The Brief Edition 1 2017

Macquarie University Law Society magazine

Edition 1, 2017 (Volume 23)

Edition 1, 2017 | 1

STAY TRUE.

2 | The Brief

Staying true to your direction is what defines Clayton Utz. We’ve built a culture that’s unlike any other law firm, but don’t just take our word for it. A good lawyer needs compelling evidence so meet our people and judge for yourself. claytonutz.com/graduates

Academic brilliance certainly counts, but graduates who thrive here have something extra – a natural passion for connecting with people and a strong sense of self. That’s what staying true is all about. If you have these qualities, Clayton Utz is for you.

CONTENTS FEATURES

12 14 16 18 21 24 26

When The Truth Doesn't Set You Free Jemima Bissett

Employment Disadvantage in a Post-Truth Developed World Smeetha Jayakumar ‘Fake News’ and Dangerous Disinformation Anjali Nadaradjane

Populism, Society and the PostTruth Era Kevin Dorostkar

The Inconvenient Truth about Liberal Democracy Swatilekha Ahmed

The Truth about 'Post-Truth' Deepthi Sivashanmugam

We Are Living in a Post-Truth Era: What Now? Mounisha Mondeddu

IN CONTEXT

4 6 8 10 29 30

What's New in the Law? Ellen McCrea [Social Justice Corner] The importance of accurate and sensible reporting of mental illness cases Srihitha Chinthala

[Devil’s Advocate] Does the use of social media by political figures exemplify a post-truth world?

Sonja Grnovic and Shivani Gosai [Under the Radar] Insidious Information Avnoor Guron

ADDITIONALS [Fake Advice] Don’t let law school break your heart!

Krishna Nand [A Brief Review] Colour Blindness in To Kill a Mockingbird Madison Thorne

Edition 1, Volume 23, February 2017

Editor in Chief Nick Owczarek Online Editor Olivia James Designer Nathan Li Writers Ellen McCrea, Srihitha Chinthala, Avnoor Guron, Sonja Grnovic, Shivani Gosai, Jemima Bissett, Smeetha Jayakumar, Anjali Nadaradjane, Kevin Dorostkar, Swatilekha Ahmed, Deepthi Sivashanmugam, Mounisha Mondeddu, Krishna Nand, Madison Thorne

Subeditors Emma Breislin, Georgia Caminetti, James Woodward, Jane Lee, Jessica Vines, Jessica Palazzolo, Kush Sood, Shachi Tiwari, Emily McGeorge Editorial Review Robert Ephraums Team Leader, Macquarie University Campus Engagement Sarah Li Yee Lien Director (Publications), Macquarie University Law Society Images Shutterstock unless otherwise stated

The Brief’s print edition is published three times a year by the Macquarie University Law Society, Sydney, Australia.

View our Facebook page on www. facebook.com/thebriefmagazine or our website on thebrief.muls.org.

Disclaimer: All views expressed herein are those of the individual authors and do not reflect, in any way, the attitude of the Macquarie University Law Society. The Macquarie University Law Society does not accept any responsibility for the losses flowing from the publication of material in The Brief.

Vale Penelope Watson

Edition 1, 2017 | 3

W Editor’s Welcome Nick Owczarek Editor in Chief

hat is the ‘truth’ today?

Has political discourse moved beyond fact and reason? These are just two of many key questions explored in this first edition of The Brief, reflecting the theme ‘Living in a Post-Truth World’.

In this ‘new world order’, with Donald Trump in the White House, Britain leaving the European Union, and the rise of demagogues here at home and abroad, uncertainty reigns supreme. Opinion and emotion hold greater influence than rationality.

Stable liberal democracies like Australia are being challenged as the electorate shifts its support towards alternative and fringe politicians appealing to those who

have lost faith in the major parties.

Very recent events have also reinforced concerns about stability and predictability in politics and international relations. The legal challenge being mounted against Trump’s executive order banning immigration from Muslimmajority nations is putting the checks-and-balances system to the test. Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi’s defection from his party may lead to disintegration of the mainstream conservative vote, while the reportedly hostile phone call between Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull suggests there may be cracks forming in the longstanding Australia-US alliance.

What’s new in the law?

Review of the Workers Compensation Scheme The NSW Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Law and Justice launched its first review of the Workers Compensation Scheme in 2016. Issues considered include the adequacy of the definition of ‘suitable employment’ contained in s 32A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). In a submission by the Law Society of New South Wales, concern was expressed as to the practicality of the definition, and a recommendation was put forth to remove paragraph (b) which allows a Court or Commission to conclude that suitable employment is available regardless of whether the work is of a type that is generally available. In its submission, the Law Society referred to Wollongong Nursing Home Pty Ltd v Dewar [2014] NSWWCCPD 55 as an illustration of the often broad interpretation of suitable employment adopted by courts and the Workers Compensation Commission. The Law Society recommended adopting a realistic approach that considers existing labour markets and the employee’s place of residence, to which the NSW government is yet to respond.

4 | The Brief

 Ellen McCrea

Time still matters In Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37, the High Court of Australia unanimously allowed an appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia and set aside an order of the Court of Appeal that granted the respondent an extension of time to bring his proceeding. In 1997, the respondent decided not to sue Prince Alfred College (PAC) after being sexually abused by a PAC housemaster. The respondent accepted PAC’s offer to pay medical and legal fees as well as his son’s school fees. Section 48 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1936 (SA) provides that a court’s power to grant an extension of time is discretionary. The primary judge held that an extension of time should be denied but proceeded to decide on questions of liability. Although the Court of Appeal granted an extension of time, the High Court overturned this decision. The delay resulted in deficient evidence which would have resulted in an unfair trial for PAC. Furthermore, the respondent’s decision not to commence proceedings contributed to the decision reached by the Court.

Our writers attempt to grapple with this new turbulent reality in these pages, delving into the role of social media and how it has facilitated the spread of ‘fake news’, the broader media’s role in the creation of the political climate today, the perceived failure of the ‘establishment’ and neoliberal economics in promoting the welfare of all citizens, and more philosophically, exploring the link between postmodernism and the ‘post-truth’ idea.

I empathise with you if all the news as of late is becoming wearisome. Regardless, I still hope you read on and enjoy this edition.

Events

What’s on the social calendar this year

First Year Afternoon Tea Wednesday 1 March, 2pm

First Year Law Camp Friday 17 – Sunday 19 March

Start of Semester 1 (SOS1) Thursday 13 April (tentative)

Law Cruise Friday 12 May (tentative)

Start of Semester 2 (SOS2) Thursday 17 August (tentative)

Law Ball Saturday 4 November (tentative)

Legislating Respect A person who intentionally engages in disrespectful behaviour in Court could face a penalty of up to 14 days imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,100 under the Courts Legislation Amendment (Disrespectful Behaviour) Act 2016 (NSW). The Act inserts a disrespectful behaviour provision into the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), District Court Act 1973 (NSW), Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) and Coroners Act 2009 (NSW). Behaviour will be deemed disrespectful in the context of established court practice and convention. The push for this change came after several high-profile cases involving defendants who refused to stand for the presiding judge, due to religious reasons. The Act also inserts a double jeopardy clause, which provides that a person cannot be prosecuted under both the new law and be in contempt of court for essentially the same behaviour.

Australian Law Reform Commission’s Elder Abuse Inquiry On 12 December 2016, the ALRC released a Discussion Paper that included 43 proposals for law reform to target abuse, achieve equal rights

and provide safeguards for elder Australians. The proposals include the establishment of a national online register for enduring documents, tightening witness and reporting requirements, creating obligations for banks to take reasonable steps to prevent financial abuse and expanding the role of public advocates and guardians in responding to elder abuse. Submissions to this Discussion Paper will close on 27 February 2017.

Juror Exclusion In Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38, the High Court of Australia unanimously dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, holding that the appellant was not discriminated against when excluded from jury duty. The High Court noted that a deaf person who requires the services of an Australian Sign Language interpreter during jury deliberations is not eligible for jury service. Further, s 4(3)(l) of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld) stipulates that a person who has a physical or mental disability that renders them incapable of effectively performing the functions of a juror is not eligible for jury service. The Court described the presence of a non-juror during deliberations as an irregularity that should not be permitted.

