Search Results

By Tahmina R. “Today virtually every cause seeks to cloak itself in the righteous language of rights” - Makau Mutua, Kenyan-American Professor of International Law. At a UN Women event earlier this year in Nepal, a classmate of mine raised her hand and asked what their greatest mistake to this point had been, in administering aid. The speaker’s response shocked us beyond what we could have expected. The organisation had wanted to stop chhaupadi, a Hindu practice where a woman stays outside the home for the duration of her period. The practice has been illegalised, but is still widely practiced in regional areas where these laws are not as strictly enforced. In an unbelievably short-sighted attempt to stop this practice, UN Women went into a village and knocked down the shed that the women had been using to isolate. They took something away that served a purpose without addressing the cause of it being there in the first place. The next time a woman went to isolate, because she had to sleep outside now, she passed away from exposure. My infuriated Nepali classmates asked the speaker question after question: “How could you think that would work?” “Who’s idea was that?” “Why would you do that?!” she couldn't give satisfactory answers. The organisation, an effective outsider to the community, had made the decision to administer women’s “rights” in a way that was separate from the women in the community, separate to the religious leaders of the community and without seeking the advice of Nepali lawyers, Nepali NGOs or Nepali academics. Let’s break down why universal blanket statements of human rights are not always the force for never failing good that they appear to be at first glance. “It’s the European Way.” From voluntourist groups, to charities handing out pamphlets in your local shopping centre, to major aid groups - there are good, bad and sometimes outright awful uses of human rights rhetoric. It has now become an ideological trump card that can be played to stop any argument. The moral superiority of the person invoking these ideas is untouchable. The first time I encountered this preaching was with James, a student volunteer who was volunteering with a different organisation at the Katsikas refugee camp that a few friends and I were also volunteering at. One evening he mentioned that no women attended his English classes because their “husbands wouldn’t let them.” Being a group of young women of colour from a majority Muslim background, we could read between the lines of what he said, and could predict where this would go. We asked, “what makes you say that James?” He explained, “the women want segregated classes, but that’s not the European way. You have to understand that they haven’t been socialised. Many of them are from remote Afghan villages, and have never been in an educational environment" and that "If they want to integrate into European society, they have to learn the European way.” The Spanish lady we were volunteering with agreed with him, nodding and repeating, “Exactly, we are in Europe, it has to be the European way.” Yes, he actually said all of these things. Mariam interjected halfway through this tirade of thinly-veiled racism to say that none of the refugees in the camp were villagers, that both her parents and extended family had been educated to a postgraduate level in Afghanistan, and that Kabul University was actually co-ed. But all of this fell on deaf ears. James was so convinced of the inherent moral superiority of his position that he hadn’t even bothered to question the assumptions that had led him to it. At each point in our argument, he blustered over his answers, confronted, for the first time, by the fact that he’d never questioned these beliefs. He projected these visions of gender equality, rights to education and free speech as distinctly Western. Definitely beyond the comprehension of these people that were too backwards to benefit from his teachings. By brushing off their requests for segregated classes under the guise of gender equality, he was actually taking away the women’s rights to participate equally in that space. James believed that women had the right to choose; but (and this is the unspoken part) only if that choice fit with his own internal worldview. If he had taken the time to talk to the women, he would have found out that their lack of attendance was because the adjoining recreational centre had been turned into a shisha den of sorts since the most recent influx of young male refugees, and that the older women no longer felt comfortable in that environment. Irisa, who had been at that same camp ten months earlier, confirmed that back then, the vast majority of people in the classes had been women. It had nothing to do with their husbands, and the man who had put that idea in James’ mind was an unmarried West African refugee who was speaking about a culture that was as foreign to him as it was to James. “Women’s Empowerment!” The UN Women’s approach of knocking down the shed in Nepal was an example of the kind of short-sighted, unbelievably dangerous approaches taken in the name of better achieving women’s rights. While there, I heard the phrase “women’s empowerment” tossed about carelessly at pretty much every site visit on my curriculum. Putting aside the fact that women’s empowerment cannot just be done, the story is a classic example of the way interventionist aid can often leave communities worse off than before it was bestowed. The long-lasting impact of this so-called “aid” is that it erodes the trust between these communities and their own local governments. My Nepali classmate explained that, “when something is successful the NGO takes full credit, and when something goes wrong, it is blamed on Government incompetence.” After two decades of conflict, Nepal has worked hard to earn its place as one of the fastest developing countries in South Asia, and their 2015 Constitution is one of the most progressive in the world. This kind of trust between a people and their government takes decades to build up. When communities are allowed to work toward progress, with an understanding of their own needs, there is so much potential for true, sustainable change. In January last year, a young woman suffocated in a menstrual hut with her two young sons from the fumes of a fire she had built to keep them warm. Her husband was charged with a criminal offence (because this practice is illegal) and after her funeral, the entire community rallied to knock down every single shed and hut used for chauupadi in their locality. In just over a week, forty-seven huts and sixty sheds had been pulled down. This is the kind of behaviour that creates long-lasting change. Freedom Doesn’t Come for Free. People at every level of the aid food-chain are willing to quote passages and rights stated in the most widely-accepted treaties while ignoring their inherent political use (and sometimes, abuse). The stories I have shared above show how we need to critically question the assumptions made in the creation and implementation of human rights. All three major treaties of the human rights movement (the UDHR, ICCPR or ICESCR) fail to recognise the economic realities of the global community that these blanket rights seek to serve. At the time these key human rights treaties were written, the majority of the Global South was under exploitative European colonial rule but, interestingly, not a single one of the treaties use the terms, “capital, market, colonize, imperial...[or] liberalism” (Mutua 2016: 168). We don’t live in a world where people can be given blanket human rights and benefit from them without addressing structural inequality first (watch Parasite!). This idea is outlined very well in the book ‘Poor Economics’ by the 2019 Economics Nobel Prize winners, Abhjit Banerjee and Esther Duflo. Rather than trying to theorise how people in poverty should be able to pull themselves out of it, they started with a clean slate and dedicated over a decade of grassroots research to understanding how people stuck in the “poverty trap”, as they called it, manage their money. It turns out that it actually has nothing to do with a lack of resourcefulness or willingness to try. They proved that poverty was not a failing on the part of the poor but a product of a system designed to keep them down to make the rich richer. When I was in Nepal, one of out site visits included a visit to a Nepali brick kiln where we witnessed exploitation of the sort that Western students like us were likely never see again, to the point where the question had to be asked: “why were we there?” Studying modern slavery in international law and Nepali law should have been enough. There was no need for us to see it. But in answer to our horrified objections afterwards, my professor said “but, if this experience means even one of you goes on to work in human rights, then I think it is worth it.” Honestly, I haven't made up my mind about that. Were we empowering the future dismantling of the systems of structural oppression that allowed us to be there in the first place - or were we playing into them in a way that only increases the separation between us and them? Navigating This Space Over the last couple of months, I’ve been getting more and more caught up in spirals of ethical dilemmas until my head swims. Everything from why are they here, to why am I here, to why do we or I or anyone have any right to insert themselves into a story that has been unfolding for centuries without them? The reality of band-aid solutions and inequality hits harder than ever. That said, in searching for moral purity in the aid space, we cannot be so paralysed by principle that we end up finding fault in everything and doing nothing. We don’t have all the answers, but we must do the work to critically examine and upend our assumptions about the misuse of human rights to justify any and all kinds of behaviour. Like the assumptions that lead to James teaching a male-only English class or to UN Women victoriously knocking down a menstrual hut with no other plan. Universal human rights are the most appealing alternative to religion for the secular world. But like religion, human rights are not a force for never-failing good; their inherent goodness depends on the way they are realised. Lead Editors: Irisa R. and Palwasha A. Bibliography Andrea Nightingale, ‘Bounding Difference: Intersectionality and the Material Production of Gender, Caste, Class and Environment in Nepal’ (2010) 42 Geoform 152. Locals Tear Down Chhaupadi Huts Amid Wide Concern Over Deaths in Sheds’, The Himalayan Times (online), 17 January 2019 . Makau Mutua, Human Rights: Hegemony, Law and Politics (State University of New York Press, 2016). ‘Nepal Man Arrested Over Death of Woman in ‘Menstruation Hut’’, BBC News (online), 6 December 2019 .

By Palwasha. A What is the Religious Freedom Bill? Earlier this year, during one of the worst crises our country has ever seen, Scott Morrison’s political party snuck the second draft of a “religious freedom bill” past the public that, had the nation not been in such extreme turmoil with the widespread bushfires, would have made far more headlines than it did. The bill recommends that religious beliefs and actions be given statutory protections, and claims that though there are currently laws in place to protect religious non-discrimination, they are insufficient. At first glance, the bill appears to protect the rights of religious people in the same way that other anti-discrimination laws protect people based on race, sex, age, etc. However, upon a closer look, it actually proposes something much more sinister, that would impede on the basic rights of many Australians. It works as a cleverly disguised and well-marketed Trojan horse. What’s Wrong With This Bill? Most people may not take issue with the inherent purpose of this bill - less discrimination allowed anywhere, for any reason, is a good thing, right? Many of us, myself included, would celebrate the idea of a bill seeking to strengthen laws against discrimination on the basis of religion. The Law Council of Australia recognises that there are definitely opportunities to protect against anti-religious discrimination at a federal level and that we could be doing more to build a foundation of mutual respect for all. Unfortunately, this is not the case with this bill, and a closer look shows it’s real intention. Though it’s name suggests that it protects religious people’s freedoms, outrageously, it actually enables discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or activity, if the body performing the discrimination identifies as “religious”. This bill has the potential to become a way for different kinds of religious organisations to discriminate and still be protected by the law. The current draft of the Religious Freedom Bill effectively undoes several decades of progress on many human rights fronts in Australia. So How Does The Bill Impede On Our Rights? Many of us will be familiar with shocking American news headlines, such as where a baker denied service to a gay couple requesting a cake for their wedding, or a doctor refusing to perform an abortion for a single woman, based on their religion. In that case, the US supreme court ruled in favour of the gay couple, but the case raised many red flags about how an ill-formed definition of “religious freedom” can conflict with other valuable civil liberties and non-discrimination laws. This new proposed bill has the capacity to introduce these kinds of stories, and more, into the Australian narrative as well, because in its current form it has the ability to reach into and disrupt every aspect of public life. One of it’s most controversial aspects is the proposed protection of “statements of religious beliefs” even if they are found to breach other federal anti-discrimination laws. These include the following: The Law Council of Australia documents some well-known Statements of Belief: That people must not commit adultery (eg. unwed mothers). That there are only two sexes, for ‘male and female He created them’. That women who wear men’s clothing and vice versa are detestable to God. That people with disability should not approach God. And many other statements of belief that haven’t been touched on by Australian media as much but that are equally threatening and harmful. Basically, as The Law Council of Australia summarises: “...Contrary to principles of international and domestic law, [the bill] prioritises the protection of freedom of religious expression over other well-recognised human rights, such as the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or age, or the right to health.” The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended that these areas of the bill be amended before it is put up for consideration. In Summary, This Is Not What We Want The Religious Freedom Bill is increasingly becoming “a collection of exemptions for different kinds of religious organisations.” The first exposure draft of this bill sent Australians into a frenzy over it’s unfairness. After this, our government snuck in the same provisions into the second draft, exposing where their true intentions lie with this so-called ‘religious freedom’ bill. They have shown that their purpose is clearly not to protect against discrimination on the basis of religion but to allow hatred to filter into many aspects of our public life in more pronounced ways, under the guise of the “religious beliefs” of a very (already powerful) few. Some news outlets and the ACT govt has said that the bill will create “religious privilege” but that’s oversimplifying, and incorrect. It will actually just further and broaden the scope of the privilege already held by certain groups, and make the protection of that privilege a matter of law. It is for this reason that this current proposed religious freedom bill will do more harm than good and must be rejected. Passing no bill is better than passing this incredibly flawed one. We need to work towards a bill that properly protects the religious beliefs of all individuals without infringing on the rights of vulnerable groups in our communities, on a basis of mutual respect. If you want to become more informed about this bill, click the link below. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/religious-freedom-bills-second-exposure-draft Lead Editor: Lamisa H. References Law Council of Australia. 2019.Religious Freedom Bills. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 April 2020]. Australian Human Rights Commission. 2020. Religious Freedom Bills Second Exposure Draft [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 April 2020].

