Anti-DEI lobbyists say they’re unfairly accused of racism and sexism for what, they claim, is unemotional factual science that they invoke to support the meritocracy and “preserve standards”. Like a 1970s Monty Python sketch, they invoke a common sense axiom, such as, “Surely, you want the best person for the job, not just anyone because they’re black or a woman”, an obvious concept most reasonable would agree with. But, unlike Monty Python, do those doing “PC gone mad” today really mean that “a person is unsuitable for a job because they’re “black” or a “woman”? When so “accused”, the anti-DEI campaigners demand “free speech” against what they call “woke, far-left censorship” and cry “Cancel culture!”, saying they’re afraid to publish “for fear of being called sexist or racist”. They’re very upset by the “accusations”, but their responses are more hurt feelings than convincing argument or are lengthy, but hollow, pseudo-intellectual diatribes that often merely raise more red flags. So, the question is, when anti-DEI advocates say that removing DEI programs is about “merit” and by “a” person of colour or woman is unsuitable for a job, do they really mean “no person of colour woman” is suitable because they’re black or a woman? Without accusing, I believe it to be a valid question and one that deserves a better answer than “I never said that”, “I’m being misquoted”, “I’m being taken out of context” or “People who think I said that are poo-poo-heads”. Qualification is especially necessary, as many comments by anti-DEI advocates are made in the context of both explicit and implicit accusation against others, whether in reference to competence, motives, effects or liabilities, sometimes with major effect on careers, livelihood and public perception.

First, there’s blame on “diversity-hires” for the fall of civilisation itself, without mention of nepo-hires, any rich man’s unqualified idiot son placed into positions of major responsibility. An incidental oversight, perhaps? No-one can say everything about a topic, all the time. But then, there’s a leader stating that certain academics claim they “fear” being called racist or sexist if they publish studies which, they claim, show that certain groups of people, innately, “underperform” relative to others. Clang!

Read further and find claims that racism and misogyny are “woke”, social constructs but race and sex are “real”, i.e. that certain physical racial and gender differences are of significance, including “disqualifying” physiological traits in specific contexts. In good faith, you read their articles, in full, and then realise you’ve just wasted a good two minutes on pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, when you could have had more intellectual or scientific insight from an adventure game on the internet (or one of Isaac’s trashy David Starr Space Ranger novels, the ones he wrote under an alias to pay his way through uni! Not to be misunderstood, I’m an Asimov devotee. My point is that his rubbish was more intelligent than what these people churn out as what they call “great thinking”). Read a little further and find that when no reputable journal will publish their work, they cry “cancel culture”, as well as sulking that “People want their differences to be acknowledged and accommodated, then whinge when we acknowledge physical difference.” Such superficiality tends to tie itself in knots in slightly deeper waters, e.g. they say women should have the choice of not having to undress in front of a trans person and that anything less is abuse, but people are being “racist”, “sexist”, “absurd” or encouraging “dangerous DEI-hire” practices if they say they’d feel more “comfortable” being treated by a doctor of their own race or sex.

Of course, not all of the anti-DEI mob agree on their reasons or every aspect of race and gender differences. They’re not a single person and no individual should be “punished” for the actions of another. But there are those whose intentions take a somewhat more ominous tone than “PC gone mad” when pressed beyond superficialities. There are those who, while carefully avoiding any mention of it too obviously, even eventually get to the old chestnut of IQ, and no prizes for guessing where they head with that. Suffice to say that, despite their claims that there are studies purporting to show racial or gender differences, to my knowledge, there are no reputable studies that show significant differences in IQ between races or sexes. Even putting the usual flaws in the concepts underlying IQ tests aside, there are, however, more recent, credible, studies that show unexpected results, results that, in fact, point to “superior” performance of women and people of colour in certain contexts, e.g. at certain ages, and how much environmental factors, such as educational opportunities, socio-economic standing and exposure to social and cultural influences can affect performance throughout life stages.

