Australian Politics
Sunday, February 12, 2023
Not everything should be a culture war, but the left started it
Parnell Palme McGuinness writing below. Her name immediately told me she is the daughter of the late P.P. McGuiness, an economics writer who was for a long time the major voice of economic reality in Australian journalism. And in her writing she is a worthy successor to him. I was a little thrown by her mention of German ancestry. Did Paddy marry a German lady? I can find no mention of his marriage. She says her mother was from East Germany but married an Australian, so I guess that was Paddy
Last Sunday, Anthony Albanese told an audience at Labor-aligned think tank the Chifley Research Centre that people with questions about the Voice are “trying to start a culture war”.
Wars are bad, and culture wars are boring. Nobody wants to be constantly at war. Must we frame this latest issue of public policy in terms of war, I wondered? Is every disagreement a culture war? Must everything be a fight?
What the hell even is a culture war? The term is so loosely used that it sometimes seems it’s just an insult or a way to dodge an argument. But the term has serious history. It derives from the German kulturkampf (yes, we wacky Krauts have a word for everything) which was originally used to describe a clash in 19th century Germany between a head of government and the head of the church.
So it started as a struggle between church and state, with all the moral implications that brought with it, and has now come to be used to describe – in the words of the European Centre for Populism Studies – a “cultural conflict between social groups and the struggle for dominance of their values, beliefs, and practices”.
James Davis Hunter, the sociologist credited with making the term “culture wars” popular, gave examples of some areas in which they rage in the subtitle to his 1991 book Culture Wars: The Struggle To Control The Family, Art, Education, Law, And Politics.
The trouble with that is it describes pretty much every source of disagreement that matters.
We can agree to disagree on chocolate or strawberry-flavoured icecream, but just about everything else – so help us contestable deity! – is rooted in values and morality which do not allow compromise.
These days it’s usually the left that accuses the right of waging culture wars whenever there is any resistance to progressive policies. But as Republican Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders made explicit in her response to US Democrat President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, conservatives reject the idea that they are the aggressors in the war over culture.
“Most Americans simply want to live their lives in freedom and peace,” she said. “But we are under attack in a left-wing culture war we didn’t start and never wanted to fight.”
This is a point increasingly being made by the right: along the lines of “we were just moseying along, minding our own cultural business, when progressives jumped out and attacked everything society holds sacred”.
The right is right, to some degree. By definition, it was not conservatives who were seeking a conflict over social values. They were busy conserving the ones we already had. It is progressivism that challenges those social norms, claiming it’s time to move on. To progress to a better place.
And voila, there’s your culture war. From the perspective of conservatives, it’s equivalent to having your house burgled, so you fight back. From the perspective of progressives, they’re peacefully Marie Kondoing a bunch of smelly old values that no longer spark joy, when suddenly the right attacks.
It’s helpful to understand this as we tackle the big-ticket culture issue of this year, the Indigenous Voice to parliament. Even the people who are deadset against it are not, as Albanese claimed, “trying to start a culture war”. Rather, they are acutely aware of the ongoing cultural wrestle in which we are all immersed.
Putting the Voice into the context of replacing the prayer at the beginning of official functions with the Acknowledgment of Country, reinterpreting Australia Day from being a day of national unity to a day of shame, and replacing King Charles with a to-be-determined First Nations person on the $5 note, Sky presenter and Daily Telegraph national affairs editor James Morrow argued this week that “progressives have been conducting a quiet guerrilla war against the symbols and traditions of ‘old’ Australia”. This view sees the Voice as a Trojan horse aimed at trashing, tearing down and ultimately replacing everything British settlers brought to Australia – including, eventually, liberal democracy.
If you think that’s a stretch, just consider the words and actions of Senator Lidia Thorpe, who this week left the Greens because she believes the Voice – as proposed by the prime minister – won’t guarantee to do all of these things. And she’s not alone in wanting a maximalist Voice.
In response to Peta Credlin’s warning that “should this Voice pass … Australia Day will change; there will be more demands to rewrite history; and there will be a multitude of treaties at all levels of government between our country and small groups of citizens”, online publication Crikey dryly observed that it “turns out a lot of positive things could happen if the Voice to parliament passes”.
