Mourners crowded around a sprawling sea of flowers near the iconic pavilion on Tuesday, their tones quietly rising in a traditional melody of harmony. Shalom, shalom, they intoned together, while sorrow settled in like the grey clouds overhead.
This solemn atmosphere of the occasion was suddenly broken by cries: “Albo must go”, and then a retort, “What did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The singing ceased. Confused, I glanced around.
On the scene, positioned at the forefront of the assembly, flanked by besuited security personnel and the press, stood two figures seen as some of the most blatant political opportunists ever to hold office to the Australian parliament.
Amid the press of modestly dressed attendees, their expressions etched by sadness, the pair stood out, dressed clearly to perform for the cameras.
Divisive Rhetoric In Shared Mourning
A prominent politician, whose career has been marked by fostering division since first entering politics, spoke about freedom and safety and the right to live “without fear”. She declared she wanted purveyors of hate “rounded up”. She reiterated the rallying call of her career, “We must return to the Australia I grew up in … I look at the individuals we are bringing to the country. Some nations they should not be permitted to migrate here.”
Some of the crowd, among them a man in particular headwear, clearly approved of her empty words, holding up their phones to record them and then moving even closer for selfies. “We support you”, “You’re the only one who tells the truth.”
Others present agreed.
“Australians do not accept extremes,” one volunteer told me, while he struggled to process her comments. “If she had her way I likely would not be allowed to be here.”
It follows that the homelands of the individuals lauded as “heroes” for sacrificing their lives to confront the attackers—one nation and Russia—might not be on her permissible list as well.
A Violent Act on the Idea of Australia
In the immediate aftermath from the attack, the overwhelming national feeling has been that this was not just a targeted killing against members of the Jewish community, but an attack on the very idea of the country as an inclusive society where fairness and acceptance were held as virtues, safety for the majority was commonplace, and faith did not play a determining role.
The fact this could happen in a location that evokes happiness, a site that vies with the country's most iconic symbol as an global calling card, was breathtaking. History shows that for terrorism to achieve its aim, iconic locations are always the chosen objectives and innocent people the collateral damage.
That the reaction from leaders should so quickly turn to opportunism, name-calling and pointless debate—about whether to tackle the evident weaknesses in the nation’s often-praised gun laws or the problem of antisemitism—was an even more powerful indication of the era we live in.
Naturally, both must be confronted, with gravity and meaningfully, not merely by hiding behind procedure, announcing reviews or demanding more surveillance.
A Failure of Duty and the Rise of a Cynical Pantomime
The public are not alone in struggling with hard conversations that require more than simplistic answers, but when the primary political groups—even in the face of such a loss—cannot agree on the fundamentals, that is a abdication of their responsibility.
After hearing the self-aggrandising comments, I was still stunned to overhear a quip as she moved through the gathering to depart the memorial site: “Next time wear an symbol into the house and see what they do.” To reduce this deep loss, which touches on what some have called a deep schism in the country's psyche, into a political pantomime is inexcusable.
This past year, so much of what was once unimaginable has become virtually routine. Vile racist, misogynist and antisemitic rhetoric has been celebrated under the phoney rubric of open dialogue, vitriolic groups online have been left unchallenged, and anxiety has become widespread. It is scarcely unexpected that under these conditions some individuals become prey to divisive figures.
Some call this period a “hinge year”—a phase when we caught sight of a potential inhumane reality, shaped by those with unaccountable power and resources. One must hope that the assessment of pollsters is accurate when they note that the public see through those who “seek to exploit grief, search for easy targets and convert anxiety into a divisive tool.”
We cannot allow this cynical political pantomime become the new normal. Tackling it will require determination, bravery and selflessness, like that displayed by the ordinary people who acted on their impulses to protect others at any cost.