Particularly concerning are claims of studies showing propensity of certain “groups of people” to violence, or particular forms of violence, and claims that “studies” show that racism and sexism are inventions of the “woke, far left” and are driving false public perception. Many of these claims are made in op-eds, without provision of primary raw data and. therefore, can be very persuasive to the uninitiated reader. However, closer inspection of these “studies” reveal flawed interpretation and sometimes dodgy sources. Wider knowledge and familiarity with more credible studies and raw data tends to reveal more sensible analysis, incorporating more or all relevant variables necessary for accurate interpretation, leading to very different conclusions from those stated. That, in certain cases, these interpreters have stated that by “more likely to” they mean are prone to “due to innate characteristics”, raises alarm bells for obvious reasons. Incredibly, among those propounding such views are those who don’t cite physiological studies, but incarceration figures, from which it is concluded that a certain group of people are more likely to commit a certain type of offence. Another, more broad-sweepingly, said that high incarceration figures of a particular group of people proved they were more “violent”, a ridiculously superficial interpretation with as much merit as comments made by average, MAGA internet trolls on X. However, all that drawing broad conclusions from limited data “proves”, is ignorance of how science works and relevant knowledge of a topic, in this case, for example, that such statistics are merely evidence that certain groups of people are more likely to be reported, convicted or incarcerated. Other scholars cite the same figures as evidence of prejudice against certain groups of people, which, taken with other information and experience, tends to be a more reliable interpretation. Importantly, sources such as incarceration figures are not “scientific” studies. These are sociological or legal matters from which conclusions are being deduced that are in no way “scientifically” based. Moreover, what has it to do with refusal to recognise native peoples’ rights or support for political parties that campaign against it, positions which several of the anti-DEI advocates vehemently take? What is the connection between supposedly “scientific” observation and political views?

In general, with few exceptions, op-eds barely constitute literature reviews of any recognisable standard, let alone genuine science. No scholar worth the letters after their name would rely on one study from which to generalise an opinion, let alone a “proof”, thereby contravening the basic principles of verifiability and falsifiability, principles at the core of science, principles which help define science and make it valuable. Worse, when people self-publish opinions on their own sites, outside of mainstream scientific journals, they’re circumventing the essential process of peer review. That, in itself, is not a crime against science and, these days, in some cases, it’s the only way for genuine information to reach the public domain. It is also true that censorship in relation to some topics is ominously, both overtly and clandestinely, inhibiting “free speech”. In such conditions, open discussion with public responses can, to some extent, provide semblance of ”peer review”. But, not all these sites allow comments or more “erudite” discussion that raises questions, notes flaws or attempts more in-depth examination and a small cabal of like-minded people self-confirming each others’ biases hardly constitutes valid invitation to criticism. Moreover, claiming to be “hiding” studies for “fear” of criticism does break the rules and, in the absence of further information, is just avoidance of scrutiny of unverified fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden silliness. Many of these opinionators are hardly Galileo, facing imprisonment by the Inquisition. In response to that justification for cowardly “secrecy”, I invoke one of the most important golden rules of science – “Put up or shut up.”

Such scholarship merely reflects the general issue with science reporting in the media, when people with little knowledge of how scientific analysis works, frame headlines like “Study proves starvation cures cancer!” gleaned from a study that shows that mice on low-calorie diets tend to have less bowel cancer than mice that eat lots of barbecued meat, with such reportage, incidentally, sitting alongside news of government departments cutting free meals to school children. I make no accusation of such ulterior motives in the anti-DEI mob. I merely point out that the right to bear the stamp of “scientifically proven” depends on more than just “opinion” or framing of secondary sources to suit it.