That’s a million miles away from what most Australians like best about the Voice proposal. Namely, that it will give Indigenous Australians constitutional recognition and a say in their own affairs.
They don’t want a culture war any more than Anthony Albanese does. But you can’t wish away a culture war by accusing the other side of starting it. Only by admitting that we are, whether mildly or wildly, all engaged in the cultural negotiation can we ensure we keep sensible talks alive. The people who desperately want the best of what we have, as well as the best of what we have yet to build, are the ones best placed to stand up for a compromise that they consider acceptable.
I get it. Nobody wants to be part of a war, let alone a culture war. But we must engage or risk ceding the ground to extremists. As the prime minister asked last Sunday: if not now, then when? And if not us, then who?
****************************************************
Climate groups fear a key government policy to drive down emissions will instead push them up
Climate advocates are insisting changes be made to one of the federal government's key emissions-reduction tools, warning it currently risks perversely allowing emissions to increase.
The Australian Conservation Foundation and other climate advocacy groups have raised concerns about the role carbon credits will play in the reshaped "safeguard mechanism", which will be used to force heavy emitters to cut their pollution.
The safeguard mechanism will cap the emissions of the 215 heaviest-polluting companies — like coal producers, steelmakers and airlines — and force those who breach their cap to either trade emissions with other companies or buy carbon credits.
The use of carbon credits is not limited by the scheme, so companies can theoretically operate as normal and buy credits to cover their emissions over the cap.
The ACF is pointing to new analysis it commissioned from global research firm Climate Analytics, which found allowing those companies unlimited use of carbon credits would "very likely fail to reduce emissions".
The analysis raises fresh concerns about the usefulness of carbon credits in reducing emissions, arguing forcing companies to actually reduce emissions is highly preferable.
"The proposal … would only serve to enable the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels," the report finds.
"Instead of reducing emissions, as is urgently needed, this proposal would provide an avenue for fossil fuel companies to continue polluting at the expense of Australians – and indeed the world — facing worsening climate change impacts."
Controversial credits
The use and usefulness of carbon credits is highly contested within climate policy discussion.
Carbon credits effectively aim to counterbalance emissions.
Credits are created by either avoiding emissions (for example, through burning landfill gas), or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (through tree-planting and regenerating forest on cleared land).
Those credits can then be sold to companies to counteract the pollution they create.
Significant criticisms of Australia's carbon crediting scheme prompted a major review, led by former chief scientist Ian Chubb, which found the scheme is fundamentally sound.
It did make a number of recommendations for change, going to better oversight of the scheme and its integrity, changing rules for those burning landfill gas, and abandoning the "avoided deforestation" method of creating credits.
While the changes have been broadly welcomed, the Chubb review has done little to satisfy many of the carbon credit scheme's strongest critics.
Bill Hare, one of the authors of the Climate Analytics study, said he did not think the review dealt fully with questions around "additionality" — that is, whether or not the action creating the carbon credit would have simply happened anyway.
He said there was enough available evidence to hold significant doubts.
"A significant fraction of the human-induced regeneration credits would probably have happened in the absence of a carbon-unit generating scheme," he said.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen has previously defended the integrity of carbon credits, and their role in the safeguard mechanism.
He argues the credits provide necessary flexibility for companies that will struggle to cut emissions dramatically until new technology is developed.
"Carbon credits are important, they are a complement to emissions reduction at the facility level, at the coal face, if you will," he said.
"They will not ever replace that, but they are an important part of the journey, and I'm absolutely determined that there will be rigour."
Emissions offset, but for how long?
The analysis also raises questions about how long emissions have to be offset for.
Under the current Australian carbon credit unit (ACCU) scheme, credits either last 25 years or 100 years depending on their design.
After that period, stored carbon (carbon captured in trees or soil, for example) no longer has to be maintained — it can simply be released back into the atmosphere.
But Climate Analytics argues that those time frames are far too short.
It points to research suggesting that for every tonne of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, 40 per cent will remain a century on, and more than 20 per cent will remain after 1,000 years.
