nonsibicunctis February 26, 2020 at 1:24 pm

I fully support your actions in attempt to have this award rescinded.

Sadly, the whole awards scheme is a nonsensical charade.

Awards are clearly given on the basis of who you know or Being someone, the granting of an award to whom, those in power feel will give them kudos and popularity.

Consider the number of sports personalities who have been given awards. Why? Evidently because they have had the good fortune to be talented and able to excel at playing a game in order to earn a living. I have every admiration for most of those type of recipients but don’t believe that excelling at sport deserves a national award. Nor do the so called contributions of many others who receive them, particularly politicians and business people.

Within our community there are thousands of individuals who make massive and selfless contributions and the majority of them do so quietly, seeking no celebrity nor recompense save the good feeling they derive from being of service. Surely it is those people, if anyone, who deserve to be recognised.

In reality, however, it seems to me that the awards are simply a continuation of the elitist and patronising gestures of the powerful and privileged. Far from recognising real community service they actually serve to continue difference and hierarchy in social structures and hence division in society.

Currently we have the absurdity of Bettina Arndt’s award being reviewed whilst, as Ken points out, that of a child abuser seems not to bother at all those in charge of the awards.

This appears even more starkly stupid when considered that the review of Bettina Arndt’s award has been precipitated by the hysteria of a certain type of feminist, on spurious grounds, at best. Most of these complainants and the reporters who have spread the outrage probably never even saw or attended the live interview in which the detective was supposed to have supported the perpetrator of the crime rather than the victims.

In fact, instead of the usual, pre-scripted, opaque and cliched statements so commonly provided by the police, this detective gave a lengthy, emotional and informative address that provided the context and reality to domestic violence and the horror of this particular event.

In no way did he condone the commission of this crime, nor was he an apologist for the perpetrator. What the simple-minded and/or over zealous and prejudiced feminists who complained did was to take one particular comment right out of context and present it as though it was in some direct way a dismissal of the serious issue of violence against women and somehow an excuse for the male perpetrator involved.

In fact, what the detective did do was to indicate that domestic violence and the issues that contribute to it are complex. He spoke about some of the elements that contribute to violence escalating and did so in an inclusive way that considered the two sides or viewpoints that are evident in domestic violence situations. In doing so he did not in any way condone the violence. What he spoke of in terms of the male perpetrator was the possibility of him having been driven ‘too far’. It is this that was picked up and used to pillory him as though he condoned what had happened and was dismissing the distress and horrendous circumstance that women often undergo in situations of domestic conflict.

It is totally inappropriate that this detective had to stand down and is being pilloried. Not one of the reporters present at the interview accused him of any misconduct or problematic comments within his address and nor should they have for there were none.

I have no particular love of the police and have been unjustly victimised by them on several occasions, including being incarcerated without charge or reason and having broken no laws nor harmed anyone. I was myself a police officer, in the armed services. I have experienced having to work with officers whom, in my view, had an aggressive and poor attitude to any potential or actual offender. The call-outs that most of my colleagues and myself hated most were those to ‘domestics’ at married quarters on the bases. For the police who attended such incidents it was a no-win situation. In those case you are damned whatever you do.

I mention my own experiences only to point out that my motivation for the stance I take in this matter is not motivated by association with the Queensland or any other police service and because I understand that there are many complexities in domestic conflicts and those situations can and do at times drive one or other or both parties, ‘too far’. That is simple fact and there is plenty of evidence to be had from mental health practitioners and studies to show how such behaviour occurs and how it can accelerate or be exacerbated. To say so is not coincident with saying that violence or murder is o.k. It is simply to point out that there is probably no easy solution and that rarely is only one side responsible for the breakdown in relationships.

I have no particularly fond regard for Bettina Arndt’s rhetoric, either. However, in this instance her view is reasonable.

Mob mentality, which is what has been operative in the attacks on the detective in charge of the case and on Bettina Arndt’s comments, is never valid. That authorities have chosen to immediately act on the unfair and unreasonable complaints in this case and yet have ignored or dismissed those relating to a defrocked priest paedophile shows the hypocrisy rampant among those with power and influence and does no service to the public or to the cause of preventing violence to women.

Instead of such uninformed outbursts, what we need is rational and creative thinking that can produce ideas for action that will help to change a society that is constantly presenting poor role models, such as lauding aggression on the sports field and parsimonious hypocrisy and compassionless & deceitful decision making by our politicians, not to mention the predatory behaviour of those most respected of individuals – the clergy.

Reason, understanding, compassion, inclusivity, equity and transparency are what we need in our society, alongside rational decision making and an end to the bombardment of stories, anecdotes and accounts of ‘romantic love’ that fill trashy novels, appallingly bad television, misnamed as ‘reality’, innumerable turgid pop songs, and the socialisation purveyed by parents, schools and peer groups.