By Mariam H and Irisa R. How different photographic depictions of suffering interact with race, class and global power dynamics to form a narrative that we consume. What are we accepting as the truth? While browsing through countless quarantine memes, videos of Italians serenading each other from their balconies and yet another infographic reminding us to wash our hands, we came across a post by photojournalist Joel Nsadha. In a text post, he called out the contrast between the way the recent pandemic has been reported on in comparison to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. You can see how a quick Google search of both generates vastly different images. The first search generates brightly coloured infographics and a cartoon pathogen floating across various backgrounds. In contrast, the second set of images are confronting and uncomfortable to look at. They make us feel pity and horror. Googling COVID 19 Crisis: Googling Ebola Crisis: Now, we are by no means claiming that this simple Google search is in any way akin to a scientific study; it's barely even an anecdote. However, it begs the question; do we show the lived experiences of some differently to others? The Appropriation Of Reality A simple glance at any social media or news feed, tells us that graphic imagery has become a staple in the way we keep ourselves informed. However, there is also an undeniable trend that these graphic images are mostly from the Global South. These photographs feature supposed nameless, voiceless or ahistorical entities without any defining characteristics outside of their victimhood. Using a social constructionist framework, we can understand that these images produce our reality and inform our perception that the “norm” for certain communities is that they are already prone to violence or suffering. So, because of this, we then need even more graphic details to help us truly empathise. The consistent use of these images also betrays an undeniable power dynamic. Where today’s standard of acceptable ‘poverty porn’ is predicated upon an ‘artificial distance’. This means that the distance between us and the subject allows us to feel secure in how geographically, culturally and socially far we are from what we see. Try to recall how many times we have seen black and brown bodies presented in states of significant distress and anguish. They are all presented as collateral to a distant conflict or disaster, independent of context. In contrast, try and think of how many times disasters in the West have been depicted in a similar manner. This is reinforced by a study on visual reports of shooting in the US which found that of nearly 5000 newspaper photos, only 5% would be considered graphic in nature. The majority of depictions we see of Western communities affected by disasters, showcase resilience and not pitiful victims, showing portraits of them when they were alive and happy rather than of their death. Beginning in the 1970s, NGOs have had a symbiotic relationship with the media. They quickly realised that if they broadcast or published images of disenfranchised communities in a state of anguish or distress, that it would mobilise volunteers and encourage donations. However this also continues to perpetuate a dominant social script of the other as a victim and the Global North as the Saviour, or at the very least as an impartial observer. Where graphic images of lifeless people washing up on shores; people in extreme states of distress, or children with hollowed cheeks and bloated bellies are shared. They are not images of suffering persons, they become images of suffering bodies. In this careless depiction of them in their death, they are being robbed of their dignity, respect and agency. THE POWER OF A PHOTOGRAPH We tend to accept photographs as a representation of the truth and not as an interpretation of it. We don’t look at every photograph we see in the same way we would critically analyse written works, cartoons or even illustrations. This perceived transparency gives photographs the illusion of reality, when in fact they are an appropriation of it. Images are always constructed. Everything from the way a subject is framed and lit, to the editing and publishing communicates an idea. Similarly, photojournalists do not exist in a social vacuum.The photographs are not objective snapshots; they are not a de-territorialised space of political relations, free from the sovereign power of the State, or historical legacies. So, every photograph we see has an undeniable effect on the way we perceive and understand our world. But, why does any of this matter? Well, images have been found to have a long-lasting effect on our behaviour and the way we interact with social and political issues, even more so than what we read. When this dynamic intersects with race, class or colonial history it reinforces existing asymmetrical power relationships. Think of the consistent use of distorted images of certain countries, and people of colour, that perpetuate “Third World” stereotypes, essentially dehumanising individuals. BUT IT’S OKAY RIGHT? IT’S ALL FOR A GOOD CAUSE Well, yes...and no. NGOs have found that images depicting graphic forms of suffering, be they physical or mental, are extremely effective ways in encouraging the observer to take action. It is true that images of suffering, particularly in the realism style enabled by the photography medium, can elicit a reaction in the observer that makes them eager to assist. Vivid portrayals of individual persons suffering can increase empathy towards the subject, and generate what is known as “the identifiable victim effect”. However, the power of this phenomena is fleeting. For example in 2015, the famous image of Syrian-Kurdish boy Alan Kurdi, lifeless on a beach. The image became a symbol of the refugee crisis and resulted in global attention, and also led to a spike in Red Cross donations. But these figures returned to their usual levels within a week. This is a common trend: there is viral graphic image, there is a short burst of flurried activism, and then it's done. But this consistent use of exploitative and detached imagery of suffering starts defining specific nations and usually subjecting people of colour, or in the case of Africa, an entire continent, to stories of victimhood. On the public’s part, sharing this kind of image may come from a desire for solidarity or raising awareness, however exclusive use of these images can result in the creation of a disempowering discourse. Which means that a rich and diverse country is reduced to a singular narrative, defined by suffering. There is a distinctive power relation in being able to make one story the definitive story of a population. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, perfectly encapsulates this by saying, “the consequence of the single story is this: it robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition for equal humanity difficult, it emphasises how we are different rather than how we are similar". REFRAME THE WAY WE CONSUME We cannot reject all displays of human suffering; it is not realistic, and more importantly fails to recognise the value in giving communities that tend to be silenced, a voice. However, these images of suffering need to be captured in a way that maintains the dignity and autonomy of people. The right of the public to information should not supersede the rights’ of subjects to their privacy and dignity. If the images are something we would find disturbing or invasive for ourselves and our families, then we need to acknowledge it would be for others too. The majority of us are not in a position to determine which photos get captured and published, but in the age of social media where we can share a post within seconds, we do have a part to play. So, we need to ask ourselves: is this image going to tangibly benefit the victim and their community? If the answer is yes, then the image should be contextualised and purposeful. There must be a reason we are being allowed to view something so private in a person’s life. It can be hard to do this every time we come across a graphic image and the ethical considerations aren’t always very clear. So it is crucial that we use our own judgement, because as viewers we are not simply passive participants. We need to always remind ourselves of this and remain critical of their intent and the effect that both the images and our own actions in response to viewing them have. More to read; Azoulay, A., (2008). The Civil Contract. New York: Zone Books. Bhan, A., (2005). Should health professionals allow reporters inside hospitals and clinics at times of natural disasters?. PLoS medicine, 2(6), p.471. Calain, P. (2013) Ethics and images of suffering bodies in humanitarian medicine. Social Science & Medicine. [Online] 98278–285. Carville, J., (2010). Intolerable gaze: The social contract of photography. Photography and Culture, 3(3), pp.353-358. Chandler, D. (2001) The road to military humanitarianism: How the human rights NGOs shaped a new humanitarian agenda. Human rights quarterly. [Online] 23 (3), 678–700. Adichie, C, N. (2009). The danger of a single story [video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/up-next Dahmen, N.S. (2018).“When the media cover mass shootings, would depicting the carnage make a difference?”. The Conversation. Accessed at: https://theconversation.com/when-the-media-cover-mass-shootings-would-depicting-the-carnage-make-a-difference-92140 Dahmen, N.S., (2018). Visually reporting mass shootings: US newspaper photographic coverage of three mass school shootings. American behavioral scientist, 62(2), pp.163-180. Kozol, W. (2014) Distant wars visible : the ambivalence of witnessing . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Markham, T. (2011) The politics of war reporting Authority, authenticity and morality . Manchester, England ;: Manchester University Press Maier, S.R., Slovic, P. and Mayorga, M., (2017). Reader reaction to news of mass suffering: Assessing the influence of story form and emotional response. Journalism, 18(8), pp.1011-1029. Mitchell, J., (2000). The Ethics of Photojournalism. Studies in Christian Ethics, 13(1), pp.1-16. Newton, J. H. (2012) The burden of visual truth : the role of photojournalism in mediating reality . [Online]. New York ;: Routledge. Powell, P. A. et al. (2018) The effects of exposure to images of others’ suffering and vulnerability on altruistic, trust-based, and reciprocated economic decision-making. PLoS ONE. [Online] 13 (3), e0194569. Richard Mohr (2010) Responsibility and the Representation of Suffering: Australian Law in Black and White. e-cadernos ces. [Online] 7 (7), . [online]. Available from: https://doaj.org/article/114c2355b069475ab9a824fcc9bae233. Silva, M.F.S. and Eldridge II, S.A., 2020. The Ethics of Photojournalism in the Digital Age. Routledge. Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., Erlandsson, A. and Gregory, R., 2017. Iconic photographs and the ebb and flow of empathic response to humanitarian disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(4), pp.640-644.