Edition 1, 2017 | 5

President’s Welcome Rhiannon Bell President Macquarie University Law Society

On behalf of MULS, I am proud to welcome you to the first edition of The Brief for 2017. Every edition represents the efforts of our valued Editor-in-Chief, writers, sub-editors, and designer, and I encourage you to have a read of the insightful submissions of your Macquarie Law colleagues – maybe before the unavoidable pile of readings descends upon you, or as ‘positive procrastination’ throughout the Session.

I hope you enjoyed your summer holidays and are refreshed and ready to go for 2017. Here is my challenge – this year, give something new a go. MULS has six main departments: Administration, Career Engagement, Competitions, Events, Publications, and Social Justice – there is sure to be something you can try!

For those students in their penultimate year (or who are keen to learn about the clerkship process nice and early!), our newly expanded Career Engagement team has plenty planned for the clerkship season, including a

Social Justice Corner

The importance of accurate and sensible reporting of mental illness cases  Srihitha Chinthala

O

n the morning of 20 June 2001 Andrea Yates filled the bathtub in her suburban Texas home with water. She then drowned her five children, all under the age of seven. She laid the dead bodies on her bed and calmly contacted both the police and her husband, flatly admitting what she had done. Yates provided a bizarre explanation: that she killed her children in order to save them from hell and Satan.

Yates suffered from postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. She 6 | The Brief

was in desperate need for proper psychiatric care. At her trial, Yates’ solicitors raised the insanity defence, which is equivalent to the defence of mental illness in Australia.

The defence stems from the M'Naghten Rules, established in the 1840s by the House of Lords, which require that an individual suffers from a 'defect of reason', which is caused by a 'disease of the mind', meaning the 'nature and quality' of the act was not known. This is reflected today in s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), which allows for a ‘special

verdict’ of ‘not guilty by reason of mental illness’.

Media organisations failed to acknowledge the intricacies of Yates’ conduct. The media sensationalised Yates’ case, morphing it into a heinous crime, superficially denouncing her as a ‘monster’ and a ‘psychotic killer’. In newspaper and magazine headlines, along with current affairs shows, Yates was labelled as ‘deranged’ and ‘evil’. The public became outraged.

Through negative headlines, selective coverage of criminal trials and agenda setting, the facts of mental illness, crime

Careers BBQ and buddy program, various seminars presented by representatives from leading firms, and of course, our Clerkship Fair. For those nearing the end of their degrees, we plan to run several Practical Legal Training presentations throughout both Sessions 1 and 2.

In Session 1, we will be running Junior and Senior Mooting, and Senior Client Interview. Make sure you get in quick though – there are limited positions available! I would strongly recommend getting involved as these are a fantastic way of developing and honing your interpersonal and professional skills.

and the criminal trial process are ignored. These inaccurate portrayals ultimately contribute to the negative stigma against people suffering from mental illnesses. Further, those who raise the mental illness defence are often punished in the court of public opinion due to strong negative backlash.

Media accounts heavily influence public opinion and often give rise to misconceptions that increase public confusion about the mental illness defence, creating the perception that the defence is a 'get out of jail' card, allowing perpetrators to walk free. And given mental

On the social calendar for Session 1, we are keeping with tradition but adding a twist to our old favourites: First Year Morning Tea, First Year Law Camp, Start of Semester (SOS) I and Law Cruise. If you have not done so already, please make sure you have ‘liked’ our Facebook page to stay up to date on when these events will be running. Also, be sure to keep an eye out for our first Speakers Night from the Social Justice team.

Finally, by popular demand – MULS hoodies are back! If that excitement doesn’t get you through the new semester, I don’t know what will!

Best of luck.

illness cases often attract excessive publicity in the media, members of the public may form an idealised and often ill-informed construct of justice.

To downplay the seriousness of the crime because of the existence of mental illness is often not well received.

The media plays an important role in the perpetuation of justice. The public relies on the media to understand the criminal justice

system generally and the processes involved within the system. Increased education by government departments that encourage awareness of the legal system are important.

The clarity gained from a better understanding of the judicial process will mean the public will be more inclined to support the criminal justice system and will ensure faith in the system's integrity.

Edition 1, 2017 | 7

Devil’s Advocate

Does the use of social media by political figures exemplify a post-truth world?

FOR

Sonja Grnovic

8 | The Brief

I

n the post-truth world, feelings and emotions are of the highest significance in politics and election campaigns. Facts have become of secondary importance and the reinforcement of prejudices and conspiracies have spread rapidly through the social media domain.

One of the most popular social media platforms for news is Facebook, which provides 48% of Australians with national and world news updates on a daily basis. The issue is that Facebook provides a platform that operates outside the traditional rules of journalism – on it, the truth is often blurred, biased and disorientated in order to attain the highest number of ‘likes’. This disintegration of news sources has led to a network in which gossip, rumours and lies spread like wildfire among an audience which often cannot distinguish the truth among the lies. The fatal flaw of social media is that members trust each other more than any mainstream source of media, leading to belief in highly-shared dubious claims presented as facts.

When such fabrications are made regarding politicians and their policies, society begins to lose trust in political candidates and democracy is disturbed.

One of the most controversial topics of 2016 was the US election. The beginning of the election saw many satirising Donald Trump’s campaign as it seemed inconceivable that that a candidate with absolutely no political experience could become the leader of the free world. No one could have expected the social media storm that was created and how it had arguably won him the election.

It seemed that the more outrageous Trump’s claims were, the more popular the publications which referenced his claims became on Facebook and the more publicity Trump received.

Although it was noted that right-wing pages were more prone to sharing false information compared to leftwing pages, the leading Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, appeared to be the subject of less post-truth publications. Nevertheless, controversial behaviour, sexual assault claims and an endless list of racist remarks appeared not to prevent Trump’s victory, but in fact encourage it.

It is clear is that Trump dominated the social media playing field. No matter how many times people tried to prove him wrong or highlight his flaws, a loyal band of followers who had lost trust in institutionalised government reiterated ‘facts’ which we will never know to be true or false. The tornado he had created had become so destructive that real truth seemed lost and both supporters and adversaries held on to the ‘truths’ which had the most significance to them.

The US election has proved what many have feared – politics is no longer about honest policies and trustworthy politicians, but rather a battle of sparking emotion, part of which takes place on social media. By appealing to emotion, politicians are able to connect on a deeper level with the electorate, further increasing the likelihood that the public will hold on to their own emotionally-biased ‘truths’ among a sea of conflicting information in social media.

AGAINST Shivani Gosai

W

hen I started my law degree (and I am sure that this is consistent among most disciplines), the general rule of thumb which was constantly reiterated was not to rely on Wikipedia. Why not? The reasons are endless particularly surrounding the credibility of the contributors of the facts, but most importantly, Wikipedia explicitly states ‘we do not expect you to trust us’. Unsurprisingly, the same goes for social media. Yet we insist on relying on a mechanism created for the purposes of socialising, communicating and connecting to deliver authentic information especially regarding politics. In the political spectrum, is social media an example of the impacts of the post-truth era or do we categorise it under the post-truth phenomena to conceal our naivety?

Society has created the unorthodox expectation that social media is required to represent accurate information. And while 48% of Australians obtain their news from Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg affirms that Facebook was never created as a journal or as a platform for facts, nor is it responsible for detecting lies and inaccurate information. The foundations of Facebook have been built upon a social mission; to ‘make the world more open and connected’.

One of the most talked about topics of 2016 was the US election and Donald Trump’s campaigning tactics, including the use of social media. His controversial tweets, such as contending that global warming is ‘bull****’ and that ‘the concept…was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive’, provided a unique view into Trump’s mind for devoted followers and bystanders alike.

For some, these tweets were relied on to form political opinions and were enough to influence their voting choices, despite the source of information being a ‘Twitter rant’. With this in mind, it is evident that communication via social media is

powerful. In the post-truth phenomena, emotions trump honesty (no pun intended) and opinions are considered credible over facts. But when the inconsistencies and falsities are revealed, people resort to suggesting that this is in fact the wrath of the post-truth world.

Indeed, with the inevitable force of social media, there is no doubt politicians have taken to it for their purposes, but must we be so naïve? What happened to the credibility of The National Library, Parliament bills and debates? This is the crux of political agenda and action. Why are we so reliant on Facebook statuses, Twitter rants and fake news sites such as ‘Liberty Writers News’ and ‘Daily Buzz Live’? This is not to suggest that credible sources of speeches, debates and readings will be 100% accurate because political opinion is highly contested and politics is often controversial and unpredictable. However, sensible sources should be relied upon when forming political opinions, and social media should not be one of them. Social media is for the purposes of conveniently connecting with people through the medium of cyberspace.