Of course, not all opinions or interpretations of studies are faulty and there is scientific evidence for some physiological claims. Of course, there are studies that show that some men are innately physically stronger than some women, an obvious point I concede without hesitation. Certain “analysts”, however, are not so objective when, for example, invoking stats that show that women tend to live longer than men. That is true and in many societies. But in that instance, certain “analysts” are the first to point out that that’s more than likely due to environmental factors and not innate, “superior, longevity genes”, factors they go to great pains to detail. According to them, it’s because women, apparently, are masters at “enslaving” men into doing more physical labour and for longer hours than they etc. etc. To my knowledge, there are no reputable studies that show significant differences in “performance” between races and sexes in relation to any trait of innate “worth” or “worth” to “civilised society”, as these people often frame it. Nor do I know of reputable primary studies that prove certain characteristics, such as propensity to violence or particular types of violence in certain groups of people specified to be “innate”.

Importantly, superficial physiological traits are not preclusive to job suitability. The workplace has accommodated the physiology of men for millennia. If women had been there first, the arguments would be the other way around. Minor physiological differences, like accommodating menstruation, were solved easily when the first barrier of just being “allowed” into certain positions was lifted. World War II, when women had to do the jobs at home while men were away on the battlefield, dispensed with most of the objections to women being able to do certain work, it having been proved by necessity that women could do just about anything men could. Even Queen Elizabeth was a mechanic and drove a truck. She was also the Head of State and reigning monarch, living negation of any objections to women being in positions of power. Attempts to put the genie back in the bottle when the men came home merely resulted in the big break-out during the sixties and since then, the “issues” thrown out as the major “gotcha” hurdles, i.e. pregnancy, parenting and child-care, are now also gradually being accommodated, with nothing less than a quiet cultural revolution.

In many fields, technological or other solutions have dispensed with such puerile inanities as “Would you want a women rescuing you in a fire or a big, strong man who can carry you down a flight of stairs?” Like modern firefighters even do that these days or there’s no such thing as muscly women. It’s like saying women can’t drive big rigs, when there are a lot of lady truckers who have proven themselves more than capable of doing so and women train drivers who know how to push buttons in computerised cabs. As many trains now are fully automated, run from computer centres thousands of kilometres away, the point is now moot. “Give me a lever and I will move the world”, said Archimedes. Tools have rendered most arguments about physiological suitability for many positions obsolete, for all people. Discussions as to how the ability for human beings to manipulate the environment impacts on survival, potentially making physical natural selection irrelevant, are of far more scientific interest. The more applicable issue now is artificial selection and how that may impact on the future of our species, including its survival, And that makes the issue of social, cultural and economic manipulation via DEI purges and the culling of DEI programs of significance to everyone. (And, actually, I would feel safer being carried out of a burning building by a big burly Pacific Islander man or woman, than a puny, white male desk jockey. 🙂  )

Unfortunately, inertia, resistance and the backlash to MeToo, BLM and DEI is still restricting women to a pyramid workplace model – lots of women in the typing pool but nearly all under a male supervisor, and people of colour to token representative roles in select positions. So, yes, as the anti-“feminists” shout, workplace participation rates for women are up. But, presence in managerial positions is still very low. The critics of “feminism” point out the large number of women on the boards of Fortune 500 companies but neglect to mention that only 10% are CEOs. Those who claim racism is a “woke” delusion, point to Clarence Thomas serving on the SCOTUS, a reference so facile I squirm at the idea it’s even made. It does also have to be asked if the fierce warriors against DEI, claiming to be “great thinkers” and quoting facts and figures by the shovel-load, really don’t know how social, cultural and economic factors impede success. Do they really not know the impact of exclusion? The effect of formal policies and unofficial practices that prevent people from gaining the necessary skills and experience that would make them the best person for a job? Are they really that ignorant of how a fine mesh of fibres, from daily encounters to evasive, “official” excuse, entraps people into stagnant class immobility within an illusion of success, or into poverty, relative or otherwise? Let’s not kid ourselves that all of these supposed utopians are naïve, cushioned, ivory tower “idealists”, who merely have little experience or knowledge of “the real world”.

