beauty.” – Sara Mahmoud

The new normal The social media community was discussed in the recent Women in the World panel Selfie: The High Cost of Low Confidence. Renowned psychoanalyst Susie Orbach argued social media was having a negative impact on girls’ self-esteem because it had “democratised beauty”. In the pursuit of ‘likes’, girls’ self-portraits had become carbon copies, Orbach said, because looking the same as everyone else was a requirement to belong in society. But fellow panellist and selfie academic Terri Senft argued social media gave people control over their images and how they were portrayed. Senft said girls understood that when it came to social media, “body image” was “about 88 per cent ‘image’”.


Chantelle “Winnie” Brown-Young’s modelling career began when she was ‘discovered’ on social media after featuring in a news story on YouTube. Winnie has the rare skin condition vitiligo, which causes pigments to lose colour. Last year she was chosen to compete in America’s Next Top Model and is now “redefining the global definition of beauty”. Women in the World mediator Laverne Antrobus asked Winnie how looking different was being discussed in the modelling industry. “I think it’s kind of new, to be honest, so I don’t know if it’s quite a discussion yet, or it’s history being made,” Winnie said. “I think it’s probably something that will be spoken about in the future, but it’s something that is new.”

The result is an increasingly diverse array of looks

Swedish designer Iman Aldebe is using fashion as her method of countering prejudices against non-mainstream beauty. Aldebe, born to Jordanian parents, is pushing both Islamic and Western boundaries with her range of designer turbans and modest couture. While Lyubansky says cultural definitions of beauty change over time, Aldebe isn’t prepared for society to catch up. “I could not wait for another 100 years until things changed in Sweden,” she said. “I realised very early on that it would take a long time to solve problems and come up with solutions via political means … I felt that via fashion we can solve many issues and become more accepted in society.” And Aldebe is succeeding: her one-off turbans are proving popular with non-Muslims and conventionalising head coverings.

Rather than being a force for evil, the “democratisation of beauty” is offering the spotlight to those traditionally overlooked. Madeline Stuart has become the face of a cosmetics company, walked the catwalk at New York Fashion Week – and is considered the first professional adult model with Down’s Syndrome. She has half a million Facebook followers from across the world. The 18-year-old is “changing society’s perceptions of beauty – one photo shoot at a time”. Madeline’s mum says her daughter’s success is not just about modelling. “[T]his is about changing the world, this is about creating inclusion, stopping discrimination and breaking down those walls of confinement”.

In the world of social media, the walls that hide the non-conventional are circumventable. Diversity is on display. The democratic nature of social media means when a hashtag trends or a community becomes active enough, the mainstream takes notice. Cultural fashions and preferences aren’t stagnant, but they can take time to change. But social media offers people the opportunity to, quite literally, be the change they want to see.

Read the full article here

Direct, collective action can make a difference for Syrian refugees

This article was published by The Vocal on September 7, 2015.

Tonight, dozens of community action groups and tens of thousands of people across Australia will turn out onto the streets in cities and towns to tell the Abbott Government, and the world, they welcome refugees.

“The image of the Syrian child’s lifeless body washed up on the shores of a Turkish beach brought the world to its knees. His name was Aylan Kurdi, and he was just three years old… We will shine a light in the dark to remember Aylan Kurdi. We will stand in solidarity with people across the world who are forced to ask for protection, and in protest of Australia’s abandonment of the world’s most desperate.”

That’s from the GetUp! call to action for tonight’s #LightTheDark events. Thousands have already pledged to light a candle to show their support, either in person or online. A similar #LightTheDark mass vigil was previously held in 2014 to honour the life of Reza Berati, an Iranian asylum seeker who was murdered in the Australian run detention centre on Manus Island and to honour the many asylum seekers who have suffered under our watch.

After more than four years of civil war, Syrians have been forced to leave their homes in their millions, most recently desperately trying to reach the European Union. Like little Aylan, many have died in the attempt. Meanwhile, the Abbott Government has been actively turning its back on the world’s refugees. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has echoed Amnesty’s calls for Australia to provide refuge to a further 20,000 Syrians.

I want to do something. Will this make a difference though?

That question was quietly, and sincerely, posed by Jess on the Melbourne #LightTheDark Facebook page. And it drew equally genuine responses. It’s a question we all ask ourselves – is there anything I can do in the face of this horror to make a difference? Is it enough to join a street movement? Will anyone listen? Will anything change?