It is clear the post-truth world may be upon us, and emotions are overpowering truth and honesty but as an increasingly technologically advanced people we must be vigilant and alert about what we are categorising as part of this ‘post-truth’ phenomena. Social media was never created as a platform for political facts and information. Although our leaders do take to social media to ‘connect’ and respond to the people, the truth of the matter is that social media is not a credible source and should not be relied on. As proposed by The Economist, it is up to the people to resist believing falsehoods and effectively make the effort to filter through and seek the truth, particularly with matters involving the turbulent and unpredictable field of politics. But in the meantime, if you’re looking for a laugh, check Trump’s Twitter feed.

Edition 1, 2017 | 9

Under the Radar

Insidious Information: What effect does the spread of so-called ‘fake news’ have?

T

 Avnoor Guron

he lead up to the American presidential election made it more apparent than ever that fake news has the power to do a substantial amount of harm to a community by fuelling misinformed opinions.

‘Fake news’ articles which distort the information obtained by social media users have become more prominent, particularly through Facebook. The Guardian suggests that the polarising beliefs of Trump and Clinton supporters may be attributed, in part, to the circulation of ‘fake news’.

Although it might be easier to simply brush aside the ‘fake news’ phenomenon as a form of natural selection that separates the ignorant from the critical, it cannot be denied that misinformation must be subdued before it gains a greater influence over matters of immense significance. The most obvious solution to this problem would be to resort to legal measures.

However, regulating ‘fake news’ is fraught with controversy and conflicting ethics.

A Violation of Freedom?

Whether regulation of ‘fake news’ would impinge on the basic freedom of expression is a key question. To what extent should publishers of ‘fake news’ stories be punished? Are ignorant sharers of false news also at fault?

A statement made by the UN Human Rights Committee in regards to the regulation of ‘false news’ in Cameroon indicates that prosecution and punishment for publishing false information is a violation of Article 19 of the ICCPR. Another international example is the controversial Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, signed by former US President Barack Obama in late 2016, 10 | The Brief

which could impinge on freedom of the press.

Australia, however, has no domestic equivalent to international legislation which regulates the publication of ‘fake news’.

An Orwellian Future?

It is entirely possible that the regulation of ‘fake news’ may have adverse effects on the world of journalism and the public by extension.

With the threat of punishment for writing false news looming behind them, journalists may steer clear of reporting events that are cloaked in uncertainty. Therefore, the public will be deprived of disclosures of information that may be in the public interest. It can already be difficult to discern the difference between fact and opinion in news reporting and additional regulation of news reporting could add further distortion.

Further, who defines truth? Is it necessarily an invasion of freedom of expression to label an article as ‘false’ simply because a writer’s opinion is expressed using sarcasm or hyperbole? Authorities can also exploit regulations to ban news articles containing unfavourable viewpoints. This falls into the territory of censorship and begins to resemble the unnerving scenarios depicted in George Orwell’s novels. In fact, many countries have already committed to the legislative regulation of false news, such as Antigua, Barbuda, Canada, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Considering all of these possibilities, it becomes clear that it is impractical to subdue or regulate false news articles through legal means.

Perhaps the responsibility should be left with social media sites to block or reduce the sharing of misinformation.

BE A PART OF EVERYTHING

INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE CAREERS IN LAW Join Herbert Smith Freehills and you’ll do more than just experience life at a leading law firm, you’ll be a part of everything we have to offer - whether you’re working on a high-profile takeover, catching up with an overseas client or taking on some challenging pro bono work. It’s an environment in which your perspective, ideas and experiences will make a real difference.

Don’t just experience everything, be a part of it.

SEARCH HSF GRADUATES FOR MORE

Edition 1, 2017 | 11 GRADUATE EMPLOYERS 2016

When The Truth Doesn’t Set You Free

I

n 2016, a Canadian couple frantically called an ambulance as their 19-monthold son began to suffocate. After five days in intensive care, the boy passed away.

It was discovered he had been suffering from meningitis.

Despite evidence of the boy’s concerning symptoms, his parents refused to take him to the doctor, instead relying upon home remedies such as ginger root and horseradish.

The family was charged with the death of their son. Horrified, they turned to social media, where they claimed that the court case unfairly targeted the anti-vaccine movement, as it intended to set a precedent placing a heavier burden on the parents caring for unvaccinated children.

Such beliefs may be extreme but denying hard evidence is not uncommon. Living in a post-truth world has depreciated the importance of statistics and evidence generated by institutions to the extent that they are frequently seen as wrong, biased or in some instances, completely fabricated.

Denying the Truth Truth denial is neither new nor restricted to one discipline. Its effects can be felt from the study of medicine to the study of history. Consider the ‘phantom time hypothesis’, as discussed by Heribert Illig, which theorises that the time period between 614AD and 911AD never existed.

This is in direct contradiction to scientific evidence such as carbon dating, and countless historical documents.

Still, many of these denials are creeping into mainstream society and achieving widespread media attention. Climate change denial or 12 | The Brief

Fact Denial in the 21st Century  Jemima Bissett

skepticism has grown in recent years and is currently supported by many prominent leaders, including US President Donald Trump. One of his noteworthy ‘tweets’ stated that ‘the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.’

His recent cabinet line-up has included a number of prominent climate change deniers with concern growing that he may reverse many recent efforts to halt the effects of global warming.

While these beliefs are held by individuals who are faced with clear and unexplainable facts, these facts are still refuted and denied. But why are these groups growing in recent years? In today’s advanced society, why do people continue to ignore even the most undeniable facts?

Underlying Causes of Truth Denial Rapid Spread of Information It is not a profound truth that not everything on the internet is true. But information today, which previously took months to circulate and was researched by experts and refuted, is now accessible instantly by anyone with an internet connection and is taken as fact. For example, a parent who hears of information online that vaccines could cause his or her child to develop autism would be triggered with fear and worry.

Yet while a recent study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association of 95,000 children found no association between autism and vaccines, the rate of unvaccinated children (and vaccine-preventable diseases) continues to rise.

The rapid spread also has the effect of giving a false sense of knowledge. Pseudo-scientific articles circulate social media platforms such as

Facebook with false experts purporting certain ‘truths’. Further online research may confirm this ‘truth’ in the form of blogs, where an individual feels that he or she knows a great deal about a subject despite having no formal qualifications.

Any attempts of persuasion toward legitimate scientific evidence are rejected as the individual believes to know more than the refuter.

Wider Platform for ‘Fringe’ Voices Deniers still existed prior to the advent of the internet but had less of a platform to express their ideas. One such example was the belief that the government created HIV/AIDS. Such a belief holds that HIV was created by the US government to infect minority groups such as those identifying in the LGBTI community and African Americans. With online spaces such as blogs open to anyone with a Wi-Fi connection, anyone can discuss anything with very few restrictions. Quoting academics Martin McKee and Pascal Diethelm (who have published on the growth of denialism), Australian psychologist Professor Stephan Lewandowsky has written that the internet allows individuals to feed off ‘each other’s feelings of persecution by a corrupt elite.’

Thus, fringe voices that would have previously been ignored are now being discussed in society and on mainstream media, such as Trump’s beliefs on climate change denial. This means the average person is now being exposed to and influenced by these ideas.

Mistrust of Institutions Facts and data produced by various institutions were once considered trustworthy. However, people are now more critical of where statistics come from and are concerned that those who produce them have ulterior motives. Since late last century this has become more prominent, especially following the Global Financial Crisis when the public learnt that institutions could not make accurate predictions any better than the layperson.

Nowadays, individuals may seek to validate their opinions through the alternative view of a trusted friend. Surveys like those undertaken

by Richard Edelman, head of communications marketing firm Edelman, have shown that people will trust ‘a person like me’ twice as much as they might trust a governmental leader.

Effects of Fact Denial The impact of the growth of deniers has farreaching consequences, most importantly on society and on our legal system.

The growing prominence of such ideas has caused mainstream media outlets to devote time to them, further causing their growth, which in turn has meant the impact is felt in political debate. One such example is government inaction regarding climate change, where politicians are hesitant to implement any policies due to the skepticism of many voters. This can often occur despite politicians themselves not being deniers.

