Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristyn Sommer, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

C3PO, R2D2 and Wall-E: three distinctly memorable robots that captured our hearts as they rolled and beeped across the silver screen.

But pint-sized and friendly, humanoid robots are now more than just fictional characters. They’re finding their way into new roles as teachers, ready to shape the way students learn in the classroom.

And the evidence we have to date points to robots as fantastic teachers.

Read more: How robots could help chronically ill kids attend school

Children teaching robots

From as young as 12-months-old, toddlers are learning new words from robot instructors (who also happen to sing and dance along with them). By primary school, children are capable of learning features of new languages taught to them by humanoid robots.

Robots appear to get the job done as teachers, but how do they shape up as playmates? Kids find robots engaging – so much so that even when the robot ignores them, children persist in trying to get the robot’s attention.

Children tell secrets to robots. Children even feel peer pressure from robots, going so far as to give the wrong answer to a question if that’s what all the robots did before them.

And what happens when the roles are reversed and the children became the teachers?

We have learned that children are exceptional teachers to robots. Children have been found to actually learn better when they learn the content to teach to a robot, than if they didn’t have to teach at all.

And in order to teach robots, kids must learn to program, which means they’re getting fundamental STEM skills. Kids are already doing this, even in the early primary school years.

Read more: Teaching machines to teach themselves

Humanoid robots are a unique case for teaching programming skills to students, because students desire to teach the robot how to do things without initially knowing how to do so. With a unique motivation to teach the robot, this leads students to direct their own learning towards acquiring the fundamentals of programming.

In addition to the acquisition of fundamental programming skills, it drives students towards problem solving, seeking new information and sharing their findings with their peers.

A cascading effect on learning

While robotic platforms in the classroom are still very new, and most schools are still to find their path into the robotic future, some early examples of the success of robots in the classroom are emerging. In some research to be published soon, an all girls school in South Australia has found great success in both robots as teachers and learners.

Girls in a Year 8 class decided that, for their programming project, they would program a NAO robot to teach the Year 4 girls German words. The Year 8 girls knew neither how to program the robot or how to speak German. Collaboratively, the group of girls independently researched how to program the NAO robot to speak languages, and learnt fundamental German phrases to teach to the robot.

Once the girls successfully accomplished both tasks, they sent the robot to the Year 4 classroom, so that their NAO (and their hard work) could be utilised by the younger students to learn German.

Read more: We need robots that can improvise, but it’s not easy to teach them right from wrong

So, robots do have a place in the classroom. They are highly engaging and motivating for students, and can have a cascading effect on learning across an entire school. Learning with, from and for robots generalises learning far beyond simple programming classes, and brings forth a new era of learning for Generation Z.

That said, nothing quite beats a beating heart, and humans are still notably children’s favourite and most proficient teachers.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehmet Ozalp, Associate Professor in Islamic Studies, Director of The Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation and Executive Member of Public and Contextual Theology, Charles Sturt University

As the war in Syria comes to its final stages, the future of the country and the whole region hangs in the balance. As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad consolidates his power by defeating all opposition, resistance runs the risk of transforming into a new wave of organised terrorism.

My analysis at the beginning of 2018 predicted an imminent end to the conflict, with Assad victorious over the rebels. The final stage of the war was foreseen to be fought over the critical city and province of Idlib, the stronghold of the rebel groups. The capture of Idlib would cement Assad’s control of Western Syria demarcated by the Euphrates River.

Read more: The Syrian ‘hell on earth’ is a tangle of power plays unlikely to end soon

Idlib and Daraa were the first places where the civil war broke out back in 2011. Daraa fell to Assad’s forces in July 2018. Inevitably, Idlib was next in line.

Since 2015, Idlib has served as a repository of insurgents escaping Assad’s forces. The strategy of Assad was clear: to overwhelm opposition forces in every city with Russian air support; destroy as many of the armed rebels as possible; allow remaining armed rebels to move to Idlib as a temporary safe haven and then launch a final attack on Idlib to wipe out all armed opposition. The plan followed exactly this path, and worked.

Millions of displaced civilians have also moved to Idlib, escaping the war elsewhere. The United Nations has warned an attack on Idlib could be “the worst humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century”.

In July 2018, the world and the US administration waited nervously to see what the Trump-Putin Helsinki summit would bring for Syria. But the Syria issue was overshadowed by the issue of Russian meddling with the 2016 US elections and Trump astonishingly choosing to believe Putin rather than his own intelligence aides over the matter.