Many shared their experiences of how they became politically active, why they believe small actions can have positive consequences, and how those actions can force governments to listen to the people. Lucy said she felt empowered after marching for the first time about four years ago.

“That’s what I see this [#LightTheDark] event as being about,” she said. “I think there’s something beautiful about gathering together alongside others who have been struggling on this issue, if for nothing else but to collectively express that ‘these people [the government] don’t represent us’.”

Angie also believes collective action can make a difference.

“It’s important we show the government and the public that we care because these decision makers CAN make a difference – but they won’t unless they have a reason or are pushed to. I live by the fact that doing something, is always better than doing nothing. I mean, I know I first started to care and take interest in the issue when I saw and listened to other passionate people.”


In the last fortnight alone, Australians have shown people power possesses just that: power. Just 30 minutes after protesters forced the cancellation of a press conference about a planned Border Force operation that would search for people without valid visas, Victoria Police announced the whole operation was being called off. The community outcry was widespread and politicians could not ignore it. It didn’t take long for social media to kick in and re-brand the whole thing to Border Farce.

The ASRC claimed victory in June when they rallied concerned citizens against the Use of Force Bill that would have given “detention guards virtually unchecked power to use force against asylum seekers, largely without recourse”.

There are plenty in Australia who feel compelled to act in support of refugees, and who believe their actions can make a difference. Here are some thoughts expressed by people on the Melbourne #LightTheDark Facebook page, about why they’re taking action:

“Just desperate to do something…”

“[T]his is a start to what we can do”

“The tide is turning. Our elected leaders can no longer harm these desperate people for political gain. Australians are compassionate and welcoming people. Let’s now make our government reflect our will.”

“I’m not really the rallying type, but I think we’re at a point where something has to change with our dire political positioning on asylum seeker issues.”

“Anyone free on Monday night who does not agree with our country’s stance on refugees? Come and show respect to those people who are forced from their homes and then turned away from ours.”

Read the full article here

Australians stand up to bigotry in #illridewithyou campaign

This article was published by Middle East Eye on December 17, 2014.

As Sydney’s cafe siege unfolded on Monday, passengers on a train in a city further north were following events on their phones. One woman, Rachael Jacobs, looked up to see another woman taking off her hijab. “I ran after her at the train station. I said ‘put it back on. I’ll walk with [you.]’ She started to cry and hugged me for a minute – then walked off alone,” Jacobs wrote on her Facebook page. A friend shared her status, Sydney twitter user @sirtessa saw it and invited those on her bus route who wore religious attire and felt unsafe alone to contact her. “Maybe start a hashtag? What’s in #illridewithyou?” she tweeted, followed by “Nothing, probably because it looks like ‘ill’.”

Read the full article here


Religious ties to Australia required for Syrian, Iraqi refugees fleeing Islamic State

This article was published by Middle East Eye on August 30, 2014.

If you walk a block almost anywhere in Lebanon, you will come across Syrian refugees. Mothers sit on cardboard boxes begging, while the discoloured hair of their children belies their malnourished state. With Syrian refugees expected to exceed one third of Lebanon’s four million population by the end of the year, witnessing their plight is entirely unavoidable. Twelve thousand kilometres away in Australia, however, the streets are clear of the misery of Syria’s three-and-a-half-year war, as are the minds of many of its politicians and constituents.

Read the full article here

Australia: Child refugees’ moral ‘blackmail’

This article was published by Al Jazeera English on August 20, 2014.

A young girl in Australian immigration detention has tried to hang herself with her hijab while the government attempts to hide the increasing toll its policy of mandatorily and indefinitely jailing asylum seekers is having on the mental health of children.

At a recent hearing of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s inquiry into the treatment of children in immigration detention, the former head of mental health services for detainees, Peter Young, elicited gasps when he revealed the Immigration Department asked him not to report on the rates of mental disorders among children. Young said the department was “concerned about what the figures are showing”.

Read the full article here

Australian Government: Pirates of the Indian Ocean

This article was published by Al Jazeera English on July 24, 2014.

As Australia’s conservative federal government falls further in opinion polls it is increasingly willing to eschew international refugee conventions to cling to the one thing that is winning it support – the illegal and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers.

While the Australian Government’s treatment of child refugees and its refusal to release details of asylum seeker boat arrivals and block attempts by journalists to investigate detention facilities earn it little praise internationally, at home it is one of the few things winning the government any favour.

Read the full article here