Page 1

Satire - Politics - Critique



Contents Letter from the Editor

Further Reading

President’s Report


Hear Both Sides

Special Thanks



Taking the PIS

Letter from the editor Connor O’Brien

Despite the vast number of political societies and interest groups that are active on campus, there is currently no publication designed to promote intersocietal discussion and engagement. Spectrum began as a vision for greater political debate, an ambitious attempt to restore some vigour to the once formidable university politics scene. Without contesting and re-contesting accepted principles, ideas and policies, our generation will be left intellectually deficient and politically polarised. Our university needs a forum to discuss the big issues facing our nation and the world. Spectrum seeks to fill that void. The publication team is immensely proud of what we have created. Women and POC representation is far higher than many other societies and publications. That is so important for creating a culture of intellectual engagement and debate, where the views of all identity and ideological groups are presented and discussed. The list of topics we have covered is comprehensive, ranging from R2P to feminism, traversing theory, international relations and satire. Most importantly, we have tried to present both sides of the story, vesting power in the reader to make up their mind on where they stand. I’d like to firstly thank Winona Horton for co-editing this publication and for her tireless work designing, formatting and organising Spectrum. Without her efforts, Spectrum would look like a sprawling set of high-school essays devoid of aesthetic appeal. I’d also like to thank Tim Mooney for building Spectrum’s layout from the ground up, using his expert graphic design and formatting skills. Tim’s deep knowledge of publishing was essential for actually finishing and printing Spectrum to the standard that it is. Additionally, we must give thanks to Trent Wilson (former PIS President) for supporting Spectrum from its inception and Anna Sartori for working with the University to ensure that the publication is financially viable. Finally, I’d like to

thank all of our fabulous contributors. Spectrum simply wouldn’t exist without your hard work. I hope you enjoy the first ever edition of Spectrum. We hope that it will become a mainstay of university political life into the future.

President’s Report Winona Horton

Spectrum began as an idea discussed over a grotty table in Union House. Anna, Connor and myself were crammed in, trying to acclimate to our new executive positions and discussing how we would like to see PIS develop over the next 12 months. We threw around all kinds of ideas for guest speakers, trivia nights and viewing parties while trying to navigate our transition documents and email logins. That led us to the realisation that UniMelb didn’t really have a politics focused magazine, and the vague idea that we should create one. This publication which you now hold in your hands is the beast it became. A huge thanks must go out to Anna Sartori, for her work to make this venture financially viable, as well as Connor O’Brien and Tim Mooney, who have both put an enormous amount of time, energy and passion into the editing and design of this magazine respectively. Without them it simply would not have been possible. As well as that, an enormous thank you to Trent Wilson and the 2016-17 committee for all their work throughout their term. This project would not have been possible without the strong foundation they left behind. Their organisation and leadership enabled the club to grow in both members and diversity throughout the past 18 months. Without them, both the club and this magazine would not have the variety of contributors and perspectives that they do. Since its election, the new committee has been working hard to build on the work of its predecessors. Our major project for the latter half of 2017 was this magazine which you’re about to read. We feel so lucky to have had such an outflow of support for this undertaking – it wouldn’t have been possible to create without you, the members. I speak on behalf of the whole committee when I say how lucky we feel to serve such a large, engaged and passionate group of people.

Some of our upcoming 2018 goals involve further increasing the inclusivity and diversity within the club, because without new perspectives there are no new discussions, and without discussion there’s no PIS. As well as that, we have some collaborative events in the works with other clubs which we’ll let you know more about throughout the year, on top of more trivia nights and guest speaker events. As always, keep an eye out for what’s coming up here’s to an amazing 2018!


For R2P

The United Nations developed the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to safeguard all human beings against crimes of mass violence such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. According to R2P advocates, these acts are so abhorrent that we need a humanitarian, rights-based imperative to prevent them from occurring. R2P does this by tying sovereignty to an obligation of the state to provide security for their people. The international community has the consequent responsibility to help states meet their obligations, and to intervene when the state is unwilling or unable to do so. While there are structural and political difficulties in implementing R2P, it is an important and conceptually sound framework. R2P recognises that states bear the primary burden to protect their populations from genocide and other forms of mass violence. Sovereignty gives states the authority to govern within a defined territory, but the purpose of this governance must be ensuring the well-being and security of its people. The state has a sovereign obligation to provide security to its citizens, as part of the principle of “sovereignty as responsibility.” R2P is an “ally of sovereignty, not an adversary” as the international community is meant to affirm state sovereignty by building up the protection capabilities of nations. When states have the necessary apparatus and resources to prevent and respond to outbreaks of mass violence, such as an effective police force and an independent judiciary, they can do so without foreign intervention. When states are unwilling or unable to properly respond to extreme human rights violations, the responsibility to protect is assumed more directly by the international community. Hence, R2P authorises states to use “appropriate and necessary” means to persuade or coerce nations into taking effective action. Where all diplomatic, political and economic pathways have been exhausted, and where the situation is extreme, military force may be authorised by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). R2P limits the use of violence to provisions of the existing UN Charter, but recognises there are times when violence is necessary as a last resort. Sovereignty should not be allowed to be a shield for a tyrannical government perpetrating or allowing mass violence to take place.

There is an imperative for the international community to intervene and not simply remain a neutral bystander where genocide or war crimes are taking place. Upholding “state security” has little meaning if there is no “human security” for the residents of that state. In 1994, the Rwandan genocide, for example, resulted in the death of some 800,000 Tutsis, because there was no effective force to halt the violence. R2P developed as a framework for the international community to provide an effective response in these situations. There are practical barriers to implementing R2P, but these do not detract from R2P as a concept. R2P faces challenges due to the often contradicting political interests of states. The structure of the UNSC enhances this by giving the permanent members veto power over resolutions authorising action. Russia, for example, has routinely vetoed resolutions putting more political or economic pressure on the Assad regime in Syria, despite egregious human rights abuses. Even when action is allowed, some states may be unwilling to commit the necessary resources to enforcing R2P against offending states. States may be particularly wary of committing to military intervention, which could become a prolonged and costly engagement. These are legitimate concerns, but do not take away from the idea that states and other members of the international community do have a responsibility to act. If acts of mass violence are allowed to continue, it is the fault of those who perpetrated the violence and those who stood by doing nothing, not the framework of R2P. We need to heed the lessons taught through violence during the 20th century. R2P provides a clear framework outlining the responsibility that states and the international community have in protecting people against extreme human rights abuses. If the members of the international community are committed to the conceptual provisions of R2P, the world may yet become free from the crimes of mass violence.

Benjamin Cronshaw

Against R2P “Humanitarian intervention” has long been a way for states to use moralistic language as a pretext for imperialist ambitions - the United States’ occupation of Haiti, Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland, and NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, to name a few. It was the abject failure of the latter, combined with the dire consequences of international inaction in Rwanda, which led to calls for a different system. This spawned the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which was first developed in the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report from 2001, and adopted at the UN World Summit Outcome in 2005. Although intended to solve the problems of humanitarian intervention, R2P ultimately falls victim to the same issues as its more overtly sinister predecessors. By failing to adequately address power inequalities within the international community, R2P places those it purports to protect at the mercy of its selective application by self-interested major powers. This inequality is evident in the illusion of consensus and the notion of an international community. R2P often derives legitimacy from the fact that it is the “international community”, rather than Western powers, acting to intervene. However, this viewpoint is predicated on the assumption that the international community is comprised of fundamentally equal states with equal powers a problematic illusion which is convenient for the powerful. The historical and continuing dominance of Western powers in international affairs, the media and NGOs determines who is considered a member of the international community. The validity of a representative international community is further eroded when considering the UN Security Council’s domination by its five permanent members and their veto power, which has been judiciously used by the United States and Russia to protect their interests in Israel and Syria respectively. These vetoes have prevented basic, non-military responses, and come in the wake of numerous condemnations of major crimes against populations that should certainly merit a response. The victims of atrocities in these countries have the poor luck of living somewhere where large powers have a vested interest in the status quo. Similarly unfortunate are the victims in countries to whom the “international community” is ambivalent - Sri Lanka and Sudan, for example. Furthermore, R2P is still being used to channel imperialist ambitions, as demonstrated by the

Libya intervention in 2011. This was the first military intervention to explicitly cite R2P, and managed to avoid vetoes from Russia and China due to support from the Arab League (these two countries and three others abstained). Although initially successful, it quickly escalated into a NATO-led regime change which resulted in the assassination and replacement of Gaddafi by a “friendlier” government. The massive bombing campaign also resulted in 72 civilian deaths according to Human Rights Watch estimates, which have been simply denied by NATO, and the perpetrators of which will never be held accountable. The simultaneous invocation of “responsibility” and the shirking of its every definition is indicative of the consequences for unchecked power. This is not to mention the myriad of threats to sovereignty presented in this case, which must be set aside for now. A conceptually sound version of R2P needs to address the problems of power inequality and selectivity which plague its current incarnation. R2P’s aims are noble - to develop clear guidelines for when and how states should intervene, and create a universal, ethical imperative to prevent atrocities. However, these aims are undermined by the vagueness of the doctrine’s current implementation, and the exploitation of this vagueness by powerful states pursuing their interests. An ideal version of R2P would not allow inaction in situations like Syria, and prevent overreaching geopolitical interference, as seen in Libya. This could partly be achieved by reducing the openness to interpretation that plagues much of R2P. Key concepts need to be clearly defined, and stringent criteria for intervention which demand action should be outlined. Finally, institutional checks on the powerful should be implemented, to hold states accountable for inaction, overreach, and their own responsibility to protect. This is not an insignificant concern; R2P’s current vague form exists due to the justified resistance of the global South towards the more detailed, but more pro-Western, ICISS report. Ultimately, as a collaborative project, the Responsibility to Protect needs to be founded in equality and trust. Without some acknowledgement of power inequality and its consequences, it’s hard to imagine the situation improving.