Despite this, the recent ‘no jab, no pay’ policy in Australia, in which steps were implemented to encourage parents to vaccinate their children, is representative of government action towards support for scientifically sound beliefs.

It is not impossible to think that this movement could extend even further into the law, affecting our basic understanding of guilt.

Many court cases are decided on hard facts, such as credit card transactions, computer data, DNA, and fingerprints. The continual skepticism directed at traditionally reliable evidence could cause serious issues in reaching verdicts in criminal cases as the ‘reasonable doubt’ could be far easier to establish. If every piece of evidence were viewed as unreliable, then it would be impossible to establish a strong case satisfying the onus of proof. Ultimately, this could potentially distort legal principles that have existed for centuries.

Conclusion In a fair and just society like Australia, everyone should have a voice. No one opinion should be held without question and all information should be viewed with a critical eye.

However, it is disadvantageous to society as a whole for ideas in direct contradiction to clear scientific evidence to be promoted and given any weight in relation to objectively correct viewpoints. It is dangerous in regards to antivaccination and it is detrimental in the case of climate change denial.

As a society, we need to face the facts head on and not respond with fear and irrationality. Only then can we promote unified solutions.

Edition 1, 2017 | 13

Employment Disadvantage in a Post-Truth Developed World Comparing the effect of below-minimum wages in Australia and the US  Smeetha Jayakumar

I

n the developed world, employee rights and the standards required of employers are viewed as akin to fundamental human rights, helping sustain a basic quality of life. With the level of access to information afforded in this ‘post-truth’ world, basics like the minimum wage are well-known and commonly accepted. Despite their widespread acceptance, however, they aren’t always followed nor are they known to satisfy the basic standard of living that they are designed to maintain. And yet there is little done to change this, as the people affected by it tend not to take action despite awareness of their legal rights.

To analyse why this is still the case, the nature of the post-truth world and its accessibility of information will need to be defined. Furthermore, factors resulting in below-minimum wages will be assessed in order to shed some light on the general acceptance of this breach. To achieve this a comparative study of the circumstances of minimum wage workers in both Australia and the United States will be drawn.

The term ‘post-truth’ encapsulates the nature of postmodernist society in which information is openly accessible to a wider demographic. It also explores a world that frequently advocates for open government, communication and a liberal perspective on the accessibility of this information. Above all, the post-truth world encourages discourse of varying perspectives and argument for or against the validity of information. This is evident through WikiLeaks and the immense support for whistle-blowers such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden who were intent upon uncovering the truth.

Yet in spite of this ‘post-truth’ world affording widespread awareness of minimum 14 | The Brief

wage employee rights, the US Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) found 3.3% of the American working population still earned below the federal minimum wage. While there is some political debate about the stagnancy of the minimum wage in America, little talk appears to be from those employed in these circumstances.

Unfortunately, a 2014 study conducted by the Melbourne Institute, a research institute covering economics and social affairs, into the characteristics of minimum wage employees in Australia found circumstances in Australia are approaching something similar with 5% of employed individuals earning below the minimum wage. Despite this percentage, however, there is little political movement for these individuals to access the minimum wage as a consequence of legal loopholes.

So the question remains: Why are many employees paid below the minimum wage despite legal wage requirements and why is so little being done about it?

The BLS has done research into belowminimum wage workers in the US to determine which characteristics are more likely to contribute to their financial circumstances – age, gender, race, education, marital status, full or part time employment, and more. They found that below-minimum wage employees are more commonly females, under the age of twenty-five, and are likely to be of an ethnic minority such as Black, Hispanic or Latino with lower levels of education. But the greatest factor appears to be employment in the Leisure and Hospitality industries which make up 15% of these workers. This is closely followed by the Education and Medical Support industries, producing 8% of this body.

The industry-based underpayment in the US has drawn attention to the breach of federal wage requirements through non-legal avenues.

This, however, does not appear to be the case in Australia. Furthermore, US federal minimum wage growth has stagnated, remaining at $7.25 since 2010. This stagnation, despite a rapid increase in the cost of living, has been another significant factor in the prevalence of debate surrounding this issue in the US. However, the individuals affected are reluctant to be involved in the debate. This appears largely due to their socioeconomic circumstances – where they live, how much it costs, as well as their cultural heritage. They are also unwilling to engage in the debate for fear of causing further disintegration of their living conditions in spite of awareness of their legal rights.

Factors contributing towards belowminimum wage employment in Australia vary compared to the US, but they still give rise to political debate on the issue and the reasoning behind the reluctance for change.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics found that the predominant factor in below-minimum wage employment was a failure to cover these positions with a federal Award prescribing minimum wages. Employees covered by state wages and not federal wages are more likely to be paid below the minimum required.

Other significant factors in Australia are occupation and payment methods – for example, ‘cash in hand’ positions are often paid below the minimum wage, as are many jobs in the agricultural industry like farming and those involved in agricultural sales. Unlike in the US, however, employees are not paid below the minimum wage as a blatant objection of federal

requirements, but rather through legal loopholes that circumnavigate the application of minimum wage. This could perhaps be a significant factor in the reluctance of political activism on this issue as a result of the difficulty in establishing valid legal grounds for protest.

The federal minimum wage in Australia has constantly adapted to the standard of living in its most expensive cities, resulting in the current minimum of $17.70 per hour – more than $10 better than in the US. This is despite the fact that the average cost of living in Australia is only marginally higher than the US average with some cities such as New York surpassing the cost of Australian cities. While the impact of below-minimum wages on an individual’s ability to survive financially is less extreme in Australia than in the US, those affected by such circumstances are still unwilling to dispute them as a result of the difficulty of establishing their legal argument.

However, there is little evidence confirming why individuals impacted by below-minimum wage are unwilling to dispute their predicaments.

In Australia, bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading and the Fair Work Ombudsman have been instrumental in disputing below-minimum wage employment in circumstances such as those involving mistreatment of migrant employees.

But these cases make up only a small percentage of those impacted by below-minimum wage circumstances in Australia. The reluctance of employees to bring forth their issues could be from a fear of losing the benefits they may be afforded through bodies such as Centrelink. The recent crackdown on debts owed to Centrelink by individuals receiving benefits is an example of the consequences feared.

Edition 1, 2017 | 15

‘Fake News’ and Dangerous Disinformation Finding truth in a post-truth world  Anjali Nadaradjane

B

rexiteers, alt-right, latinx, coulrophobia…these were all words which swum close to surfacing as the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016, but it was ultimately ‘post-truth’ that came out on top. The choice was motivated by the frequent vocalisation of the Western liberal media that we are living in a post-truth world – that is, an era in which emotional and personal beliefs override objective facts.

Michael Cavna of The Washington Post opined that we have entered a type of Orwellian ‘brave new world’ of ‘fake news’.

Ahmed Al Sheikh, former chief editor of Al Jazeera Arabic, further advanced that we occupy a post-truth world due to a far-right embrace of social media which threatens the broadcasting of truth. No doubt he is referring to how ‘fake’ US election news plastered on Facebook outperformed real news and that the proliferation of ‘fake news’ influenced the US Presidential election outcome. Finally, The Economist declared that while there is temptation to dismiss ‘post-truth’ political discourse as a ‘modish myth’ fabricated by ‘de-haut-en-bas liberals’, there is a definite shift towards a politics in which sentiments eclipse facts, which causes certain politicians to flourish.

With the dawn of ‘new media’ encompassing cable news, online and social media, ‘fake news’ propaganda has undoubtedly defined and plagued information conveyed to the public. ‘Fake news’ as a modern concept is news deliberately disseminated with little basis in fact and often created from nothing to promote an ideological agenda. But are we living in a posttruth world as much of the liberal Western media such as the BBC, The Guardian, The 16 | The Brief

Washington Post and The New York Times appear to suggest? Hasn’t post-truth existed long before these times within the realm of the press? Importantly, has truth ever existed, and have we been seeing a form of ‘fake’ news for decades?

