Grieving individuals gathered amid a sprawling expanse of floral tributes near the iconic pavilion on Tuesday, their voices softly rising in a timeless melody of harmony. Shalom, shalom, they intoned together, while sorrow settled in like the grey clouds overhead.
The solemn atmosphere of the occasion was suddenly shattered by cries: “The Prime Minister must go”, and then a retort, “What exactly did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The singing ceased. Confused, I looked over.
There, standing at the forefront of the assembly, flanked by besuited guards and journalists, were two individuals widely regarded as among the most blatant opportunists ever to hold office to the nation's legislature.
Amid the throng of somberly dressed attendees, their faces etched by sadness, the duo were conspicuous, dressed as if to perform for the cameras.
Polarizing Rhetoric Amid Collective Mourning
One figure, who has political history has been defined by creating discord since first entering public life, spoke about liberty and security and the ability to live “free from fear”. This individual declared she wanted purveyors of hate “rounded up”. She echoed the central theme of her career, “We must return to the Australia I grew up in … I consider the individuals we are welcoming to the country. Certain countries they should not be permitted to migrate here.”
Some of the crowd, among them a individual in distinctive headwear, clearly welcomed her empty words, raising their phones to capture them and then pressing even nearer for selfies. “We support you”, “You’re the only one who tells the truth.”
Others present agreed.
“Australians reject extremes,” one volunteer remarked, as he struggled to absorb her message. “Under her preferred policies I wouldn’t be able to be here.”
Presumably the homelands of the individuals lauded as “brave citizens” for sacrificing their own safety to confront the attackers—Syria and another—might not be on her approved list as well.
A Violent Act on the Idea of the Nation Itself
In the immediate aftermath from the attack, the predominant national feeling has been that this was more than a targeted killing against members of the Jewish community, but an assault on the core notion of the country as an inclusive society where equity and tolerance were considered virtues, security for most people was commonplace, and faith did not play a determining role.
That this could happen in a location that evokes happiness, a venue that vies with the country's most iconic landmark as an international representation, was breathtaking. History shows that for terrorism to achieve its aim, symbolic locations are often the chosen targets and human beings the collateral damage.
It is the political response should so quickly turn to self-interest, name-calling and pointless debate—concerning whether to tackle the evident flaws in the nation’s much-vaunted gun laws or the scourge of antisemitism—was an perhaps more telling indication of the era we live in.
Naturally, each issue must be confronted, with gravity and meaningfully, not merely by invoking process, referring to inquiries or calling for more surveillance.
A Dereliction of Duty and the Rise of a Cruel Spectacle
The public are in good company in facing difficult discussions that require more than superficial answers, but when the major parties—even in the face of such a loss—cannot agree on the basics, that is a abdication of their responsibility.
After hearing the self-promoting remarks, I was still taken aback to hear a flippant comment while the individual moved through the crowd to leave the vigil: “Next time carry an symbol into the house and see what they do.” To turn this deep tragedy, which speaks to what commentators have called a deep schism in the country's psyche, into a crude performance is inexcusable.
This past year, so much of what was once unimaginable has become almost routine. Vile racist, sexist and antisemitic language has been celebrated under the false guise of free speech, angry mobs online have gone unchecked, and fear has become pervasive. It is scarcely surprising that under these circumstances some people become susceptible to demagogues.
Certain analysts call the current era a “pivotal moment”—a phase when we caught sight of a new inhumane reality, driven by those with untouchable power and wealth. We can only hope that the observation of pollsters is correct when they note that people recognize those who “seek to weaponise sorrow, hunt for scapegoats and turn fear into a divisive tool.”
We cannot allow this cruel theatrical display become the accepted standard. Tackling it will require resolve, bravery and humility, of the kind that displayed by the everyday people who followed their instincts to protect others at any cost.
