Autumn2019

I’m leaning on a streetlight on a dusky night at Claremont Train Station. Red taillights glow as they shoot past me. The penetrating sound of hard-work-shoe heel fills the silence of the crowded station. One man makes his way towards me. He’s walking a bike, stopping a metre before me and then placing it beneath him, balancing himself and the bike so he can accomplish a precarious and clearly practiced perch. This is Bob (I gave him that name). Bob’s a big bearded bloke, wearing a blue shirt and riding a black bike. He’s got a bit of a gut. Bob’s also a physiotherapist. You can see because he’s wearing a shirt that clearly reads ‘BodyMove Physiotherapy’.

Here comes the train! I let Bob go first, and as I enter the carriage and sit next to him – maintaining a cordial one seat distance – I catch a glimpse of Mel. Mel’s a middle-aged mum. Remember her for later. Bob’s left his bike up near the door. He looks like a trusting kind of guy, sitting in his seat, doing his little physiotherapy things. He sits up tall and arches his back, takes a big breath and rolls his shoulders. What’s going on in Bob’s brain? Does he yearn to be on the trails with his mountain bike, each day another tick on the weekend countdown? Does he have a wife and kids? Does he want to see them? Are all these mid-travel exercises some de-stressing ritual, preparing him for returning home to the domestic battleground? He seems like a grown-up kind of guy. Probably works long hours, leaves home at 7, gets back at 6:30. Kisses the wife goodbye and hello, then sits down to a dinner of beer and babs. Waiting for the weekend.

And what about Mel. She’s got her head in a phone right now, pulled back hair clearing her blue pale face illuminated by the blinking screen. Bags under her eyes, forehead crinkled up in ruts. Responsibility is heavy, isn’t it? Mel looks like Bob in ten years. Ten more years of dealing with kids. Ten more years of dealing with the same man. Ten more years at the same job. Ten more years. There isn’t much else too special about Mel. She’s wearing comfy clothes, a brown shirt and yoga pants. Mel nearly catches my eye, so my gaze hastily runs to the window. The trick to pretending you’re not looking is to look closely at something just near them, that usually satisfies them. I hate how I look in the glass. The train window gives me a fat lip and black eyes. A trick-of-the-light. It all rushes past, the cars, the grey road, the black sky, and with a woosh we’re in the tunnel.

Mel’s first to get up. Bob’s still on the train, on his way to where-ever he’s going on this Wednesday night. She absolutely fangs it up the stairs leaving Subi Station, and makes a quick right turn. She’s the first to tag off. The time’s about 5:34, but it’s already dark. Not dark enough for Kim though. Kim’s a crazy girl, or a boy. I can’t really tell. But it shouldn’t really matter, should it? Kim isn’t crazy because of that, though. Kim is crazy because she’s on a unicycle in a high-vis vest bombing down Railway Parade, weaving in and out of eucalyptus trees and footpath cracks. Taking my phone out, I snap a picture of her. It’s not every day you see someone on a unicycle. The flash blinks in and out and I store my new high-res photo of Kim on a unicycle. It’s so impressive how these days phones take such high definition photos.

I’m home now. Back in the den. It’s got a plate on the front called Lavender Cottage, but I like to call it ‘The Wolf Den’. Pretty crazy, huh? The blinds are down, and my single blue light is on, shedding the spotlight on to my phone and laptop. Facebook up. The first search of the day is ‘BodyMove Physiotherapy’. If you go into the search by person’s tab you can specify a place of work. Scrolling down the lists, I strike gold. Some people don’t have Facebook, but usually they’ve got some kind of social media, or their company has one of those ‘meet the team’ pages. Regardless, I always mark my man quickly enough. Big Bearded Bob is actually Big Bearded John. John Martin. Mr Martin has a beautiful wife – married five years ago. Her name is Kelsey White (nee Miller) and they have two kids: Ryan (1) and James (3). This is of course all neatly displayed on Mr Martin’s Facebook Timeline, a tidy summation of his life for the casual onlooker to happen across. If I wanted to see Johnno-mate again, I’d rock up to the Kalamunda Mountain Bike formal meeting on Saturday arvo, which he’s apparently attending as advertised on his events page.

That was quite an easy one, of course. Mel is going to be a bit harder, but thankfully our government has put infrastructure in place for the curious curator. Transperth logs all of the times smart-riders tag on or off. If you know where to look, you can find yourself on the archive of every single use of smart-riders over the last day. When you know the time (5:34), and the specific order of the person tagging off – first after the break between trains – suddenly you know the identification number of the smart rider. A couple of easy searches on Transperth later, and now we know Mel is actually Ella Ashton. Ella Ashton isn’t actually the middle-aged mum I thought she was. Bit prejudiced of me, really. She’s a working women lawyer at a high-flying firm. Apparently, she’s an integral part of the Women’s Law Society in WA. There’s a function for that group on Thursday week, in the late evening. Drinks 5-9. If I wanted to see her again.