Alex Greggery


Following a growing ideological divide in the West, seen through increasingly violent clashes such as those at Charlottesville in the USA, many are now questioning whether the use of violence is justifiable in combating a resurgent far-right. Such a moral dilemma raises further questions around free speech, the use of violence in society, and how best to come to terms with ideological extremism.

question: How far are we willing to go to ensure that all of our values continue to be equally upheld? It is all very good to say that we must respect the views of all individuals, but what do we do when those views contradict the other values we hold dear? As previously stated, all values are about compromise, and no one principle can be allowed to remain unrestrained at the price of others.

On the right side of politics there is something of a fixation with the idea of free speech, and in America at least this is greatly due to an almost religious reverence for the Constitution and its amendments. Citing the Second Amendment, proponents of absolute free speech defend the right of individuals to espouse fascist and racist ideologies in public settings. What they do not seem to realise, however, is that Western Society is not built on just one value, but many. These values are not absolute; they must accommodate each other and sometimes this necessitates compromise. Freedom of speech, for example, while a highly valued principle, must be balanced against the equally important principles of equality, tolerance and equal opportunity. No single one of these can be absolutely enforced to the letter without sacrificing the other values. Therefore a society that values tolerance and equality must recognize that there are limits to freedom of speech.

Perhaps the most obvious and clearest example of the dangers of open tolerance for all beliefs is the transformation of the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich of Nazi Germany. While many complex factors enabled the rise of the Nazis, it clearly goes to show that a tolerant democracy alone is not a guarantee against extremist take-over, and that the moderate minds of the majority do not adequately defend against the fanaticism of an intolerant minority. In this case, it tragically led to a world war and the loss of millions upon millions of lives. This calamity cannot be understated, and no sympathy can be given by any sane mind to the abhorrent ideologies that caused it to take place. Our grandparents understood, in the face of such a threat, the need to punch Nazis. Punching Nazis is certainly nothing new. But today, now that the War has begun to fade from living memory, there are those who argue we must tolerate racist and fascist ideologies in order to ensure a healthy democracy. Such people contend that by trying to repress such beliefs, we will create resentment and push the far-right into even further extremism.

This concept was explored by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper through the ‘paradox of tolerance’. According to this theory, any society that is unboundedly tolerant will eventually be taken control of and destroyed by the intolerant. According to Popper, therefore, it is a right to be intolerant of those who are intolerant. In the current political landscape, we see how this paradox is currently playing out. The election of Trump in America, the Brexit vote in the UK and the return of Pauline Hanson in Australia all go to show that open societies can indeed be hijacked by intolerance. And although these groups may be a numerical minority in most instances, they are a vocal and influential minority. Logic and reason alone will not dissuade such from their causes. Western civilisation is currently at a crossroads, and we must ultimately ask ourselves this

In answer to that, one only need look at history. One need only look at where tolerance of intolerance has brought us in the past. It has brought us a World War, and in the current day it brings us growing support for Trump, Pauline Hanson, Nigel Farage and their ilk. In order to prevent their ideologies spreading further, we must cease to pretend that they have a place in our democracies. If necessary, and it must be stressed only in extreme cases, we must be willing to fight fire with fire, and show in the clearest terms that we reject their beliefs. By punching a few Nazis today, we might yet avoid having to punch so many more in the future.

Matthew Harper

Against PUNCHING NAZIS Western societies are collectively experiencing a political sclerosis. Disenfranchisement, apathy, and polarisation may manifest uniquely in each circumstance, but they are underpinned by a single commonality: we have lost faith in our founding liberal values.

Is violence justified in fighting fascism? Is it okay to punch Nazis in the face? These questions are merely symptoms of the moral and political malaise facing our society. What we are really asking is: does free speech have moral limits? Has classical liberalism reached its expiration date? The answer, on ethical, social, and political grounds, is a resounding no. It would be typical, to some, that a straight, white, middle-class male would defend the right to free speech of those who preach hatred towards ethnic minorities. This is not an accusation I bear lightly. However, if our ultimate goal is to prevent the spread of fascist and neo-Nazi ideologies, consider the following: the vast majority of voters who support Trump and Hanson, or attend Reclaim Australia rallies, are not committed to bringing about the creation of a white-ethno state. They do not return from a hard day’s work to gloss over the pages of Mein Kampf or read Richard Spencer’s blog. They are the victims of economic dislocation and often the losers of globalisation. If such a class-based analysis makes even an iota of sense, those on the left must ask themselves what is best: should we punch these people in the face, or should we offer them an alternative narrative? Instead of rallying against immigrants and minorities, the left should unite the losers of globalisation against neoliberalism, trickledown economics, and an increasingly out of touch political elite. A common response by those seeking to legitimise political violence is that neoNazis and fascists are beyond reason. After all, you can’t reason someone out of something they did not reason themselves into. Ostensibly this makes sense, however upon inspection it is the height of left-wing intellectual hubris. No one reasons themselves into their political beliefs. The staunch progressive attending a Milo Yiannopolous counter-protest is just as much a product of their

environment as any misguided right-wing bigot. This is not some endorsement of philosophical determinism – it is a fact of our moral psychology. The single biggest predictor of whether someone will be liberal or conservative is not their race, class, or gender, but rather their proclivity towards openness. Liberals are neurologically structured to more receptive to new experiences and radical change, whereas conservatives are inclined to prefer stability and order. In a cruel and pernicious irony, violent counter protests can help create a public perception of instability and lawlessness. Given that half the population will always be neurologically predisposed to view order and stability as a moral virtue, punching Nazi’s in the face can make the “fascist strongman” even more appealing. The far right knows this and has long deliberately provoked the left into violent clashes. The original Nazis marched through Jewish and communist towns for the same reason that Milo Yiannopolous tours left-wing campuses almost exclusively. Counter-protests help them spread their message and give them validity as the faux-protectors of free speech. As a political strategy, it is clear that violence isn’t pragmatically justified in fighting Nazism. But is it moral? Free speech is typically defended upon epistemological grounds, that its moral utility is found in its ability to help bring the truth to light. On this view, it is hard to see a free speech case for allowing Nazis and fascists the same rights and liberties as any other political advocate. On the contrary, many will argue that liberal ideals of free speech actually enable and empower fascism to seep into the mainstream discourse. Superficially, this may be true. But given that fascist sentiments ebb and flow with economic cycles, free speech acts as an early warning system. Indeed, there is a strong case to be made that self-censorship of right wing opinions meant that the mainstream media was not able to foresee the rise of Trump and the alt-right until it was too late. It is not enough for free speech to be codified in law; it must be lived and felt in societal norms.

Indeed, most critiques of liberalism can be answered by broadening, not contracting, of those who are enfranchised by liberal values. Consider Majiid Nawaz, a former political Islamist who was freed from Egyptian prison by Amnesty International despite categorically rejecting the rights they extended to him. Today he is a

champion of secular, pluralistic, liberal democracy, who certainly wouldn’t punch a Nazi. Only liberalism will save those who resent everything it stands for – and therein lays its morality.

Louis Devine

FOR CAPITALISM The capitalist market is the most successful economic system in human history. I must begin by conceding that it is indeed imperfect and has no doubt enabled rising inequality both within and across state borders. Yet, in stark contrast to socialism, capitalism has simultaneously raised hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty, subverted authoritarian regimes and dramatically increased economic efficiency. Unlike its primitive feudal predecessors, capitalism both recognises and regulates private property rights. Consumer sovereignty is therefore capitalism’s guiding principle: businesses, and indeed entire markets, allocate resources in order to meet consumer demand so that they can accumulate profits. Even if the principled legitimacy of capitalism is undermined by the notion that talent, wealth or social status are undeserved, it emphatically prevails in the consequentialist paradigm that such an attack on capitalism necessitates. Theoretically, state socialism relies on the idea that bureaucratic bodies can approximate the needs of vast populations and distribute goods in accordance with those needs. This is a system which vests substantial power in regimes and their leaders, trusting elitist officials to completely reject the tantalising rewards available from manipulating that power. Capitalism, on the other hand, positions the individual as the most important actor, recognising the diversity of preferences and talents within civil society. Workers can decide how much they work, how they spend the fruits of their own labour, and what combination of goods will maximally satisfy their needs. By acknowledging that no one political body can possibly decide how individuals should live their lives, capitalism allows for moral, cultural and economic pluralism. This is particularly important in ideologically and ethnically diverse societies, where disagreements about “the good life” are terminal for the capacity of a government to reconcile these differences. Capitalism does, however, have a normative effect upon the behaviour of its participants. By ensuring that the private property of each individual is protected from arbitrary theft, it creates a strong incentive to work and work harder in order to increase overall wealth. In a socialist system, the fruits of one’s labour are distributed among the entire populus, creating a classic “public good” dilemma: while society would be better off if every individual worked to their maximum capacity,

they could earn the same salary without doing so. Capitalism therefore better reflects and moderates our competitive human instinct to maximise our own happiness, even if it is at the indirect expense of others. State socialism, on the other hand, fosters nothing more than laziness and corruption. The primary theoretical argument that socialists leverage against capitalism is that individuals do not deserve their private property rights. According to the socialist, individuals either receive wealth hereditarily, which they did not earn, or by profiting off their own talents, which they also did nothing to qualify for. This argument is oddly biologically deterministic, failing to acknowledge individual autonomy and the role of hard work. But even if at least some property ownership is undeserved, the socialist solution to the problem of desertion belies its initial subtlety: we should abolish private property, with wealth being shared equally amongst all of society. For this argument to be fatal to the capitalist project, socialists are required to prove both why individuals do not deserve the fruits of their labour (particularly given that at least some of that wealth is earned) and, most importantly, why their economic and political system actually best facilitates a fairer society. That is where the case for socialism falls short for three reasons. Firstly, socialism has historically relied upon a centralised government to distribute resources, but does not provide a mechanism for checking the power of its governments. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with socialism as it follows the same individualistic paradigm as capitalism, therefore encouraging individuals to maximise their happiness at the expense of socialism’s holistic pursuits. This means that, without any system to legitimise or restrict their authority, socialist governments often devolve into nothing more than autocratic states that feign to have principled origins. Secondly, socialist states are incapable of recognising that different constituencies have different economic and social needs, whereas capitalist governments can intervene in markets at varying degrees, from very free libertarian societies to more state-influenced Nordic ones. Socialism, on the other hand, is bound by the objective of complete equality and cannot cater to the political and cultural preferences of its constituents. Finally, and most damningly, socialist economic systems are woefully inefficient. That is due to the fact that consumer needs are indirectly approximated, rather than

directly represented by the market mechanism. This makes capitalism more responsive to consumer needs, more competitive as countless firms compete to maximise consumer surplus as opposed to one governmental body. Contrastingly, socialist economies are more fragile, their goods more expensive over the long term and their participants far, far poorer.