Lamisa H. I fell for a false narrative that has dangerously been floating around social media. You’ve seen them on Instagram; photographs of Venice’s canals cleaning up, elephants falling asleep in vineyards and monkeys coming out to play in Thailand. All these posts are shared with the wider message that our Earth is healing because people are forced to stay at home. At the time, they made me feel so happy. I most definitely believed them. I even reposted them. Since then, I’ve learnt that these posts have been repeatedly debunked and labelled as misinformation. Like in Venice the photograph was taken by a tourist and in reality, the swans always come out. The spread of this rhetoric is more dangerous than first meets the eye, it comes from a place of emotion: This feeling that there is some divine intervention from Mother Earth. ECO-FASCISM, BUT LET’S MAKE IT ART These exaggerations and half-truths paint a picture that humanity is to blame entirely for our environmental degradation, which is not what climate activists believe. We fight for structural change and environmental policies, that fight to save lives, not destroy it. Sayings such as ‘Humans are the virus’ are not poetic musings that valiantly advocate for environmental sustainability. Instead, they lend to the ideology of eco-fascism, and we’re seeing a lot of it plastered all over social media. This rhetoric reverberates that Humans and the environment are separate entities. As Ajit Niranjan, Environment and Globalization reporter at DW states: “There are clear solutions that would enable us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the climate targets that countries have agreed on, in a way that doesn’t require people to stay locked in their houses or halt economic activity.” Or you know, die. OVERPOPULATION IS A MYTH When we rejoice at statements about the ‘Mother Earth’ cleansing herself, what are we really rejoicing at? The virus is hitting minority communities the hardest, and the death rate for BIPOC is significantly higher. The idea that there are too many humans plaguing the Earth, is simply a myth. Oxfam’s studies show that the world’s richest 10% of people have carbon footprints that are 60 times higher than the poorest 10%. People who haven’t even contributed to the problem are now being targeted as the problem. As we scratch under the surface, we find the core is rooted in the idea that ‘some must die, for others to thrive’. We’re starting to resonate with Thanos’ obliterate-half-the-existence fetish. There is a massive flaw in thinking that overpopulation is the most noteworthy contributor to the climate crisis. The reason for that is simple, and undoubtedly one you’ve encountered before: the high-emitters are the wealthiest nations. While the majority of countries with high population growth have relatively poor living conditions by Western standards, their per-capita consumption of resources is very low. AREN’T EMISSIONS REDUCING? Some say: “But what about the genuine improvements to carbon emissions as a result of coronavirus? Surely, that is a positive.” Well, not exactly. Yes, air pollution and emission have dipped globally, with China reporting a 25% decline in emission and an improvement in the quality of their air in comparison to last year. Similarly, New York has seen 50% reduction in pollution compared to last year. But experts are telling us that these are unlikely to be long-term changes. The measures to reduce the spread of the COVID - 19 pandemic have meant considerable changes to the operation of daily lives worldwide. For example, Italy is now implementing the most extensive travel restrictions since World War II. In Australia, our unemployment rate is forecast to reach 30%, higher than during the GFC, threatening the livelihoods of thousands of families. The drastic changes brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic have hardly created the decarbonised, sustainable economy that Climate activists have been advocating for. Rather, when the pandemic ends, and it’s back to business as usual, the dip in emission we have experienced will “bounce back”. Professor Julia Pongratz, from the Department of Geography at the University of Munich, predicts that the current situation will be similar to after the Global Financial Crisis. During the GFC global emissions also saw a significant decline for a year. However, these changes quickly rebounded by 2010, and as the economy recovered, emissions were at an all-time high. The biggest offenders of carbon emissions are still private corporations, supported by our Government. Not to mention there is a proven way to control population growth that doesn’t involve a life-threatening pandemic. We already know that thanks to Katherine Wilkinson and Project Drawdown, that female empowerment is the most effective carbon mitigation strategy. WHAT SHOULD WE DO INSTEAD? Instead of rejoicing about a superficial decrease in carbon emissions, we need to re-evaluate ways that we will pick the pieces up once the pandemic ends. We want a lasting impact, not a tiny dent. Now more than ever, we need a shift in the way our economy functions. The doughnut model for the economy, constructed by Kate Raworth, aims to meet the needs of all, within the means of the planet. It is definitely worth knowing about. We also need to work on ensuring that no individual is being left behind. International students are now seen as a liability, yet time and time again they have proved to be one of the largest reasons for Australia’s economic growth. It’s no surprise that the government has decided to protect their own, and told anyone who doesn’t belong to kindly, go back to where they came from. In this political climate, It’s also impossible for the Refugees and Asylum Seekers on Manus and Christmas Island to practice social distancing. These men, women and children who have already suffered unimaginable amounts of trauma and loss are being forced to stay locked in detention centres. A ongoing problem lasting 7 years and counting. We should always remember; human health depends on a healthy ecosystem, and they are one in the same, not separate entities. Instead of reposting the flowery narratives about nature, we need to direct our energy to structural change that focuses on better quality of life. The global political sphere has now set a precedent and shown us that we can work together to tackle a crisis. Could this provide a potential framework for climate action? Further Reading The 'Doughnut' Model https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/ An Open Letter to Mr Scott Morrison http://farragomagazine.com/2020/04/04/letter-to-morrison/ Eco-Fascism and Covid 19 http://honisoit.com/2020/03/eco-fascism-and-covid-19/ How Thanos Fits Into Real-World Myths of Overpopulation and Scarcity https://wearyourvoicemag.com/marvel-thanos-overpopulation-scarcity-myth/ Humans are not the Virus https://wearyourvoicemag.com/humans-are-not-the-virus-eco-fascist/ The Necropolitics of Coronavirus: Who may live, Who must die https://wearyourvoicemag.com/necropolitics-coronavirus-government/ References Colarossi, J., 2020.The World’S Richest People Emit The Most Carbon - Our World. [online] Ourworld.unu.edu. Available at: [Accessed 6 April 2020]. Daly, N., 2020.Fake Animal News Abounds On Social Media As Coronavirus Upends Life. [online] Nationalgeographic.com. Available at: [Accessed 6 April 2020]. Morse, A. and Mosher, S., 2020.Debunking The Myth Of Overpopulation - PRI. [online] PRI. Available at: [Accessed 6 April 2020]. Wright, R., 2020.There's An Unlikely Beneficiary Of Coronavirus: The Planet. [online] CNN. Available at: [Accessed 6 April 2020]. Lead Editors: Irisa R. and Mariam H.

Palwasha A. and Tahmina R. How can we collectively move away from a productivity-at-all-hours, capitalism-driven mindset that prevents us from experiencing both true rest, and true pleasure, along with a myriad of other incredibly beneficial experiences and emotions? When this quarantine hit, I was one of the privileged few who were in a position to be able to look at this new indefinite time alone as a break, rather than an extremely stressful period. I thought about all the things I could finally do without the distractions I put in my way. I could write a book that I’d been putting off for so long, learn how to make a website, start my own business, get a jump on the next month’s worth of work… I didn’t think once about using this time to reset my head and experience true rest until I came across some advice that I didn’t need to use this time to be even more productive. It was time for a much needed break, but it turns out I didn’t know how not to work. Why do we need true rest? True rest and pleasure are the primary activities of daily living; they aren’t a novelty or luxury, but rather a requirement of general wellbeing. True rest is not what many of us experience on the daily. After work or uni or finally being done with so many of our other commitments, we zone out in front of a movie while not actually watching the movie, spend time on our socials or dive into a deep and weird vortex of Youtube squishy makeovers (yes, it was me). When we talk about true rest here, we are defining it as either genuinely relaxing or partaking in activities we actually enjoy, for no reason other than our enjoyment of them, or to build your skill in them. These can take the form of reading, painting, exercise, woodworking - it can be anything. Generally, these “true pleasure” activities require more involvement and a greater time commitment (at first glance) than their much shorter “entertainment” equivalents, like Youtube or socials. These “entertaining” activities are not defined as true rest or true pleasure because they work as entertainment rather than providing any sort of fulfilment. Why do we need to discuss this? In our society, we tend to define ourselves by our productivity and how efficiently we can monetise all our free time, often due to need, but also for more superficial reasons that we rarely examine. Work can become an addiction and while the importance of working and particularly, of performing meaningful work, cannot be overstated, the value of rest, meaningful rest, is much less appreciated. The boom in the wellness industry indicates how desperately people are looking for a way to achieve true rest. This can be seen in the increase of book sales advertising spiritual mindfulness in a workaholic world and the millions of downloads on meditation apps. In the autobiography of her life, writer Elizabeth Gilbert discusses this phenomenon in dealing with her depression, citing as an example the glaring difference between advertising geared towards Americans and Europeans. “For me, a major obstacle in my pursuit of pleasure was my ingrained sense of... guilt. Do I really deserve this pleasure? This is very American… the insecurity about whether we have earned our happiness. Advertising in America orbits completely around the need to convince the uncertain consumer that yes, you have actually warranted a special treat... You deserve a break today! Because you’re worth it! You’ve come a long way baby! Such advertising campaigns would probably not be as effective in the Italian culture [for example] where people already know that they are entitled to enjoyment in this life.” I can’t remember a time in recent years where I’ve given myself an actual break and felt that I had been fully deserving of it, a time where I didn’t need to get any work done or do better than my best. How can we overcome this? A good way to begin to overcome our productivity-at-all-times mindset is to sit down and assess how we currently use our free time. If you can’t remember the last time you allowed yourself to have free time, then your problem runs much deeper than this article can help with. If in doing this, you realise that the majority of your free time is spent thinking of how to make use of it for future gain or monetise it, then you need to reassess the way you rest and invest in learning how to achieve true rest and true pleasure. Some of our writers during this quarantine period struggled immensely with having extra time to use as rest and one of the ways that they overcame the procrastination and limbo-state that this produced was by making a list of methods to build some healthier habits during these uncertain times. Here are some things that you can try during this time to build healthier practices with how you seek true rest and pleasure, which will then lead to a myriad of other beneficial experiences. Avoid filling free time with entertainment for distraction; rather use your breaks doing something that fulfils you. You will often notice that the time exchange is the same, but the benefit is much greater. Be mindful of when you spend time in your designated home work spaces if you’re not doing work. Remove yourself from the space physically and allow your mind to take a break, rather than indulging in distractions. Also remember that often, truly giving ourselves a break comes from doing the tasks that are actual self-care, like cleaning your space or finishing off overhanging work. To break the monotony of days in self-isolation, try some new experiences to break up your week. Here are some fun examples: read a book in a genre you wouldn’t usually reach for, try out a new recipe, start bullet journaling, play a game with the family, try propagating some indoor plants, start a blog for fun… your house is your oyster! The necessity of ensuring that we rest properly and enjoy our time off is in bettering our quality of life. If your desire is not to be the cliche of the corporate exec who takes a vacation and then can’t concentrate on relaxing, then you’ll benefit from assessing your mental space, especially if you’re in a privileged enough position to do it during this time of widespread isolation. We hope you’re taking care of yourselves during this period and that you invest in some true rest, and develop good habits around it that you make sure last.