Read more: In the outrage over the Trump-Putin meeting, important questions were overlooked

The relative insignificance of Syria during the summit, coupled with Trump’s lack of strategic insight, must have reconfirmed with Putin that the US was continuing to take a back seat in Syria. Soon after the summit, Assad and Russia intensified their preparations to attack Idlib.

Other key people in the US administration were not as uninterested as Trump. Security adviser John Bolton, Defence Secretary Jim Mattis as well as other European powers issued repeated warnings against the use of chemical weapons.

In response, Russia has launched a PR campaign claiming that the US and Western bloc countries used a staged chemical attack as a pretext to strike Assad. At the same time, Russia was busy reinforcing its naval forces in the Mediterranean by adding 10 more battleships to its sizeable fleet.

Having pacified the US and its Western allies, Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Tehran in early September to decide the fate of Idlib and its inhabitants. Putin publicly rejected Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s call for a ceasefire.

About a week later, Putin and Erdogan met. Putin announced an agreement between Russia and Turkey to create “a demilitarised zone of a depth of 15-20km, with the withdrawal from there of radically minded rebels, including al-Nusra”.

No-one is sure who the “radically minded rebels” are, but Turkey will act as a guarantor in the demilitarisation process, relying on its significant influence over the rebel groups.

Turkey had no choice. It was facing the real possibility of another wave of hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians adding to the 3.5 million Syrians seeking refuge in Turkey. More importantly, escaped jihadist operatives were likely to regroup in Turkey, creating a massive internal security threat to that country.

As the first group started to leave the demilitarised zone on September 30, a small group of refugees returned to Syria from Lebanon. These are certainly good signs, but they don’t mean the war has ended. There is not even an official ceasefire in place, and the UN continues to issue warnings that Syria is still too dangerous a place to live and operate.

What is certain is that all parties, including Turkey, the US and some opposition groups, have now accepted the inevitability of Assad staying in power as the only legitimate government in Syria. This reality will have two main ramifications.

Read more: Syria, Russia and Turkey – the uneasy alliance reshaping world politics

Firstly, once totally free from armed opposition, Russia through the Assad regime is likely to challenge the US presence in Syria. Russia is not in Syria for a benevolent reason, but chiefly to ensure the permanence of its access to the Mediterranean Sea. A permanent US presence in Syria clashes with this objective.

By the end of 2018, and certainly in 2019, demands for the US to leave Syria will intensify – an eventuality that Trump clearly articulated back in April 2018. The US is likely to withdraw from Syria on the condition that Iran’s influence in the country is contained. Russia and Assad will make promises, but once the US is out, Iran will come back in.

Secondly, the biggest issue facing Syria is the deep feeling of resentment within a large segment of the population. They will question why the war was fought, creating 5 million refugees, displacing 6 million and killing more than 400,000, given that Assad is still in power in the end and Syria is no closer to being a democratic country advancing human rights and progress.

For some, the resentment will remain inward. But for a significant minority, the resentment will brew and turn into an unstoppable rage, perhaps manifesting in the familiar form of suicide bombing squads. They will reorganise themselves and launch a campaign of terrorism focusing mainly on easy civilian targets. This will only serve Assad’s narrative that fighting terrorism has reinforced his claims to legitimacy in the eyes of Syrians and increasingly within the international community.

The campaign of terrorism may inevitably spill over to Russia for staunchly supporting Assad, and to the US and its Western allies for allowing Russia to take the upper hand in Syria, subverting all attempts to get rid of Assad.

Civil war in Syria may be coming to an end with Assad firmly in power, but the resentment it generates is likely to evolve into a new wave of terrorism.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeanne Tie, Associate Professor, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute

Many cancer patients could soon be spared the unnecessary side effects of chemotherapy after having surgery to remove their tumour. A blood test being trialled at more than 40 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand aims to detect whether there are any cancer cells remaining in the body after surgery, which could lead to the cancer returning.

There is currently no reliable way of knowing which patients will have their cancer return after surgery. So, early stage cancer patients often receive chemotherapy after surgical treatment as a precaution – to mop up any cancer cells that could remain.

Read more: Explainer: what is chemotherapy and how does it work?

But chemotherapy comes with a host of serious side effects. Short-term, these include pain, fatigue, nausea and other digestive issues, bleeding problems and an increased susceptibility to infection. Long term side-effects may include heart, lung, nerve and memory problems, and fertility issues.

When cancer cells rupture and die – which they are always doing – they release their contents, including cancer-specific DNA, that float freely in the bloodstream. This is called “circulating tumour DNA” or ctDNA. If ctDNA is detected after surgery, this indicates there are remaining microscopic cancer cells in the patient that weren’t picked up by standard tests.

