Grieving individuals crowded amid a vast expanse of flowers behind the Bondi Pavilion on Tuesday, their tones quietly lifting in a traditional song of harmony. Shalom, shalom, they intoned together, while grief settled in like the leaden clouds overhead.
This emotional intensity of the occasion was suddenly broken by cries: “The Prime Minister must go”, followed by a rejoinder, “What did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The singing ceased. Bewildered, I looked over.
On the scene, positioned at the forefront of the assembly, flanked by formally dressed guards and the press, were two figures seen as among the most blatant political opportunists ever elected to the nation's legislature.
Amid the throng of somberly dressed attendees, their expressions etched by sadness, the pair stood out, dressed clearly to perform for the cameras.
Polarizing Language Amid Shared Grief
One figure, who has political history has been marked by fostering division since first entering politics, talked about liberty and security and the ability to live “free from fear”. This individual stated she wanted hate preachers “dealt with”. And echoed the central theme of her career, “Let’s get back the Australia I grew up in … I consider the individuals we are welcoming to the country. Some nations they should not be allowed to migrate here.”
A portion of the onlookers, among them a man in particular headwear, clearly approved of her empty sentiments, holding up their mobile devices to record them and then pressing even closer for selfies. “We support you”, “You alone who speaks the truth.”
Not everyone shared this view.
“Australians reject extremes,” a volunteer told me, as he found it difficult to process her comments. “If she had her way I wouldn’t be able to be here.”
Presumably the nations of origin of the civilians hailed as “heroes” for sacrificing their own safety to tackle the gunmen—Syria and Russia—would not be on her permissible list either.
A Violent Act on the Idea of the Nation Itself
In the immediate aftermath from the violence, the predominant public sentiment has been that this was not just a targeted act against members of the Jewish community, but an assault on the core notion of the nation as an inclusive community where fairness and tolerance were held as principles, security for the majority was commonplace, and faith did not play a defining role.
That this could happen in a location that evokes joy, a site that rivals the nation’s most iconic symbol as an international calling card, was profoundly shocking. History shows that for terror to work its evil, symbolic locations are often the chosen targets and human beings the collateral damage.
It is the reaction from leaders should so rapidly descend into self-interest, name-calling and pointless debate—concerning whether to tackle the evident weaknesses in the country's often-praised firearms regulations or the problem of antisemitism—was an even more telling marker of the era we live in.
Naturally, each issue must be confronted, seriously and substantially, not simply by invoking process, referring to inquiries or calling for increased monitoring.
A Dereliction of Responsibility and the Rise of a Cruel Pantomime
The public are not alone in struggling with difficult conversations that demand more than superficial responses, but when the primary political groups—even after such a loss—fail to find consensus on the fundamentals, that is a dereliction of their core duty.
Having listened to the self-aggrandising remarks, I was still taken aback to hear a flippant comment while the individual moved through the crowd to depart the vigil: “Perhaps I'll wear an Israeli flag into the house and see what they do.” To turn this deep loss, which speaks to what commentators have called a deep schism in the country's psyche, into a crude performance is inexcusable.
In recent times, so much of what was once unimaginable has become almost normal. Vile racist, misogynist and antisemitic rhetoric has been excused under the false rubric of free speech, vitriolic groups online have gone unchallenged, and fear has become pervasive. It is scarcely unexpected that under these circumstances some people become susceptible to demagogues.
Some call the current era a “hinge year”—a time when we caught sight of a potential cruel order, driven by those with unaccountable power and wealth. We can only hope that the observation of pollsters is accurate when they note that people recognize those who “attempt to weaponise grief, hunt for scapegoats and turn anxiety into a wedge.”
We cannot allow this cruel political pantomime become the new normal. Addressing it will require determination, bravery and selflessness, of the kind that displayed by the ordinary citizens who followed their impulses to defend others at whatever cost.