Some of the anti-DEI mob magnanimously concede that inequity exists in the world, but claim the whole of civilisation shouldn’t be brought down by the faults in society acting against equal opportunity in “earlier” years, before people get to lofty places like universities. There, they say, the highest standards must be maintained and, therefore, no “lesser” person should be admitted. However, that they actively oppose equity programs designed to bring people up to required levels of admission, miss the point that all graduates are still required to meet all course requirements before being conferred a degree and overlook legacy inductions, raises valid questions as to their true understanding of the real world and what equity and equality are about. That they apply the same “magnanimousness” to kindergarten and offer no solutions as to how the inequalities in “earlier years” and society as a whole can be addressed, makes their observations irrelevant to the discourse.

After women and people of colour, the current targets of the anti-DEI mob’s most vocal virtue-signalling and soap-boxing are “Muslims” and recognition of native peoples.

Personally, I’m happy to be treated by any doctor qualified for the job, regardless of sex, race or anything else. In Australia, we’re very lucky. We’re a diverse nation with national standards and few barriers to the workplace and I can feel confident that whomever I see is suitable, regardless of any irrelevant superficialities. Likewise, in any workplace situation. Suffice to say, I don’t run out of a building screaming “The Muslims are coming!” when served by a man of colour (even the Sikh, Buddhist or Hindu “Muslims”) or a woman in a hijab. And, in fact, the only “issues” I’ve experienced in any setting, professional or otherwise, have usually been due to privileged “white” people. The most helpful person I’ve encountered in a supermarket recently was a young woman in a hijab, who patiently came to my rescue when I got into an argument with a self-serve checkout, and, fortunately, her understanding of how supermarkets work these days far superseded mine!

I didn’t think “The blacks are taking over!” during the Voice referendum, nor do I think “they” want to slaughter me in my bed in revenge for the sins of the colonial fathers. All that’s being asked for is recognition of past wrongs and some kind of reparation to address the inequities that have resulted from those past wrongs, so that people still living the effects of them know justice and have opportunities made available to them that, by law and all that’s moral, they should never have been denied, even if that means forced quotas, affirmative action, but its former title. In a wealthy country, it’s not a race for limited spaces. It’s a matter of making more spaces available to accommodate everyone. No-one’s taking from someone else. Unless, of course, funding’s reduced by people who do want to make it about competition for limited spaces and competition based on criteria determined by those reducing the funding. Countering that sub rosa means of enacting fascism is just one purpose of DEI and why, regardless of innocence or ulterior motives behind it, any attempt at Musk/Trumpian DEI purges and DOGE-style cuts in Australia must be countered at every step. Yes, there are occasional absurdities, when PC really does go mad, but what could be more absurd than Donald Trump as President of the United States or the totally unqualified RFK jr as Secretary of Health, people who most certainly are in their positions because they are entitled, privileged, white males. The real absurdity is claims that women and people of colour are now “more equal” than privileged, white men.

So, my answer to those saying “Don’t you want the best person for the job?” is “Absolutely! Being why I don’t want any unqualified idiot in a position merely because they’re white male, which the removal of DEI programs almost certainly ensures.” The world is certainly not in a safer or more “intelligent” place with the cabal of privileged white males now leading it and leading the removal of able, qualified people because they happen to be women or people of colour.

Trumpism is something we do not want reflected in Australia, in any form, and one of the most essential ground-level defences from that is maintaining our egalitarian diversity through equity in a more sophisticated social and economic model than that offered by fascism by stealth, which, regardless of the best of intentions in certain people, removal of DEI policies abets.

The ’60s and ’70s were a time of great optimism, but by the 1980s, the “energy crisis”, the danger of monopolistic economies and life in the umbra of the threat of nuclear war were having marked effect on the global psyche. As the world slid into the darkness of uncertainty and pessimism, my ethos and philosophy on life, however, was still optimistic and based on high principles, from which I never waivered. Believing in a better future and still passionate enough to do it, I did what I could to encourage the same level of energy and optimism in others. Education is key and I took whatever opportunity I could to give people the knowledge they needed to improve their lives and that of others in a world that really did need saving. The Cold War subsided, the wall came down and the future was “open” again, and for more people, with affirmative action policies having ensured it. Rights for women were taking hold, Obama was elected and environmental awareness was gaining respectability. But the far-right backlash was lurking in the shadows and is now again regaining strength. The players may be different, but the game is the same. We’re now threatened by the same forces that were holding back all progress in the 1980s and the same is needed now as then to defeat it.