While socialism has enticing aspirations, capitalism is the only system that has significantly increased human happiness and prosperity.

Patrick Thompson


Last semester I transferred from Commerce to Arts. My friends will tell you that I was never the same. Firstly, I adopted a deep hatred for puffer jackets and secondly, once I completed a few arts subjects, I promptly dropped the typical Commerce mantra of “I’m socially progressive and fiscally moderate”, replacing it with the very artsy “Woo! Socialism!” Sometimes people think it is a bit of a joke, that I am satirising the stereotypical ‘Arts Student,’ but I am writing this article to make a confession that, under that thin satirical veneer, is a budding socialist.

My reason for such a rapid turnaround? There is something deeply broken about the capitalist world economy. OECD countries are experiencing increasing inequality and the prospects of younger generations seem far grimmer than those of their parents. You only have to look to the rising waves of populism to see that people are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a system where the rich only seem to get richer. On a global scale, the century old problem of class oppression has reinvented itself. Now, instead of the British factory worker being exploited by the British capitalist, it is now the Bengali factory worker being exploited by the enormous multinational. A global capitalist system fosters unequal power relationships between rich and poor nations. For example, debt ridden countries are often forced to adopt free trade policies by the IMF and the World Bank, which are often more advantageous to foreign investors than to their country’s own industries. Those who advocate for a capitalist system may argue that I have painted far too pessimistic a picture, as the World Bank has predicted that the percentage of people living in poverty has decreased by 35% since 1990. However, these statistics are problematic as the methodology that the World Bank uses to calculate these figures lacks reliability and the marker for extreme poverty has been set at far too low a level. Key state socialist policies such as high rates of taxation, government ownership of enterprises, high levels of welfare and government intervention provide a solution to many of these issues of inequality. If you have ever conversed about the merits of socialism at the dinner table, you may have received a similar response – if not more abrupt - to “socialism is far too idealist, in practice it

has never worked.” I suppose there is some truth to this statement. Pure socialism has never worked, but neither has pure capitalism. However, there are predominantly socialist economies that are working far better than predominantly capitalist economies. Norway, which has been ranked first on the United Nations’ Human Development Index for the past sixteen years, employs many socialist policies. Many Norwegian enterprises are stateowned (the value of state-owned enterprises in Norway equates to 80.4% of its GDP). Similarly, Norway has high tax rates, an extensive welfare system and much of its population is employed by the state. In fact, most Scandinavian countries have adopted socialist-leaning policies, which seem to work as they consistently rank highly on the Human Development Index. To those who may believe that the success of Scandinavian countries is an anomaly, I encourage you to look into the economic history of the United States. There you will find a history of socialist policies being implemented successfully. President Roosevelt also implemented socialist policies in the 1930s: he increased stateemployment initiatives to address unemployment during the Great depression and also signed laws which allowed workers to unionize. These policies were vital to lessening the severity of the Great Depression in the US. In fact, prior to the Reagan era, the top income earners in America were taxed up to 70% of their income. The significant cuts which Reagan made to taxes were unsustainable and led a massive increase in national debt. When it comes to socialism, we often get caught up with the dirty word that it has become, rather than discussing its merits in comparison to capitalism. The conversation about our current economic system, and its failings, is one that needs to be had if we want to address widespread global problems.

Naomi Smith


We’ve all come across “supposed” Men’s Right Activists (MRAs) that shout from the rooftops that feminism isn’t about equality - it’s about manhating. They cite statistics that “prove” men aren’t privileged and are, in fact, disadvantaged.

My favourite thing to do when I come across one of these heroes-without-capes is to confuse the hell out of them by agreeing with them. Here’s how that conversation typically goes:

Man: Men are discriminated against too! Men are far less likely to get primary custody of a child in family courts. Me: I know right. It’s absurd that women are seen as the primary child carers and that men can’t take care of their own children. Feminism wants equal parental labour. Man: Men also experience higher suicide rates than women! Me: I know right. It’s ridiculous that our society has taught men that expressing emotion and seeking help is seen as weak and feminine and therefore should be something to avoid at all costs. Feminism believes that just because something is feminine, doesn’t mean it’s bad. Man: But the military! Me: I know right, it’s strange how there are still barriers in the military for women who want to serve. Feminism champions equity in the workforce. Man: Men have a lower life expectancy! Me: I know right. It’s awful that men are taught that risky behaviors such as drinking or driving dangerously are markers of their masculinity. Feminism is about breaking down gendered stereotypes. Man: Men receive harsher prison sentences than women. Me: I know right. It’s deplorable that women are seen as feeble and docile and therefore incapable of committing acts of violence, whereas men are seen as inherently aggressive. Feminism aims to treat everyone equally, for good and bad. Man: Male rape victims aren’t taken seriously. Me: I know right. It’s horrible that men are seen as always wanting sex (and therefore impossible to rape) and that women can’t employ force or coercion in sex. Feminism cares about mutual, enthusiastic and obvious consent from all parties in sex.

In reality, all of the concerns of MRAs ARE feminist concerns, just from a different angle. There is always a flip side to their arguments, that reveal that men are discriminated against when they behave in “feminine” ways, or aren’t seen as

capable of taking on “feminine” roles. You know, because female = bad under the patriarchy. MRAs are therefore principally legitimate in the fight against gender biases.

Kate Humphreys

AGAINST MRa To claim that the existence of men’s rights activist (MRA) movements are justified or legitimate is wrong. That is not to say that some of the inequalities and biases highlighted by the movement are not valid – they most definitely are. Bias against fathers in custody cases, male victims of sexual assault and toxic masculinity are all very real issues and deeply harmful towards men. However, while on paper the MRA movement is all about solving these problems, the systems of gender bias that cause them are often overlooked. In other words, MRAs emphasise the need to be anti-feminist (and sometimes even anti-female), rather than pro-male. To clarify, however, it is not the fact that MRAs exist solely in opposition to another activist movement that delegitimises their cause. Rather, it is the fact that they purposefully, misguidedly and often viciously direct their rage towards the group of people who are most likely to be their strongest allies – feminists. This fundamentally undermines their stated aims and stops them from being considered justified in principle.

Warren Farrell, widely considered to be the “Father” of the MRA movement, initially became involved in gender studies while at university, even joining the National Organisation for Women’s New York chapter in the 1960’s before publishing his 1974 book “The Liberated Man”. His work argued that women were not the only ones hindered by sexism – gender roles hurt men too. It is important to note that his work was vastly popular with feminists of era, including Gloria Steinem and Barbara Walters. Female feminists were not threatened or hurt by Farrell shining a light on the hurt faced by men in an unjust society – they embraced it. However, when (after a nasty divorce) Farrell’s work shifted to claiming women were only after power, not equality, feminists began to distance themselves and wronged men began to flock. They engaged with the notion of having somewhere to focus their overwhelming disenchantment with the state of the world and their own lives, as well as feeling strongly about the issues faced by men. As the movement grew it found a voice in online forums, internet chatrooms and other dark corners of the web. There it seemed to mutate and multiply, becoming a source of harassment and online abuse, targeted at outspoken women. MRAs, in some instances, even take their bullying to the next level by releasing the personal information of their victims (“doxing”) and even confronting these women in person. This is not to say that MRAs are all inherently misogynistic internet trolls.

However, this is the tone often adopted by its more prominent voices, to the point where the entire movement is so warped and incoherent that the opposite of their espoused goal of “equality” is being furthered by their practices. This is caused by the movement’s unwillingness to recognise an essential fact – men’s issues are feminist issues, just as much as women’s issues. However, due to the increasing social visibility of female empowerment movements, and the increased sharing of female narratives in all forms of media, it feels to a lot of MRAs that women are being prioritised over them. In other words, they feel that the gains made in women’s rights mean a decline in those afforded to men. This is incorrect. A triumph against the patriarchy is very much a triumph for both men and women. Enormous strides have been made with regard to dismantling toxic masculinity and reducing the shocking statistics around male suicide, but there is still a long way to go in fully addressing these issues. Conversely, it can often feel as if women are the only group benefiting from feminism, as they have had so much farther to climb. It is undeniable that historically women have been far more disadvantaged by their sex than men, and when looking at mainstream media it can feel as though the women’s movement is making daily strides forward, while the progress in male spaces may feel slower and deprioritised. It is not unreasonable that MRAs feel this way. Men have been placed in an extremely long historic shadow, being expected to solely bear the burden of being hyper-masculine, stoic and emotionless in the face of being the sole breadwinner, in what is currently a rapidly changing and often unpredictable economy. Not to mention the small injustices faced every day, such as the emphasis on “women and children” casualties in a tragic news story, the satirisation of both hyper-macho and overly effeminate males alike in popular culture, and the implication that young boys are less emotionally intelligent than females – MRAs have a lot of material to work with. However, every injustice raised by the MRA movement is related to gender bias and patriarchal attitudes. This essentially means that on the other end of every male-centric issue is a female-centric one and vice versa. For instance, when looking at the bias against fathers in Family Court, you can weigh it against the historic pressure placed on

women to take on home duties and be the primary nurturer in their respective household. The purpose of this exercise is not to have a dick measuring contest over who is the most oppressed, but rather to show how male issues are inextricably linked to feminism. By dismantling inequality, gender bias and patriarchal oppression, which are the core concerns of the feminist movement, you are consequently solving the issues raised by MRAs. This means that, every time a MRA tries to delegitimise or undermine feminist discourse, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Feminists aren’t against the valid issues raised by MRAs regarding gender bias - they fundamentally strive for equality of the sexes. Giving women’s issues increased publicity does not mean there is not enough spotlight left for male problems. Dismantling the patriarchy and questioning male

privilege does not rob men of anything. Feminists loving women doesn’t mean they hate men, only the systems which cause inequality. The current form of the MRA movement also largely lacks the diversity and intersectionality that has become a hallmark of modern feminism. Yes, it is accurate to say that men are far more likely to end up in prison than women, but it is not the whole picture. Factors including income, education, ethnicity and mental health also need to be considered and advocated for. Fundamentally, the causes of male discrimination are the same as those that cause female discrimination, and that feminists try to dismantle. Therefore, the MRA movement cannot be considered legitimate, as a movement that works against its own aims cannot then justify its own existence.