The last one is Kim. Which would be near impossible without my high-res photo. There’s this cool new website online called PimEyes. I throw her photo on the net, and there it is, she’s returned from the ether. Kim is an active, genderfluid member of the LGTBQ community. If I wanted to see her and the unicycle, I would just have to attend a march on Parliament tomorrow at 2.

And that concludes my searching.

“THE SHARDS OF SAFETY.”

Erik was smiling. It was the perfect title.
Blinking, his searching green eyes darted around the office, looking for someone to share his excitement. To his disappointment, Erik saw his colleagues entrapped by their luminescent screens, confined by their work stations. No one looked up.

He had been working at The Sydney Chronicle for a month and yet Erik still felt like an intruder. The tightly packed cubicles, the glaring artificial light, the piles of paper. It did not feel as he had imagined. To Erik, the office was like a factory with journalists working with mechanical efficiency to produce stories to be sold to the public. Since he started, he felt like a useless worker who had been cast aside to clean up the stories unwanted by the others. Nothing interesting ever landed on his desk. This story, however, would give Erik a chance to prove himself, to make them take notice. As the laptop screen began to dim, he forced his focus back onto his creation. The photograph underneath the title truly captured the scene. Piles of glass glinted in the stark morning sun. The pavement besmirched by red spray paint. Bright yellow police tape warning the public, DO NOT CROSS. A distressed politician observing the wreckage. It was just what Erik needed to please his editor and maybe even gain the respect of his colleagues. All they cared about were the clicks, the views. And everyone knows nothing gains more views than intrigue. Or chaos.
“Late last night, Labor politician Roger Montague’s office on the corner of Pitt and King Street was attacked presenting a grievous threat to Australia’s democracy.”
He set to work, weaving his thoughts into an elaborate and vibrant knit, full of emotion and conspiracy. He felt like a proper journalist, a part of the media machine.
“The office had bricks thrown through its windows and NF, the initials of radical right-wing group National Front, spray painted on the pavement.”
Erik’s fingers were abuzz, weaving the story through his keyboard. He was tired from a long night, yet felt energised by the thrill of the story. It was worth it. Click, clack, a whirlwind of words emerged onto the page.
“The attack is in response to reforms presented by the New South Wales Labor government that would allow for 5,000 Syrian refugees to be settled in inner city Sydney.” 

In the cubicle across from Erik’s, a phone buzzed. A text message from a reliable source.
Something you may like. Not public yet.
Use wisely.
The man opened the attached video file. He remained silent yet the expression in his grey eyes spoke reams.

Erik was still immersed in his screen, unaware of the man’s revelation…
“National Front operated as a political party in the 1970s, promoting radical and racist immigration control. Now, they have returned to propagate these extreme views through violence and terror.”
The man began to analyse Erik; the unironed shirt, the dark rings around bright green eyes, the sallowness in his young face. A desperate man was a man capable of anything.
“Mr Montague described the attack on his office as, ‘a cowardly and callous act of terrorism,’ and warned the public to be vigilant.”
Erik noticed the piercing eyes observing him. Waiting for something to happen. Like an owl watching its prey. With the man’s stare, the office seemed to get more and more suffocating, imprisoning him in his cubicle. It sent a shiver rippling down his spine. Why was he watching? What did he know? Shaken yet determined, Erik launched himself into finishing the article.
“The NSW Police currently have no suspects. If anyone has information please call New South Wales Crime Stoppers at 1800 333 000.”
The man strode purposefully away from his own cubicle, moving his glassy gaze away from Erik. And yet, Erik still felt on edge. As if more invisible eyes were on him, pinning him down. He needed to finish the article, get approval from the editor and then leave the office. Leave the watchful eyes. As quickly as possible.
“The question now is was this incident the start of something greater? Is it a one-time threat or a warning of more to come?”
Hurriedly packing up his bag, Erik added the final touches to the article.
“THE SHARDS OF SAFETY.
By Erik Ilse.” 

Rushing through the maze of cubicles, he opened the door to the Editor’s office with a sense of urgency. His heart beating fast. The room was dark, bar the bright TV screen, casting long shadows for two figures.
Unmistakably, the Editor and the grey-eyed man. “Sit and watch,” the Editor said simply. Ominously.
CCTV footage dated 1/06/2019 23:54:26.
Looking down on the corner of Pitt and King Street. The street’s empty. The city silent. In the corner of the screen, a man in a black hoodie with a brick in his left hand. A spray paint can in the right. The brick cannoned through the air, the glass shattering in its wake. Red paint staining the pavement like blood. The man turned around, facing towards the silent observer. Green eyes surrounded by dark rings.
“We know.”

Erik stood crumpled in the dark, tears cascading down his face. He opened his mouth to explain; how the press pushed him to the edge. How the need for a story made him create one. Yet, no words came out. He just stood there in silence.
A broken man.
The green-eyed man.