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson penned a fiery letter to John Norvell, a newspaper editor and US Senator, in what would be considered a condemnation of ‘fake news’ today. He wrote that ‘nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.’ Decades later, celebrated historian, political scientist and diplomat, Alexis de Tocqueville, raised concerns in his seminal political analysis, Democracy in America, of the active manipulation of the truth for political ends and that it was ‘only through the altering and distortion of facts that a journalist can contribute to the support of his own views.’ Almost 200 years later, Georgetown University Professor Johnathan Ladd wrote in his 2011 book Why Americans Hate The Media and How it Matters that ‘[t]he existence of an independent, powerful, widely respected news media establishment is an historical anomaly.’

‘Fake’ news generally and ‘post-truths’ is nothing new – it is clearly evident in history.

In the American Civil War, false ‘news’ was routinely distributed to Confederate soldiers to bolster their spirits before battle.

During WW1, news of reinforcements for the besieged American-Filipino garrison resisting the Japanese invasion of the Philippines to keep them fighting past the point of their impending defeat was fabricated.

Furthermore, false accounts were dispersed during the 1991 Gulf War that depicted Saddam Hussein and Iraqi troops stealing

Kuwaiti Hospital incubators. These falsities were rooted in an agenda to create a pretext for US intervention in Iraq.

The more recent 2011 attacks in Libya are another sombre example of the pervasion of ‘fake’ news and its consequences. The modern state of Libya was decimated on the pretext that Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi planned to commit genocide on his own people.

Liberal media journalists like Jonathan Freedland wrote that despite the reality of its risks, ‘the case for intervention’ remained ‘strong.’ Gaddafi was characterised as devilish and news outlets such as the BBC and The New York Times repeatedly cited Hillary Clinton’s declaration that ‘Gaddafi’s security forces’ were ‘using violence against women and rape as tools of war’, while providing no evidence to underpin the claims.

The truth, however, was a far cry from the story perpetuated by mainstream media: NATO recorded that 9,700 ‘strike sorties’, including uranium warheads, had been launched against Libya by the US with over a third aimed at civilian targets; photographs depict the rubble and mass graves at Sirte and Misrata. The notion of ‘intervention’ in Libya was painted by mainstream media reporting in polite and benign terms, exemplifying the power of Machiavellian politics and false news reporting.

Finally, dubious reporting has dominated the coverage of Russia’s role in international relations conflicts. The Western media has been complicit in the vilification of Russia in several instances, starting from the 2014 Ukraine coup where Russia’s fictitious ‘invasion of Ukraine’ was persistently referred to as a fact. Depictions of Russia’s role in the Syrian Crisis have been even worse with John Wight of Sputnik asserting that a neo-McCarthyite anti-Russian propaganda offensive has been waged across Europe in response to Russia’s military goal in Syria.

Recent attempts to secure a truce in the conflict were damaged when a US-led airstrike on a Syrian government army base triggered brutal consequences, killing 62 Syrian soldiers, wounding more than 100, and paving the way for IS forces to enter the town of Deir

al-Zour. Unsurprisingly, the Western media shrouded these delicate details, focusing specifically on Moscow’s alleged responsibility for a subsequent attack on a UN Aid envoy – an attack far more likely to have been triggered by Assad forces.

It is testimony that allegedly impartial and independent Western media organisations are complicit in lies and even propagate them. According to former Australian diplomat Gregory Clark, writing for The Japan Times, the media manipulates through the demonisation effect: the notion that societies, like individuals, are prone to perceive the world in black-and-white terms creating a collective bias which facilitates the encouragement of collective hatreds or dislikes for regimes that governments have decided to oppose.

The real enemy is not Russia but the hypocrisy of governments and their media acolytes who have exercised a form of posttruth politics for decades and centuries.

The truth has been lost and like historical research, it is not an attempt to understand the past or present but more a propaganda tool for use in modern political and social power struggles. Syria may not follow the horrific paths of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya whose cultures were ruined and their development destroyed. However, the integrity of those in the media who have written the annals of deception will not be rebuilt in regards to the Syrian crisis.

It is those individuals, deeply embedded in the Western political and media establishment and who have dispersed ‘fake’ news for decades that now agitate about Trump and other far-right populist politicians for engaging in ‘post-truth politics’. The fears expressed by much of the Western liberal media is simply a tardy realisation that mainstream media no longer wields sole power to shape and drive the news agenda.

The media’s role in ‘fake news’ and post-truth politics has caused the public to withdraw from establishment media and seek their news through multiple sources. This is the truth about our supposedly post-truth world.

Edition 1, 2017 | 17

Populism, Society and the Post-Truth Era Is the post-truth era solely to blame for the current social and political climate?  Kevin Dorostkar

18 | The Brief

T

he term ‘post-truth’ winning Oxford Dictionaries 2016 Word of the Year reflected a period dominated by highly-charged political and social discourse, caused by a growing distrust of facts. Since 2015, the use of this word has increased by 2,000% in conjunction with the uprising of populist movements such as Brexit and the presidential elections in the US. While appeals to emotion have taken centre stage in political discourse, linking the rise of the alt-right or populist movements, both domestic and abroad, to the ‘post-truth’ phenomena is a mistake.

The ‘truth’

The income divide

The origins of the post-truth era are rooted in postmodernism movements. Absolute notions of truth have been replaced with an intellectual orthodoxy, which only permit ‘truths’ – always plural and frequently personalised.

All claims on truth are relative to the person making them. Consequently, there is no way to establish universal truth. Thus, criticising the Pauline Hansons or Donald Trumps of politics as spreading falsehoods, which appeal to nationalistic empathies, does not explain their recent surge into mainstream politics.

It cannot be refuted that the rhetoric used by such populist figures is damaging and offensive.

However, dismissing the positions they put forward because they are not grounded in empirical or logical fact does not address the underlying causes for the increased prominence of extreme conservative positions. The subjective nature of truth requires that we grapple with new ideas and political positions that are in direct contradiction to our own. Absolute notions of right and wrong are conversation stoppers that further drive the wedge between ‘us’ and ‘them’ in political discourse.

The emergence of alt-right movements in mainstream politics is due to traditional establishments and rational political debate failing to encompass genuine concerns of various segments of society. The failure to address issues such as income inequality in balanced debate has created a sense of political disillusionment, resulting in the rise of ‘antiestablishment’ figures.

There is a clear trend that greater levels of income inequality caused by technological automation, the collapse of the manufacturing industry, shrinking welfare safety nets and neoliberal economic policies, influences electoral behaviour towards supporting ‘far-right views’.

In rural areas of Australia, particularly North Queensland, there is a clear sentiment that rising economic insecurity among the struggling working class has fueled resentment towards the two major political parties. Queensland has the highest rate of poverty outside the capital city. In fact, in 2009-2010 Queensland’s poverty rate outside of the capital city was sitting at an uncomfortable 15%.

Harriet Galagher is a resident of rural Queensland who appeared on SBS-TV’s Insight which focused on minority voting in the previous election. While on the show, Ms Galagher revealed that she voted for Hanson’s One Nation party because of the growing frustration that neither of the major parties have addressed the lack of employment in rural Queensland. Furthermore, when questioned about her views on immigration she stated that ‘immigration should be based on the economy and…should be slowed or even stopped when the economy is poor’.

While no single view can be used to draw a definitive conclusion, Ms Galagher’s position proves that underneath the hurtful post-truth rhetoric, there are genuine concerns that traditional establishments have failed to redress.

After fighting against racism and bigotry, we

Edition 1, 2017 | 19

need to ask: what is the driving force behind such rhetoric? The post-truth era is a symptom of larger and much more complex issues which have been neglected for far too long.

Changing cultures and the post-truth era Cultural shifts towards progressive values have created a backlash from a portion of society that resents the displacement of familial and religious tradition, and provides a pool of supporters vulnerable to populist appeals. Trends of globalisation and multiculturalism have altered the Australian identity, which now encompasses a wide range of values and cultural practices.

Australian society has become a melting pot of many cultures who speak different languages and practice different traditions. This diversity is predominantly despised by the older generation and less educated sectors, who sense a decline in the value of their own identity and fear the erosion of their privilege and status.

Conservative figures have latched on to the resentment by older and less educated people to gain widespread support. British Prime Minister Theresa May, in support of Brexit, stated ‘if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere’. One Nation’s policy overview states that multiculturalism has destroyed Australian culture and should be abolished and replaced with notions of ‘nationalism, loyalty and pride in being an Australian’. But such appeals to individual identity and nationalistic sentiments cannot solely be attributed to the post-truth era. Increasing levels of income inequality and economic hardship, combined with a cultural shift that displaces notions of tradition as well as increased sensitivity to political correctness creates an opportunity where post-truth rhetoric can be used to mobilise the politically disillusioned to support a corrosive nationalist agenda.