Irisa R. and Tahmina R. One day we will tell tales of the days the Karens would wallow in toilet paper like Kings. In a crisis where the only way of ensuring our own health is by ensuring the health of everyone else, we are responding in a way that prioritises individual wants over the needs of others. While some people are crazily stockpiling, people who live paycheck to paycheck are going without. Many elderly, even with the new store hours, can’t get carers for the early hours to help them shop. This crisis has felt very disempowering for many of us, because there are currently not many concrete ways that we can mobilise and help those most vulnerable. So it’s up to us to step forward. The Scarcity Scare In moments of weakness over the last couple of weeks, when we saw everyone panic buying, we thought, “should we be stockpiling too?” Here’s why we shouldn’t. This virus isn’t going to create a scarcity of essential resources. There’s no shortage of supply, but the mass panic buying has meant that the regular journey products take to our supermarkets isn’t fast enough for the rate at which people are snatching them off shelves. These shortages right now are of our own making. Stores simply cannot restock at the rate that people are buying. A consumer psychologist, Dr Rohan Miller noted that this panic buying derives from our fear that our (very comfortable) lifestyle is being threatened. What is more alarming is that it is not just grocery stores, but also pharmacies that are being cleared out. Just last week, Ventolin, an over-the-counter medication for people with asthma, became a prescription drug to slow down the panic buying. At the same time, some pharmacies have been accused of price gouging - P2 masks that were once $40 are now being sold for extortionist prices; one man recently purchased his for $400. Consumers and corporations are taking away resources from people who need them. Where did this “survival of the fittest” attitude come from? In a crisis where the quickest solution is to ensure population health, not individual health, buying up resources is one of the most harmful things we could be doing. Consuming Our Way Out Of The Crisis It’s interesting that in a time of crisis the only way we can think to respond is by consuming more. This speaks volumes about the pitfalls of our capitalist culture. This is drastically different to how other countries are responding. South Korea was one of the first countries to be hit the hardest by the virus, and in late February they had one of the highest numbers of infected persons outside China. Yet, there was no issue of panic buying in their supermarkets. Why? Some have attributed it to ‘minpye,’ which loosely translates to ‘causing trouble to others.’ Culturally, they did not want to act in a way that inconveniences others because of the shame associated with behaving in a way that badly affects their community. This culture of accountability helped mobilise the people because when it comes to health, which is interconnected, they are aware that they might endanger others. The focus right now should be on distributing resources as efficiently and effectively as possible throughout the community. The Mutual Aid Initiative Imagine, you’re someone who lives alone, maybe you have had a hip replacement, or you have back problems that significantly impact your mobility. You usually wait until you have used up all the food in your pantry before you head out to the supermarket, walking to the bus stop with your walking aid. You precariously balance on the fifteen minute bus to your nearest shopping centre, only to find all your usual staples have been sold out. The most severe consequences that we hear about all too often will be suffered only by the most vulnerable. The fact that this illness will not affect the able-bodied and young in the same way that affects our aging population, or those with existing illnesses that comprise their immune systems, should not in any way diminish our efforts of containment. So how can we help? Last week two Sydneysiders, Louis Debord and Amara Khan, launched an initiative to link up vulnerable people in South West Sydney with volunteers who are able to assist them. Today we are launching this initiative in North West Sydney. It grew as a way to support the most vulnerable in our communities in the ways that they need most by connecting volunteers with vulnerable people who need assistance during the pandemic. This initiative aims to support people who currently need help with: Grocery shopping and deliveries Delivery of over the counter medicines Any other urgent errands that need to be made If you are someone in need, or you know of someone in need, then please fill out the form below. Also, for those who want to help but are self isolating or don’t want to leave the house, there are options for you too! Just let us know in the notes. South West Sydney Volunteers: https://forms.gle/syrKvhKf9FZkX6LC7 People in need: https://forms.gle/dbp7RGh2UZwBymJf8 North West Sydney Volunteers: https://forms.gle/r14dEhoYKRsWuN1u8 People in need: https://forms.gle/dryWDSVrjfa74x229 Remember to Breathe (Not On Someone Though) The precautions being taken now are to make sure that the NSW Health system will be able to bear the brunt of the outbreak when it is at its peak. The panic, hysteria and xenophobia that this crisis has exposed is not inevitable - it is a social choice. The most important data at this moment is not the total number of deaths or the total number of positive tests; it is the rate of infection. With this in mind, here is some good news. Australia has the lowest test positivity in the world, with only 0.7% of cases coming back positive. Moreover, the World Health Organisation’s study, one of the most exhaustive pieces published on the virus to date, states that there is only a 1-5% chance of catching it from a contagious person. Ignore headlines that have phrases like “cases doubling.” It is not the total number of cases, but the growth rate that is important. Also avoid ones that classify entire suburbs as “infection zones.” This creates unnecessary panic in locals who are already taking all necessary precautions. The take on this pandemic as “this generation's world war III” is tone-deaf. Reframing this as a security issue, as if it’s a war, plays off the idea that fear-tactics are the only effective way to mobilise people. Avoiding all media designed to profit off our fears and anxieties is very hard right now, but taking some small steps to consume more carefully will reduce our mental fatigue and make us better equipped to take practical, productive steps in ensuring our collective health. So let’s start taking a more proactive approach to being on the right side of history. Follow the World Health Organisation’s steps in containing the pandemic, reach out to your communities or take part in the Mutual Aid Initiative. We’re all in this together and every one of us is able to take the necessary steps to focus on the collective, and not just the individual, during this time. Take care of yourselves! Lead editor: Palwasha A. and Mariam H. Bibliography Coronavirus: South Korea’s success in controlling disease is due to its acceptance of surveillance . Covid-19: South Koreans keep calm and carry on testing . Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) coronavirus (COVID-19) statement on 21 March 2020 . Subscribe to The Australian | Newspaper home delivery, website, iPad, iPhone & Android apps . PM’s $189bn stimulus package as lockdowns loom . PM’s $189bn stimulus package as lockdowns loom . Nebehay, S., 2020. ''You are not invincible' - the WHO’s message to young people on coronavirus". World Economic Forum. Accessed from: . Science | AAAS. 2020. Coronavirus Cases Have Dropped Sharply In South Korea. What’S The Secret To Its Success? [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 March 2020]. Health.nsw.gov.au. 2020. The File (URL) You Have Entered Was Not Found..... [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 March 2020].

Mariam.H This article deals with domestic violence and might be triggering for some readers. If you require advice or support, visit or call your local police station, and ask for the Domestic Violence Liaison officer or call 1800 737 732. For more resources and services scroll to the bottom of this article. "The number one failing of the service system was that Hannah Clarke did everything she possibly could to keep herself and her children safe," said Hayley Foster, chief executive of Women's Safety NSW. On the 19th of February, Australia was shocked into silence by the horrific murder of Hannah Clarke and her 3 children by her estranged husband. In the weeks leading up to this terrible event, Hannah and her family had been increasingly worried about threats to their safety. In early January, Hannah had applied for and been granted a domestic violence order. By early February, this APVO had been allegedly breached by her estranged husband, and he was served a Notice to appear in court in March. But it never got that far. So often we continue to ask victims of Domestic and Family Violence (DFV): “Why don’t you leave?” “Why are you just staying in this terrible situation?” Hannah had left. Hannah had uprooted her life and moved town. Hannah had done everything that we demand of victims of DFV, but it still wasn’t enough. DFV affects millions of Australians every year. The ‘Personal safety survey’ conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 2.2 million Australians have experienced some form of physical and/or sexual violence from a partner by the age of 15, and 3.6 million have experienced emotional abuse. In Australia, on average one woman is killed every week as a result of DFV. These statistics clearly indicate that DFV is not a private trouble, but a public issue. It is a major national health and justice issue and has been for decades. This is the pandemic that we can’t wear masks against so we just turn our heads away instead. What have we done so far? In 2011, the Australian Federal Government released its National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022. This provided 4 action plans to be actioned over 12 years and intended to address prevention, early intervention, protective measures, and overall improvement of front line services. But the plan is almost at an end, what now? Knowledge regarding DFV may have increased, but 2 in 5 people continue to be unsure of where to access help. There continues to be an overall lack of data regarding pathways, services, and access to help for victims. After millions of dollars spent, the system is still failing. There continues to be no national standard for recording DFV and incidents, there is no consistency in police handling, and access to protection, let alone understanding the justice system requires a dictionary and a law degree. The Police - Barriers to protection and enforcement The first time I became disillusioned with the police as a protector and first responder in the case of DFV, I was 15. I was working in my first job as a receptionist at a medical clinic, when a woman, chased by a man, ran across the street screaming and into our clinic. The woman told us that she had attempted to leave her abusive husband that morning when he had caught her. She told us that she had moved to Australia to marry her husband, and had no family or support here. She spoke limited English and we communicated mostly through gestures, short phrases, and photos of injuries she had sustained. We told her that we would