Calling It Out

On 21 October 2015 former NRL player Hazem El Masri was charged with the domestic assault of his wife Douah El-Cherif. The media has predictably gone into overdrive. I found an article by Ruby Hamad to be particularly interesting (1).

To surmise Hamad is suggesting that the sentiment “real men don’t hit women” is part of the problem. She goes onto to say that “we still cling to the good guy/bad guy dichotomy that pretends only bad men – the type women should learn to stay away from – hurt women”. It’s a point well-made. Trying to distil this complex problem down to a simple yes or no is unhelpful.

Unfortunately for Hamad some parts of her article contain points less well made. Hamad despaired “So how do we reconcile this? How could someone who's seen by the community as "one of the good guys" be capable of such an abhorrent crime?”

The fairly obvious problem with this statement is that we don’t yet know if he is capable of the crime. El Masri has been charged. He’s not been found guilty. Since the initial article El Masri’s former wife Ms Arwa Abousamra has strongly supported her ex-husband (2). She reported that “Hazem never as much as raised his voice at me, even in an argument,” she said in a statement to Fairfax Media. “We separated two years ago, but have remained the best friends.”

Hazem El Masri has pleaded not guilty (3). He’s stated that he’s in the possession of evidence that proves he is not guilty. Personally, I’m going to wait until the evidence by both parties is submitted before I form a firm opinion about what El Masri is or is not capable of.   

Hamad immediately accepted that Douah El-Cherif’s accusations are true and that Hazem El Masri is guilty. This is despite the fact that there have been no prior suggestions of him engaging in, much less actually being convicted of, domestic abuse. He is an outspoken critic of violence against women. Hamad immediately assumes the man is guilty.

Hamad’s judgement on this matter exposes a bias against men which is surprising as in the past I’ve found her work quite reasonable. I’d suggest she’ll publish some kind of retraction, particularly if El Masri is found not guilty. Amusingly Hamad’s poor judgement unintentionally supports the risks of the good guy/bad guy dichotomy which is one of the key ideas of her article,  

The data contained in Australian police reports indicate that they deal with a domestic dispute every two minutes (4). Not all of those disputes involve domestic assault and it’s disingenuous to suggest that they do. However any way you look at it the statistics leave little doubt that domestic assault is a serious problem in Australia.

To tackle this problem we need to address the underlying factors which contribute to domestic assault. I believe that many more people than we are prepared to comfortably admit are capable of domestically assaulting their partner. Yet not everyone makes that poor decision. As a society we must identify the circumstances and behaviours which increase the likelihood of domestic assault.

We need to channel resources into reducing those circumstances. When people display the types of behaviours which are associated with an increased risk of domestic abuse they need to be flagged and those behaviours should be addressed. Early intervention is often the key. But it doesn’t stop there. There is one other really important thing that we must do. We must tell people when it happens. 

Some time ago one of my friends was assaulted by her partner. I cannot adequately describe the respect and admiration that I have for the way in which she has behaved. She left him immediately. She reported him to the authorities who followed procedure accordingly. But it doesn’t just stop there.

My friend admitted that the signs were there and that perhaps she should have done something earlier. Many people are not strong enough to do that. She acknowledged that she could not help this person. She realises that it’s not her fault and that ultimately she is not and can never be responsible for his behaviour. 

Perhaps most importantly she told people. She told her friends. She told them straight away. There was no quiet retreat into herself. She was out and proud even though it must have hurt tremendously to do so. To tell the world of wounds which were no doubt still raw. Knowing something of her injuries, she would have been in pain just sitting there as she typed.

Domestic assault is not the victims fault. Yet the victim does have a part to play. There is power in words and stories. The more stories of domestic assault, the more pain there is bled out onto a page, the more chance there is that people will read them. Particularly young people who after reading the stories of victims are significantly less likely to offend or to cling to a good guy/bad guy dichotomy.

(1) http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/what-hazem-elmasris-case-tells-us-about-good-guys-and-violence-against-women-20151020-gke94j.html

(2) http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/hazem-el-masri-charged-with-domestic-violence/story-fni3fbgz-1227576528709?sv=f4018c91f18343ece9a4a2e2f1465fd7

(3) http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/compulsive-liar-hazem-el-masri-pleads-not-guilty-to-assault-20151021-gkff6a.html

 (4) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-29/domestic-violence-data/6503734

Gamble Me This

My favourite Batman villain is the Riddler. I’m not sure what the appeal is. The Riddler wears green tights. Why does the Riddler wear green tights? Why would anyone wear tights? Whilst men in tights might be manly men according to some (1) I’m thoroughly unconvinced that it’s anyone’s best look. Turning to the serious, can someone riddle me this?