There is much mystery surrounding the events that occurred on the 23^rd of August 2017. Of what is known, there are three critical threads of information to follow. A letter left to a young man, the disappearance of his father and the destruction of an infamous mine. Firstly, the letter.

There is a point in everyone’s life where you can trace back and see where it all began. What small decision creates a toppling of dominoes that changes your life forever. One small day and your peaceful little existence is turned upside down; for better or worse.

Looking back, you can see all the branches of the tree of time. Like the world tree of Norse mythology, each leaf can be traced to the start, stick by stick, twig by twig, branch by branch, limb by limb to the trunk. A timeline of someone’s life, a tree. Each leaf a possibility. Now looking back, you can see all the little forks in the road. The ones you didn’t take. I have made a lot of bad choices in my life. But kid, you aren’t one of them.

Your mother and I both love you very much, and you are going to find out some things about me.

There is no set destination in life. Just go with it. Be the ant crawling along the trunk and the limb and the branch and the twig and the stick and then the leaf. Find your own Leaf. A nice one.

Life has no path but it has an end. We all die, and poof! That’s it. No more life. You see what I mean, kid? We are only here for a short time. Humans are just the last word on the last page on the last chapter in the book of life. You aren’t even a full stop. No one is worth their ink, but we as a whole, now that is a word.

What we can do together as a species is wonderful. But inevitable. “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

You know this, right? We will all die and human civilization will be no more. The universe was born in fire but will end in ice.

We will die son. As a species we will die, so why bother living? Because you can live. And that is it. If you can live then you should live. Does that make sense? Life is a cruel gift. We’re all living on borrowed time. Maybe one day we can understand it but I don’t know these days.

Live for the now. Make your own future. Life has no plans. All is meaningless. So why care? That doesn’t mean you can’t have fun.

Now that we have established the nature of life, we can better understand how we should live it.

From an initial read of the letter, it seems the ramblings of a mad man. The letter continues as follows.

The road less worn can be risky, dangerous even, but it offers an alternate path to the destination of all life: death.

As you know, I sold my land to the company for a large quantity of their shares as well as a spot on their board. I thought that they would act in good faith. I got paid. It was good for a time. Then, it happened.

The mine broke a few rules here and there. I left the board. Then came the reports of “malpractice” and “environmental disaster”. The mine continued, leeching its filth into the waterways. What was I to do? Sell my shares? What good would that do? I would have no influence on the company then? So, I did nothing, and watched the world burn.

For this I was hounded. My name dragged through the dirt. I must end this.
Tonight. I shall go. After all I must help life go on.

Son, I will spare you, save you. You should not suffer as I have. You will understand.

Of note to the development of the events is the front-page headline of some major newspapers on the following day.

“Legal Debate Rages over Same-Sex Marriage”, “Overturned in the High Court. Terrorist Walks Free”, “Large Shark Spotted off Urban Beach”
“End of an Empire”, “Social Media Attack”
“Outburst of Joy after Final”, “Unbelievable Victory”.

What can we make of this? Most certainly that the press is rubbish only suited for toilet training dogs. Not wanting to associate themselves with the missing (presumably dead) man they had so harshly criticized. Now, of course, these headings are attempts to limit bias but still it must be stated that some titles were rejected in an effort for clarity. Too much information can cause one to neglect the details. The second thread of the father’s disappearance can be no better summarised than by the son’s statement:

“Why did he have to go? I just miss him so much. I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy. I just want to know if he is well.”

The letter reads as if a self-sacrificial letter but the hopefulness of the son’s statement forces us to reassess what we thought. Did the event in question occur? What really happened? This is where using conventional media fails. The third thread is the destruction of the flagship GMC Mine, followed by its closure.
Below outlines an official report from the company: 

“After an unknown explosive discharge, destroying the site and several operational vehicles, the board has decided to cease operations immediately…The cause of the explosion is not known…The quality of the ore has been diminishing…the disappearance of one of our shareholders on the same night is presumed to be coincidental.”

From this do we understand now? A father loves his son and there was no accident. Only taking the road less worn. Whether he caused the explosion, or indeed did commit exit due to media pressure, we may not know. Have we dug too deep for the truth? Or not deep enough?

Remember. Either road has the same destination.
Oblivion.

Genetic-engineering can, in theory, be used to prevent childhood diseases. However, given we do not, as a scientific community, yet have sufficient empirical data showing the effectiveness of such an application, it ought not to be applied to cases where there is only a probability (not certainty) of disease. In addition, it is unethical to genetically engineer a non-consenting agent (i.e. the child) for a disease they may or may not have.