Research shows patients positive for circulating tumour DNA after surgery have an extremely high risk of cancer relapse (close to 100%) while those with a negative test have a very low risk of relapse (less than 10%).

Current trials in early-stage bowel cancer patients started in 2015. These have shown the ctDNA test can determine whether patients can be divided into “high risk” and “low risk” groups. The trials were later extended to women with ovarian cancer in 2017 and will soon extend to pancreatic cancer.

Results from the same test could also help scale the dose for the patients who do need chemotherapy, depending on their risk of cancer returning.

Read more: My cancer is in remission – does this mean I’m cured?

Why do we need the test?

When a patient with a cancer, such as early stage bowel cancer, is diagnosed, their tumours seem to be limited to the bowel with no evidence of spread to elsewhere in the body. But after a successful surgery to remove the bowel cancer, around one-third of these patients will experience cancer recurrence elsewhere in the body in the following years.

This shows that cancer cells have already spread at the time of diagnosis, but could not be detected using our current standard blood tests and scans. If these patients had been treated with chemotherapy after surgery, these relapses would have been prevented by eradicating the microscopic residual cancer cells responsible for the cancer’s return.

In the case of bowel cancer, the decision on whether to use chemotherapy is based on an assessment of the cancer removed at the time of surgery in the lab. For example, if there are cancer cells in the lymph glands next to the bowel (a stage 3 cancer), there is an increased probability the cancer has already spread elsewhere.

Read more: A new blood test can detect eight different cancers in their early stages

For other cancers, such as ovarian and pancreatic, other methods are used to determine whether chemotherapy is necessary. But they all lack precision. Ultimately, some high-risk patients will not have cancer recurrence because their cancer has been cured by surgery alone, while other apparently low-risk patients will suffer from recurrence.

So, many bowel cancer patients are currently treated with six months of chemotherapy and its associated side effects, even though they do not need to be treated. While others that would potentially benefit from treatment do not receive the necessary chemotherapy because they appear to be at low risk.

More than 400 patients have already joined in the trials but there is hope this will grow to more than 2,000. The trials are expected to run until 2021 for bowel cancer and 2019 for ovarian cancer.

The ctDNA test was developed through a collaboration between the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Centre, US.

The ability to find and measure cancer DNA in patient’s blood could revolutionise cancer care. The next step is to determine how it can be used in the clinic.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthea Rhodes, Paediatrician and Lecturer in Child and Adolescent Health, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne

Around one-quarter of Australian parents feel stressed by their child’s behaviour every day and more than one-third are overwhelmed by it. These are some of the findings released today from our latest Royal Children’s Hospital National Child Health Poll – an online quarterly survey of a nationally representative sample of 2,000 Australian households with children.

The poll also reveals many parents are confused about how often their children should be on their best behaviour and that a concerning number of parents use physical discipline to manage their children.

Parenting is a tough gig and perfection is an unrealistic goal. It’s important for parents to remember they are not alone, and there are always strategies that can help. Here are four things the poll shows us each parent should know.

1. Parenting is stressful

Our poll found one in four parents (27%) feel stressed by their child’s behaviour every day, with two-thirds (69%) feeling stressed at least once a week. Almost half of parents (45%) said they spent a lot of time thinking about how to manage their child’s behaviour and a third (32%) said they often felt overwhelmed by the issue.

All parents experience stress as they attempt to meet the challenges of caring for their children. But high levels of parenting stress can also make child behaviour problems worse. Parenting websites such as raisingchildren.net.au contain tips on ways to recognise and reduce stress, which can help parents cope with the daily challenges of parenthood.

Almost half of parents (45%) said they were not confident they would know where to get help managing their child’s behaviour if they needed it. Advice and support from the GP, child health nurse or another health professional can help.

Read more: ‘No, I don’t wanna… wahhhh!’ A parent’s guide to managing tantrums

2. Your child may be acting their age, not misbehaving

Children behave in different ways depending on their age, temperament, developmental stage and the situation. Yet one third of parents believe children should always be on their best behaviour, suggesting they have unrealistic expectations about a child’s capacity to behave in certain ways.

It is normal for a toddler to have difficulty regulating their emotions and have tantrums in response to overwhelming situations. Testing limits, like having strong opinions about eating or resisting bedtime, is also a normal developmental stage for preschoolers.

As teenagers journey towards becoming independent, they will challenge parent opinion and negotiate around decision-making.