20 | The Brief

It should be noted, however, that economic inequality nor cultural backlash to progressive ideals can completely justify the rise of ‘antiestablishment figures’. But both theories provide opportunities to discuss and explore the causes of the rise of the post-truth era.

We must allow ourselves to be reminded that an excessive attachment to truth, or an uncompromising confidence in our truth, creates ‘epistemic walls, information bubbles and moral divisiveness’. As soon as we have convinced ourselves that something is right beyond objection, we cancel the opportunity for conversation and therefore progress. Ironically, history has showed us the dangers of allocating blame for the rise of extreme conservative ideologies to post-truth or propagandist rhetoric.

Rejection of those who do not share our idea of truth as irrational or subhuman, combined with a blind faith in our own ideas of truth, has brought about the holocausts and genocides of the world, and its most cruel dictators. The danger of post-truth politics, as blogger Ana Sandoiu notes, is that we delegitimise the ‘other’ by using ‘racial epithets [and] animal-like metaphors’ or by simply calling them ‘deplorable’ without understanding the roots of the problem.

The challenge is fighting against the prejudice, xenophobia and bigotry which consumes posttruth political debate without completely ignoring the causes which fuel such rhetoric. Escaping our political bubbles, conversing with a diverse range of people and accepting that all claims of truth are relative will ensure that we achieve the tolerance required in addressing the larger problem and not the post-truth symptom. After all, as the venerable Atticus Finch once said, ‘you never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.’

The Inconvenient Truth about Liberal Democracy Focusing on the figure of the demagogue alone misses lessons from history  Swatilekha Ahmed

T

he 2016 US election brought to the forefront an inconvenient truth regarding the Western world’s enshrinement of liberal democracy, a truth that has been brewing over the past year in many European electorates as well as the US. While political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously claimed that the fall of the Berlin Wall spelled the ‘end of history’ and liberal democracy and capitalism would reign supreme, the notable events of 2016 have left many observers wondering whether it is the end for liberal democracy. However, the crisis must be examined with an eye to history, which highlights that it is not the figure of the demagogue which should be scrutinised, but rather the conditions which led to the rise of the demagogue, and secondly, the crisis of liberalism and how it has created more followers of populist parties.

The importance of historical parallels Analysts, commentators and historians alike have highlighted parallels between the current political landscape and certain historical figures such as Hitler. Such comparisons are not always helpful, and this author indicates that such allusions unfairly focus on the figure of the demagogue rather than the conditions which create the rise of the demagogue. As the Germans say, asking whether such allusions are useful can be answered by ‘jaein’ (that is, yes and no). However, one way such a comparison is useful is in the way it fixates on a demagogue’s relationship with their followers. As the political scientist Michael Oakeshott has observed, it is a ‘liberal illusion’ to focus only on the demagogue, thinking that the problem lies with only one person.

Rather than comparing Trump the person to a figure such as Mussolini or Hitler, it is more helpful to look towards the ‘dictator’s shadow’ and the conditions that have enabled the rise of such discourse.

Edition 1, 2017 | 21

Peter Bergen, a security analyst writing for CNN, asked in late December 2015 whether Donald Trump classified as fascist, and developed four criteria that hearken similarly to figures such as Hitler or Mussolini: 1. A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of traditional solutions; 2. The superiority of the leader’s instincts over facts and reason and a disregard for the truth; 3. The belief of one group that it is the victim, justifying any kind of action; 4. The need for authority by someone who is a natural leader, always male. This culminates in the idea of a national captain who alone can incarnate this victim group’s destiny.

These points are instructive because they reveal what led to the demagogues’ rise and the relationship these men had with their followers. But to say that Trump, France’s Marine Le Pen or any similar figures are fascist misses the point. Rather, it is their ideological stances and personal brands which have evoked the support of certain segments of society. To paraphrase, Jared Taylor, editor of white nationalist magazine American Renaissance, notes that ‘[Trump’s] support comes from people who are more like me than he might like to admit.’ As Mark Mazower (a Professor of History at Colombia University) and Ishaan Tharoor (a foreign affairs writer for The Washington Post) have said, the racist and anti-immigrant feelings at the centre of fascism have never truly gone away and it is important to focus on the remnants of that ideology rather than simply focus on the figure of the leader.

Demographics count What should create more interest than the figure of the demagogue is the demographic of their followers and the relationship they have with him or her. Polling indicates that followers of a populist figure experience a deep discontent with the status quo. A similar sense of disillusionment characterised the narrative leading up to both Brexit and the 2016 US election. This sense of failure is exacerbated by what both Tharoor and Mazower term as a sense of political and cultural crisis in the West. As Mazower says, the lesson here should be on the ‘interwar crisis of democratic institutions’. As the Brexit result showed, there existed a deep disillusionment with not only institutions of liberal democracy but also pan-national cooperative structures.

22 | The Brief

The peak of this apathy among certain classes of voters signifies a deep-seated issue with the way political and economic institutions operate.

According to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, ‘we are watching the emergence of a new political divide that is likely to shape the politics of the Western world for the next fifty years.’ Globalisation and technological advances have led to the free movement of goods, services, information, and most importantly people in and out of previously guarded borders. The ‘Remain’ campaigners in Brexit were likely to have a university degree, mirroring the situation in the US election where most Trump voters had not received any tertiary education. Those with a university degree, who were statistically more likely to view an open world and open borders as beneficial, viewed the institutions and legislative structures of liberal democracy as beneficial; however those with no university degree, unemployed or in the working class express deep disillusionment with globalisation and now want protections such as sovereignty, tariffs and border controls to feel like their country is protecting their welfare.

Perhaps a quote from Fukuyama himself consolidates the sense that liberalism is failing many voters. He stated in late 2015: ‘the real story of this election is that after several decades, American democracy is finally responding to the rise of inequality and the economic stagnation experienced by most of the population.’ A glance at Europe’s ‘little Trumps’ – Austrian Norbert Hofer, Le Pen and Dutch Geert Wilders – reveals that they have all capitalised on some kind of crisis, and have reached out to voters who suffer due to tax increases, benefit cuts and unemployment. Even International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists have observed that the organisation’s neoliberal economic model had created a deep inequality and austerity.

It does not help to exclude such parties out of normal ‘establishment’ processes either. Populist leaders like Le Pen and Wilders have both faced hate speech trials through the courts rather

than being engaged with at a political level. This feeds a persecution complex and leads many of their followers to feel excluded by the political establishment. In Trump’s case, his rhetoric is of the ‘us against them’ nature, which resonates among a similar category of pollsters who seek refuge in Trump’s nativist nationalism.

In America, where neither Democrats nor Republicans are seen to be addressing the unemployment and mobility issues of the poorly educated white working class, Trump has embodied a sense of nationalism tinged with nostalgia for a better time, by evoking Ronald Reagan’s 1980 Presidential campaign slogan ‘Make America Great Again’. Intergenerational economic mobility has stagnated, and when looking at Europe, the mishandled refugee crisis has led resentful voters to look towards nostalgic ideologies. This is the most striking parallel to the interwar period in Europe: the people blamed the legislature for their sufferings and saw the legislature as a rubber stamp for the elites and lobbyists. The push towards wanting more power in the hands of a singular demagogue, promising to ‘speak their language’ and fix their woes, mirrors today’s situation in Europe and the US. Such ideologies of populist demagogues tap into the diagnosis of a problem: out of touch elites, growing inequality and globalisation.

So when Mazower asks whether we have reached a ‘Weimar Moment’, it is helpful to consider the conditions of the Weimar government and the demographics of the people affected by today’s political situation. While we are not faced with a period of overt fascism in the US and Europe, calls for a single party state or the royalists’ fear of communism, it will be helpful to focus on those conditions which enable the rise of figures such as Trump, Le Pen, Wilders and Hofer. Looking at those groups of people who have lost faith in the checks-and-balances system of our liberal democracy and the politicisation of the judiciary and the executive reveals that the real problem is the lack of faith in Western liberalism.

Edition 1, 2017 | 23

The Truth about ‘Post-Truth’ Is it really a novel concept?