Winona Horton


Throughout history, scholars, philosophers and politicians have advocated for the universal and inalienable right to speak our minds freely, without fear of persecution or reprisal. Popularised during the Enlightenment, and in particular the French Revolution, most people today consider free speech to be a fundamental right, and the degree of its protection a measure of a free society.

self-actualise. Free speech was never intended to be a justification for inflammatory and hurtful rhetoric. In today’s world, social media has given a voice to billions of people across the world and has enabled greater freedom of speech than any other point in human history. This is the sanctity of free speech, giving a voice to the voiceless, not legitimising the alienation of marginalised groups.

Yet, in Australia, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has enshrined limitations on free speech, making it illegal to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people” because of their race, colour or ethnic origin. To many Australians, this curtailment of free speech is unacceptable. Some believe that free speech with limitations is no free speech at all. Arguments against Section 18C centre around the idea that free speech includes the “right to be a bigot”, suggesting that the community will condemn those whose speech contravenes social norms and standards of behaviour, and the law should never dictate what we can and cannot say.

Furthermore, in modern Australia, appeals to “free speech” are often used to distract from thinlyveiled racism that is motivated by an ethnocentric vision of a neo-White Australia. For example, many Australians justify xenophobia by describing an incompatibility between what are considered “Australian” and “foreign” values. Hiding behind total free speech allows individuals and groups to push communities apart by creating narratives that narrowly and discriminatorily define what it means to be a “real” Australian.

I will argue why legislation such as Section 18C is important in a modern and progressive society, as limitations on free speech can create better social outcomes for all people and deter individuals from acting in socially destructive ways, which is fundamental to all social contracts. Most simply, Section 18C should remain because we live in a society that refuses to tolerate racial discrimination and has strived to create a society that is fair, a society in which all can participate, not merely the prosperous and privileged. Opponents of Section 18C often claim that it represents a growing tendency in “PC culture” to limit what we can say or do in the public domain. My response: that’s the whole point! We no longer live in a world where we can say whatever we like, no longer can we vilify an individual based on the colour of their skin. The law should reflect the standards of behaviour expected in a community, and Section 18C does no more than reflect the accepted and morally just belief that nobody should have their dignity deprived due to their ethnicity. Likewise, the idea that each of us has the ‘right to be a bigot’ is fatally weak. The sanctity of free speech exists only as long as it serves as a force for the common good, allowing the individual to

However, Section 18C should not be used to silence informed critique and debate on issues of race, ethnicity and religion. Undoubtedly, the importance of engaging in debate that challenges and questions accepted norms and practices is not only a key reason for which we have freedom of speech, it is also fundamental to a healthy society. However, Section 18C in its current form does not seek to silence this debate. Section 18C only condemns speech that is intended to offend or insult. Responsibility therefore lies with both the courts, who must ensure that healthy, constructive debate on important cultural issues is separated from language that denigrates and demeans based on race and ethnicity, and the speaker themself, who must construct arguments based on reason, appealing to logic rather than ad hominem attacks targeting an individual or group, rather than the underlying beliefs themselves. Attacks on Section 18C are often misguided; it is designed to stop harmful, but not controversial, speech. Darcy French

Against 18C

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is an unacceptable infringement upon freedom of speech. Hate speech should not be governed by law, but ought to be remedied socially and culturally. Out of the terms “offend”, “insult”, “humiliate”, and “intimidate”, only the very last should be legislated against, except in cases where “profound and serious harm” are likely to follow-- for instance, inciting a crowd to violence. For what beyond actual physical violence is captured under that judicial interpretation of the law? How can we account for the infinitely various temperaments that may or may not be offended by this or that comment? It is impossible. Offence is something taken, not given. Words are not sticks and stones. You do not have the right to freedom from speech. An opinion can do you no harm unless you allow it. Why should it not be crystal clear who among us is a racist? Why force the bigots into hiding? It is a fact that these people exist! Let them reveal themselves so that we might showcase our values by opposing them. What we forbid is not destroyed, but merely hidden from view. Restricting speech does not restrict thought, and disallowing certain types of speech only fosters resentment.

Which is more important, what an offensive person has said, or what an offended person believes them to have said? You should suspect the motives of people determined to be offended. In nearly all situations, it is not explicitly dangerous to offend someone. As Senator Leyonhjelm said in 2016, “the best way to eliminate racism is to let it burst.” This is why we should be allowed to offend, to insult and even to humiliate others. Many currently-held opinions may be rejected in the future, as we now reject those of the past which seem bigoted. So let everything out in the open. Our laws do not exist to legislate a responsibility to be offended. Australia is multicultural, and many people are ignorant and rude. How sure are you of your own views? Would any Spectrum reader, given the opportunity, silence a lone dissenter among a crowd, even if their ideas were disagreeable? In reality, this hypothetical speaker deserves special protection. Freedom of speech exists for this purpose after all: to protect negative speech, not positive. Nobody will ever challenge the most common opinion. The most repulsive and fallacious opinion imaginable is

worth at least hearing, if only to make us challenge our own preconceptions. Could this person be right? Why do I believe what I believe? Selfreflection is impossible within the confines of conformity. And whom would you elect to be censor? Who determines what is offensive, who is being offensive, and what the consequences are? A government cannot tell people what to think or what to say, it cannot be a censor of unpopular opinions, and it cannot mandate social utopia. John Stuart Mill wrote the following in his On Liberty: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” We, ourselves, as individuals, have the liberty to disprove and reject opinions we do not like. For it we are closer to the truth. Timothy Cox

FOr Gender Essentialism One of the core tenets of modern feminism is the assertion that men and women would be, essentially, the same if not for humanity’s history of female subjugation and patriarchal institutions. This is a constructivist approach to gender: that non-physical differences between the sexes are primarily a product of social forces over time. Biological or gender essentialism, on the other hand, suggests there are differences in men and women beyond the anatomical, i.e. a female and male ‘essence’ is inherent in biology. Studies in this field are justifiably contentious. Biological essentialism is often associated with debunked theories on gender, such as those which suggest women are inherently less intelligent than men (and that university study would shrink their ovaries!). Also, given that every human outside the womb has been affected by social forces to varying degrees, one should be reluctant to consider studies of behavioural differences between females and males as having any meaningful significance (such as the alleged male inclination towards sciences versus the female inclination towards the arts). However, it would be disingenuous to conclude that, therefore, biological essentialism is not a possibility. We readily accept gendered differences in behaviour in other animals, so why should it be difficult to consider that – cue David Attenborough voice – in homosapiens, the female of the species tends to be more emotional than the male, for example. No one believes that lions are usually more aggressive than lionesses due to toxic masculinity. Obviously the complexity of the human condition supersedes the basic sexual dimorphism of the animal kingdom, but still, natural behavioural differences could exist. A study of toy preferences in monkeys at the Yerkes National Primate Research Centre found that, just as human girls exhibit broader play patterns than boys, who tend to prefer “traditionally masculine” toys such as toy cars, this was also true of female monkeys. This suggests that, rather than specific socialisation determining toy preferences, “it’s more likely biases in preferences that exist at birth.” (Rios, 2008)

Biological essentialism has been accused of alienating the transgender community, but this criticism is built on an inherent contradiction. If the male brain and female brain are basically equivalent and the differences between men and women are developed through external forces as social constructivists suggest, then how could a child with male anatomy feel like a girl? Thus, a feminine “essence” exists separate from basic anatomy: the differences in personality and behaviour between men and women are not always exclusively a result of society thrusting roles upon them. It is an observed truth that women cry more frequently and more intensely than men (Bekker & Vingerhoets, 2002). This could be because toxic masculinity has pervaded men’s minds, brainwashing them into a belief that showing emotion is emasculating. Alternatively, it might be because emotional tears are high in prolactin, and women have, on average, 60% more prolactin than men (Kohinde et al, 2012), and, further, that testosterone can inhibit crying (Bekker & Vingerhoets, 2002). Is it sexist, therefore, to declare that women are more emotional than men? Stereotyping is problematic, but so is dismissing glaring trends backed by hard evidence. In a practical sense, it matters little whether gender differences result from innate biological differences or socialisation at a very young age; the outcome would be the same. But people are wary of their biology. Indeed, it can be oddly jarring to remember that we really are just animals, coded, in the most basic evolutionary sense, to survive and multiply, and critically, males and females have different roles in this process. However, one’s genetic disposition to certain traits and behaviours is not fixed – note that there are significantly more people predisposed to be psychopathic by nature than there are actual psychopaths (Hunter, 2010). Genetics may load the gun, environment pulls the trigger. Biological essentialism does not claim that women must behave in a certain way, only that they are predisposed to behave in a certain way. Yet saying this is somehow deeply controversial. Biological essentialism does not mean that all

women should want to be mothers, nor that all men are aggressive, or any such ridiculously sweeping notions. It does not mean that every woman is nurturing and empathetic while every man is competitive and daring. It merely means that, broadly speaking, men and women have been evolutionarily coded to behave in certain ways, thus suggesting the existence of a masculine and feminine “essence�. Rather than accusing men of ignoring women in the workplace, let us suppose

that perhaps, men and women converse and present ideas in different ways. By accepting and promoting biological essentialism, those seeking fairer relations between the sexes can, instead of attempting to police behaviour which is stamped into our DNA, consider there is a way men and women actually tend to behave, and from there, start working towards a fairer world for all.