In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced the creation of the first genetically engineered babies. In this case, the CCR5 gene was removed from the embryos using CRISPR technology; the twin girls (Lulu and Nana) were born in early November 2018. The CCR5 gene plays a critical role in enabling many forms of the HIV virus to infect cells. By removing it from the embryos Jiankui claimed that it would create children resistant to HIV (Shu, 2018). For his conduct, the international scientific community condemned him and his research was shut down by the Chinese Government. Although he maintained that the alteration in the gene would protect the twin babies from HIV infection later in life, many experts believe that the experiment was flawed.  There was insufficient empirical data to support the claim that the removal of the CCR5 gene will provide protection against HIV infection. Thus, to fully verify the validity of the effectiveness of such genetic engineering, the babies would have to be infected with the HIV virus. Such an act would, of course, be immoral beyond measure. In addition to its unknown (and morally unknowable) effectiveness, such gene editing may have subjected the twin babies to potential risks of future health problems that are currently unknown and unknowable.

The application of this technology is particularly concerning given the risk of “genetic drive”. Genetic drive is the process by which particular genes spread throughout a sexually reproducing population group. Because the scientific community currently lacks sufficient understanding of the genetic engineering technology, gene drive and the ill-understood behaviours of genes under different environments, the unknown consequences of gene editing could potentially be calamitous and unreversable. For example, certain genes may cross species, creating lethal antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Therefore, we ought not to apply genetic engineering to cases where there is only a chance of disease given the unknown risks it may bring.

Furthermore, when genetic engineering is used in preventing childhood diseases, there is the problem of informed consent. It is unethical to apply it to a child because the child is incapable of giving consent for a medical procedure that may or may not be therapeutic. According to Kant’s moral framework of deontology, it is morally unjustified to apply genetic engineering (when it may not be necessary) without the agent’s consent to risk, as it does not conform with the moral norm of consenting in this case.

A counter argument is that genes recombine randomly in the process of fertilization in nature, therefore we should be allowed to apply gene-engineering to humans. Indeed, this is true as a matter of fact but we need not fall into the “naturalistic fallacy”.

Although genetic engineering can in theory be applied as a prevention for childhood diseases, given the potential risks of such application and the lacking of empirical data supporting its effectiveness, it ought not to be applied to the cases where there is only a chance of disease and many known risks. Additionally, it is also ethically unjustified according to deontological ethics to apply the treatment without a consenting agent (i.e. the child).

Mob mentality is a powerful tool. A powerful, yet dangerous tool. Being able to rally people to get behind a cause is a trait desired by many; being able to make others see their point of view and act upon it with intent is seen as a skill that warrants power and respect. But does it always end well? Imagine being brainwashed into following a rally that you don’t fully understand, and unable to see what you’re actually doing. I’m going to explore the benefits and disadvantages of mob mentality, and how it’s ultimately one of the most powerful social tools, yet also the most dangerous. The way it gets people together quickly, the way people follow blindly, and the repercussions that it can have if used wrongly, all have a strong impact on determining whether mob mentality is beneficial or damaging to a society.

The definition of mob is “a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.” (Polito, 2017). A large crowd of people, intent on causing trouble or violence. Now, generally speaking, humans don’t want to cause trouble just for the sake of it, they need a reason, a cause to follow, but in some cases that cause is just because others are doing it, and they want to follow. This attracts people very fast, this sense of wanting to belong to a particular group doing a particular thing – think back to all those times your parents asked you, “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?” Chances are you had some cheeky retort, but think about it now, think about all the peer pressure being placed on you in that moment – all those people close to you are doing this thing, so why aren’t you? Now of course if you had half a brain you wouldn’t send yourself flying into the abyss, unsure of the ground a hundred feet below you, but watching all your friends do it you’d be lying if you say the thought wouldn’t even cross your mind.

The Third Wave was an experiment conducted in 1967 by 25-year-old Social Studies teacher Ron Jones in California (Aron, 2017). The experiment was started when some of Jones’ Year 10 students couldn’t believe that everyday Germans fell so easily into the trap that was Nazism. With permission from the Headmaster, Jones began implementing regiment like rules into his classrooms. He became stricter, the rules included making the students stand up and salute him as soon as he walked into the classroom. They also weren’t allowed to gather in groups larger than three. But these rules didn’t stop in the classroom, if you were caught disobeying the rules at home or in public areas, your classmates were allowed (encouraged even) to dob you in, and you would be punished. The students fell for it, and they fell hard. Jones was surprised that the experiment managed to survive even a day, but he decided that by the fourth day it was getting too out of hand. He invited the student body to a “rally” in the school auditorium, where he then revealed to the students the true nature of the experiment, and how they all fell for it so easily. Some students described relief when it was over, some however “were horrified they’d so neatly played out a transition to fascistic thought and behaviour” (Aron, 2017). The fact that this experiment went so well just shows how easy it is to begin following a cause that you know very little about, and often you don’t even know what you’re doing. Mob mentality doesn’t just involve protesting, but as seen in this example it can apply to regiments and politics as well.