call the police, and it would be ok, that they would know what to do. When the police arrived, two of them went outside to speak to the husband who had completely altered his behaviour and tone, while a third came to speak to the woman. The woman showed him the photos on her phone, she relayed as much as she could of the situation. At one point I saw her become frustrated, she told me, “he speaks better English than me, he will laugh with them and joke with them and they will believe him”. In the end, they told us there was nothing they could do, it was a case of “he said, she said”. Her proof was insufficient. The most they would do is go back with her to their apartment, help collect her things, and take her to another person’s place. The only person the woman knew, was a family friend, who was a mutual friend of the couple. I never found out what happened to her. I have no idea how her story went on. The only thing I know is that the people that should have protected her failed. In cases of DFV police are the first responders. They are responsible for the provision of safety and support to victims, including any children. They are also supposed to be proactive in the prevention of DFV. Help the police is responsible for providing, according to their own ‘Domestic and Family Violence Procedure’ : Applications of ADVO on behalf of victims Direct or detain offender of an ADVO Referrals to support agencies Development of strategies to address repeat offenders Arresting and charging the offender In reality, research has shown that victims continue to have difficult and unhelpful encounters with police. An Australian study, which surveyed 493 lawyers and community advocates working in the DFV field, found that 52% had submitted one or more written complaints about police in the past 2 years. The same study also found that police would often justify inaction based on the fact that alleged victims did not have visible physical injuries. This is further corroborated by a study which found that 52.8% of police believed that they should only be required to arrest in DFV cases if there was clear evidence of physical injuries. These issues are compounded by findings that police continue to view DFV as a relationship issue, thus believing it is not their place to “take sides”. Negotiations involving finding a common solution, remain a common practise, as DFV is dismissed under domestic disturbances. This can be linked to two harmful ideas: the first is that victims are required to prove victimhood often at risk of their own physical or mental wellbeing, and the second that visible physical abuse is a higher priority, when in fact it is now well established that is only a component of a larger problem. If an APVO is ordered, they are only as effective as their enforcement, so if a quick and firm response is not present, and breaches are not taken seriously, perpetrators know that they can get away with further violence. The police response to DFV is crucial and has significant ramifications for the safety of victims. Appropriate and positive police intervention can be significant in saving people’s lives. Navigating the Justice system - Problem After Reporting Reporting DFV is not the end of the story, far from it, the weeks and the months following reporting and removal from the situation can be extremely difficult and dangerous for survivors. People leaving DFV are in an extremely vulnerable position, due to the effects of limited financial, social, and welfare support. DFV is the largest driver of female homelessness, with specialist homelessness services reporting that 42% of all their clients reporting a history of DFV. Thus, access to appropriate assistance and support during these early stages is crucial in decreasing the likeliness of long-term negative outcomes. Yet while researching for this article, I spoke to a few of my friends who are law students, regarding evidence and legal proceedings. Within minutes of talking my head was spinning, with jargon, useless bureaucracy, loopholes, and the trappings of a system that seems designed to make it as difficult as possible to gain protection, let alone justice. I have no other emotions, but sheer anger and frustration with a system that can be so difficult to navigate at the best of times, let alone when you are under significant stress. These deficiencies are a result of historic marginalisation of women in the legal system and the reality is that this system is not built in this way - it reflects the way we value women and treat these issues, fundamentally. So what next? What we need on a large-scale is community advocacy. We need to continue to discuss DFV publicly and demand better, not just in the months following a tragic incident. We need to push for greater funding for support services and programs. We need to ensure that survivors of DFV are included in the policy making process, so that it is more accessible and appropriate. In the meantime, to help someone through the reporting and legal process: Advocate for them! One cannot underestimate the importance of individual advocacy. People must know what their rights are as victims so that they know what should demand. During the reporting process demand that the police take action or refer you to support services. Remember that every station should have a domestic violence liaison officer. For additional legal advice try one of these hotlines: Women legal advice line: 1800 801 501; http://www.wlsnsw.org.au/contact-us/ Domestic Violence Legal Advice line: 1800 810 784 For help and protection regarding court proceedings: 1800 938 227 Aboriginal legal services - regarding care, protection and family matters: 1800 733 233 LGBTIQ community legal service: 1800 244 481 Empower them to continue to advocate for themselves! Literature reviews regarding barriers to reporting found, that the embarrassment, shame, and worry about discrimination faced by police were among the key reasons victims would not call the police, so be there for them, and assure them that it is their right to be safe. This is also important when a full summary of the Victims Rights ACT 1996 (NSW) can be found here. Offer practical advice during the process of reporting. E.g. offer her a place to stay, offer to mind her children, or cook a meal for her, or accompany her to the station if that is what she wants. Offer help in whatever they feel comfortable and supported in, and sometimes asking twice doesn’t hurt. Especially when you come from a culture where out of politeness and ‘saving face’ you feel like you can’t accept help. Also, never underestimate the benefit of just being there, so that they know that when they are ready, they can turn to you and they are not alone. Listen and believe. As the leading DFV not-for-profit Our Watch states: “If a woman tells you she’s experienced violence, the most important thing you can do is listen to her, believe her and make sure she knows you’re there to support her”. If you are experiencing DFV or know someone who requires assistance, here are some key resources: If you are in immediate danger, please call 000 for Police and Ambulance service. For counselling for anyone who has experience DFV To find local services and programs near you For assistance with housing and shelter (across NSW) For more advice regarding leaving an abusive relationship safely For any other additional information regarding getting legal advice Recovery and help services for families, view the integrated Domestic and Family Violence Services Program Men’s Referral Service- Provides telephone counselling, information and referrals for men in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania 1300 766 491; https://www.ntv.org.au/ Developed by 1800 RESPECT Android devices: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=au.com.medibank.projectconnect IOS devices: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/daisy/id968542048?ls=1 For a comprehensive contact support list https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/domestic-violence/services-and-support/contacts/a-z Finally, this piece is in no way the end-all or be-all, it doesn’t claim to have all the information and all the answers. It is the examination of part of the key issues victims of DFV face when attempting to seek help and protection. I have attempted to add as much information as I could, but we must be proactive! Read more and find out more. Have these conversations openly and regularly. And above protect yourself and your loved one: Here are some good places to start you off: https://www.dvrcv.org.au/help-advice/guide-for-families-friends-and-neighbours https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/domestic-violence/my-situation/i-want-to-help-someone https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/find-help/domestic-violence-hotlines/ https://girlsgottaknow.com.au/relationships/family-and-domestic-violence/family-or-domestic-violence-protection-orders/ http://www.wlsnsw.org.au/resources/women-and-family-law/ch5-protection-violence/ https://www.saferresource.org.au/reporting_to_the_police https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/FVBBWeb/34588.htm Lead Editor: Tahmina R. References: AIHW., 2019. Domestic Violence. Aus Gov. Accessed at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/behaviours-risk-factors/domestic-violence/overview AIHW.,2019. Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia: continuing the national story 2019. Aus Gov. accessed : https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/b0037b2d-a651-4abf-9f7b-00a85e3de528/aihw-fdv3-FDSV-in-Australia-2019.pdf.aspx?inline=true Barrett, B.J., St. Pierre, M. and Vaillancourt, N., 2011. Police response to intimate partner violence in Canada: Do victim characteristics matter?. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(1), pp.38-62. Birdsey, E. and Snowball, L., 2013. Reporting violence to police: A survey of victims attending domestic violence services. Douglas, H., 2019. Policing Domestic and Family Violence. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 8(2), p.31. Ghafournia, N., 2011. Battered at home, played down in policy: Migrant women and domestic violence in Australia. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), pp.207-213. Gover, A.R., Pudrzynska Paul, D. and Dodge, M., 2011. Law enforcement officers’ attitudes about domestic violence. Violence against women, 17(5), pp.619-636. Laschon, E., 2019. “Domestic violence still at ‘unprecedented’ despite hundres of millions being spent’. ABC news. Accessed from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-05/an-australia-free-from-all-forms-of-violence-and-abuse-against/11470584 Myhill, A., 2019. Renegotiating domestic violence: police attitudes and decisions concerning arrest. Policing and society, 29(1), pp.52-68. NSW Police Force., 2018. Domestic and Family Violence Procedure v.4. NSW Police . Accessed at: https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/477267/Domestic_and_Family_Violence_Policy_2018.pdf Riga, R., 2020. “Hannah Clarke's family speak out after horrific murder-suicide, said she suffered burns to 97 per cent of body in car fire”. ABC News. Accessed at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-22/hannah-clarke-family-speak-out-after-her-murder/11990270 Rollings, K. and Taylor, N., 2017. Measuring police performance in domestic and family violence. Voce, I. and Boxall, H., 2018. Who reports domestic violence to police? A review of the evidence. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (559), p.1.

