During a Bondi Beach Shooting Memorial, A Pair of Political Figures Turned Tragedy To Political Gain. It Is Inexcusable.

Grieving individuals crowded around a sprawling expanse of floral tributes near the iconic pavilion on Tuesday, their tones softly rising in a traditional melody of peace. Shalom, shalom, they intoned together, while grief settled in like the grey clouds above.

This emotional intensity of the occasion was abruptly shattered 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 glanced around.

There, positioned at the forefront of the assembly, surrounded by besuited security personnel and journalists, stood two figures seen as among the most blatant opportunists ever elected to the nation's legislature.

Among the throng of modestly dressed people, their faces contorted by grief, the duo were conspicuous, dressed clearly to play for the cameras.

Polarizing Language In Collective Grief

One figure, who has political history has been defined by creating discord ever since entering public life, spoke about liberty and security and the right to live “free from fear”. She declared she wanted hate preachers “dealt with”. She reiterated the rallying call of her public persona, “Let’s get back the Australia I remember from my youth … I look at the individuals we are bringing to the country. Certain nations they should not be permitted to come here.”

Some of the onlookers, including a individual in distinctive headwear, clearly welcomed her hollow words, holding up their mobile devices to record them and then moving even nearer for selfies. “We love you”, “You alone who tells the truth.”

Not everyone agreed.

“Australians reject extremes,” one volunteer told me, as he struggled to process her message. “Under her preferred policies I likely would not be allowed to be here.”

It follows that the nations of origin of the civilians hailed as “brave citizens” for offering their own safety to confront the attackers—Syria and another—would not be on her permissible list as well.

A Violent Act on the Idea of Australia

Following directly of the attack, the overwhelming national feeling has been that this was more than a targeted killing of Jewish Australians, but an attack on the core notion of the nation being an inclusive society where fairness and acceptance were considered virtues, safety for the majority most of the time, and religion did not play a defining role.

The fact this could happen in a location that evokes happiness, a venue that rivals the nation’s most famous symbol as an international representation, was profoundly shocking. We know that for terrorism to work its evil, symbolic places are always the preferred objectives and human beings the tragic consequence.

That the reaction from leaders should so rapidly turn to self-interest, name-calling and pointless debate—about whether to tackle the evident weaknesses in the nation’s much-vaunted gun laws or the scourge of prejudice—was an even more powerful indication of the times we live in.

Of course, each issue must be confronted, with gravity and meaningfully, not simply by hiding behind procedure, referring to inquiries or calling for increased monitoring.

A Failure of Responsibility and the Emergence of a Cynical Spectacle

The public are in good company in facing hard conversations that require more than superficial answers, but when the major parties—even after such a loss—fail to agree on the basics, that is a abdication of their responsibility.

Having listened to the self-promoting remarks, I was nonetheless taken aback to hear a quip as the individual moved through the crowd to depart the memorial site: “Perhaps I'll wear an symbol into the house and see what they do.” To reduce this deep tragedy, which touches on what some have called a profound divide in the country's psyche, into a crude performance is beyond the pale.

In recent times, so much of what was once unimaginable has become almost normal. Hateful bigoted, misogynist and antisemitic language has been excused under the false rubric of free speech, angry mobs on the internet have gone unchallenged, and fear has become pervasive. It is hardly surprising that under these circumstances some individuals become prey to demagogues.

Some call the current era a “pivotal moment”—a phase when we glimpsed a potential cruel reality, driven by those with unaccountable power and wealth. We can only hope that the assessment of analysts is correct when they note that people see through those who “attempt to exploit grief, search for scapegoats and turn fear into a divisive tool.”

It is imperative that this cynical political pantomime become the new normal. Addressing it will require resolve, courage and humility, of the kind that displayed by the everyday people who followed their instincts to protect others at any cost.