Mourners gathered around a sprawling sea of flowers behind the Bondi Pavilion this week, their tones quietly lifting in a traditional melody of harmony. Shalom, shalom, they intoned in unison, while sorrow settled in akin to the leaden clouds above.
The solemn atmosphere of the moment was suddenly broken by shouts: “The Prime Minister must go”, and then a retort, “What did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The song stopped. Bewildered, I looked over.
There, positioned at the front of the crowd, surrounded by formally dressed security personnel and the press, stood two figures seen as some of the most egregious opportunists ever to hold office to the Australian parliament.
Among the press of somberly dressed attendees, their faces contorted by sadness, the duo stood out, attired as if to play for the media.
Divisive Rhetoric Amid Shared Mourning
One figure, who has career has been marked by creating discord since entering politics, talked about liberty and security and the right to live “free from fear”. She stated she wanted purveyors of hate “dealt with”. And reiterated the central theme of her public persona, “Let’s get back the Australia I remember from my youth … I look at the people we are bringing to the country. Certain countries they should not be permitted to migrate here.”
Some of the onlookers, among them a man in distinctive headwear, visibly approved of her empty words, raising their phones to capture them and then pressing even nearer for selfies. “We support you”, “You’re the only one who tells the truth.”
Others present shared this view.
“Australians reject extremism,” a volunteer told me, as he found it difficult to process her comments. “Under her preferred policies I wouldn’t be able to be here.”
Presumably the nations of origin of the civilians lauded as “brave citizens” for offering their lives to tackle the attackers—Syria and Russia—would not be on her approved list either.
A Violent Act on the Idea of Australia
Following directly from the violence, the overwhelming public sentiment has been that this was not just a focused killing against Jewish Australians, but an assault on the core notion of the nation being an welcoming society where equity and tolerance were held as virtues, safety for most people was commonplace, and faith did not play a determining role.
That this could happen in a place that brings happiness, a venue that rivals the country's most iconic symbol as an global representation, was profoundly shocking. History shows that for terror to achieve its aim, symbolic places are always the chosen targets and innocent people the tragic consequence.
That the political response should so rapidly turn to self-interest, vitriol and pointless debate—about whether to address the evident weaknesses in the nation’s often-praised firearms regulations or the scourge of antisemitism—was an perhaps more powerful marker of the times we live in.
Of course, both must be confronted, seriously and substantially, not merely by hiding behind process, referring to inquiries or calling for more monitoring.
A Dereliction of Duty and the Rise of a Cruel Spectacle
Australians are not alone in struggling with difficult conversations that demand more than simplistic responses, but when the major parties—even after such a loss—fail to agree on the fundamentals, that is a abdication of their core duty.
After hearing the self-aggrandising remarks, I was nonetheless taken aback to hear a flippant comment while she moved through the crowd to depart the memorial site: “Next time wear an Israeli flag into the house and see what they do.” To reduce this deep tragedy, which touches on what some have called a deep schism in the nation’s soul, into a political pantomime is beyond the pale.
This past year, so much of what was once unimaginable has become almost routine. Hateful racist, misogynist and antisemitic language has been celebrated under the false guise of free speech, angry mobs on the internet have been left unchallenged, and fear has become pervasive. It is hardly unexpected that under these conditions some people become prey to demagogues.
Some call the current era a “pivotal moment”—a time when we glimpsed a potential inhumane order, driven by those with untouchable influence and resources. We can only hope that the assessment of pollsters is accurate when they note that people recognize those who “seek to exploit grief, hunt for easy targets and turn anxiety into a wedge.”
We cannot allow this cynical theatrical display become the accepted standard. Addressing it will require determination, courage and humility, of the kind that displayed by the ordinary citizens who followed their instincts to protect others at whatever cost.