Take a point from To Kill a Mockingbird. The town was so convinced that Tom Robinson was guilty based just on his race. The novel showed that people lose their individuality once introduced to a group with such a narrow-minded view, and they are sucked into the mentality of that group, the mentality that is hunting down an innocent man because they “think” he’s guilty without actually having any real evidence against him (in fact, they had evidence that supported his innocence!) (Logan, 2017). To Kill a Mocking Bird is full of examples of a mob mentality, furthermore proving how powerful, yet dangerous of a tool, mob mentality is and when used wrongly can have dire consequences for all parties involved.

There are many dangers of mob mentality and the powerful influence that it can have over a group of people. Whether it be in a political protest or a kingdom uprising, everyone is vulnerable to becoming part of a mob mentality. So, before you join any rallies, protests, or next gen Nazism, make sure you take a step back and analyse if you’re actually doing the right thing.

Social division within the Western world has greatly changed for the better throughout the decades overall; however, there are still a lot of festering issues regarding social divisions that are prevalent within today’s society.

In the United States, historically, there were many racist federal policies in place which made it difficult for minorities to lead successful and fulfilling lives. During the Great Depression, a scheme called the “New Deal” was put in place that aimed to restore prosperity to Americans. As part of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt created loan programmes to help Americans finance their homes. However, in order to determine who obtained these loans, the American Government created colour-coded maps in which green neighbourhoods were “good,” and red neighbourhoods were “bad.” This practice was called “redlining.” Unsurprisingly, the criteria for what made a neighbourhood “bad” was determined by the quantity of minorities residing within them (generally African-Americans). Because of this practice, taking out home loans when you lived in a green neighbourhood was quite a simple task, whereas the opposite was true in the red-zoned suburbs.

From 1934 through to 1968, 98% of home loans in America were awarded to white families, while a mere 2% of home loans were awarded to all other ethnicities. These blatantly racist policies caused this home-buyers’ advantage (and disadvantage for that matter) to compound over time as the green neighbourhood residents were able purchase property and accrue wealth, whereas residents of red neighbourhoods did not have these privileges and were unwillingly forced into a cycle of poverty.

Eventually, laws were passed which made most of these discriminatory practices illegal. Theoretically, this opened up opportunity for minority groups to buy property in nicer neighbourhoods and accrue wealth, but with what finances were they going to execute these plans? Without any wealth, these families weren’t able to move up the socio-economic hierarchy and thus still existed within this poverty cycle. Despite these discriminatory practices ceasing, they still operated in a spiritual sense.

But how does this look in the 21^st century? Unfortunately, over 70 years after these green neighbourhoods were created, their population of African-Americans is still less than 1%, with the sole reason for this being that the ripple effects of these archaic practices still function. This leads to a higher rate of poverty amongst minority groups as they are systematically disadvantaged by practices that we supposedly abolished. For a society that prides ourselves in equal opportunity, we sure do a good job at turning a blind eye at racial issues that are still unresolved.

Not only does this ripple effect create a racial housing segregation, but it also creates a pseudo-schooling segregation. Funding to schools is provided primarily by property tax. Because these predominantly black suburbs have very low housing prices, their funding to education is very limited which further perpetuates this “poverty cycle.” Lack of access to quality education leads to students being unprepared and disadvantaged in seeking further education, and acquiring high-paying jobs.

For too long, we have sat idle and shown disinterest towards mitigating this issue. It is imperative for this issue to be at the forefront of the American government’s agenda. Through financial aid for those in formerly red-zoned neighbourhoods, and increased funding for schools in less affluent areas, social division in the Western world could be vastly improved. This issue has to be attacked from the racist foundations that it was initially built upon; only then will the quality of life for these minority groups start to see an improvement, and be given the opportunity to break free from their oppressive cycle of poverty.

Two crucial protections provided by the Bill of Rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. At first glance, they seem indisputable truths. However, eighteen months ago, each was severely tested when two protests in Virginia clashed violently, resulting in the tragic death of one person and the injuring of many others. This event has much to teach us about the importance of listening to what others have to say in order to avoid things like this in the future.

On the 11^th of August, 2017, a two-day “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally began in Emancipation Park. The next morning, a counter-protest was held, meeting the first with violence. The rallies clashed for hours, until at 13:42 a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring nineteen others.

The city tried to move one rally to a bigger area by revoking one of the permits. “We were unfortunately sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and the judge ruled against us,” says Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. Jason Kessler, the organiser of the Unite the Right rally, had protested that revoking the permit violated his rights to assembly and free speech.

Another problem was police response, considered minimal by both sides. “The police didn’t do anything in terms of protecting the people of the community,” said activist Cornel West. Kessler tweeted “[The police] didn’t even show up until 1.5 hrs into the [protest].”

In the future, the City of Charlottesville — and other cities around the world — need to take pre-emptive action. Tragedies like this cannot be allowed to happen again.

One important topic is guns. “[The police] had to show tremendous restraint because… these  people all came armed,” McAuliffe said of the white supremacist group, “people were walking around with semi-automatic rifles…” Really?  Why is it okay for protesters to have guns? How is that possibly necessary for self-defence?