Mary Williams

Against Gender Essentialism Gender essentialism is a debunked bio-socio theory that is completely incongruous to the aims and objectives of the feminist movement, which works to eliminate the inequalities between the sexes. This is based on the principle espoused by Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex (1973) “one is not born, but, rather, becomes a woman” – that is to say, feminine traits are not passed onto females, but rather placed upon them, and the same can be said for men. Conceptually, this is completely contrary to the theory of gender essentialism, and therefore cannot be supported by a feminist movement. Gender or biological essentialism argues that there is an innate connection between gender and sex outside of societal constructions (a theory impossible to test and prove due to the pervasive nature of environmental factors). It states that there are “essential” differences between the sexes, and that men and women are fundamentally different in terms of emotions, intelligence and other character traits. It is often relied upon to perpetuate gender bias and discrimination, being utilised to justify the fact that men are often preferred over women for leadership roles, or bias towards fathers in Family Court. Gender essentialism suggest that traditionally “feminine” characteristics such as submissiveness ad heightened emotions are inherent to babies whose assigned sex is female, while “masculine” traits such as dominance and stoicism are inherent to babies whose assigned sex is male. While gender essentialism doesn’t completely ignore the impact of socialisation, it asserts that even outside of these environmental factors women and men differ in fundamental ways. This is wrong. Gender essentialists do not consider individuals who identify as non-binary, as well as those who are born intersex, mostly likely because their entire framework then falls apart. I feel it is important to note that both instances above are very real and legitimate phenomena, which have been observed since ancient times – not just some verbal nonsense thrown together by social justice warriors. As well as that, these instances occur outside of humans, presenting in various species including black bears, spotted hyenas and

leopard geckos. This means that the notion of a gender binary propagated by gender essentialism is undermined in its own fundamentals, by only allowing for two variations from which to assign characteristics. This is emblematic of the overall problem with gender essentialism, where there is no space for nuance. Many proponents of gender essentialism point towards the act of transitioning as proof of the validity of their theory. Gender essentialism links gender and sex to the point where there are indistinguishable from one another. Within this paradigm there is no allowance for incongruence between what sex and gender, which is what occurs in transgender individuals. Therefore, to gender essentialists the act of transitioning is viewed as a submission to the theory of essentialism. To view this is as essentialist, however, you would have to establish that the identity of a transgender individual who has not transitioned is invalid, which is innately incorrect. Those experiences and perception of self are still entirely valid, and transitioning is not so much becoming the opposite sex, as it is a form of self-expression. While there are observed differences in men and women, we do not live in a vacuum and it is impossible to fully determine whether or not these are caused by societal or biological factors. As well as that, even if you could determine certain characteristics are passed on genetically, that is not to say that the gender of the parent and child had any connection to that transfer of DNA. In a real-world context, it is damaging to validate gender essentialism, as it allows for biases to flourish behind pseudo-science. It enables individuals to make decisions about someone’s person based on their gender, assigning a full set of characteristics based on the number of X chromosomes someone has. As well as that, from an observational view of our own lives, I’m sure you can see that there is not common personality trait thread linking all females, or all males together. Even the thought of it is completely ridiculous, as is the notion that gender essentialism should be embraced and promoted by feminism.

Anna Sartori




The belief that multiculturalism and progressivism can neatly elide is very much a quixotic Western liberal ideal. We need look no further than the unrest of religious conservatives in Western Sydney to discern the seething tension which reposes within our society; a society which postures towards both religious freedom and equal rights, yet until recently remained unwilling to commit to the concessions entailed by either. Nevertheless, it is insufficient to simply make concessions - they must be the correct ones. Marriage equality was the correct concession to make in the face of dogmatically parochial and antiquated conceptions of marriage. Equally, I will argue here that the exemptions and protections for religious celebrants contained within the adapted marriage legislation were - both principally and practically - the correct concessions to make to religion, no matter how implicitly bigoted those concessions may seem. To be clear, I am not advocating for religious exemptions to extend to institutions to whom religion is not directly related, as with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in the United States. Rather, I espouse a model of marriage equality which affords religious celebrants the right to withhold from marrying any couple they perceive unfit of marriage, as accords with their religious doctrine. The first point to make here is that a religious marriage is significantly distinct from a civil marriage. While marriage is a legal and social acknowledgment of a contract between two loving people, embedded within religious marriage is religious approval, and by extension the assent of a transcendent God. Unlike a legal and social framework, the verdict of God is unbounded by considerations of equality, in virtue of it being grounded in nothing but its absolute self. That is to say, the act of being religious requires a set of sacrifices, characteristics, and a level of conformity which are predicated on exegetic interpretations of God’s will, rather than an analytic philosophical preoccupation with fundamental human rights. The only necessarily socially contingent aspect of religion is, in theory, the ordination of religious priests and ministers – “emissaries” of God- by human beings. Since the underlying morality of religiosity is neither socially contingent nor grounded in conceptions of “rights and equality”, but instead bestowed by God, the Church has no obligation to offer God’s blessing equally; they ought only follow “God’s holy word”. Religious approbation is thus not a right or entitlement, as much as it is a state of being in equivalence with divine law, whatever that may be. It is at this point that I feel compelled to insert a caveat into my argument: the somewhat

arbitrary religious designations of who is “worthy of blessing” and who is not, are only legitimate insofar as they do not intentionally and maliciously impede on a citizen’s capacity to engage with a secular state. While you do not have a right to the perceived benefits of religion, you do have the right to reasonably avoid its explicit harms. For example, if Catholic religious celebrants were to band together and exert a collective, demonising, persecutory force upon the LGBTQI+ community, they would be extending past the private realm of religion, and committing an infraction upon the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals to engage equally with a secular state. If, however, individual religious celebrants were to reject a gay couple from their blessing upon the premise of their individual religious expression, and of their understanding of religious decree, that is legitimate: so long as that gay couple has fair access to a civil marriage. To the extent that we recognise that religion has social utility, and is a legitimate form of expression for individuals and communities, we must also recognise that the self-actualising value of religion pivots on its exclusionary, “sanctifying” practices. My second point is a much simpler one, on the matter of praxis rather than principle. Religious institutions are oftentimes defensive and reflexive: “change” does not represent progress, as much as it represents an iconoclastic threat to an already reconciled system of beliefs, and a menace to their engagement with their transcendent God, and past that, their access to heaven. Therefore, on a purely utilitarian calculus, the benefit accrued to a pertinacious gay couple from forcing a reticent Priest to “corrupt” their values and marry them is incommensurate to the protest and invective of a Church community who construe themselves victims of “coercive” progressivism. More importantly, such invidious policy-making would seem an affront to religious liberty, and likely would have compromised the support for gay marriage from religious progressives - the same religious progressives who gradually shift religious paradigms and narratives of acceptance. While I am not arguing here that the gay community should be beholden to “placating” an irritable religious community - particularly when they have been the victims of such egregious prejudice and persecution - I would posit that insisting upon a legal requirement for religious celebrants to marry gay couples would be abortive to the ends of the gay community by eroding their social capital and sullying their right to a civil marriage. For these reasons, the Australian Government’s fairly generic decision to include exemptions to religious celebrants in marriage legislation, coheres with principled and practical logic.

why australia needs more plebiscites Connor O’Brien

The gay marriage plebiscite was one of the more controversial contemporary examples of direct democracy. Conducted without approval from parliament, quite clearly against the wishes of the LGBTQI+ community, and at a substantial public cost of $122 million, this ad hoc Liberal party room circuit-breaker attracted deservedly intense public scrutiny right up until the day of the deciding vote. I am not in any way supporting a process that evidently did harm to LGBTQI+ youths, who were forced to endure the pain of having the legitimacy of their identities questioned so publicly. However, the swift passage of the new marriage laws was a peculiar sight for modern Australian politics. The bill was decisive, predominantly bipartisan and largely unamended, despite the best efforts of the conservative wing of the Liberal party. In the context of years of internal and external division on the issue, the efforts of the parliament were nothing short of miraculous. However, instead of praising the perpetually selfinterested and self-absorbed mob in Canberra, who ignored the issue of gay marriage for years until it became politically convenient, perhaps we should consider the unique mechanism for this emphatic change. A simple yes or no question, proposed to every Australian and untainted by partisan debate or deception (at least in its wording). In a post-truth, politically polarised and identitarian era of politics, the clarity and margin of the public’s verdict simply disenabled the government to backtrack on its promises. The people had not voted for the Liberal party, or for Malcolm Turnbull, but for gay marriage itself. To fail to deliver on the public’s explicit desires would be the ultimate politicide (*cough* Julia Gillard). The success of the plebiscite had two consequences for the bill itself. Firstly, it created urgency among an often lethargic, purely election-focussed MP population that was eager to extract maximum political benefit from the vote’s success. Secondly, it created the conditions for politicians to raise themselves above party politics. Cross-party coalitions spruiked the bill in both houses, amendments were considered on their intellectual, rather than factional merit, and the quality of parliamentary debate was much higher than what the public is usually subjected to.