Even adults cannot be expected to be on their best behaviour all the time, so we certainly can’t expect this of our children.

Read more: How to discipline your children without rewards or punishment

3. Praise works better than punishment

Our study found that most parents use positive strategies such as praise and rewards to promote “good” behaviour. No matter how old children are, praise and encouragement will help them feel good about themselves. This boosts their self-esteem and confidence.

Praise works best to encourage desired behaviour when it is genuine and task specific – that is, when you tell your child exactly what it is they have done well. This is sometimes called “descriptive praise”. Saying “I like the way you shared your toys with your brother” is more effective than non-specific praise such as: “You’re a good girl”.

A concerning proportion of parents report using negative or punitive strategies to manage their child’s behaviour. According to parent’s reports in our study, 4% of children have been physically disciplined “quite a lot or most of the time” in the past month, 13% “some of the time” and a further 24% “rarely”.

Physical discipline was defined as anything done to cause physical pain or discomfort to a child in response to their behaviour including smacking, hitting, spanking, slapping, pinching or pulling.

Research shows physical discipline can be harmful to a child’s physical and psychological well-being. Research also shows children who experience physical punishment are more likely to develop aggressive behaviour themselves.

Physical discipline is also a less effective strategy for encouraging desired behaviour because it focuses on what not to do rather than modelling or reinforcing desired behaviour.

Read more: A wake-up call for parents who smack their children

4. Lots of parents lose their cool, but saying sorry helps

Almost half of parents (48%) said they became impatient too quickly, and one in three (36%) said they often lost their temper and later felt guilty. These feelings were more common among parents who reported using physical discipline more often.

When things are getting heated, it can be helpful to hit the pause button. Take a minute to breathe, step back, even walk away if possible. Try to see things from your child’s point of view and understand they don’t have the ability to reason and rationalise things like an adult.

And if you do cross the line, take the time to reflect on what happened so you can recognise when things are heading this way again and intervene. It’s OK to say sorry to your child if you have lost your cool, as this will help them understand what has happened and it is modelling respectful behaviour too.

Read more: Should we swear in front of our kids?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Garrick, Senior Lecturer, Business Law, Charles Darwin University

China’s economic expansion into the Pacific Islands region raises critical questions for both the islands and Australia. What happens if infrastructure loans by Chinese banks and authorised state enterprises to vulnerable Pacific Island nations cannot be repaid? What consequences of default can be anticipated? Are there military dimensions?

The Pentagon has warned of the “potential military advantages” flowing from Chinese investments in other countries. China rejects this assertion. But if it does ever want access to foreign ports to support naval deployments in distant waters, it is laying the ground work to get it.

Belt and Road moves on the Pacific Islands

China’s grand plan to more closely link countries across Eurasia and the Indian Ocean through trade deals and infrastructure projects is known as the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (“Belt and Road”). The plan includes Pacific pathways.

Read more: The Belt and Road Initiative: China’s vision for globalisation, Beijing-style

Along with Australia and New Zealand, seven Pacific Islands nations officially recognise the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Another six recognise the Republic of China (Taiwan). China’s strategy is both to counter Taiwan’s influence and further its own interests. It wants Pacific nations to support it in international forums. Vanuatu, for example, was the first country to support China’s claims to island territory in the South China Sea disputed with the Philippines.

The number of Chinese companies operating in the Pacific region has greatly increased since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012. Trade between China and Pacific Island nations has ballooned to more A$10 billion.

While its influence is still not as great as that of the US or even Australia, China’s growing investments cover mines, hydro-electricity projects, fishing, timber, real estate and services. Over the past decade it has also lavished the region with $US1.8 billion ($A2.4 billion) in foreign aid, including $US175,000 worth of quad bikes for Cook Island parliamentarians.

The soft power of money

China argues Chinese investment is “tactful” – that it helps developing nations build needed infrastructure with “no-strings-attached”. It contrasts this to Western aid models that require governance measures and other performance indicators to be in place in relation to aid funding.

But the credit Chinese state banks are extending to impoverished developing nations also looks a lot like a form of “debt colonialism”. The fear is that China is using the loans as leverage to expand its military footprint.

Read more: Why China’s ‘debt-book diplomacy’ in the Pacific shouldn’t ring alarm bells just yet

The Chinese loans typically offer a period of grace before an interest rate of 2-3% over 15-20 years is imposed. In Tonga, for example, China deferred loan repayments for a period after the International Monetary Fund warned it was at risk of debt distress. Repayments started again in 2018, reportedly at a higher rate than before.