T

 Deepthi Sivashanmugam

he term ‘post-truth’ seems to have become a regular feature of the 21st century public sphere, though it only recently seemed to enter the common lexicon. Defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’, it is easy to understand why it was declared as Oxford Dictionaries’ Word of the Year for 2016. Widely linked to US President Donald Trump, the Brexit referendum and its result also increased the popularity of the term.

India: an example At the end of 2016, with Britain opting to leave the EU and Trump having won the US presidential election, Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, in his New Years’ Eve address to the nation on demonetisation demonstrated the increasing relevance of the term ‘posttruth’. Many commentators dubbed his speech as a classic case of demagoguery, which they suggested was evidenced by the multitude of unsubstantiated statements. With many Indian citizens dissatisfied with his decision to demonetise the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes, the two

24 | The Brief

most common denominators of Indian currency, Modi’s speech was an attempt to convince them of the long-term benefits of the change.

The Prime Minister asserted that demonetisation has been implemented to tackle counterfeiting and corruption; by eliminating large denominations, large amounts of physical currency would be harder to hide. Although the intention behind Modi’s move was to tackle India’s significant issue of black money hoarders in the interest of ‘nationalism’, the actual result of it was that 86 percent of the country’s currency was cancelled, which collaterally caused nation-wide economic unrest where many people, especially in rural areas, face hardship. Even as the long queues for exchanging the demonetised Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes continue, banks have only just begun calibrating their ATMs, a time-consuming affair, to dispense Rs 100 and Rs 2000 notes, which everyone wants but are in short supply.

This stark reality was conveniently ignored when India’s Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who spoke on Modi’s behalf, stated that the decision has only caused an ‘initial inconvenience’ since the queues were now ‘extremely small.’ Perhaps his biggest ‘post-truth’ was revealed when he claimed that demonetisation would significantly

set back India’s ‘parallel economy’, an ongoing problem for the last seventy years.

Yet despite the claims made by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, the ubiquitous concern that large proportions of black money will not be returned to banks and will remain in the possession of the corrupt prevails. Many economists have also scrutinized Modi’s decision, claiming that instead of opting to demonetise the Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes, Modi could have embraced alternative methods for addressing the black money problem since a very small proportion of it was kept in cash anyway. Moreover, they believe that the supply of physical currency will accumulate again as Rs 500 and Rs 2000 notes begin circulating and thus demonetisation alone will not put an end to India’s black money and corruption problem.

In a kind of mini-budget speech, Modi also unveiled ‘new’ schemes targeting pregnant women, the homeless, farmers and small business owners. He claimed that the Indian government is ‘introducing’ a scheme for depositing Rs 6000 directly into the bank accounts of pregnant women and for the conversion of three crore (30 million) Kisan credit cards (KCC) (which can only be used at banks) into RuPay Debit Cards (which can be used anywhere). Yet an almost identical project to deposit funds into the bank accounts of pregnant women and a scheme for the conversion of the KCC to the RuPay Debit Card has already been implemented and is four years old. His so-called ‘initiatives’ derive from pre-existing schemes, which is evidence of his unstated intentions.

Further, Modi has also pushed for low-cost housing for the homeless and farm loans, credit limit increases and tax incentives for small businesspersons and traders, the doubling of funds to be set aside for irrigation projects under various programmes of the National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development, and higher interest rates on fixed deposits for senior citizens. All of this pointed toward the segments of the Indian population most affected by demonetisation which Modi was tacitly seeking to target while attempting to soften the blow. Modi’s ‘post-truth’ rhetoric, unlike Trump, has not been explicitly directed against a specific ethnic group to win majority support. Rather, he has justified his demonetisation scheme by

acknowledging those hit hardest by the currency crunch with an emotional undertone. At the same time, unfavorable facts are being brushed aside and the critics are being shut down. Ultimately, what seems to influence society are tactical plays on emotion. How very ‘post-truth’.

Postmodernism and the ‘post-truth’ Although it may seem that ‘post-truth’ is a recent concept given that leaders such as Trump and Modi have engineered a distorted reality in a ‘post-truth’ world where facts don’t matter, ‘post-truth’ is in fact closely linked to the postmodern perspective which rejected truth as an ideal altogether. Jean-Francois Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, which first appeared in English in 1984, was one of the earliest attempts to sketch the postmodern ideology. As the title suggests, the novel was a critique of society’s institutions of knowledge where attempts to produce knowledge in the modern world depend on a truth claim, on the assumption that truth is essential. Lyotard denied the possibility of the existence of a universal truth since an individual’s understanding of the truth is plural. That is, a postmodernist’s understanding of truth is that it is consistent with the author, subject, presence, history, time and space. Since a text is read differently by individual readers, no single reader can identify what the ‘true’ meaning of a text is which suggests that there is no definite single meaning of the world. Therefore, there is no knowledge but only interpretation. Such a belief resonates with our world today, where there is a wide range of information available on the internet and an equally diverse range of people to pick, choose and report what they believe to be true.

It is clear that ‘postmodernism’ has set the scene for the ‘post-truth’ era we live in. So ‘posttruth’ must not be misunderstood as a recent concept. ‘Post-truth’ is just the latest label for what was previously expressed in the cultural turn of ‘postmodernism’. Sadly, opinions no longer depend on factual evidence, but rather on interpretation, feelings, prejudices or even the interests of a plurality, however untrue.

There is no such thing as an absolute truth. It is either your truth or my truth.

Edition 1, 2017 | 25

From ‘fake news’ to social media, 2016 has dramatically changed how the world interacts with politics

We Are Living in a Post-Truth Era:

What Now?  Mounisha Mondeddu

W

e are living in a post-truth era. It was a phrase that we all became well accustomed to as 2016 drew to a close. It saw an inexplicable blur of the fine line between fact and fiction in the media.

However, this calls us to question what it was that made us accept a political environment in which facts, experience and political awareness became exceedingly irrelevant and emotions ran rampant. The answer to this question is partially located in the media.

The internet and social media has put humans in a unique situation where we demand news the very instant it happens. Consequently, the focus of media outlets called for a shift from accuracy and factual reporting to the dangerous perpetuation of ‘fake news’. The prevalence of social media agitates the situation further by creating a major imbalance in news reporting – outlets kept writing clickbait pieces, and people kept clicking.

However, neither of these factors explains why 2016 in particular drove us into this posttruth world. Fake news, at the heart of it, is in fact fairly old news. News articles have always

26 | The Brief

been written with some degree of subjectivity to capture their audiences and headlines have, for the most part, always struggled not to be blatantly misleading in an effort to capture attention. Headlines such as ‘Israel to Drop More Bombs’ in The Telegraph newspaper operated primarily to raise alarm among British citizens amid growing public fears of terror attacks, even though the article itself explored Israel’s intention to withdraw from Gaza.

Alongside this, social media has, in its brief existence, allowed for the instant spread of information. So what made 2016 so different?

It is no secret that news outlets have always exploited platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to spurn clickbait. The only variation came from the seemingly heavy political saturation of 2016.

Brexit and the US Election both drew major international audiences, becoming focal points for the fake news epidemic.

Deliberately misleading headlines have perpetuated the practice of individuals voicing their opinions in response to articles on social media platforms. This is based almost solely on emotion, and its ‘clickbait nature’ disables any method of fact-checking. This dangerous practice

makes it easy to answer the earlier question of why post-truth even became an issue. More worryingly, however, the issue doesn’t end there.

If it were as simple as the spread of a few fake headlines and misinformed opinions, post-truth wouldn’t have been so controversial.

Historically, the political affiliations of news outlets have been pretty evident – for example, The Australian’s conservative bias has become an unwritten matter-of-fact within Australian media. Newspapers once made a noticeable effort to separate the reported news with the opinions offered in editorials. While reporters would have had an opinion on the news they were reporting, that opinion was silenced before it could reach the readers. However, in this posttruth era, this avoidance is becoming harder and harder. It means that news and opinion are becoming less distinct, and media outlets are quick to grasp at their audience’s inability to distinguish between the two forms. With opinion pieces carrying the mask of authenticity, ‘real news’ has quickly faded in its wake. Of course, while the opinionated voices of online journalism seem fairly clear when scrutinised closely, it goes unnoticed regularly by readers who would rather guzzle endless tales of the shortcomings of their opposing party’s presidential frontrunner than ever acknowledge the glaring biases in the articles they click on so fervently.