The report argues that means carbon credits cannot permanently offset emissions over the long term.
"After [either 25 or 100 years], when carbon is ultimately lost from ACCU projects, as is likely over longer time frames, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would be higher than if the offset scheme had not been used in the first place, and instead an emission reduction was made at its source."
*************************************************************
‘Undeniable trend’: Boys’ schools feel the pressure to go co-ed
Next year Knox Grammar – one of the state’s largest schools – will have educated boys at its upper north shore campus for a century.
In that time, the private school has expanded from a single Federation-era house to vast and manicured grounds spanning almost 10 hectares. But the school’s motto “virile agitur” – a Latin phrase that translates to “do the manly thing” – has stayed the same.
Founded as a Presbyterian boys’ school with about two dozen students, it now has more than 3120 enrolments. Knox’s major expansion gathered pace in the early 2000s when it overhauled its boarding centre, “great hall”, 500-seat aquatic centre and the senior school.
But even under the weight of its all-boys history, principal Scott James acknowledges Knox “cannot be a standalone institution”, and “must provide opportunities for boys and girls to socialise and integrate”.
“Single-sex schools compared with co-educational schooling is an important educational conversation we have at Knox,” James said. “There is an abundance of research showing both pros and cons for each type of educational model.”
Establishing relationships with nearby girls’ private schools – Ravenswood, Pymble Ladies College and Abbotsleigh – has been key in allowing the school “to provide supervised activities that offer co-educational learning experiences”.
“We are now looking at shared study sessions with Abbotsleigh,” he said.
Eight years ago, The Armidale School famously became the first of the elite Athletic Association of Great Public Schools (GPS) to open their doors to girls. A former principal described the move as part of “an almost unstoppable wave”, after seeing a shift from single-sex to co-ed in all but the oldest schools in Britain.
Britain’s Winchester College, the 640-year-old alma mater of UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, has now joined the pack. Girls can enrol at the $78,000-a-year Hampshire school in sixth form, and Queenwood’s principal Elizabeth Stone will become head of the school this year, the first woman to lead the college.
Across Sydney, the pressure for boys’ private schools to look to admit girls is rising, and parents and alumni are making their voices heard.
A push by tech billionaire Scott Farquhar for Cranbrook to go co-ed was heavily backed by a group of former students who said private boys’ schools foster attitudes and behaviours that are no longer acceptable in broader society.
While that school’s final decision to admit girls by 2026 was not achieved without pain, one school council member believes will be the first of many eastern suburbs schools that will eventually make the co-ed leap.
Scandal hasn’t helped the case for private boys’ schools. Prominent Sydney schools such as Knox, Trinity and The King’s School all featured in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Knox – which charges fees up to $37,600 – most recently hit headlines after 20 students were expelled or suspended after sharing racist and homophobic videos, messages and rantings on violent misogyny via an online chat group.
In the past year alone, Waverley College expelled six students over bullying that involved “assault and humiliation-type behaviours”, the incident sparking an external investigation and calls for a cultural audit at the school; while Cranbrook was forced to undertake a detailed internal review after reports of anti-Semitic bullying.
At Newington College, a possible shift to co-ed is also on the table, with the school putting the idea to its community last February. In a message to parents in November, the school’s chairman Tony McDonald said no decisions had been made.
“Council has delved into research and looked further at other schools both here and overseas,” McDonald said. “We have commissioned independent experts to distil strategic opportunities ... and we are also deep in the process of interrogating foundational operational questions.”
The debate is unfolding against a backdrop of decline in single-sex schools: the number of private single-sex schools fell in the past decade even as the number of independent schools rose. There are now 68 private single-sex schools, down from 79 in 2012.
Data from the Association of Independent Schools NSW shows all-boys schools made up 7 per cent of the 511 private schools across the state last year.
**************************************************************
United Nations power grab thwarted
Malcolm Roberts of the "One Nation" party:
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/shocking-who-pandemic-treaty-update
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Evelyn Rae, a 
Sahara Ray is undoubtedly a good-looking woman. Since she is Australian-born there is even a possibility that we may be distantly related
No comments:
Post a Comment