In the 1980s, I was expressing concerns I had as to emerging attitudes that threatened egalitarian ideals and independence of thought. I said I believed that all the more knowledge needed to be generated in order to enlighten the vacuum of ignorance which was becoming quickly filled with superstition. I still say the same, as emphatically, against the rise of ignorance and anti-science, again threatening the planet and humanity. Back then, it was an inane “US v USSR/USSR v US” mentality and environmental destruction that threatened the planet. Sinister warmongers, exploiting religious fundamentalism and superstition to drive end-of-days scenarios, had succeeded only in creating mass hysteria, a collective psyche living under a belief of inevitable nuclear destruction. The ideology of “Armageddon” in our time, as one President put it, had to be fought with knowledge and the undoing of religious extremism and superstition, so people could take control of the future and change it, instead of slavishly just allowing it to happen by believing there was no other way. Simultaneously, the very material, existential threat of environmental destruction was going unchecked, as climate and environmental science were under attack from both those with commercial and political interests in undermining it and those proliferating anti-science ideologies, claiming that scientists were just “educated barbarians”, who did nothing but make nuclear bombs. Factionalism between the sciences and the arts was creating a divide as ridiculous as material extension of the idea that anyone has either a “left” or “right” brain. Here’s some news – every individual has both a “left” and a “right” brain and, equally, society needs both for survival. The truly wonderful and sincere peace movement of the ’60s had given way to “normal”, curious people seeking meaning and purpose in life by delving into a variety of cults with conflicting doctrines, eagerly exploited by those with more sinister motives, not keen for these dives into “alternative” cultures to be too deep. Thus emerged pretentious, privileged “white person’s” cheap, dehumanising, superficial, stick-figure commercialisations of “Eastern” philosophies, all thrown under one roof in a western/non-western divide, as though all “non-western” people “look alike”. These movements, driven not by genuine interest in religion or philosophy, but more a quest for power than a quest for knowledge, led to inane absurdities, such as pretend “Buddhists” doing occult astrology or thinking it ok to kill “non-white” people, concepts antithetical to Buddhism and so much for embracement of “Asian” cultures. Supposed “nature-lovers” and “holistic-healers” were slaughtering rhinos and tigers, solely for their horns and teeth, as “medicine”, at once proving their “environmental” aim was a sham. Fraudsters claiming to have superior, supernatural powers were “bringing people together” with their alive or dead father, mother, children or siblings, by convincing people that their relationship with them was stronger than theirs. Add “Christian” European occult charlatan, Nostradamus, to the supposedly “Eastern” mix and the result was a perfect storm of anti-science, pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy driving the world to moral chaos and environmental destruction, suiting right-wing fundamentalist false Christians exploiting incarnation of “good and evil” as an ethical existential threat. Buddhism and Christianity in their truest form provide fine bases for ethics and I’m all for true “children of the forest”, if their aim really is just to be at one with nature. They can dance naked in the forest to their heart’s content as far as I’m concerned, as long as they’re not harming anyone. But that the interest of certain movements was superficial and more motivated by racism and interests other than recognition of unity of people is manifest in the current denigration of DEI policy as “wokeism”.

