Since the attack on the Jewish community at Bondi Beach in December last year, there has been one phrase spilling from the mouth of every parliamentarian, pundit and political journalist: ‘social cohesion.’
Even though the term has been repeated ad nauseum and has become the core rationale for the Federal and State levels’ pushes for anti-protest and ‘hate speech’ laws, it remains only vaguely defined by these same forces. This semantic gap only grows wider when the very actions of the institutions parroting ‘social cohesion’ have only served to be divisive and authoritarian.
What does Social Cohesion mean?
Social cohesion is defined by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare as the “interrelatedness and unity between the individuals, groups and associations that exist within society” that are established through “trust, shared values, feelings of belonging and the expectation of reciprocity”
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe states that lack of social cohesion results in “Diminished sense of belonging, increasing inequality of opportunity, declining trust in institutions, weakened social ties”
Yet the Australian government seems to view the perceived lack of social cohesiveness as more of a cause than a symptom. Their flagrant attack on our free speech and civil liberties — the repression of our ability to express the mistrust and anger we hold towards our institutions — says as much.
In the narrative constructed by our politicians, social non-cohesion is promoted by bad actors in activist movements and hate groups (Parliament intentionally fails to distinguish between the two). The assumption is that Australians are a politically inert people who would just go back to the pub if it weren’t for those pesky activists with megaphones.
The government is deliberately misconstruing how these protest movements form, shifting the argument away from valid grievances to a debate on individual actions taken by protestors. All popular movements, right or left, are born from material conditions. If those material conditions, like unaffordable housing, rising inflation, a cost-of-living crisis, discrimination against Indigenous people or Australia’s support for Israel, are not resolved, the social non-cohesion will never disappear.
Why do we need to be Socially Cohesive?
Calls for social cohesion have stemmed from a horrific attack that has now gone through a completely obvious and disgusting politicisation, without any evidence that the attackers were influenced by Australia’s political climate. Government bodies have played the blame game instead of taking responsibility and taking action. They have squared their aim at the most politically convenient target — our democratic rights.
Social non-cohesion is not a phenomenon that suddenly materialises in a society. Rather, it is a sign of many deteriorating factors that have built up over a long period, and have been conveniently ignored by politicians. It can be said that the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of social non-cohesion. No progress has ever been made without being socially non-cohesive — without making some people uncomfortable or dragging others kicking and screaming into the future. History has certainly never been made by following repressive laws.
Undoubtedly social non-cohesion should be addressed, but the impetus is on the government to examine the background factors that have created it. They must tackle inequality, pay the rent, cut ties, and treat the political and economic woes of Australians as worth resolving.
The silencing of criticism instead of responding to it is a tactic as old as authoritarianism itself. Most authoritarian regimes now lie in the ever-filling graveyard of history, gone but we can only hope never forgotten. The Australian government will learn soon enough that they cannot keep sticking their fingers in their ears, and we will have to wait and see if everyone will be better or far,far worse off for it.
Now out of any time in recent memory, we cannot afford to be complacent. We cannot wait for the verdict of a court case, the results of the next election or someone else to join the rally. If you don’t use your rights, you’re going to lose them, no matter what colour the party.
Our politicians’ ‘Social Cohesion’ won’t save us.
As it becomes increasingly clear that the Bondi gunmen were acting as lone copycat terrorists and not at the behest of any political movement, politicians have attempted to retrospectively duct-tape further reasoning onto the passing of anti-protest laws.
Premier Chris Minns disgustingly implied that the “right to enjoy the city” trumps the right to protest a genocide carried out by an apartheid state or increasing indigenous deaths in custody. Minns further went on to imply, in the midst of a femicide crisis, that peaceful marches are the reason police aren’t investigating domestic violence offences.
I’m not even joking.
In his own words, “You’ve got literally thousands of NSW police that need to be deployed to marshal or protect public assemblies at the expense of investigating domestic violence offences…” [Emphasis added].
These are the figures that are repeating ‘social cohesion’ like a broken record, while they pull away resources from protecting women and throw Indigenous kids into adult jails.
At the heart of the government and media response to social non-cohesion is generational layers of hypocrisy that render it tone-deaf at best and completely discriminatory at worst.
How can the right to walk in a park be superior to the right to peaceful assembly?
How can the government be protecting and promoting unity with the Jewish community when they invite a war criminal into Australia in this community’s name?
How can hate-speech laws be to the benefit of everyone, when they seem to be designed around one group, and criticism of one foreign country?
How can a Royal Commission seek justice when it is investigating places, people, organisations and institutions completely unrelated to the cause of its creation?
How can one terror attack elicit months of hurried laws, condemnations, media witch-hunts and round-the-clock attention, while another failed attack is barely mentioned in the news and is met with shameful silence by politicians?
The answer is the colonial hypocrisy that Australia is built on. It is clear what the government’s actual definition of social cohesion is: the continuation of the challenged status quo, the domination of some groups over others; rich over poor, white over black, man over woman, Israeli over Palestinian.
Some suggestions for the government…
Maybe if they truly want to tackle social cohesion, they could take aim at our media apparatus. They might want to begin by addressing the news media which cynically mass-produce hate and division for profit while upholding massive double-standards and lying by omission.
Or the government could look inwards, at the racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and exploitative elements within Parliament halls. Not just the Pauline Hansons or Barnaby Joyces, but the figures like Sussan Ley, Chris Minns or Peter Malinauskas and all the party stooges that have supported their divisive politicisation of a tragedy, deflecting blame by using the wellbeing of Jewish people as a shield.
In short…
The endless discussion on social cohesion is a distraction, not from the ills of non-cohesion, but from who is responsible. It's become a politicised blame game to deflect conversation away from the faults of politicians and onto systemically disruptive movements.
But your anger isn’t terrorism. Outrage at an apartheid state, deaths in custody or any form of injustice isn’t a personal failure. It is the rational emotion to feel. It is human.
The remedy to a non-cohesive society doesn’t come from the top, because it's the top that causes it. Unity comes from the ground up. It can’t be state-sponsored, it can’t preference some groups over others, and it can’t destroy our freedom.
-