At the end of the day, why does any of this even matter? The answer to that is a little unclear. Perhaps a better question is what does all this mean? It means that politics have been used to define individual relationships and the understanding and perception that we have of one another. The spread of post-truth has meant that the left- and right-wing split isn’t just reserved for politicians. It is instead used by virtually all people to perpetuate their understanding of each other.

However, the most dangerous thing that this post-truth era has created is an exaggerated political divide. While most every day individuals, pre-2016, would have been characterised as pretty centre in their political beliefs, save a handful of heavily right- or left-wing extremists, the past year changed all that. The over-hyped events of Brexit and the US Presidential election (or even Australia’s

own Federal election, for that matter) created an almost insatiable need in us to absolutely identify with one side. If we consider the intricacies of Trump’s presidential campaign, his not-so-subtle proclamation of right-wing ideologies meant that the USA, and the rest of the world alongside them, was forced to either align with him or identify as left-wing. ‘Fake news’ left us with a stigmatised perception of the middle, centred ground, and created a misconception that we absolutely had to choose a side; that is to say, it abolished the spectrum altogether.

This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, it creates an inherent mis-definition of our own selves as being further left or right to each other than we actually were. Without being able to identify as being on a scale, we have found ourselves in an all-out war. It means that we often mischaracterise each other based on a single political ideology, of which your support for either candidate (or worldview) was dependent on either one or two key policies. Essentially, while two people may have previously been fairly identical in their life experiences, affiliations and general approach to life, their individual choice to lean ever so slightly in opposite directions meant that their immediate understanding of the ‘other’ came from a need to disassociate with ‘the other side’.

Secondly, our awareness of the post-truth situation only widens the divide further. In an attempt to understand the lack of factual basis in our politicians’ campaigns, we dove deeper into the post-truth narrative. In the wake of Brexit, self-proclaimed ‘lefties’ were all too quick to jump on the bandwagon to shout ‘Racist!’ at anyone who voted to leave the EU. However, such people only fell further into the post-truth narrative, by creating claims of racism and bigotry without fact checking and using evidence.

So where does this new state of affairs leave us all? Are we all doomed for a political future in which we succumb to the fake news and ignore any semblance of reality? Are we going to keep alienating our friends due to misinformed and loose political affiliations? Only time will tell. For now, at least, it seems as though this post-truth reality is here to stay, so the least we can do is stand up and embrace it.

Edition 1, 2017 | 27

28 | The Brief

Fake Advice

Don’t let law school break your heart!  Dan Carter (aka Krishna Nand)

Dear Macquarie Law students, It’s nice to be writing during the Rugby pre-season and I have a few thoughts for you bright lot. If you’re hearing from me for the first time ever, I’m Dan Carter – Rugby Union player for the New Zealand All Blacks. I play on the flyhalf, because kicking is my thing!

Having worked with fitness companies for a while now, I have decided to write to law students regarding the often underplayed importance of health and well-being.

But why to us law students, I hear you ask. Well, ever since I was offered a position with The Brief I started some preliminary research into the legal profession in Australia.

What I discovered was severely alarming, at the very least. Allegedly, barristers suffer depression rates of approximately 33% with solicitors not far behind at 20%. For a profession that is perceived as glorious and prestigious, this came to me as quite the shocker! Yet again, solicitors and barristers are often subjected to high pressure. As a rugby player, I too know what that’s like.

Depression is not just a ghost that haunts the legal profession, but it also creeps behind Rugby players on the peak of the mountain. If you want

to keep this ghost of depression out of your lives, then it would be a good idea to start building positive habits now during law school. If you are experiencing self-esteem issues arising from stress and not putting any effort to pursuing a positive self-being, then you could remain the same during professional practice.

So how can you go about bringing more positive well-being from your enormous readings? It’s not easy, nor is it something that everybody enjoys.

But exercise may be the answer! Yes, you read that correctly. Exercise. Stop being ‘negligent’ about your health, and maintain a ‘duty of care’! (forgive the pun).

When we exercise, our bodies undergo chemical reactions that release endorphins. These ‘feel good’ chemicals are the reason we feel proud and accomplished. So the more exercise, the better, more confident and stress-free you will feel (much needed for law students, I would think).

Adding exercise into study is also a great way to improve your scheduling and time management skills.

I am not asking you to join a gym – I personally find freestyle exercises like running or swimming more effective. I encourage you all to do as much exercise and eat a balance of good protein and good carbohydrates throughout your law studies. Eating protein and carbohydrates helps to ensure healthy muscle growth and promotes the storage of energy in your blood stream. That’s not to mention three glasses of red wine on a weekly basis can do the trick for your blood sugar levels and memory.

Might I say, not a bad way to WINEd down. And last but not least, physical activity helps get you those glorious Distinctions. Still hate exercise?

Thought so. So get out there, train and study hard!

Edition 1, 2017 | 29

A Brief Review

Rethinking the Classics:

Colour Blindness in To Kill a Mockingbird Is the revered Atticus Finch the role model we should aspire to be?  Madison Thorne

T

ime’s a funny thing.

It makes us forget, it sees things fade.

Unfortunately for us humans, mortality and momentariness are very unavoidable things. We’re pervaded by a tyranny; time’s tyranny.

Under Father Time’s rule, promises of forever will only be forsaken.

But sometimes time lets its guard down.

There are some characters we read about, that we never forget.

Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird is one such character.

Tracing the lawyer’s battle to weed entrenched xenophobia and racial disenfranchisement out of a discriminatory legal system, it’s become a symbol of hope for us all: marking shifts from segregation and prejudice towards racial egalitarianism. Even Barack Obama made reference to the iconic tale in his departure speech in January. He implored that ‘[i]f our democracy is to work in this increasingly diverse nation, we must heed the advice of one of the great characters in American fiction, Atticus Finch, who said “You never really understand a person… until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”’

Indeed, it is hard to fault a protagonist who has emerged as the indomitable epitome of what every law student (at least those with any ounce of social justice in their veins) should aspire to be. With that wise stance and knowing glare, he’s become the poster boy for what we should collectively emulate.

But is this misguided? Should we rethink our appointment of Atticus Finch as the ultimate ‘be like him’ of law student life? Is his approach to eradicating racism counter-intuitive, and perhaps ineffective?

I answer yes.

Why? As noble as he stands, his racism resistance agenda is not one we’d want replicated today. It relies on theories of colour blindness.

It is problematic.

Colour blindness says the law should ignore race and render it an irrelevant category in legal reasoning. It holds equality materializes only when 30 | The Brief

we extend identical treatment to everyone; we are blind to race, we choose not to see it and to not let it shape legal responses or policy. Everyone is treated homogenously, undifferentiated, in similitude and with any other superfluous adjective you can find that denotes sameness.

However as jurisprudence expert Professor Denise Meyerson notes, this is a flawed way to remove racism from our status quo.

‘Colour blindness is merely a way of requiring those who are different to conform to a white norm.

Colour blindness therefore is a way of privileging and perpetuating practices that were designed for the benefit of the whites and reflect their interests,’ she says.

It is this colour blindness she attributes to the ‘pervasive presence of racism in the legal system.’

Law’s blindness to racial difference advances white interests, while coloured perspective is left marginalised, subordinated and equality defeated.

The coloured folk Atticus fondly refers to are left to watch on as the scales of justice fall in an all too familiar position; one that seems forever not in their favour.

As Professor Angela Harris laments in her 1994 paper The Jurisprudence of Reconstruction, ‘history has shown racism can co-exist happily with commitments to…colour blindness.’ Only a nonAtticus Finch approach, where different treatment is given to each person to accommodate the specific needs of those oppressed, is conducive to equality.

To one day see equality, we must see colour.

So do we desert our colour blind Atticus Finch and commence our search for a colour seeing substitute?

Or do we recognise this book as a poignant and beauty ridden reflection of innocence lost to a world where we must battle for what is right, and proceed forward in our march for equality?

The latter. Trying not to kill any mockingbirds, while we’re at it.

Rating: 9/10

PLATINUM SPONSOR

GOLD SPONSORS

SILVER SPONSORS

SUPPORTING SPONSORS

Edition 1, 2017 | 31

Access Australia’s Best Law Student Publication: Anytime. Anywhere.

www.facebook.com/ thebriefmagazine

32 | The Brief

www.issuu.com/ muls

www.muls.org