“We will prevail because we have proven to the world and to ourselves that we are not ‘fringe elements’ or ‘special interest groups’ or so-called ‘minorities’. Without us, there is no legitimate majority. We are the mainstream.” June Jordan What do we mean when we say, "let's decolonise International Women's Day? In light of this upcoming day, our writers attended events such as We Are the Mainstream, Mehreen Faruqi's IWD breakfast and All About Women held at the Opera House. All incredibly diverse experiences. We attended these events to see what was the big deal about this day, and what was the discourse that came with it? We are the Mainstream was an exclusive event that was created by women of colour, for women of colour, only opening the doors for black, indigenous womxn of colour. In Bankstown Arts Centre, we were surrounded by academics, researchers, directors, political activists, teachers, journalists, authors, stylists, artists and businesswomen. We all came together to listen and learn intently from panels of those carefully selected from among us, that invited us to engage in intellectual discussion around feminism by putting ourselves and our experiences at the forefront. We didn’t realise how much we’d been craving an event like this until it was happening. We didn’t know the importance of safe spaces- we’d always thought of them as a place to escape prejudice and not as a necessary undertaking in ensuring the inclusion of voices like our own, to further our intellectual advancement and properly engage in the process of healing. We all know intersectionality is the key, but how can we learn to practice it? Audre Lorde, among the first intersectional feminists, wrote, “There is no such thing as a single issue - struggle because we do not live single - issue lives.” We have the power to keep our feminism intersectional and bring alternate perspectives to the table, other than the white, cis, heterosexual one. It is essential that our views are not put to the side, and our existence is validated as mainstream. Now is the time for radical inclusivity. Our writer Lamisa reflects, “my experience as a woman is inseparable from my identity as a Muslim and as an Australian of South Asian descent.” These nuances in our identity inform one another and they cannot be separated when analysed. In many feminist rooms, the experience of being a woman is isolated from other identifying factors, which is why the issues that spring up from various life experiences are either not addressed or given the weight or level of analysis that they deserve." This is why safe spaces that encourage proper exploration of these complexities are so necessary for our advancement and for our healing. The importance of safe spaces in the feminist movement. For years, women of colour have been sidelined to shallow inclusivity schemes that do not encompass the intersectional feminism we stand for. Even the terms used to categorise us are othering: “Culturally and Linguistically Diverse” for example, or even the term “women of colour” already positions whiteness as the default. Our writer Palwasha shared her experience at We Are The Mainstream’s event; “The main takeaway for me was the unexpected opening of new intellectual doors in an event that served as the ultimate safe space. I remember several times on the day, I was either asked a question or to tell of an experience and I answered knowing I had something valuable to say, where I would usually not contribute. I think this newfound bravery in sharing ideas came from being in a room where I knew that what I had to say would be given the same value as everyone else's thoughts, to a different degree than in a room including white people or men.” An example of the higher-level discussion that a true safe space allows was given by a panelist who created the organisation that champions the voices of Aboriginal women, Tiddas 4 Tiddas. She shared with us why she took issue with identifying as a feminist, revealing that in most feminist rooms she instinctively knows that all women's fights are not equal and that those of "the norm" take centre stage. This does not mean she is not a feminist. You can't cede ground that took so long to get in the first place. "But here, in a safe space", she said, "I can discuss these higher level ideas." For her, the importance of safe spaces was that she could interrogate the feminist movement today without being labelled anti-feminist. Why white liberal feminism doesn't work for us. There is a certain whiteness that comes with International Women’s Day, as it seems to never stray too far from western liberal feminism. This kind of feminism is commonly seen as the norm, the feminism that demands equal rights between men and women but it fails to address the underlying structural issues to do with race, class, sexuality and religion that would indicate the necessity of a move toward equity rather than equality. For everyone to benefit equally in a world of equal opportunity, we must be on a level playing field. Our writer Irisa reflected on seeing Diana Sayed break down the ‘model minority model’ and how it feels to, ‘work harder than any white person in any room to just feel like you’re good enough to be there.’: “She refused to appease the audience, she spoke truthfully and at some points my gut reaction was ‘oh God’ - even though I completely agreed with her, it felt ‘too aggressive’ for this audience and then I felt guilty for even thinking that. This just shows how we ‘code - switch’, we change the way we speak, what we speak about and how we speak to appease usually a white voice because we see their voice as objective or the middle ground.” Yesterday, at the IWD event, an audience member asked Pulitzer nominated journalist, Azadeh Moaveni: ‘What can western liberal feminists do to ‘lift’ women out of their oppression?” Her powerful response was that before we try to ‘lift’ women out of their ‘oppression’ we need to address our own intentions: Are you only supporting them when they align with your own values/worldview? What this simple question brings to light is this essential difference- Do I want to help them because their struggle/needs are as important as mine? Or because I want them to pad my own advancement and the advancement of those who experience the world in the same way that I do? Decolonising International Women’s Day. Decolonising is important because it allows us to connect back to our own roots, as we try to unlearn ideals that colonialism has instilled in us. Irisa shared her experience of hearing Celeste Liddle speak at Mehreen Farqui’s International Women’s Day breakfast: “Celeste Liddle, an Aboriginal rights activist and journalist, explored how it’s particularly difficult for Aboriginal woman to navigate feminist spaces without first confronting the injustice that is (and continues) to exist as a result of our shared colonial history.” This is important because it focuses on the experiences of the ‘colonised’ - the First Nations people, for example. The importance of First Nations knowledge as something that is substantial for the present and future, not just something that sits stagnant and dead in the past must not be underestimated. To learn to acknowledge their version of history, and allow real self-determination. Engaging in these spaces is obviously a political act - but for us, it was also highly personal. The need to decolonise our experiences is necessary for all who do not fit the traditional mould. Lamisa writes about her experiences at the ‘We Are The Mainstream’ event last weekend. "Safe spaces provide opportunities to reclaim our experiences as our own. In an increasingly centralised world, we scramble to try and fit in: speaking English and acting Western, adopting that culture until our own voice dissipates into nothingness. For our parents, it has always been Destination: West, and that ideal probably will not change anytime soon. There are benefits to living in the west, but we also have to be mindful about who we are, and where we fit exactly within the so-called mainstream." We can decolonise spaces that we are in, but the process begins with ourselves. A final word. Having an event exclusively for women of colour does not mean exclusion; rather it means the inclusion of our values and experiences and validates them in a space where we feel absolutely safe to share our ideas. It is truly nurturing, and important to know that we are not just scattered amongst the population. We stand high and proud, ready to fight for everyone’s rights, not just our own. If you are a woman of colour, reach out to others for guidance and mentoring. If you are not, learn to listen and make room.

By Palwasha A. I remember the first time I, and so many others across the globe, got swept up by the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She became America’s youngest congresswoman and watching her beat out her stale, comfortable-in-his-position older white male counterpart at only 29 completely changed the way I looked at my own government. Watching her Instagram story tours through the previously hidden chambers of congress, the behind-the-scenes look at the swearing-in gift bags and late-night assembling of her IKEA tables as she did hard-hitting political Q&A on Instagram Live, all had their intended effect. All of a sudden, a door had opened in my head, a possibility that had never existed before. If she can, so can we. The success of this one person for me, her commitment to pushing for the rights of the lower and middle-class and advocating for the previously voiceless on the formidable stages of American congress with the background that she had, was igniting. She wasn’t another Harvard-bred contender claiming struggle - she’d been a young woman in college, who had to support her family through her father’s death, a hardship that could have been eased but for the country’s poor healthcare system. A product of the failings of her own government. For the first time, I could visualise a bridge between me and my own government: changing them in my head from this impenetrable, monolithic institution to something with gaps in its structure, holes that could work in our favour. What is representation and who cares? Australian politics has morphed into trying to keep out the greater of two evils. We are consistently having to decide between two options that have become almost exactly the same. So, what does representation in politics mean? We are not just referring to individuals who represent a particular marginalised group, physically, but who also represent interests broader than their individual selves and those of the maintained status quo. “Standing for” is not the same as “acting for” - it cannot be assumed that individuals who embody certain group characteristics will also act in the interest of that group. As writer and activist Hoda Katebi argues, “our faces are being included more but our voices are still not”. Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first female Prime Minister, is often used to demonstrate how a woman entering politics doesn't mean that she made policies benefiting women. In fact, her hardline stances on issues such as equal pay, work and childcare served to drive women away from her political party in droves. Even the archaic Alabama abortion laws that recently caused waves across the globe for the fact that they would force a minor to bear a child, regardless of incest or rape, were signed into law by a woman. Therefore, this type of shallow representation is not the goal we are aiming for. The goal is to have the right voices in positions of power that have the interests of their community at the forefront of their agenda. So, you might ask - why can’t we have people who aren’t from our communities represent our interests? Why do we need to do the work to get in or support our representatives who are already doing the work? Why can’t an able-bodied person create policies for the betterment of disabled people or men create laws that cater to women? In short, they can. But the research says they aren’t. What Does The Research Say? I think one of the best and most easily understood examples of why representation in positions of power is so needed, is a social experiment by educator Jane Elliott. Jane asked the room to please stand if they would be happy to receive the same treatment as a black person. No one stood. She reiterated her question, saying they must not have heard her correctly. “If you white folks, want to be treated the way black people are in this society, stand.” Again, no one stood. Jane said, “Nobody’s standing here. That says very plainly that you know what’s happening; you know you don’t want it for you. I want to know why you’re so willing to accept it or to allow it to happen for others.” Essentially, the people that are protected by the status quo know that the policies are for their benefit. They will not be the first to try and stand up against it. A common fear of increasing representation for marginalised groups in government is that it will take away from the rights of those already in power. In the usual context, the true meaning of this argument is that the interests of the traditionally powerful - often white, cis, heterosexual men and those who ride the coattails of their privilege, won’t be at the forefront anymore. Research by Dr Clare Burton (a prominent advocate and activist for social change) found that powerful groups assume patterns regarding “equal opportunity and merit-based progression” while those from underrepresented groups will identify patterns “of discriminations and bias”. This proves how equity - a true levelling of the playing field - is so important to address first in discussions of representation. New emerging political philosophy, as illustrated in the work of Anne Phillips (a professor of political science) has found that reflecting different lived experiences, particularly as related to experiences of subordination, exclusion, and denial are extremely important. What this means is that we need people who have lived through and are familiar with the experiences we are creating policies around, to have the most active voices in their creation and carry-through. An Australian example of this is the original paternalistic policies surrounding the removal of Aboriginal children from their homes. Aboriginal Australians were not consulted in the creation, implementation or execution of these policies, resulting in further harm done by them than good. Additionally, people from groups marked by these differences are often perceived lacking necessary objectivity. It has been a continual argument made against appropriate representation in parliament, that those from marginalised groups of society are unable to “transcend their identity” to achieve common goals. So, even when representation happens, their identity is seen as a deficit, something that removes the validity of what they have to say - they aren’t taken seriously enough and therefore, they are not listened to. “The dawning realisation came to me slowly and painfully: many of my male colleagues had not actually heard what I had said in the previous 12 years, whether in Parliament, in the joint party room or in committee meetings. Nonetheless, they all thought they knew what I had said.” - Kathy Martin Sullivan MP Let’s look at women as an example. It’s been consistently proven, even on such small-scale examples as local councils, that having members of the groups that policies pertain to, is most beneficial to the success of those projects. For example, in Norway, it was found that there was a direct causal relationship between the representation of women in municipal councils and childcare coverage. While, research on Indian panchayats (local councils) found that those with women-led councils had a 62% higher number of drinking water projects that those with men-led councils (UN Women, 2020). Equity obviously works, so let’s move the conversation forward. It’s no longer about proving whether representation works but HOW we are going to get to meaningful representation. The Final Word So, with all the obstacles that exist on our pathway towards greater representation within our governments, it’s easy to become disheartened by the difficulty of creating truly lasting structural change. However, the examples of those fighting for us today should not be seen as failures, but rather as setting a solid foundation, and paving the way for more meaningful change in the future. Proper representation in government is the key to unlocking the potential of our collective future. We understand now that levelling the playing field and ensuring our voices are heard are what’s needed and we’re closer to that goal than ever before. AOC was the one who made clear to me for the first time that a young, brown woman from the kind of tumultuous life experience that her current government had had a hand in creating for so many people, could rise to the challenge of changing that structure from within. She was not just an example of physical representation, but meaningful representation, not just for her own Latinx community but for all underrepresented people in her country. We know now that we are not going to get what we need from those that are benefiting from being at the forefront of the agenda. We all have the ability to be in these positions of power to create meaningful change; we need to be able to see ourselves in them to strive for them. Lead editor: Irisa R. Bibliography UN Women. (2020). Facts and figures: Leadership and political participation. [online] Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures [Accessed 2 Mar. 2020]. O’Toole, T. & Gale, R. T. (2013) Political engagement amongst ethnic minority young people : making a difference . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bishin, B. G. (2009) Tyranny of the Minority The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Bird, K. et al. (2010) ‘The political representation of immigrants and minorities : voters, parties and parliaments in liberal democracies ’, in 2010 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ;: Routledge. P. Youtube (2020). Being Black By Jane Elliott. [image] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yrg7vV4a5o [Accessed 27 Feb. 2020]. Nytimes.com. (2020). A Muslim Fashion Blogger With a Fierce Message. [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/fashion/muslim-fashion-blogger-hoda-katebi.html [Accessed 14 Feb. 2020].