That the bill was retained in its original form is no small feat. It is almost axiomatic that, without a public vote, far more controversial amendments would have been passed, such as James Patterson’s “conscientious objection” clause that would have greatly eroded LGBTQI+ rights in the public and educational spheres. A half-baked attempt at marriage reform could have hindered rather than helped the LGBTQI+ movement in the long term. But why don’t we see plebiscites more frequently? While we should be wary of the catastrophic failures of some past hubristic and poorly-thought out referendums *cough* BREXIT, there is no reason why we could not have a simple yes or no policy question appearing on our ballots along with the candidates that we vote for. Without the cost of organising a fresh ballot, and considering issues that do not directly relate to the lives of vulnerable Australians, properly orchestrated plebiscites could help to sidestep issues with voter disenfranchisement and better reflect popular sovereignty. Imagine a plebiscite on an Emissions Intensity Scheme (or Carbon tax), or on the funding of the NBN, or even a new infrastructure project such as high-speed rail. Plebiscites sharpen the translation of voter preferences into substantive policies, force leaders to actually debate important political issues, rather than just throw mud at each other, and allow party-rooms to overcome factional warring by deferring to the ‘will of the people’. Moreover, such examples of direct democracy would allow for Australians to better distinguish government policy and government management. If the population tends to vote based on who they think will run the country best on an abstract level, rather than the party policies that they propose, then isn’t it better to distinguish between these two forms of political representation? Australians may want the Coalition’s economic nous as well as a less inhumane border policy. Perhaps Malcolm Turnbull would be performing better in the polls if he were legislating a nationallysupported Emissions Intensity Scheme and an actually functional NBN, both of which could be facilitated by utilising a national plebiscite.


As the apparent end of Australia’s six-year attempt at simultaneously rejecting refugees and posing as a compassionate nation that “shelters” them finally draws near, we are left with the devastating aftermath. Years of treating asylum seekers and refugees as an infectious disease, requiring isolation from “civil” Australian society on a remote island, has come back to bite our government on the arse. Scathing criticism from progressives has pressured our right-wing government into, at the very least, reconsidering its careless and inhumane approach to refugees who have come looking for safety in our country. After forcefully detaining and locking up refugees and asylum seekers in disgusting, unsanitary conditions, the Papua New Guinea and Australian governments have decided to relocate them. But to where? Yet another detention centre. Another prison. Another confined place to designed to stop these “boat people” from “corrupting” our great Aussie culture. Peter Dutton has been boasting about the new centre, describing it as complete with “security” and “health services”, but it is his word against the UN Refugee Agency’s, who claims the accommodation is unfinished. Perhaps we should believe our “very honest” Minister for Home Affairs, who has never distorted the truth before, especially not when he labelled Manus Island asylum seekers as paedophiles. While the government attempts to clean up its mess by conveniently sending Australian and Papua New Guinean police officers to do their dirty work for them, they’ve made sure important figures like Gari Baki, PNG police commissioner, distract us with general statements like the refugees “will be

politely asked to pack up and voluntarily leave the centre”. We then of course, received pleas for help and reports of authorities destroying the centre and the refugees’ belongings, physically forcing them out of the centre and threatening to kill them if they didn’t leave. Stating that you will “politely” ask the men to leave and then proceeding to do so in the most impolite way possible is probably not the best way to build support, don’t you think, Baki? Anyhow, the fact of the matter is this: Australia has sought to advance its domestic and foreign policy interests at the cost of lives deemed trivial and insignificant. It has drawn refugees and asylum seekers to its shores with the promise of safety, then trapped them in a centre that has starved, abused and traumatised them. After forcibly holding them in indefinite detention, Australia has now forced them out. Only to force them into another detention centre. Our government needs to stop pretending it is helping refugees. It needs to stop pretending that this is the most it can do. Australia prides itself on being the most multicultural nation in the world, yet it seems that this only extends as far as its selfish interests begin. We are only multicultural when it serves our purpose, when it suits our narrative. This must end.

ROHINGYAN MIGRANTS Wesley Mustava Kajirwa

The term ‘human rights’ implies to most a call to action, a call to collective responsibility to improve the world and create an environment in which each individual can enjoy universal protections. It is these words which are neglected when addressing the plight of the Rohingya Muslims. The Rohingya have been labelled “the world’s most persecuted minority” by the United Nations (UN) as they are subjected to horrific, widespread human rights violations such as ethnic cleansing and statelessness. The Rohingya are an ethnic and religious minority group located in Rakhine state, which is otherwise majority Buddhist, who practice Sunni Islam. Like many newly-founded states, after achieving independence from their colonial masters, and in an attempt to ascertain absolute political transformation and reform, Myanmar’s history was punctuated with political instability and a wrestle for power between different groups. This tussle for leadership continued until 1962, when a military junta coup resulted in a one-party military state that would govern the country for sixty years. The military junta government was ruthless and unapologetic in committing gross human rights violations such as mass murder, rape and torture. In February 1978, the Military junta government launched its most inhumane attack against the Rohingya in an operation dubbed “Dragon King”, which resulted in the murder and torture of the Rohingya in their tens of thousands, while over 200,000 fled to Bangladesh to seek refuge. In June 2012, a fresh cycle of violence ensued against the stateless Rohingya Muslims, leaving close to 180,000 Rohingya displaced in Maungdaw. Of the above figure, 40,000 were sent to detention camps in isolated villages and 280 died. The Myanmar government continues to render the Rohingya Muslims stateless and refuses to grant them citizenship. This stems from the 1982 Citizenship Law of Myanmar, which effectively legalised the statelessness of Rohingya Muslims. Indeed, the government considers them to be Bangladeshi nationals, hence justifying their lack of citizenship rights and access to education, marriage, health care and employment, freedom of movement and, above all, worship. The disturbing treatment of the Rohingya Muslims has had dire impacts upon their daily lives as they have been subjected to further social and economic marginalization. Children and women are forced to leave their husbands behind as they seek refuge. International humanitarian organisations have been forced to operate in limited spaces, at times at the behest of government instructions. In February 2014, the Myanmar government expelled Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) from

Rakhine state, alluding to the fact the organisation was biased in its treatment of the Rohingya, thus denying the Rohingya Muslims urgent medical aid. There are a number of different actions that could be taken to respond to this crisis. The international community could use the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine to aid the Rohingya Muslims. In attempt to make state sovereignty contingent on the fulfilment of humanitarian obligations, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine was adopted by the international community at the UN 2005 World Summit. R2P necessitates that, when states desert their due responsibility to protect their own citizens, either because of their ineptitude or otherwise, that sole responsibility accordingly shifts to the international community. The international community could therefore use a variety of foreign policy tools such as sanctions, foreign aid and intervention (when ratified by the United Nations Security Council) to pressure the Myanmarese government into resolving this crisis. The international community, in particular the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), has also failed to protect the Rohingya Muslims, despite having an internal Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights which works “towards improving the lives of its citizens in its member states, in the economic, politicalsecurity and socio-cultural aspect”. The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of ASEAN member states has prevented regional action and halted immediate resolution of the crisis. A change in this policy would see the introduction of economic sanctions to the Myanmar government, sanctions that have to be spearheaded by ASEAN member states and other relevant international states as well. ASEAN could follow in the footsteps of other regional organisations such as the Arab League, which suspended the membership of Libya during the 2011 crisis, as well as Syrian membership when the civil war erupted in 2011. Moreover, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Tomas Ojea Quintana’s 2010 recommendation of a commission of inquiry should be given due weight, along with the possibility of referring these gruesome human rights atrocities to the International Criminal Court. Finally, former 1991 Nobel winner President Aung San Suu Kyi has to break her silence. While she may be in shared coalition with the military, much is expected from a human rights icon who is Myanmar’s de-facto leader.

Taking The PIS

SIP ehT gnikaT

SPEAKING OF.. Joshua Abbey

While others may lament losses elsewhere as brexiting Britain breaks off from its continental woes, to usher in woes domestic, the woe I rue most is the loss of the humble, hard-working, honestly-priced Polish builder. O, and how good Nigel will lament the woe of his invoice, the invoice he receives when he’s over-budget, over-time mansion is built. What will fair Kevin McCloud say? “Winter is coming, and they still haven’t got the roof on, but at least it’s British built”. Well Mr Farage, should you require super builders, a recommendation I can provide. Builders who care not for council planning permission, nor for property boundaries should you desire a few more square feet from that neighbour for whom little love has been lost, if you’re lucky they may even knock his house down and punch him. Of whom I speak, I hear you ask, I speak of Israeli builders. Those fine fellows don’t even blink in the face of the UN, so I shan’t think they will quake an iota in their boots when those haughty local council building inspectors come around. They’ll send those councillors scampering away, tails between legs, pants scared off, perhaps with depleted uranium for their troubles. That brings one to another abuser of rights human, our good friends the Turks, who host our Super Eagles at Incirlik. You see the Turk has this problem with the Kurd, and I’m not talking about a failing dairy industry. You see, I wonder how much more time will pass before Turkish patience snaps they get all Armenian on their arses. And hey, America could pretend this one hadn’t happened either. Oh,

the things they’ll do to have an airbase. Ah, America, the land of freedom, where an old George, though not the oldest, can sleep easy at last, knowing he’s no longer the worst living president. And to Sydney, where shit happens and a balding Tony can hand over his “Worst Head of State at Consoling the Recently Bereaved” title to Donald. Say what you want about the man, no really do, I’m sure it’s been heard before. There’s nothing new under the insulting Donald sun. How can that man say the word fake so often given the faux fringe he rocks? I don’t know in whom there’s more plastic, his face or what there soon will be in the Great Pacific garbage patch given who now runs the EPA. Actually, speaking of plastic, actually speaking of petrochemicals, actually speaking of oil so that I can speak of Arab oil states. Big oil mightn’t want it, petrolheads mightn’t want it, Jeremy Clarkson mightn’t want it, but if you want democracy in the Middle East, get onboard with electric cars. Go further, if you like exporting concepts, not commodities get behind renewables. “Only Renewables Bring Rights!” I can hear the chants now. But speaking of commodities, and to be pacific, twelve barracudas, for that’s where they were found. Twelve French Shortfin Barracudas that would not make for particularly good eating, or submarining. If two world wars taught us anything, it’s that Germans need to be told things twice and that they make good submarines, and the French, well the less said about French submarining in that period, the better. Not that there would be

much to say. For the $50 billion we’ve forked out to the Frenchies for twelve, we could have had 30 Das boot ready u-boats. And on the topic of government waste, let’s talk plebiscites, non-binding plebiscites. For $122 million we could have paid each senator and member $539,823 and one cent, to grow a spine and do their jobs. We could have sold non-partisan sponsorship for the ballot papers or added more questions, important ones. Like who was better, Led Zeppelin or The Who, because unfortunately fighting never broke out and we never got to find out who would have won the Cold War. And on the subject that I can’t explain, like those who vote no, Boris Johnson. Scientists at CERN have calculated their fingers to the bone, and they can’t explain why you would appoint someone with Wandering Mouth Syndrome to the most culturally sensitive position in the cabinet. Unfortunately, the day of appointment was the 13th of July, not April the first. I mean, when I visit sites of religious worship in former colonies I always recite pro-colonial poems, don’t you? But perhaps we’re being a bit harsh on him. I mean, most cities will be improved by clearing dead bodies away. But then perhaps the best punishment for him is having to be that pale and have meetings with world leaders you have accused of bestiality. Alas, such is the way of our world in this epoch, and at least Julie Bishop is not so, but then Boris can move more than just diagonally.