Science certainly is not the answer to everything and I have more respect for a forest child or genuine Christian with good principles than a scientist without ethics. But, with the world being railroaded toward destruction, it was important that other visions of the future were made known to combat the sensationalistic, end-of-days scenarios being forced into people’s perceptions and leading the march to inevitable doom, not as genuine foresight or scholarly interpretation of religious text, but as self-fulfilling prophecy, emanating from artificial, ill-motivated post-modernist nonsense, putting the horse well and truly before the cart, on a very wrong road. People needed the confidence to think for themselves, reason above the political propaganda being inculcated into them and question bad leadership as a basic democratic right. I defer to Spinoza, who claimed the superstitious have no other aim than to reduce people to their level. I’d rather see a new Renaissance than reversion to medieval anti-egalitarianism and rule by fear and hate. The dismantling of the Cold War brought great optimism and within less than a generation, the sense of inevitable doom that had over-shadowed the world for decades was only a memory in those who had been there at the time.

A few decades later, however, we now face the same dangers – extremist religious fundamentalism and superstition again driving world affairs with forever wars and the environment in more danger than ever as true knowledge is rendered invisible within a morass of unthinking and irresponsible ignorance. The deceitful hypocrisy of anti-science ideology became brazenly evident in leading “esoteric” magazines bearing far-right QAnon ads supporting Trump’s election, along with anti-climate science and anti-vaccine articles and dangerous nonsense under guise of “natural healing”.

As I also said back in the ’80s, it’s important to reserve subjective perceptions for aesthetics only and stick to knowledge for truth, given the fascist dangers inherent in that situation ever becoming the reverse. If one madman’s truth becomes the perception of all, aided by superstition, nationalistic jingoism and lack of reason, as has happened on a few notable occasions in history, if the social and economic order so allows it, the results can be catastrophic in a system supposedly set up to unite all to one purpose, which can all too easily be used to implement the purpose of one. Against a brief time of hope, here we are again, as everything that was good about western democracy and international humanitarian law is now being trampled by a powerful few. The current Trump administration is the realisation of the nightmare I warned of in the 1980s – arrogant American colonialism replacing the British and European colonialism of the past, with the same MO of commercial and military force, upheld by an undercurrent of “white” supremacism now driving the reversal of DEI policies and militaristic expansion, an inevitability of the imposition of “superior v inferior” cultural perspectives and belief in the right to dominate. The invasion of Iraq was an overture to the catastrophe right now being played out in the Middle East, as greed, cynically fuelled by those exploiting ignorance, religious fundamentalism, racism and fear, now again has a framework within which to do its worst. As self-appointed “defenders of Western civilisation” define and market “civilisation” as a realm of “righteous” violence, within which mass slaughter of innocents is embraced as a “higher virtue”, and false “Christians” do unto others worse than is done to them, true civilisation and virtue are lost, along with any credibility that the “West” can lead the word into the future. Unfortunately, the far-right tide has gained added momentum with the emergence of a new breed of science advocates, even more dangerously giving white-supremacist ideologies feigned respectability of science within, mostly political, nonsense no respectable publisher would touch. Circumventing genuine peer review, on their own platforms, they self-proclaim and aggrandise as ‘superior thinking’, pseudo-scientific anti-DEI/BLM rubbish that, in reality, is no more scientific than an average palm-reading or MAGA battle cry. Not only do they fail to genuinely educate the broader public with true knowledge, by giving science a bad name, they undo the work of real scientists attempting to genuinely educate the public on matters such as climate change, vaccines, and importantly, critical thinking skills. By loudly advocating against DEI policies, they merely ensure the appointment of anti-science quacks in right-wing governments and by inciting war-mongering violence, they merely confirm the public’s perception of science as being the domain of Frankensteinian stereotypes. With the prospect of a JFK-type leadership from the US, at this time, looking dim, the framework of injustice and humanity must be addressed “from the ground-up”, and as joint effort by good scientists and non-scientists alike.

Diversity and democratic input are needed for true unity, survival and progress. More heads are always better than one and diversity precludes destructive “us and them” and superior/inferior mentalities from taking hold in social and political frameworks. Combatting xenophobia, whether as fear, or unnatural elevation, of “the other”, is essential for our survival. But now, as before, we are again in danger of cutting off our futures at the brain stem as a minority of uneducated but well-facilitated fools, with free reign to enact their personal motives, control the fates of the majority and threaten survival of the planet itself. Now, as in the 1980s, there is a way out and we need to be doing everything we can to achieve it.

