The Bullying of Australia’s First Female Prime Minister – Will She Be Right Mate?

I have just watched this video ‘The Bullying of Julia Gillard’ (pasted below) and my gut feeling is that there is truth in this. I teach anti-bullying and absolutely this collective criticism and particularly the repeated negative behaviour of individuals or groups is an example of bullying. The definition of bullying is a repeated desire by one person to hurt another.  Here is a longer vision by wikipedia…

“…Bullying is the use of force or coercion to abuse or intimidate others. The behavior can be habitual and involve an imbalance of social or physical power. It can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of class, race, religion, gender, sexuality, appearance, behavior, or ability.[2][3] If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing.[4] The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a “target”. Bullying can be defined in many different ways. The UK currently has no legal definition of bullying,[5] while some U.S. states have laws against it.[6] Bullying consists of four basic types of abuse – emotional (sometimes called relational), verbal, physical, and cyber.[7] It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as intimidation.”

I think the example of Alan Jones proves that.  I have written a blog on his bullying in the past.  My questions are – why are individuals/groups allowed to emotionally abuse when it is considered violent behaviour? What would peaceful behaviour look like?

What I feel is that the comments revealed in the video are reflective of the character and emotional problems of those who have projected their unowned negativity onto Julia Gillard (in this case).  What a bullying person sees in someone is a reflection of the person seeing it.  In truth, it has nothing to do with the other. Judgement is a negative perception that colours what we see in others.  Those in denial of course will say that is not true that what they see is true. Yet interestingly if you get a group looking at the same situation, they will all see different things. Projection is like a movie theatre where your mind is like the projector and the screen is the person you are looking at. Your negativity is within you and if you don’t want to acknowledge your own negativity you push it out onto someone else, and it feels better. It is to avoid negative feelings. Low self esteem and self hatred is usually what is behind negative criticisms personally made against someone. 

We see bullying as a national problem in the schools and it is not difficult to see that the adults are leading by example.  If we want children to stop feeling depressed or suiciding because of school, we may want to deeply consider public and private behaviour which models bullying. Otherwise we have a next generation repeating the same mistakes as this one.

In my view, in politics it is believed that opposition means win/lose and we typically see this play out as public character assassination.  Rivals look for dirty washing, for mistakes, for flaws, for what is wrong. Never is there an approach of looking at what is right and building upon it. That would be unheard of in politics because this is the way the game has been played for centuries. The Westminister system is the same in Britain, the US House of Representatives is the same as one side seeks to beat the other and be seen as the superior side. It seems to me that politics these days is no-holds-barred, values are disappearing and integrity has been lost sight of, in favour of winning at all costs.  Anything goes – and if you dare to stand up as a representative you have to be prepared to be attacked.  I personally believe a Parliament should model the best behaviour in our society, I would love to see it as a model of true democracy.  In my vision it would model behaviour that encourages freedom of speech, integrity, critical thinking, dignity and generates solutions to community problems. 

I believe the adversarial, competitive system leads to behaviour that encourages emotional abuse of the so called ‘enemy’.  We are still in the early stages of understanding how detrimental emotional abuse is and it is on the same level as physical violence, if not worse.  You only need look up Dr. Emoto (Messages from Water) and how positive and negative thinking affects frozen water crystals revealing symmetrical and asymmetrical patterns, imagine what it does to cells. You will discover why there are many people in hospitals that are unwell.  It is no surprise that those who have had emotional/physical abuse often have health problems in life.  In my work with Dr. Patch Adams (clown doctor) we would bring humour as healing to an environment in order to help people recover quicker.  Positive emotional intelligence opens up creativity, wellness and unity amongst people.  We move away from us/them towards we the people. Adversarial, divisive environments creates the opposite. 

The negative intent in a verbal statement reveals the emotions of hatred and loathing of one person towards another. In truth it is their own self hatred that is what is masked.  I believe we need to educate people to deal with their emotions and self esteem. By all means vent feelings if frustrated, but never at the person, as we seek to do no harm in a democracy, we value diversity. 

In conflict resolution two parties come together with a mediator to deal with conflict that has become destructive.  The way the process works is to allow both sides to have their say fully.  It is never to be demeaning or blaming of the other, it is to own one’s feelings and to discuss the issue from their own point of view.  This is done without interruption.  Then when both have spoken and both have listened a space is created to look at options on how to work or live together.   Once options are identified then solutions are worked on collaboratively.  This process is a form of problem solving where both parties take responsibility for a dispute and work on how to resolve the situation peacefully so both wins.  Of course there are issues with power differences, but in a democracy this would be the modus operandi.

In our political system we have entrenched a warfare type mentality of destroying the enemy.  We have seen the Parliament reduced to a colesium type forum where the public witness the cruelty of a battle where one wins and another loses.  The winner parades him/herself around and feels a surge of confidence that they have crushed the other.   It is really concerning to see this in politics. 