While no shots were fired, undoubtedly they came too close to this happening. “[If] one person fired one shot, it would have been a melee, and I would be talking to you today with a lot of body bags,” McAuliffe said.

There isn’t any reason why people need guns to protest. American cities need to pass laws to keep us safe from these situations.

Every single one of us has an important role to play too. It’s our job to elect the advocates for our needs, and to voice our opinions — the government should be the mouthpiece for the people.

We also have a more personal job. We need to keep ourselves and others safe by considering what rallies we’re going to attend. It’s much safer to counter-protest days after the original protest, rather than at the same time where violence is likely to erupt.

When a KKK rally was held in Dayton, Ohio in 1994, the city peacefully protested a day later by washing the square where the first protest was held, which symbolised the cleansing away of hate. We should consider a similar course of action — protesting separately, and after the fact.

And finally — we need to be able to talk. What kind of people are we if we can’t protest without fighting? Every path to a stronger community requires open communication. We must be able to share and listen to ideas civilly ­—not just during protests, but in everyday life.

Even if our efforts aren’t earth-shaking, we’ll be better people for it. We may not change the world, but we can change our own world.

What happened in Charlottesville was tragic — but we can learn from it to become stronger as a community.

Genetic engineering presents an exciting range of possibilities; however, these promises are not without potential peril.

A substantial contemporary concern in the scientific community is whether or not genetic engineering will have any adverse health risks to human health and the environment. Some scientists argue that before we can start ethically applying genetic engineering, we must first have a high degree of epistemological confidence when editing genetic information in a species. A counter-argument is that if we do not obtain such a degree of epistemological confidence, we will most likely cause long-lasting damage to the environment, as we have introduced an ‘artificial’ or ‘unnatural’ organism that could do untold damage to the natural environment and possibly human life.

Those who oppose the use of genetic engineering argue that the modification of the genetic code is unnatural and immoral.  Religious individuals may even argue that it is in violation of God’s laws, which presumes that species’ boundaries are fixed and readily delineated. Those who argue against the use of genetic engineering first have to realise that we, as a species, have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years by using selective breeding across thousands of generations of organisms. Indeed, modern fruits and vegetables are clear examples of human selection, with most of them being unrecognisable to their ancestors.  Indirect genetic engineering (as artificial selection over the course of many generations) has simply been a part of our way of life and existence for thousands of years.  To say that modifying genetic code is unnatural is simply wrong.

Given the profound potential of direct genetic engineering by changing the DNA of an organism in a laboratory, the practice should not be dismissed too hastily.  Genetic engineering has immense positive potential, from helping feed the over one billion malnourished people by increasing the nutritional value of food and creating lucrative innovations and research streams, to modifying an organism’s (and indeed our own) resistance to diseases.  In order to use this emerging technology, we must consider the circumstances in which its use may be ethically justified.  Could it be argued that the broader scientific community is justified in using this technology in order to save the untold millions of malnourished people around the world?

In order to answer this ethical dilemma, we must first understand what we mean by the value of human life and its inherent worth.  German philosopher Immanuel Kant asserts the idea that every human being is utterly unique because the conditions and stimuli that produces them doesn’t determine their response fully.  Humans can think and create something that has never been created in the universe; it is this capacity for creation that is so precious in the material world and is almost divine-like.  You will never know what a human will give to the universe – the possibilities aren’t determined by its creation.  Life itself is a momentary defiance of entropy.  Could it be said that in saving millions of lives, which would otherwise be lost without intervention, there is a possibility that one of them will create something that will change the world forever?

Genetic engineering is simply a technology which we ought to use to help save as much human life as possible, as the risk to human life – all human life – may be greater if we do not use this technology.  Is the human cost potentially catastrophic if we simply do not allow this technology to be used to help people?

How would you measure someone’s intelligence and likelihood of success? For many people the answer would probably be through an IQ test; however, recent studies have discovered that emotional intelligence or EQ is a far greater indicator of the future and abilities of a person and the type of intelligence that should be tutored to the minds of the youth.

Emotional intelligence refers to a person’s ability to comprehend, assess and manage the emotions of both oneself and others. Unlike IQ, there is no validated test or scale for emotional intelligence and there is limited emphasis on EQ in the school curriculum. However many employers are now incorporating emotional intelligence assessments as the world moves towards greater dependence on a more emotionally intelligent work force. This poses the question: why are we not incorporating this evidently important concept more into our schools, the very institutions that are meant to prepare us for the future?

In our ever-developing world we are seeing technological development reach break-neck speeds, especially in areas such as artificial intelligence. This advancement has gradually rendered skills, such as human reasoning and problem solving, taught at schools presently, essentially redundant as more accuracy and speed are available from computers. This has subsequently led to a greater demand for jobs that are more EQ-based and require soft skills due to the lack of technological alternatives to these human skills. The application of emotional intelligence enables a human to understand, manage and utilise feelings effectively; for example, a student who can balance school assignments, a part-time job, apply to university and have strong relationships. This is obviously tremendously important but not currently foregrounded in education.