Uniting the world in a white-male-superiority-versus-everything-but divide is just that – a divide. It’s not unity. It’s not unity of all people. It’s a divide and conquer strategy, exploiting fear and ignorance, designed to serve only the infantile purpose of a very select few. Instead, embrace the spirit of diversity and envision a bright and optimistic future for all, as a people of all peoples, united not to implement the purpose of one, but to secure the future of all.

I applaud the ICJ for recognising the “plausible case for genocide” in Gaza and the ICC for issuing an arrest warrant against Netanyahu and others for war crimes. What is happening in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and now Syria is absolutely unacceptable, and the world must be united in stopping this descent into complete lack of moral and legal standards.

I condemn the Hamas attacks on October 7.

I condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

I condemn the genocide that Israel is carrying out against the Palestinian people and the atrocities being committed in the name of “self-defence”.

Congratulations, Australia, on electing the best government and set of representatives  in a long time!

A great day!

An ALP/Greens/independents win is the best outcome for our great and diverse nation, the best step ahead for a secure and sensible future.

Did my vote – Labor first, then Greens. In other electorates I would do Independent where appropriate. The most important objective is to get the most corrupt, incompetent, lying, stealing, low-minded, Murdoch-press controlled government in Australia’s history out.

Last night I took to Twitter expressing my concern at safety for people attending protests, but also my joy at the public awareness of black rights, with references to highly emotional musical performances. I also followed up with this, which I think, without wanting to cause hurt to anyone, is a story worth telling.  

Decorum restored after my “wild” expression of joy “in public”, I will state that once, many years ago, I equally “lost my temper” in public in response to a racist comment made on a uni internet discussion board. I was angry at the ignorance of intnl students (not Chinese) attending the uni of which Gough Whitlam was Chancellor, plus Australians who went along with it. It was an incidental comment about Australian Aboriginals and what I noticed was the casualness with which it was made and the obliviousness to how offensive it was. I was also annoyed that a uni discussion site was being used for things other than course-related purposes, not the least of which by people who had no idea of the significance of the institution they were attending. I posted that the comment was inappropriate and to stop using the site as a “bitching board”. The response to that was heartening. Fellow countrymen of the people who posted it agreed with me, even if those who did it made the “free speech” defence and claimed they were just quoting “poetry”. I considered that the people who wrote that “poetry” did so a long time ago and themselves would now probably be ashamed of it. They could not get away with it today, in whatever context it was intended, and there was no critical thinking behind its regurgitation in that instance. I regretted losing my temper in public, but not the reason. It did, however raise a significant point about the latent racism that pervaded in culture and language, barely recognised as such by people inured to it. I don’t think we can blame everyone for that, just make sure awareness of it is raised and make the appropriate changes.

I was without power and all phone lines were down due to storms when this was made public knowledge so I vented then through Twitter, but I can now more fully express my personal outrage at the destruction of Juukan Gorge.

For many years I have been trying to draw attention to the destruction of sites of cultural and scientific interest in the Kimberleys and Pilbara regions of northwest WA. I published my novel, “Katajarri – Murder by the Board”, partly for that reason, in that instance involving stromatolites, the fossils of some of the oldest life-forms on Earth..

There are many sites of significance in the northwest which are in potential danger due to an inadequate environmental impact assessment process, which not only fails to recognise sites of significance but dismisses them in a streamlined process designed to disregard them. Consultation is practically non-existent and as locals, scientists and researchers note, there is much that is unknown, unresearched and uncatalogued, making the danger of destruction higher.

It is very important that people with local knowledge, researchers and those in the know make the significance of the northwest generally known. At times it has been necessary to keep sites secret to preserve them but as is becoming increasingly evident, while taking appropriate precautions, it is essential that the general public knows that there is much more to the northwest than red dirt and spinifex.  