Yeah, NAH Winona Horton

I feel genuinely upset about the whole sexual assault renaissance we seem to be in. Not for the victims, so much as the audience for being forced to listen to them. God, it’s so unfair to come forward with sexual assault allegations. Like, how dare you inundate me every day with your sob story. It’s exhausting. I mean yeah, they’ve got to deal with the lifelong psychological, physical and social cost of whatever fucked up thing happened to them. But then I’ve got to deal with the overwhelming ennui that comes from being constantly reminded that people suck. Like, that’s such a burden to put on me. Yeah, you’ve had a tough time but so have I – I ran out of milk and my phone died today. It’s not the first-time women speaking up has been super inconvenient. Or even just talking at all. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not sexist, not at all. I have lots of female friends, and a few of them I don’t even talk about in physical terms to my mates. It’s just, sometimes, their voices are realllllllly annoying. Look, it’s just a biological fact. Plus, whenever they get the floor in a meeting I may as well be back in Arts West they way they lecture. Going on and on about rape statistics this and gender pay gap that. Can’t we talk about something relevant and interesting. Like yeah, it’s probably a problem, but it doesn’t affect most of the people on the executive floor so can we maybe shelf that talk for another time? Like feminism was super valid when women weren’t allowed to vote and stuff like that, but now it’s just devaluing masculine men. Because of feminism, men are constantly being passed over for no other reason than their sex. Quotas are making it almost impossible for white heterosexual males to climb the corporate ladder. Not to mention in the entertainment industry where there are no real male role models to look up to. They‘re all “let’s talk about our feelings” rather than just jamming their tongue down the chick’s throat like the 80s

action flicks we all know and love. Not to mention, it feels like every second day there’s a new TV show we now hate because so-and-so touched what’s-a- face in the whatcha-ma-call-it twenty years ago. What a drag. The effort it takes being a man these days, I tell you what – reading the news and coming across firsts-hand accounts of women being sexually harassed or abused is just so draining. Like, having to live through this renaissance is really hard on me. The impact of this time will probably haunt me for weeks after it’s over. But I suppose that’s why they say life’s not fair.

Omnipotent God Laments Impotency in Marriage Vote: In the corner of a dingy Californian Bungalow in Parramatta, the mystic being rocks itself from side to side in mourning; a being whose face would paint a sorry portrait, if indeed it had a face... Empty bottles of sanctified red wine and packets of circular bread crisps flood the room like Noah’s day. But this is no holy Communion… Torn pages of Scripture blanket the carpet. The sedimented dust on the window sills obscure the penetrating glare of the Summer sun; 61.6% of it, to be precise. That’s right. An overwhelming majority when compared with the 38.4% of light seeping through… “I thought I made it clear, I honestly did”, the mystic being slurs despairingly. Derelict banners lie strewn across the floor, telling the tale of ill-fated protests and corrupted ideals.“Eve NOT Steve” reads one, expertly printed in Comic Sans upon the stark white cloth. Another bears the withered effigies of our pre-eminent modern philosophers, among them the luminous figure of Tony Abbott. “I bloody knew I shouldn’t have trusted Moses. Where the hell did my eleventh commandment go?! Right after ‘Thou shalt not covet’ - ‘Thou shalt not be gay and have fundamental rights’, obviously…” “And whoever thought it was a good idea to make the Bible so damn vague. Heck, I couldn’t even

work out my own message half the time. Serious case of Chinese Whispers, this is!” In the midst of the mystic being’s melancholy, and deep-seated feelings of neglect and insecurity, only one thing can be certain: hailstorms, earthquakes, injustices, deaths, grievances, illnesses, misfortunes, erosions of family ideals, demoniac acts, social disorder, the Israel-Palestine conflict, abortions and abhorrent cases of abuse should definitely be attributed to the fact that gays were granted pretty basic relationship rights*. “Usually I’m omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omnivorous. But I just wasn’t feeling the vibes on the day. Just lost my omnimojo, and let gay marriage slip through the cracks, if you know what I mean… It’s the bloody Alzheimer’s after all these years, I’m telling you!” When asked how his disciples and devoted followers should respond to the “heinous” legalisation of gay marriage, the mystic being was consoling in its conviction: “Look, just have faith- and if possible, blind faith is best. Once I’m off this red wine blood of Jesus, everything should be right. Might even reclaim Jerusalem, if I’m feeling up to it…” More to come. *For a more comprehensive list of ‘God’s wrath against the Gays’, please consult Abbott, or any voter within the Western Sydney region.



BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR CONTRIBUTORS Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America, and International Terrorism John Cooley This unimpeachably rigorous book surveys the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan and the wider Muslim world from the late 1970s to the 2000s. Cooley traces the repercussions of one of the earliest ‘proxy wars’ conducted by the US on the September 11 attacks, illuminating how US support for radical Islamist groups in the 1970s quickly evolved into the global environment of terrorism that we know today. Far from being reactionary or paranoid, Unholy Wars is an impeccably researched book from one of the most widely respected reporters on the Middle East.

Alex Greggery

Civilization Niall Ferguson The story of how Europe, as a disease and conflict-ridden group of polities in the 15th century, managed to eventually overtake the increasingly sophisticated civilizations of the Orient raises some of the biggest historical questions that can be asked. Author Niall Ferguson takes a categorical approach, explaining Western predominance in terms of the six ‘killer applications’ – competition, science, property, medicine, consumption, and work – and offers a forecast for its future. The result is a riveting read that does not gloss over the cruder aspects of civilization, while retaining argumentative rigour regarding why the world has converged thus far towards Western norms, both on economic and cultural grounds.

Charlotte Choi

A Call To Conscience Clayborne Carson, ed. The book that I would recommend is one that I read a couple of years ago. I came across the book after becoming interested in speeches by past leaders such as Sir Winston Churchill and John F Kennedy. It is about Martin Luther King Junior and his speeches. It is called A Call To Conscience and it is a collection of 12 of his greatest speeches in the struggle for the Civil Rights Movement. The ones that I found captivating include “I have a Dream” and “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop”. It is rare to find activists who have left such a substantial legacy for modern civil rights movements while adhering to their beliefs. It is remarkable that Luther King managed this all in a such a short time, given that he died at a young age of 39.

Wesley M. Kajirwa

Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right Angela Nagle This book is a good introduction for anybody who wants to understand the origins of and the way the alt-right operates and thinks. Many on the left fail to understand the fundamental role the internet has played and continues to play in the phenomenon called the alt-right, and this book sheds some light on the way the internet has uniquely allowed the alt-right movement to grow and thrive. Indeed, without the internet, it is quite possible that the altright would not exist as we know it. Therefore, in order to understand it and predict where it is going, one must understand the environment in which it primarily operates. This is not a pictorial of the internet most of us are used to seeing, but rather of the anonymous corners where alt-righters lurk and thrive. It is a portrait of places like 4chan, where complete anonymity allows the unrestrained spreading of otherwise taboo opinions and discussions, and a disturbing portrayal of a world where memes shape the political views of many. While somewhat extreme in some of the conclusions she reaches, the author nevertheless provides a good overview of the ‘edgy’ and irreverent world of the alt-right, a view that understands the movement can only be understood in the context of the internet.

Matthew Harper

Ghost Wars Steve Coll A vital text for understanding the modern relationship between America and Afghanistan, Steve Coll’s thoroughly readable prose plots the course of American intervention in Afghanistan. Neither the Mujahideen, Taliban or Al Qaeda are omitted from Coll’s thorough elucidation, whilst contextualising the CIA, Pakistan and America’s relationships with these key groups in Afghanistan’s political landscape. From the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to September 11, Coll provides an intricately detailed history that anyone wishing to understand Afghanistan today would be wise to digest.

Joshua Abbey

The REbel Albert Camus Albert Camus’ The Rebel is a book that all interested in achieving profound political change should read. It both indicts the revolutionary movements of the past and offers hope for rebellion that recognises its limits and remains faithful to its original principles. Camus proposes that rebellion is an endemic feature of the human psyche but cannot be pursued without a commitment to transcendental values, most importantly to the value of all human life, while warning against promises of other worlds or the end of history.

Tim Mooney

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind Yuval Noah Harari Sapiens is a fascinating perspective on the human story, from our ancestors scavenging the savannah to where we are now, “on the verge of becoming Gods”. Israeli historian Yuval Harari (University of Oxford) leans further into philosophy than history as he trawls through the ages, investigating religion, politics, economics, agriculture, science, industrialisation and culture. The focal points are wide-ranging, not falling into any ‘Eurocentric’ traps, as histories of the world are wont to do. The thorough research blended with a light authorial tone makes for very pleasant reading. Sapiens tells an epic story of a species, so incredible that one forgets it is our own. This book has distinctly altered the way I see the world, and I highly recommend it to anybody with a sliver of interest in history, philosophy, politics, and what it means to be human. Its sequel, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, is also a very good read regarding where humanity may be headed, but it does not surpass the sheer excellence of its precursor.

​​Anna Sartori

The Wife Drought Annabelle Crabb We hear a lot about the gender pay gap, but few offer an in-depth explanation of its causes. That is where The Wife Drought comes in. Sexism clearly causes the pay gap, but people do not sit down and decide simply because a person is a woman she should be paid less. The issue is much more complex. Crabb breaks down the societal and systematic issues which lead to women earning less than men. This book is insightful and intriguing to read. After my antifeminist brother read this book he actually started to believe in the gender pay gap, which has certainly made dinner table conversations more pleasant.