How can the production and operation of a machine programed in such a way so as to ensure that its users will lose money over time be legal? Yet sure enough the one armed bandits are part of the furniture all along the eastern sea-board of Australia. Despite the bi-partisan approach of the West Australian political parties they are slowly spreading in the west.   

To put this issue in perspective consider the regulations surrounding the finance industry which are enforced by APRA. There are strict provisions governing the provision of finance which stipulate quite clearly that finance providers cannot lend to consumers when consumers are unable to service the repayments on the debt. This legislation ensures that lenders cannot take advantage of consumers to increase their profits.

Payday lender The Cash Store recently fell afoul of this legislation and was fined a just under nineteen million dollars (2). Yet the same country which fines the Cash Store allows businesses to operate machinery designed to syphon money away from users over time. Electronic gambling machines take advantage of consumers a very similar way that unscrupulous lenders can take advantage of consumers. It seems a most puzzling enigma.

Make no mistake these machines take advantage of people. Whilst you may get lucky once or twice, over the long term those machines will always make more money for their owners than they pay out to their players. They are designed to do just that. They are designed to assist people to lose control. They encourage bad decisions. It requires the most peculiar mix of hubris coupled with a lack of education to believe that anyone can somehow consistently beat the systems these machines employ.

It consistently leaves me flabbergasted that this industry, which so obviously takes advantage of the ignorance and weaknesses of others for the direct benefit of the owners of these machines, is allowed to operate. 

It’s not as if gambling is a small problem either. The Australian Government provides some disturbing statistics on gambling (3). Sadly there are as many as five hundred thousand Australians at risk of becoming, or actually have become, problem gamblers. One in six people who use gambling machines have a serious addiction. Furthermore one problem gambler may negatively impact the lives of between five and ten others. 

Australians spend twelve billion dollars on these machines each year. Just think of the good that money could do elsewhere in the community. On top of personal spending on gambling the social cost of these machines is estimated to be around four to five billion.

To provide some perspective the federal budgets underlying cash balance for the 2015/16 financial year is projected to be 17.1 billion in the red (4). The money wasted on these machines and the social cost associated with them is enough to balance the federal budget. Of our elected federal politicians only Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenephon are actively campaigning against the electronic gambling industry. 

To be totally clear here I’m not suggesting that all gambling should be banned. People should be able to enjoy a punt. I used to regularly play no limit hold-em poker. I was a winning player who turned a small profit. I won a major event where I won a trip to Melbourne and played against five other winners on TV.

What is the difference between poker and pokies you ask? When you sit down at the poker table the basic odds are the same for all players. When you sit down at a gaming machine the odds are not even. The machine is programmed to pay out less money than it takes in. The player is at an obvious disadvantage. It is a clear difference.

There is a great deal of money tied up in these machines. The clubs and pubs who own them argue that they would have to raise prices in order to be profitable without these machines. I guess as a society we have a pretty clear choice to make.

On one hand we can let the situation continue. Beer will be a little cheaper and our meals will also be a little cheaper. Half a million Australians, who are often the most disadvantaged, will be fleeced by gaming machines to fund this. Alternatively we can shut down the pokies, and pay a little extra for our pint and pizza.

(1)   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwr-7nkTuX4

(2) http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/payday-lenders-in-firing-line-after-19m-fine-20150219-13k2at.html

(3) http://www.problemgambling.gov.au/facts/

(4) http://budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/overview/html/overview_01.htm

What We Choose To See

I have a wonderful son. He’s two years old. Recently he’s been having a few issues with poo. Specifically he doesn’t like to poo. The wife and I often sigh when we look over and see him kind of hoping from one leg to the other in a little dance whilst muttering ‘no poo – no pooooo’. The next hour is often frustrating.

It’s a small issue for child who is developing well. Things could be so much worse. For example, consider the image below.

My initial response upon seeing this photograph was that the little boy just lying there looks almost exactly like my son sometimes does when he’s sleeping. Unlike the little boy above however my son will wake up. 

I make no apologies for not providing some type of trigger warning to those reading this. I’m indifferent if my stance upsets you. This photograph should provoke some kind of response and we shouldn’t hide from that. We should confront the uncomfortable feelings that an image like this provokes.

These kinds of tragedies happen all the time all over the world. A little under twenty five thousand children under the age of five will die today (1). It shouldn’t take one photograph to remind us of this. The Syrian refugee crisis, and indeed the civil war in Syria itself, is but a quiver of pain in the misery which throbs from the developing world.