The original Greek Agora was a place where Senators met and there was some form of argument or airing of views about particular topics.  The winners of these arguments were those who could articulate the best argument or philosophy of the situation.  Here is some information about the Greek Agora… 

The Spaces for Democracy by Richard Sennett …

“…From roughly 600 to 350 B.C, Athens located its democratic practices in the town square and the theatre.  In these spaces, very different kinds of democracy were practiced.  The square stimulated citizens to move beyond their personal concerns and acknowledge the presence and needs of other citizens.  The theatre helped citizens focus their attention and concentrate on decision making.  We would never want to copy the social conditions of Athenian democracy (the majority of people were slaves; women were excluded from politics), but we can learn something by studying how these often volatile, intensely competitive people connected their democracy to architecture.

In the Pnyx, Athenians debated and decided on the city’s actions. The Pnyx was a bowl- shaped, open-air theatre, a ten-minute walk from the city’s central square.  Chiseled out of a hill, The Pynx resembled other Greek theatres, and, like them, was used originally for dancing and plays.  In the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., however Athenians seeking order in their politics, put this ordinary theatre to a different use.  Speakers stood in the open round space on a stone platform, called a bema, so that they could be seen by everyone.  Behind the speaker the land dropped away, so that words seemed to hover in the air between the empty sky and the crowd of normally five to six thousand men; from morning to late afternoon, sunlight struck the speaker’s face, so that nothing in his expression or gestures was obscured by shadow. The audience for this political theatre, men who belonged to the same local tribe, sat around the bowl in assigned places.  Sitting in a semi-circle, citizens could see each other’s reactions even as they watched the orator at the bema.

The men sat or stood this way for a long time – as long as the sunlight lasted.  The theatrical space thus functioned as detection mechanism – its focus and duration allowed participants to get beneath the surface of momentary impressions.  This disciplinary space of eye, voice, and body had one great virtue: through concentration of attention on a speaker and identification of others in the audience who might call out challenges or comments, the ancient political theatre sought to hold citizens responsible for their words.”

The last 4 words are particularly important.  I think this should apply to the Australian political theatre inclusive of media, politicians, business and other influential players both visible and invisible.  We are starting to try this with Q&A on ABC television but I would like the public more active rather than just asking questions I don’t mind them getting up with time limits to express what they want.  It is their democracy, it is not about experts shaping our opinion, it is about us standing up.  That is really the importance of participation.  At the moment all we have is the public as observers.

Today in modern Parliaments it seems more like a sporting match to win rather than an honourable place to air differences and seek for solutions that benefit the people of Australia.  Often you hear people say ‘the Australian people want …..” as if the person actually knows what the Australian people want.  In most cases they are furthering their own agenda with no polling done with the public (or their constituents) to work with their perspective.  I am a former market analyst and my job was to poll people for their opinion and then report it accurately without bias.  I think it is the closest way of determining what the public want and as close to democracy as you can get.  I would encourage a new form of Parliament using this proposed Broadband network, whereby all the people fill in surveys or offer video blogs (sight impaired/deaf) about what they actually want and the politicians serve this desire rather than their own or specific interests.  No election should be won or lost on popularity of a leader or the demonising of individuals in the Parliament.  It should be decided on the basis of which party reflects the true will of the public. I would like to see politicians drawn from the broad cross section of the community rather than specific elite groups, such as lawyers for example. We need to have representation and integrity in this profession.  

In my view I see no-one representing the will of the Australian people but deeply suspect there are interest groups and business groups who are determining the outcome of Australian politics.  The same corruption in my view is playing out in many other countries with the pretence of democracy.  I personally have never been asked what I want and I do not want to vote on personalities, I am interested in substance.  I would like to see this influence stop by initiating only publicly paid for advertising for the political parties and ending donations by any outsiders.  Or if donations happen there is no knowledge of who is donating.   A true democracy is one vote one value without some having disproportionate influence. 

I am certain the demonising of people, such as Julia Gillard, would stop overnight.  We do need a sophisticated conversation about gender in this country without all the power games.  I personally evaluate people on merit, I don’t care if they are male or female, if they are honest with integrity they get my vote.  I find it boring to find out about their dress code, personal relationships and lives.  My interest is what they stand for and the policy they are placing before the people.  I am interested in true governance that represents people, not a media intent on deciding who gets favourable press and who doesn’t.   

At the end of the day you choose, if you stay silent, you get the government you deserve.  We the people have to stand up for what we want and really work on overcoming the great apathy many feel.  It can change and it will change, when you do.  If you think this video below is acceptable behaviour toward a Head of State then say nothing.  Saying nothing is indeed a response.

I look forward to a future of better governance in Australia and more input by the Australian people. 

Here is the video which I hope may change the future of Australian politics and social life.