By Irisa R. We would like to acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional owners and custodians of this continent that was never sold nor ceded and whose civilisations are among the oldest in human history. We are honoured to live and work on the ancestral lands of the Darug people of the Eora nation and pay our respects to Elders past and present. “Now they are saying it’s a new stolen generation, but it never stopped” - Cherbourg Elder Irene Landers. In school we learnt about Aboriginal history as a dead history: one that doesn’t have a real place in modern day Australia. When we were exposed to the horrors of the Stolen Generation, it was taught to us as a collateral of colonisation, as a tragic incident but neatly contained within our past. By my third year of University, I had spent a total of two weeks in a first year subject learning about modern Aboriginal kinship structures. Yet again, their experiences were described in an almost clinical - manner, and quickly contextualised by the larger issues affecting Australia. In my fourth year of Uni, I joined Dr Libesman, a leading academic in this area, as a research assistant. Whereas I had previously spent my time researching at a desk where it was easy to disconnect, it was no longer possible to do this when I began work on the ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in child protection decision making in NSW’ report focused on Aboriginal children in state custody. Speaking directly with people working in the field, I was immediately confronted with how wrong I was in my own assumptions about the realities facing Aboriginal communities today. What’s happening right now? I cannot disclose any of the stories that I heard while working on the report, but I have found some publicly available incidents that are reflective of broader trends that I witnessed while working in this space. Two out of every five children in foster care are Aboriginal. When you realise that Aboriginal peoples make up a mere 2.8% of our population, this statistic becomes incomprehensible. Suellyn Tighe, a criminal lawyer and co - founder of Grandmothers Against Removal NSW (GMAR NSW), argues that this statistic proves how systemic racism continues to exist in exercises of state power on Aboriginal families. She asks, “How can this just happen? How can 40% of the kids in care be Aboriginal?” This isn’t an accident. It points to the structures that are in place, and begs the question - why are non-Aboriginal children not subject to the same levels of early removal as Aboriginal families. Right now, Aboriginal children are being removed from their homes at a faster rate than they were during the Stolen Generation. In 2017, Victoria Tauli Corpuz, an investigator for the UN found that Australia’s child protection policy is “one of the worst” in the world when it comes to its treatment of Aboriginal children. She says that it is so unique in its brutality because Aboriginal children are being placed in non - Aboriginal homes, where their connection with their language, culture and Aboriginal identity is dependent on the whims of their non-Aboriginal foster carer. Debra Swan, also co - founder of GMAR NSW, explains that, “even though some have good foster homes, they’ve still lost their sense of belonging. They were still searching and trying to connect with family.” The intergenerational trauma caused is disturbingly similar to the social ramifications of the Stolen Generation. It’s important to remember that some of these children being removed have mothers or grandmothers who were separated from their families during the Stolen Generation. The process in which children are removed from their homes adds significantly to the trauma of their removal. Absec, an NGO who advocates for Aboriginal children in foster care, conducted an investigation where they found babies, who were only a few hours old, were being removed from the hospital and placed in foster care while their mothers were still asleep. Often the parents would not be alerted at all, and when they inquired on the whereabouts of their newborn they were forced to wait days, weeks and sometimes months for a response. The purpose of Family and Community Services (FACS) is to look out for the vulnerable children in our communities, yet the way they administer this “justice” doesn’t centre the wellbeing of Aboriginal children at the core of their effort. At first I assumed that I didn’t know about these injustices because they were hidden from us, censorship at its best. Yet in reality, they aren’t hidden, they can easily be found because the media, academics and NGOs continue to expose these practices. I kept asking myself, how did I not know about this? As an Australian, I hadn’t ever truly dedicated time to educate myself so that I could be an effective ally. The more I learned, the more complicit I felt in the injustices they faced. Why Is This Happening? Nobody is holding FACS accountable. There isn’t an independent body or parent organisation that checks whether their decision to remove a child is well - founded. Section 13 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act (1998) identifies a strict protocol in deciding to remove children. It requires all Aboriginal children: First be placed in their extended family or elsewhere in their community, Or in an Aboriginal foster care, Or as a last resort in a non - Aboriginal home. If there are laws in place to prioritise the safety of Aboriginal children, why are they not being followed? In NSW it is more closely followed, in comparison to Victoria and the Northern Territory, but caseworkers have still been found to be bypassing the first two options and going straight to non-Aboriginal placements. FACS defends against these allegations that they are targeting Aboriginal families with claims that their caseworkers will only ever remove children from their families as a last resort. However, it’s a subjective test - this means that the welfare worker’s judgement is final even if there isn’t a clear methodology as to how they got there. What Do We Do Now? These conversations are easily avoided because they can be especially disillusioning to hear. Modern Australia was built on the erasure and destruction of Aboriginal communities, and living with this reality as an Australian, no matter how and when our parents came, is confusing and unsettling. Historically, the only way our government has navigated the relationship with Aboriginal communities is through paternalistic “solutions” that are disempowering. “The Apology by Kevin Rudd in 2008 many believe signified the end to such paternalistic practices. However, the number of Aboriginal children forcibly removed has increased 5 fold. We call on the Aboriginal & non-Aboriginal people to say with a collective voice to our elected government representatives: No more, Not ever again & Not in this country ” - Grandmother’s Against Removal NSW. I quickly realised that as a first generation Australian that I didn’t feel any personal obligation to go out there and better understand my responsibility towards these communities, even though these removals are sometimes a thirty minute drive from my house. When I called one organisation their front desk administrator said, “we don’t want anymore research bull**** unless we know it’ll directly help our people,” whilst another quickly assured me that “any report that highlights [Aboriginal] voices and experiences deserves to be supported.” The only way this issue can be solved is by placing Aboriginal voices at the forefront of these solutions. There are organisations already benefiting the communities in the best ways, with the limited funds that they currently have. The work is already being done by the right people. We just need to listen to their solutions and give them the funding they deserve to bring their solutions to light. These are five of the many organisations that are working at the forefronts of these fights. The organisations that are trying to help are underfunded, so please go help support them in any way you can, if it’s in donations or by volunteering. Grandmothers Against Removal NSW; Absec Bunjum Corporation Ngunya Jarjum Child & Family Network Burrun Dalai Aboriginal Corporation * I’m not an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and so I cannot speak for their experiences. I drew inspiration for this piece after spending last year as a research assistant for Dr Teresa Libesman, a UTS law Professor. Lead Editor: Palwasha A. More Reading Bessant, J. C. (2013), History and Australian indigenous child welfare policies. Policy Studies. [Online] 34 (3), 310–325. Centre Human Rights Law Conference 2017, Children and Racism, Sydney, viewed 21 February 2020, . Libesman, T. (n.d.) Indigenous child welfare post bringing them home: from aspirations for self-determination to neoliberal assimilation. Australian indigenous law review. [Online] 19 (1), 46–61. McCallum, D. 2017, Criminalizing children : welfare and the state in Australia, Cambridge University Press. Paul Gregoire 2018, The Ongoing Stolen Generations: An Interview With Grandmothers Against Removals, Sydney, viewed 11 February 2020, . Susan Chenery 2018, I call it racism: when they took the children, it was in police cars, Sydney, viewed on 13 February 2020, . Souza, N. 1994, Indigenous Child Welfare or Institutionalised Colonialism? Rethinking Policy in Relation to Aboriginal Children in Australia. Social Alternative Policy. Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1311243640/. Reeve, R. & Bradford, W. (2014), Aboriginal Disadvantage in Major Cities of New South Wales: Evidence for Holistic Policy Approaches.(Report), Australian Economic Review. [Online] 47 (2), 199–217. Victoria Tauli - Corpuz 2017, Australia's rate of Indigenous child removal 'unique', UN investigator says, Sydney, viewed 10 February 2020,< https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/04/australia-rate-indigenous-child-removal-unique-un-investigator>.