The presence of emotional intelligence further prepares people for the work-force as it enables people to be able to network and communicate with other people more effectively. According to Australian Psychologist Society’s Brett Durnan, “By being aware of one’s emotions as well as other people’s emotions people are able to direct their actions in accordance and utilise their intelligence to the highest possible point in group situations.” The teachings of these skills from a young age can lead us only to imagine the connectiveness of the future as teams work to make the dream work.

This irrefutable concept is substantiated by the Psychology Today study that people are four times more likely to stay at a company with an emotionally intelligent leader because they know successful collaboration is attainable through having valued opinions. It helps people communicate smoothly, but will emotional intelligence enhance productivity? While I found a good IQ score to have potential, any development is only achieved when through emotional intelligence I could convey this IQ intelligence. This is where fundamentally emotional intelligence outweighs IQ because through emotional intelligence people are able to demonstrate the intelligence they have succinctly, through emotion-associated compromise. By establishing these habits at school-age we will have people who are able to complete the work they desire more promptly and convey thoughts in the most prolific way, especially in group scenarios. It would pose the greatest increase in efficiency since the Industrial Revolution!

This increase in productivity is further compounded by the knowledge of limitations and emotion regulation we commonly associate with emotional intelligence. A more EQ-based education will lead students to more fluent boundary understanding, for example, fatigue. After developing my EQ, when I experienced fatigue last month with school work, I appreciated the need to rest and acknowledged the ineffectiveness of working while energy deprived. This knowledge consequently means that high EQ people work at a more advanced level and 70% of the time outperforming people with a high IQ.

If we establish emotional intelligence, students’ ability to control emotions in what experts call ‘emotion regulation’ will increase and they will utilise emotions to accomplish goals. When senses first enter the brain, they enter through the spinal cord and first travel through the limbic system, where emotions are generated, before continuing to the frontal lobe to enable rationality. By teaching students EQ, we will develop microscopic neurons between the two areas and reduce the prevalence of rash instinctive actions after emotion creation in the limbic system.

The presence of EQ is hugely successful at endorsing the likeability of a person. Surely you would appreciate a likeable next generation?  Emotional intelligence education will help students develop empathy and relate to people in a more coherent way thus deepening relationships. Through an understanding of people’s emotions, the emotionally intelligent youth will be able to form strong bonds which are pivotal in our networking-age world.

Despite the obvious importance of emotional intelligence and the essential role it plays in our society we must reflect on the deficit of teaching in schools of these type of skills. Our whole curriculum is revolved around learning formulas for equations we will scarce see in our lifetime and consequently what do we sacrifice? The development of emotional understanding and awareness! This type of education system is a flawed reflection of the world we live in, with technology such as AI making our problem solving and reasoning abilities seem mere mental maths and a greater dependence on emotional intelligence now apparent, our school system has stagnated and neglected the change. While development in IQ is an extremely difficult feat to achieve, the development of critical emotional intelligence can be achieved through adequate mentoring. And at the end of the day as American civil rights activist, Maya Angelou said: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

Marginalised, disregarded and overlooked. Social division is the separation of social groups based on ethnicity, race or gender. The segregation of society has increased dramatically over the last few decades. Humanity has failed to treat everyone based on one’s personality. Instead, people make uninformed judgements based on the first stereotype they perceive.

This is purely derived from the increasing egotistic and self-centred nature of people within society. The rise of the internet, social media and worldwide broadcasting coverage have contributed to current issues regarding social division. We have given people the ability to deride and criticise others from the comfort of their own homes without truly understanding the issues at hand. This intangible thing called social division pollutes all citizens, impacting the way we think, act and treat varying societal groups. We constantly ignore the social division in our communities. We conform to so called ethnic and racial ‘jokes’ in our daily discussions. We hold past generations accountable for future repercussions that are, in fact, our responsibility. Our instinctual fear of others who do not appear the same as us, leads to social division between ethnic groups based on perceived stereotypes.

The recent mass shooting in New Zealand is an extreme example of social division at its worst. Fear of Islam as a religion has developed in the Western world over the last ten years due to the rise in Muslim terrorism. This fear was held by the Australian gunman who killed many innocent people. The actions of a number of extremists have tainted the views of many regarding Muslims as a whole. This is an extreme example of social division based on stereotypes. This situation was exacerbated by comments made by Senator Fraser Anning, “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets, is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place,” he remarked. Accusation. Not only directed towards an entire ethnic culture, but furthermore an insult to an entire religion based on a few instances in which extremist terrorists have caused harm to society. The actions of a few cannot and should not be attributed to all of the same group. There is undeniably no civilisation that is, or will be, anywhere close to perfect. There will always exist outliers and extremists in any social group. Blame cannot be engraved on an entire culture based on extremism, radicalism and fanaticism. There will always be those who are good, and those who are bad, irrespective of their ethnicity. If we can’t unite to foresee and overcome these minor disparities, then who are we as a nation?