Looking past the raw figures lost opportunities loom. A child who with the appropriate education had the potential to cure cancer could have died just now from an easily preventable disease. The person who once had the potential to cure cancer could be ploughing a field desperately trying to prevent the starvation of their family. They could be jacked to the eyeballs carrying an AK.

The kinds of tragedies I’ve written about here are common. They happen literally all the time. On balance we don’t care at all. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that we don’t care enough to do anything. It shouldn’t take an image like the one in this post to make us care. We shouldn’t need to be reminded. The more shocked you are at this photo. The further removed you are from what is an uncomfortable reality.

There are no easy answers. No one initiative which will improve the situation. I choose to contribute by promoting awareness and discussion. By posting this I hope that those more talented than I can turn their considerable intellects to the problems of the world.

No person can singlehandedly improve the world. People who suggest that they can are often megalomaniacs in waiting. Yet, as cliché as it sounds, we can all change the world or at least our part of it. Not with grandiose plans and schemes. We can make a difference with honest truths backed by simple kindness. I’m as guilty as anyone of not doing enough but I will do better. We simply must do better.

(1)   http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/press_materials/fs/fs_mdg4_childmortality/en/

The Green Disconnect

This is the last of three related posts about the major political parties in Australia. This post deals with the newest of the parties, the Green Party (GP). I suspect that in many peoples view the Greens are not a major political force. Since forming government with Labor after the 2010 Federal election it would be erroneous to dismiss the Greens as some type of minor player in the Australian political landscape.   

Initially I thought the Greens popularity may have peaked when they helped the Labor party form a minority government after the 2010 election. It’s a view I’ve more or less abandoned now as the Greens have held the gains they made in that election.

On the surface there’s a lot to like about the Greens party platform. I’m all for a focus on renewable energy. I support voluntary euthanasia, reproductive rights and same sex marriage. I strongly support sustainable water management and I share the Greens opposition to both gulf wars and the war in Afghanistan. I’d encourage everyone to have a read of the Greens policies (1) as they are not all from the loony left which is often how the party is portrayed. 

Unfortunately the Greens sensible policies are accompanied by some far less sensible policies and this is why the Greens do not enjoy a larger share of the primary vote. Much of the problem seems to centre around the idea that all of their policies can be funded simply by increasing taxes on the wealthy and successful businesses.

This view is quite obviously flawed. Put simply, if personal income tax rates for the wealthy increase what is to stop the wealthy simply moving to a country with lower income tax rates. Likewise if business tax rates are increased businesses will simply pass on that additional cost to consumers. If the government somehow regulates against that then business could simply register in another country or look for opportunities elsewhere.

Compounding economic concerns the Greens sensible policies are often not supported by a pragmatic policy approach. Their stance on renewables is perhaps the best example of this. I don’t believe coal is the future of energy production yet at present it accounts for roughly three quarters of domestic electricity generation (2). What replaces that? Where is the roadmap showing that it is possible? 

Furthermore coal exports are our second largest source of revenue. If the country was to wind down coal how would we deal with the resultant loss in revenue? What could we replace it with? How would existing services not deteriorate?

I firmly believe renewable energy is the future. It has to be because eventually our non-renewable fuels will run out. If the Green party wants to be taken seriously then they have to provide a credible path of transition from non-renewable energy to renewable energy. At this stage the Greens have been unable to provide one. 

To put into context just how difficult this transition is most of the infrastructure required for the use of renewables is still built using power generated by fossil fuels. There are deep concerns throughout the scientific community that existing renewable energy sources might be unable to generate enough power to build new infrastructure in the future. While renewables are the future, the road is long indeed.

Lastly the Green party has a history of making hyperbolic statements which are unsupported by evidence. Bob Brown’s comments around the Victorian bushfires and the Queensland floods being the result of climate change are examples of this. These kinds of statements verge on politicising humanitarian disasters. They also reek of the kind of ‘I told you so’ reflections which irritate many voters regardless of who is saying them.

There remains much to be hopeful about for supporters of the Greens. In particular their new leader, Richard di Natale seems to be embracing a more moderate approach. Whist this might lead to some frustrations for traditional Green voters, it presents the party with an opportunity to challenge the other two parties’ current dominance of mainstream politics.    

If the Greens party is able to somehow meld their liberal social views with an economic view that is more classically liberal they would pose a threat to both the Liberal and Labor parties. From a personal perspective it’s exactly the kind of party I could see myself voting for.

(1)   http://greens.org.au/  

(2)   http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/basics