By Palwasha A. Intergenerational trauma is not what I initially thought it was when I first started researching this piece. I came across a beautiful Ted Talk by Tabitha Mpamira-Kaguri: “We all carry batons we didn’t ask for- but we have not stopped to wonder, what are we carrying? Generations before maybe have passed on batons of hate for those who don’t look like you. Political affiliation that you never questioned- how does this affect your community? There’s a lot of silence around what we take for granted.” Can untreated, unprocessed intergenerational trauma shape a community’s culture? In this piece we consider just that - how individual reactions to significant traumatic events can, over time, shape patterns of behaviour that are followed down through the generations, resulting in the creation of culture. What else is culture but the behaviours that we pass on? Just a definition. Let’s talk about a theory that goes a long way toward explaining so many of our familial and societal behaviours; ones that have been accepted for so long that they don’t spark confusion until we start to examine them. Intergenerational trauma is a difficult theory to break down but an important one to understand. It refers to the “residual impact of a traumatic event that is transmitted across generations through storytelling and behavioural and relational patterns”. There are three types: Psychological Trauma - Significant incidents and out-of-the-norm events that happen in an individual’s life, so overwhelming that they often become paralysed, rather than triggering a flight-or-fight response. Examples of this kind of trauma include sexual abuse, or the suicide of a loved one. May be associated with self-blame, shame, embarrassment or self-hatred. Mass Trauma - Usually life-threatening traumatic events experienced by a large number of people simultaneously. Examples of this may include natural disasters, nuclear events, terrorism and hostage situations. May lead to an increase in wariness and fear of area and circumstances trauma occurred in. Collective social trauma - Man-made events, usually at the hands of the state or powerful groups. Often classed as activities carried out over a long period of time by one group to affect the functioning of another (usually smaller) group overtime, to decrease their social influence. Examples of this are colonisation, war, genocide, famine - events that disrupt social patterns and rituals previously practised. It may deprive a collective group of people of their control over their communities and way of life. An example close to home. The examples of intergenerational trauma are many and varied, and each deserve their own breakdowns and analysis, but in this piece we will mostly be focusing on the writer’s experiences within her own Afghan community in Sydney and similar migrant communities. In saying this, we cannot talk about intergenerational trauma without addressing one of the most important and well-chronicled instances of it in our own country, of the devastation of colonial violence on Aboriginal Australian communities. This trauma was so disruptive to their way of life previous to the invasion (including the devastating carry-on effects of such horrific sustained processes as the Stolen Generation) that its effects are still being felt now by their descendants. This is why it’s important to understand this concept, listen to their stories and realise that their ongoing pain cannot be brushed off as “it’s time to move on already”. It is so important for policies and reforms to be put in place with Aboriginal Australians at the forefront to even attempt to remedy the generations of trauma caused. How it’s passed down. When unprocessed trauma gets passed down unwittingly disguised as cultural beliefs and norms, it often ingrains itself into the continued fabric of our culture. This is why it’s so important to treat. There are a few main models that describe how trauma is passed down. - Children whose parents have repressed and unresolved trauma unconsciously absorb it. - Through interaction with family dynamics and communication. - Through cultural beliefs and norms. My community is largely made up of people who have escaped four decades of war, with variations in what type of trauma they endured. This collective experience of the same devastating events over such a long period of time, without the necessary healing effect of such life-saving measures as therapy and medication, has meant that clear patterns can be seen in the way people parent, relate to one another and even the values we now hold dear. The generations of war have meant a ‘survive’ rather than ‘thrive’ style of parenting has endured, unchecked. Many of us have accepted since youth that if we were to step out of line in certain areas, like the education path that would be most desired, that the response from our parents and family would be catastrophic. In certain communities that have historically experienced poverty or prolonged instability, there is a constant need to ensure children’s safety and security, at whatever cost. Securing a child’s education means giving them the tools to survive in the world that they know. What Can We Do? There are steps we can collectively take to ensure that the generational cycle of trauma in our families and communities ends with us. The first step is always to pinpoint and acknowledge the problem. Identifying the behaviours we practice that might be the result of past trauma and understand that these exist within a complex context that has not been addressed in the way that it needed to be and still needs to be. Though we understand that therapy is not accessible to all, one of the best ways to address inherited trauma is to begin to attend therapy with the goal of identifying behaviours and learning to correct these on an individual level. If one person takes their healing in their own hands and does the work to overcome their detrimental habits and replace them with healthy new ones, this benefits the entirety of the family. This can then make it easier to practice open and honest communication to overcome the gaps between family members created by years of silencing, miscommunications and past traumas that were never addressed. Commit to the process of healing. Most often, it is confusing, hurtful and messy. It’s a process wherein people try to replace their old harmful habits and behaviours with new healthy ones, and this “cleaning out” can result in even more fighting, clashes and inconsistency for a long time. In her TED Talk, Brandy Wells gives the example of spurs of harsh discipline and then complete lack of boundaries with parents trying to unlearn their harmful inherited trauma as an example of the messiness of healing, but it's a necessary step in eradicating certain potentially self-preserving behaviours that no longer have a place. We cannot expect to burden ourselves with the responsibility to “fix” decades of trauma in the systems and people around us. Doing the work to end intergenerational trauma with us is how we ensure that it doesn’t become woven into the fabric of our society and affect generations to come. “Every woman who heals herself, heals her children’s children.” - Liezel Graham Lead Editor: Tahmina R. Bibliography Barron, I. & Abdallah, G. (2015) Intergenerational Trauma in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: Effect on Children and Promotion of Healing. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma. [Online] 8 (2), 103–110. Carranza, M. E. (2010) Intergenerational Trauma. P.574–576. Dragojlović, A. et al. (2018) Knowing the past affectively: Screen media and the evocation of intergenerational trauma. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. [Online] 17 (1), 119–133. TEDx Talks (2019). Trauma not Transformed is Trauma Transferred. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4loBphYCXI [Accessed 13 Feb. 2020]. TEDx Talks (2019). Breaking Generational Cycles of Trauma. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXbg6e-A9V4 [Accessed 13 Feb. 2020]. Grand, S. & Salberg, J. (2017) Trans-generational trauma and the other : dialogues across history and difference . [Online]. London ;: Routledge. Stanek, D. (n.d.) Bridging past and present: Embodied intergenerational trauma and the implications for dance/movement therapy. Body, movement and dance in psychotherapy. [Online] 10 (2), 1–12. Australianstogether.org.au. (2020). Australians Together | Intergenerational trauma. [online] Available at: https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/the-wound/intergenerational-trauma/ [Accessed 17 Feb. 2020].

Mariam. H I remember the first time I realised that my parents’ marriage would be considered arranged. I just couldn’t quite reconcile my headstrong mother and my opinionated, anti-establishment father taking part in something that was so regressive and backwards. There was something shameful about it, like they had been part of something terrible and didn’t even know it. A friend of mine told me that throughout her schooling, she would avoid conversations about how her parents met, as these would always end with a classmate asserting, “oh my parents actually fell in love, it wasn’t arranged or anything”, as though this was a badge of legitimacy for their existence. I remember when I asked my mother, “why?” She simply responded, “It’s just how we did things, it wasn’t strange for us”. Why is Arranged Marriage Backwards? Before we get to the heart of it all, let’s clarify some points: 1. Arranged marriage is simply a matrimonial arrangement that has been organised exclusively by a third-party. In the past, this was often done by parents, older relatives, or professional matchmakers. Today these options have been joined by online services like E-Harmony or Hinge. 2. Arranged marriage is not forced marriage. While there is often a tendency to conflate arranged marriage with forced marriage, the two are conceptually and legally different, and so this piece will exclusively focus on the former. We all know forced marriage is extremely illegal and highly unethical. 3. There will be no discussions or comparisons about the superiority of one type of spousal arrangement over another. Frankly, picking a side is oddly juvenile, and is like trying to decipher the secret to happiness. Arranged marriage has a bit of an image problem. Research looking at depictions of arranged marriage in the mainstream print media found it to be overwhelmingly negative (Roger, 2011). The articles about it were highly sensationalised, with a focus on violence, Islam and family honour. There also seems to be a clear dichotomy between an arranged marriage and one wherein the partners found each other, termed a ‘love’ marriage. The discussion surrounding arranged marriage is often quite loaded, with questions of its progressiveness and its relevance in modern life. Why are arranged marriages looked down upon in comparison to ‘love’ marriages? We need to examine our own inherent biases as a society and why we view some concepts as ‘right’ and others as ‘wrong’. Once we unpack them, we realise that there is no absolute truth. The way arranged marriage and the cultures which practice it are discussed is not unique. The assertion of hegemonic Western ideas as the norm is predominant on a societal level, especially as globalisation continues to do its thing. As the world has gotten bigger and the fish in the sea have multiplied, so to speak, it’s become harder to catch one, and we’ve seen a rise in organisations and matchmaking services that work in a very similar way to what would be considered arranged marriage. We are even on the third season of self-styled “relationship experts” putting together random people in shows like ‘Married At First Sight’. And yet all of this is somehow more socially acceptable than your local parlour Aunty setting up Ahmed and Fatima. It makes me think - is there a RACIALISED element to all of this?! Is marriage (really) just between two people? Modern Western discourse surrounding arranged marriage often sees it as contradictory to personal freedom and individual agency. The idea of an external source, especially an older relative, acting as the catalyst for marriage is not only unsexy, but seems almost impossible in a culture fostered by the narrative that ‘love conquers all’. In the Eurocentric ideal of romantic love, marriage is applauded as the union of individuals. Two halves of a whole, two peas in a pod. Yet, this version of marriage is not transferable to other cultures. In many collectivist cultures, wherein the nuclear family is not the basic functional unit of society, marriages are the union of two whole families. This point is illustrated beautifully in a New York Times piece by Farahad Zama, relaying the story of his own marriage. Zama writes that a key factor in choosing his wife was that she was from the same village as him. His family also really supported this because there would be no need for a split holiday, and because they would already be spending so little time with them. What struck me was that the marriage was seen as a union of families and lives, even before there was a marriage at all. Within this context, the marriage, though a rite of passage, did not mean the separation and creation of a new family, but the addition to and continuation of an existing one. It’s not that there wasn’t any agency or choice in the matter, just that other considerations were kept in mind. In his piece, Zama comments on the differences between him and his wife, and questions whether they would have married at all if they had met in a more Western dating fashion or if they’d have “given up on each other and moved on, searching for the perfect ‘one’.” It is a choice; it may not be a choice you would make or even understand, but that doesn’t make it lesser or incorrect. Why Are Eurocentric Practices The Norm? It wasn’t until later in life that I understood what my mother had meant when she said, ‘it just wasn’t strange for us.’ Lost under my genuine failure to understand a decision I had no context for, was my unquestioned acceptance of Eurocentric lifestyle practices as the norm. It was the underlying understanding that ‘love’ marriages were superior and more progressive than arranged marriage. While both types of unions are rooted in the associated value systems of their respective society, there is a tendency to derogate the “Other”, regarding one’s own practises as not only superior but “normal”. Within that mindset, anything outside of that norm is deviant and wrong. In the case of arranged marriage, it is viewed as archaic, with people often exclaiming, “how could anyone marry someone they don’t really know?” But even in a love marriage, the person you marry isn’t going to always be the person you marry. You’ll continue to learn about each other, again and again, for years to come. The journey may be different but the end result is the same. It’s your way or the highway We attribute much of our personal values and beliefs as inherently our own, but in fact they are derived from the external social forces of our broader context and influenced by cultural expectation. We understand that today’s world is informed by a number of historical factors. Secondly, cultural specificity already determines how we value certain practices and how they are perceived. Across the world, there are significant distinctions between what humans value, how they perceive the world, and what they do in their everyday lives. This is why it is important that we question our everyday thinking and ‘common sense’ assumptions. In doing this we can recognise that something can be true for us without being ‘right’ for someone else, and that’s ok. In the wise words of my 11-year old cousin, “We look at them and think how weird it is that they do this, but you know what, I bet they look at the way we do it and think the exact same thing.” Disclaimer: the writer of this article is not married, and is not planning on marriage (arranged or otherwise) any time in the foreseeable future. Sorry mum. Lead Editor: Irisa R. Bibliography Batabyal, A A., 2018. "What meeting your spouse online has in common with arranged marriage". The Conversation. Accessed at: https://theconversation.com/what-meeting-your-spouse-online-has-in-common-with-arranged-marriage-93839 Cherlin, A., 2018. "Marriage has become a trophy". The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/03/incredible-everlasting-institution-marriage/555320/ Duggi, D.B. and Kamble, S.V., 2015. Relationship satisfaction and attachment of couples in arranged marriage and love marriage. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 6(2). Giddens, A., 1992. ‘Love commitment and the Pure relationship’, in Anthony Giddens The transformation of intimacy, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 49-64. Penn, R., 2011. Arranged marriages in Western Europe: Media representations and social reality. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42(5), pp.637-650. Van Krieken, R. & Van Krieken, R. (2010) Sociology . 4th ed. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W: Pearson. Zami, R., 2009. Modern Love: First Comes Marriage. The New York Times. Accessed at: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/fashion/07love.html