Generation, after generation, after generation have ignored the rise in social division. Past generations are culpable in letting these prejudicial views take hold instead of educating future generations to be more tolerant. Time has been spent searching for suspects to blame as opposed to working on resolving the issue at hand. Laziness. The human trait which overrules our ability to repair the damage caused by social division. Greed. Social division is exacerbated by the simple yet utterly destructive desire to obtain more wealth regardless of the welfare of others. The desire of the Western world to race to the peak of the social hierarchy as measured by consumerism and ownership of ‘stuff’ has meant that immigrants from other poorer countries are often overlooked. The social division between those that have, and those that do not, has formed a great divide. We all know this hidden, yet dominant social hierarchy exists. It cannot be denied. But why? Why do we constantly overlook this if we know it’s there?

Social differences can include the physical and mental attributes of an individual. Whereas social division is the sprouting isolation between ethnic cultures, in reality it’s social differences which form the foundation of long-lasting relationships. But why have we become so perplexed? Why is it we are quick to judge people who appear different at first glance? Why is it we push people away before we have the chance to embrace their personality? Why can’t we just give each other a chance? A chance to prove our true identity? A chance to embrace regardless ethnicity. For once, a chance to become that one step closer to social cohesion. Why? A question for the current generation.

For many people looking at Australia from afar, they see the land of opportunity where dreams come true. To these people, immigrating here is the dream. A land full of stability and prosperity. Yet, for some this isn’t the case.

Muhammad recently graduated from the University of Western Australia with an honour’s degree in finance. While at University, Mohammad worked nights, stacking shelves all in an effort to ‘pay his own way’. Delighted and proud to have done so well, he was looking forward to starting his career and helping his parents financially. He couldn’t understand that after applying for several jobs he couldn’t even get an interview. A friend of his suggested he use a different name. A non-Muslim name. Suddenly he was flooded with job offers. What does this say about being a young Australian Muslim in 2019?

It says that racism and injustice are alive and well.

According to Dr Moyassar Al-Taie, an Australian Iraqi, he and his people are marginalised as a result of their race when applying for jobs in Australia. “Australia offers numerous opportunities, but not for Muslims and Arabs, Dr Al-Taie told SBS Arabic24.

Muhammad’s story isn’t surprising when one considers the direct correlation between the anti-Muslim rhetoric of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party and the level of popular support they enjoy throughout the wider Australian community. Ms Hanson has worn an Islamic religious garment into the Australian parliament as part of an offensive call to ban the free practice of one’s religion in Australia under the guise of protecting Australia from terrorism – a supposedly free country. Ms Hanson has also called Islam a “disease that Australia needs to vaccinate itself against”. The deliberately offensive and derogatory remarks and actions by Ms Hanson have normalised anti-Muslim hate-speech within our community and it’s about time we all stop giving her a platform to express these divisive views.

These politicians’ attitudes have resulted in Dr Moyassar Al-Taie, a competent and experienced surgeon, being ignored and unemployed when he first arrived in Australia.

Recent research conducted by VicHealth in collaboration with other organisations showed that only 45 per cent of university students from overseas and migrant backgrounds find full-time jobs after graduation. In comparison, 69% of Australian-born students successfully find jobs after a university degree completion. Having spent years studying hard, often working in part-time employment to enable them to pay their university fees, they graduate to find that no one wants to employ them just because of their ethnicity.

It’s concerning for us as Australians as it goes against our morals as citizens of this great land. This also goes against our national anthem, “For those who’ve come across the seas/ We’ve boundless plains to share.” This is referring to immigrants who have travelled across the seas to find refuge from a troubled or war-torn home, many of whom have experienced violence, homelessness and poverty. Our nation has been built on a fair go attitude and the image of the Aussie battler.

The lack of employment for migrants in Australia is directly correlated to a race issue.

Our thinking is backwards and this is problematic in some significant areas, such as Parliament, which should represent justice and equity.

Fraser Anning, a Member of Parliament, released a statement in response to the massacre of fifty innocent Muslims in Christchurch: “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.” We all need to remember that Fraser Anning is not a rogue politician. Australian politics’ increasingly right-wing and anti-immigration tone has seen a groundswell of right-wing sentiment that is racist and cruel.

Australia is a country built on the blood and sweat of migrants. Whether it be the agricultural exploits of early Australian colonials or the mass migration of the Vietnamese following the Vietnam War. Australia advertises itself to the rest of the world as a cultural melting pot, a society where many ethnicities, cultures and religions live peacefully together. A society whose identity is completely based on the migrants and refugees who now call themselves Australian. I have only one thing to say to those amongst us who wish to deny those who come from across the seas to share in our boundless plains; if you like to call yourself Australian, it’s probably a good time to start acting like one.

After all, for those who’ve come across the seas we’ve boundless plains to share!