Naomi Smith

Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography John Howard John Howard gives a personal account of his early life, his rise to power and his tenure as Prime Minister of Australia. He gives an articulate defence of the major political battles and events during his political career, including the GST, mandatory detention, the Iraq War and his leadership battle with his deputy Peter Costello. Having read various political biographies (including ALP Prime Ministers), this would be the most compelling and well written in my experience.

Benjamin Cronshaw


Kate Humphreys

Zainab Albadri

Wesley M. Kajirwa

Timothy Cox

Michel Nehme

Benjamin Cronshaw

Connor O’Brien

Louis Devine

Anna Sartori

Darcy French

Naomi Smith

Alex Greggery

Patrick Thompson

Matthew Harper

Mary Williams

Winona Horton

Special THANKS thank you to the contributors, whose efforts have made this venture more than a picture book with no words, thank you to our artists Sarah McLeod and Dominik Kristen-Parsch, whose ARt pieces have elevated the entire publication, an enormous thank you to UMSU, for their financial support of this project. Dominik @000dollars

Sarah @s3r.h


IMAGES (IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE) Baum, L. F. 1906, John Dough And The Cherub, Reilly And Britton, Chicago. 1. McLeod, S. 2017, Untitled, [Artwork] Melbourne. 2. Unknown, circa 1832, King Andrew Rejects Republican Values, [Cartoon] Unknown. 3. Unknown, 1870, The Power Behind The Throne, [Illustration] Harper’s Weekly. 4. Unknown, J., circa 1906, Opening Of The Panama Canal, [Cartoon] Puck Magazine, St Louis. 5. Pughe, J. 1901, An English Country Seat And How To Get It, [Cartoon], Puck Magazine, St Louis. 6. Gillam, B, 1883, The Masters Of Our Industries, [Cartoon], Puck Magazine, St Louis. 7. Unknown, circa 1942, Keep Punching Everyday, [Poster] Office For Emergency Management, War Production Board. 8. Unknown., circa 1942, Let’s Catch Him With His “Panzers” Down! We Will – If We Keep ‘Em Firing!, [Poster], 9. Unknown 10. Unknown, 1911, Maroc La Civilisation, La Richesse, Et La Paix, [Illustration], Le Petit Journal. 11. Unknown, 1908, Le Reveil De La Question D’orient, [Illustration], Le Petit Journal. 11. Gillam, B. And Keppler, J., circa 1880, Black List, [Cartoon] Puck Magazine, St Louis. 12. Barigazzi, P. 1880, I Volatori, [Cartoon], Le Perroquet, Unknown. 13. Unknown, 1894, Le Capitaine Dreyfus Devant Le Counseil De Guerre, [Illustration], Le Petit Journal. 14. Keppler, J., circa 1899, A Good Beginning, [Cartoon] Puck Magazine, St Louis. 15. Unknown, 1885, Faust And Marguerite, [Illustration] Supplement Gratis With United Ireleand, Dublin. 16. Unknown, 1885, Heroines Of Irish History, [Illustration] Supplement To Irish Fireside, Dublin. 17. McLeod, S. 2017, Untitled, [Artwork] Melbourne. 18. McLeod, S. 2016, Untitled, [Artwork] Albury. 19. McLeod, S. 2016, Untitled, [Artwork] Albury. 20. McLeod, S. 2017, Untitled, [Artwork] Melbourne. 21. McLeod, S. 2017, Untitled, [Artwork] Melbourne. 22. Hamilton, G. 1885, To Begin With, I’ll Pain The Town Red, [Illustration], Judge, Unknown. 23. Unknown, 1899, A Lesson For Anti-Expansionists, [Illustration], Judge, Unknown. 24. Unknown, 1889, A Scandalous Encounter, [Cartoon], St Stephen’s Review Presentation, Unknown. 25. Kirsten-Parsch, D. 2017, Profesograd, [Artwork] Melbourne. 26. Kirsten-Parsch, D. 2017, Superimposer, [Artwork] Melbourne. 27. Kirsten-Parsch, D. 2017, Untitled, [Artwork] Melbourne.

28. Kirsten-Parsch, D. 2017, Chin, [Artwork] Melbourne. 29. Unknown., circa 1880, Our Infant Hercules, [Cartoon], St Stephen’s Review Presentation, Unknown. 30. McLeod, S. 2016, Untitled, [Artwork] Albury. 31. McLeod, S. 2017, Untitled, [Artwork] Melbourne. 32. Keppler, U. 1898, New York’s New Solar System, [Cartoon] Puck Magazine, St Louis. ROHINGYA MIGRANTS ARTICLE Abdelkader, E., 2013. The Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar: Past, Present and Future. Oregon Review of International Law, 12 June, 15(3), pp. 1-19. ASEAN, n.d. AICHR. [Online], available at: [Accessed 16 September 2017]. Brooten, L., 2015. Blindspots in Human Rights Coverage: Framing Violence Against the Rohingya in Myanmar/Burma. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 7 May, 13(2), pp. 132-144. Brooten, L. & Verbruggen, Y., 2017. Producing the News: Reporting on Myanmar’s Rohingya Crisis. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 28 March, 47(3), pp. 440-460. Dunne, T. & Hanson, M., 2009. Human Rights in International Relations. Human Rights: Politics and Practice, June.pp. 61-76. Evans, G. et al., 2001. The Responsibility to Protect, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Green, P., 2013. Islamophobia: Burma’s racist fault-line. Race & Class, 1 October, 55(2), pp. 93-98. Holliday, I., 2014. Addressing Myanmar’s Citizenship Crisis. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 18 February, 44(3), pp. 404-421. Inside story-Al Jazeera. 2017. [Film] Directed by Jane Dutton. Qatar: Al Jazeera. Jones, W. J., 2017. Myanmar’s Rohingya: Human Rights Abuses and Systemic Violence. Journal of Urban Culture Research, Volume 14, pp. 16-33. Kingston, L. N., 2015. Protecting the world’s most persecuted: the responsibility to protect and Burma’s Rohingya minority. The International Journal of Human Rights, 30 September, 19(8), pp. 1163-1175. Kipgen, N., 2013. Conflict in Rakhine State in Myanmar: Rohingya Muslims’ Conundrum. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 6 July, 33(2), pp. 298-310. Langlois, A. J., 2015. Normative and Theoretical Foundations of Human Rights. Human Rights: Politics and Practice, 30 March.pp..12-26. Lewa, C., 2009. North Arakan: an open prison for the Rohingya in Burma. Forced Migration Review, April, Volume 32, p. 11. Moyn , S., 2010. The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. 1st ed. London: Harvard University Press. Nations, U., n.d. [Online], available at: bgresponsibility.shtml[ [Accessed 15 September 2017]. Nations, U., n.d. Universal Declaration of Human Right. [Online], available at: universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html [Accessed 15 September 2017]. Nyi Nyi, K., 2008. Rohingya Muslims: Myanmar’s Forgotten People. RSIS Commentaries, 6 February, Volume 12, pp. 1-4. Parnini, S. N., 2013. The Crisis of the Rohingya as a Muslim Minority in Myanmar and Bilateral Relations with Bangladesh. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 18 October, 33(2), pp. 281-297.

Popham, P., 2012. The Independent. [Online], available at: asia/no-end-in-sight-to-the-sufferings-of-the-worlds-most-persecuted-minority-burmas-rohingyamuslims-8202784.html [Accessed 17 September 2017]. Pugh, C. L., 2013. Is Citizenship the Answer. International Migration Institute, October. Volume 76. Robinson, I. G. & Rahman, I. S., 2012. The Unknown Fate of the Stateless Rohingya. Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, November 2(2), pp. 16-21. Zawacki, B., 2013. Defining Myanmar’s “Rohingya Problem”. Human Rights Brief, 20(18), pp. 18-25. PRO GENDER ESSENTIALISM Hunter, P 2010, ‘The psycho gene’, EMBO Reports, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 667–669. Kehinde A J, Ogugu S E, James B I, Paul D K, Racheal A M, et al. 2012, ‘Tears production: implication for health enhancement’, Open Access Scientific Reports, vol. 1, p. 476. Rios, E 2008, ‘Yerkes researchers find sex differences in monkey toy preferences similar to humans’ Yerkes National Primate Institute, accessed 8 December 2017, < developmental_cognitive_neuroscience/toy_preferences.html>. Vingerhoets, A J, & Cornelius, R R (eds) 2002, Adult crying : a biopsychosocial approach, Taylor and Francis, Florence AGAINST CAPITALISM Bruenig, M 2017, Nordic Socialism is Realer than You Think, viewed 11th December 2017, http://mattbruenig. com/2017/07/28/nordic-socialism-is-realer-than-you-think/ Hardman, J 1999, The Great Depression and the New Deal, viewed 11th December 2017, https://web.stanford. edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/ Jones, A 2016, After I lives in Norway America felt Backwards Here’s Why, 10th December 2017, https://www. Monash Business School, 2017, HAS THE WORLD BANK GOT A PROBLEM WITH ITS POVERTY FIGURES?, viewed 10th December 2017, United Nations Development Program, 2017, International Human Development Indicators, 10th December 2017,

UNION WEDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S


The non-partisan


Spectrum Semester 1 2018 Editor-In- Chief Connor Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Brien Deputy Editor and Art Direction Winona Horton Director of Design Tim Mooney Printer Jossimo Print If you would like to be involved in the next issue of spectrum, as a member of the editorial or design team, please forward your expression of interest to We acknowledge this magazine was created on the traditional lands of the Wurrundjeri peoples, and pay our respects to their elders both past and present, and the art, stories and histories they hold. Š 2018 The University of Melbourne Political Interest Society

University of Melbourne Political Interest Society

SPECTRUM - Edition 1  

The inaugural edition of PIS's biannual magazine.

SPECTRUM - Edition 1  

The inaugural edition of PIS's biannual magazine.