Mining is an important industry – the Australian economy would practically collapse without it, but it must take place within appropriate contexts. The benefits of preservation, whether for pure purposes or perhaps commercial gain from tourism, far outweigh the costs, which to the mining industry are minimal. It’s frustrating that near to ideal practice is achievable but that vested interests and general ineptitude is resulting in mediocrity. To quote the old concept, we have a chance at greatness. We can set a standard for cultural and scientific recognition in hand with economic gain and be recorded as those who helped preserve history, rather than as those who blew it up.

A lot to come, but to put the previously noted paper into context, Australia’s political history is very convoluted and cannot be summarised in a single sentence. There was a left-right delineation, specifically defined from the 1880s with the Free Trade Party being the left and the Protectionist Party, the conservative right. The Labour Party came into being in the early 1890s and were also “left” and supported the Free Trade Party, which governed New South Wales. The conservative, now so-called “Liberal Party”, did not exist in the 19th century. For complicated historical reasons, the ironically misnamed today’s conservative “Liberal” party is the descendant of the Protectionist Party of the 1880s and 1890s, which opposed the progressive “leftist”, genuinely liberal, Free Trade and Labour Parties which led NSW politics at the time.

In the 1880s and 1890s, the Free Trade Party and then the Labour Party wanted to remove regressive indirect taxes, such as sales taxes and import duties, which impacted on the middle and working classes the most. They fought for the introduction of direct taxation in the form of income tax instead, whereby people could be taxed according to wealth and ability to pay. They also advocated for legislation as the means by which to ensure working conditions and living standards as opposed to reliance on free-market forces, which the Protectionists claimed would be sufficient. 

In New South Wales in 1895, the Free Trade Party under George Houston Reid, fully supported by the Labour Party under Billy Hughes, introduced the historic Land and Income Assessment Act, following a landslide win in a special election held to decide the issue and whereby, for the first time in NSW, people were taxed according to wealth.

It was not until many years later, after the 1908 “fusion” and many more changes, including Billy Hughes’ division of the Labor Party , that the party structure began to resemble that which it represents today.

Many would also claim that, even now,  the current resemblance is not that of even ten or twenty years ago. 

Please click on the link below  to access a paper addressing issues relating to work by previous writers on the history of Queanbeyan.

Errors, Inaccuracies and Misimpressions in Errol J. Lea-Scarlett’s Queanbeyan District and People (1968), Gundaroo (1972) and Queanbeyan in Distaff (1983).

This is a slightly modified version of a hard copy of the paper currently held in the Queanbeyan Public Library by the heritage librarian, Brigid Whitbread.

My work on the history of the Queanbeyan district differs significantly from that of previous writers. Although my original intention was to focus on my work only, in the circumstances, I have decided to publish the paper to make it generally available during a time it may not otherwise be as it establishes context to the extent and manner in which my research differs.

The paper is a precise and objective exposé of errors and issues with works that are among the most constructed in Australian history. 

I recognise that people of substance, including Prof L. F. Fitzhardinge, put their names to, reproduced, cited or presented some of the works in question. I feel for those people, including one who, probably unknowingly, introduced a talk which was published in the Journal of the Canberra and District Historical Society and reproduced in a book in 1983, which contained much incorrect material. That unfortunate situation of blind repetition was continuing for some time as the work by Lea-Scarlett was still being promoted as the authoritative history of the district until relatively recently, when I pointed out it was incorrect, being all the more reason the correct history needs to be in the public domain and in context as soon as possible, so that more people are not so compromised.

I also feel it necessary to present this exposé because the works referred to constituted the authoritative histories of the district for many decades, were a source of great injustice to many people, presented a very limited and inaccurate history of the district and to some extent Australian history in general and were of significant influence, an influence still being felt today. The critique and my works present an antidote to the right-wing extremist conservative politics promulgated in the works referred to and assurance that such is not integral to the  Australian psyche. 

Although my work completely overturns that of the previous writers referred to, the responses to it so far have been embracing, welcoming and encouraging, which I appreciate.

Joanna Davis