At a Bondi Beach Shooting Vigil, Two Political Figures Transformed Grief To Opportunism. It Is Unforgivable.
Grieving individuals crowded around a vast expanse of floral tributes behind the Bondi Pavilion this week, their tones quietly lifting in a timeless melody of harmony. Shalom, shalom, they whispered together, as sorrow descended like the grey clouds overhead.
The solemn intensity of the moment was suddenly shattered by shouts: “The Prime Minister must go”, followed by a rejoinder, “What exactly did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The song ceased. Confused, I looked over.
On the scene, positioned at the forefront of the crowd, flanked by formally dressed security personnel and journalists, stood two figures seen as some of the most egregious political opportunists ever to hold office to the Australian parliament.
Among the press of modestly dressed people, their faces etched by grief, the pair were conspicuous, dressed clearly to perform for the media.
Divisive Language Amid Shared Grief
One figure, who has political history has been defined by fostering division since entering public life, spoke about freedom and security and the ability to live “free from fear”. This individual declared she wanted hate preachers “dealt with”. And echoed the rallying call of her public persona, “Let’s get back the Australia I grew up in … I consider the individuals we are welcoming to the country. Certain nations they should not be permitted to migrate here.”
Some of the onlookers, including a individual in distinctive headwear, visibly approved of her hollow sentiments, raising their phones to record them and then moving even nearer for selfies. “We support you”, “You alone who speaks the truth.”
Others present shared this view.
“Australians reject extremism,” a volunteer told me, as he struggled to absorb her message. “Under her preferred policies I likely would not be able to be here.”
It follows that the nations of origin of the individuals lauded as “brave citizens” for sacrificing their lives to tackle the attackers—Syria and another—might not be on her approved list either.
An Attack on the Idea of the Nation Itself
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the predominant public sentiment has been that this was not just a focused killing against Jewish Australians, but an assault on the very idea of the nation being an welcoming community where equity and acceptance were considered virtues, safety for most people was commonplace, and religion did not play a defining role.
The fact this could happen in a place that evokes joy, a site that vies with the country's most famous symbol as an international calling card, was profoundly shocking. History shows that for terrorism to work its evil, iconic locations are often the preferred objectives and innocent people the collateral damage.
It is the reaction from leaders should so quickly turn to opportunism, vitriol and hair-splitting—concerning whether to tackle the evident flaws in the country's much-vaunted firearms regulations or the problem of prejudice—was an perhaps more telling marker of the era we live in.
Naturally, both must be confronted, with gravity and meaningfully, not merely by invoking procedure, announcing reviews or calling for more monitoring.
A Failure of Duty and the Rise of a Cynical Pantomime
Australians are not alone in struggling with difficult conversations that require more than superficial answers, but when the major parties—even in the face of tragedy—fail to find consensus on the fundamentals, that is a abdication of their responsibility.
After hearing the self-aggrandising comments, I was nonetheless stunned to hear a quip as she moved through the crowd to depart the vigil: “Perhaps I'll carry an Israeli flag into the parliament and see what they do.” To turn this profound loss, which touches on what commentators have called a deep schism in the nation’s soul, into a crude performance is beyond the pale.
This past year, so much of what was once unthinkable has become almost routine. Hateful bigoted, sexist and antisemitic rhetoric has been celebrated under the phoney rubric of open dialogue, vitriolic groups online have been left unchecked, and anxiety has become widespread. It is hardly unexpected that under these conditions some people become susceptible to divisive figures.
Some call this period a “pivotal moment”—a time when we glimpsed a potential cruel order, driven by those with unaccountable influence and wealth. We can only hope that the assessment of pollsters is correct when they note that the public recognize those who “seek to exploit grief, search for scapegoats and turn fear into a divisive tool.”
We cannot allow this cynical political pantomime become the accepted standard. Tackling it will require resolve, bravery and selflessness, like that displayed by the ordinary citizens who followed their impulses to protect others at whatever cost.