Australia's 'Selective Empathy': A National Inquiry into Mourning and Recognition

An article argues that Australia demonstrates 'selective empathy' in its national responses to mourning and political recognition, observing distinct approaches by the political and media sectors.

The piece highlights extensive national mourning and acts of solidarity, including vigils and lowered flags, for 15 deaths. This event involved prominent political leaders and significant media coverage over several weeks.

This response is starkly contrasted with the treatment of Aboriginal Australians.

Approximately 750,000 to 800,000 Aboriginal Australians reportedly face opposition when seeking to observe January 26 as a day of mourning, which they view as marking historical dispossession. Their grief is described as being treated as a 'political irritant.'

The article suggests certain media contribute to framing Jewish mourning as a moral obligation, while Aboriginal mourning is presented as an attack on national unity.

Symbolic Gestures and National Identity

The author questions the absence of symbolic gestures for Aboriginal Australians, such as flying their flag at half-mast on January 26 or leaders wearing Aboriginal symbols. This absence is particularly noted when national symbolism is reportedly shown for a 'foreign nation.'

Policy Discrepancies: Referendum vs. Decree

Regarding policy, Aboriginal Australians, identified as 'custodians of the continent,' proposed the Uluru Statement from the Heart, requesting a Voice to Parliament—a permanent advisory body. This request was subsequently rejected in a national referendum.

Subsequently, the government appointed a Special Envoy for Jewish Australians without public consultation. This envoy is noted to influence policy in areas such as universities, visas, funding, and law, leading to rapid policy adjustments and legal amendments without a public vote.

A Question of Double Standards

The article states this situation illustrates a double standard: one community required a referendum for an advisory role, while another received institutional power via ministerial decree. It further notes that some individuals nationally mourned openly identify with Israel, leading to questions about the nation's focus on foreign solidarity while allegedly denying its First Nations a day of mourning.

The piece concludes that these observed discrepancies in national grief, symbolism, and institutional respect undermine official statements about unity and call for greater consistency in Australia's application of standards.