Sri Lankan lessons

If Tonga and other Pacific Island nations default, China can enforce contractual conditions as a pretext to advancing wider strategic aims.

This is precisely what happened in Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan government had high hopes for the Hambantota Port Development Project, built by China Harbour Engineering Company, one of Beijing’s largest state-owned enterprises, and mostly funded by the state-owned Export–Import Bank of China. When the port failed to generate anticipated revenues, the government ended up owing China at least $US3 billion with no means to pay.

The Chinese then demanded a Chinese company take a dominant equity share in the port. The Sri Lankan government was also forced of hand over 15,000 acres of land around the port for 99 years.

Now China owns an Indian Ocean port strategically placed on one of the busiest shipping routes in the world.

Pacific interests

China has clear military interests in the Pacific. In 2014 Xi Jinping personally visited Fiji to sign memorandums of understanding including for greater military cooperation.

Australian intelligence sources allege China has been secretly negotiating to build a military base in Vanuatu. Both nations deny this. Such a base would give China a foothold for operations to coerce Australia and outflank the US and its base on Guam.

China’s “soft power” is being better resourced to influence foreign nations. Its moves in the Pacific means the geopolitics of the region are hardening up.

Read more: Fears about China’s influence are a rerun of attitudes to Japan 80 years ago

Globally, China’s rise has profound implications for international law and trade.

China naturally prefers bilateral relationships to leverage its power and advance its interests. It has steered away from multilateral dispute resolution, especially since the South China Sea arbitration, which ruled unanimously in favour of the Philippines. It has simply ignored the verdict and gone ahead turning the disputed rocky shoals into military outposts.

If China can ignore the legitimate claims of the Philippines, it can ignore the rights of the smaller and more fragile Pacific Island nations. Its actions flag its challenge to the international order Australia has long championed – one based on rule of law and political and economic liberalism.

Its influence is unlikely to promote democratic principles. Those holding those principles dear need to help the Pacific Island nations resist the lure of soft-power “incentives” promised with no strings attached.

There are definitely strings attached.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Waling, Research fellow, La Trobe University

Why do men send dick pics? Some research and popular commentary suggests it is for reasons of narcissism and over-confidence. Some men no doubt send them in the hopes of receiving a nude photo in kind, or because they genuinely believe that’s what women desire.

Dick pics are widely considered a form of technology-facilitated sexual violence, misogynistic and a sign of sexual pathology in the form of flashing/exhibitionism (disgraced US congressman Anthony Weiner comes to mind here).

However, research by myself and Tinonee Pym has uncovered a more complicated picture. Looking at social media, digital news articles, comics, and blogs, we examined how people, and in particular women, are “speaking back” to dick pics.

We found that while they were often understood as a form of sexual violence, they were also often regarded as funny or mocked for being gross. Some women actually liked receiving dick pics; others treated them playfully, situating them in a queer context. Men were also using dick pics to bond with each other.

In popular commentary, the dick pic is mostly seen as sexual harassment (often, rightly so); an attempt to make women feel threatened in online spaces. Women have pushed back by engaging in public shaming practices, and calling for dick pics to be prosecuted under the law. In Victoria it is now illegal to engage in malicious sexting practices.

Yet the dick pic can also demonstrate a playfulness around men’s bodies not generally afforded to women. Some see these photos as an expected element of online sociality. In some cases, they are also understood as a form of bonding between straight men (known as “frexting”). As one bloke put it, “if you don’t send dick pics to your boys, they’re not your boys”.

Some people regard the dick pic, and male genitalia more broadly, as being gross. Observations that male penises (especially uncircumcised ones) are unattractive and that no one actually desires the phallus, were common online.

Yet recent research has found that women are increasingly aroused by gay male pornography, which often features the penis in erotic ways. Women have also written about enjoying receiving dick pics, and being shamed for this. As commentator Suzannah Weiss has observed,

ever since I started hearing about how gross they are and how much women supposedly hate them, I’ve become afraid of coming off like some kind of freak if I admit I enjoy them.

New Zealand-based Madeline Holden’s blog (warning: this link may be NSFW – not safe for viewing at work), CritiqueMyDickPic, invites people to send in dick pics for her appraisal. She notes that some men who approach her for a critique are in need of reassurance regarding the look of their genitalia.

Indeed research has found that some men who view mainstream pornography – which often features a particular penis aesthetic (large, circumcised, thick) – have reported increased concern about their penis size. It can be difficult for men to discuss anxieties relating to their body image and genitalia. For some men, dick pics may be an expression of these anxieties.

Holden’s blog invites all users (transgender, gay, heterosexual, those using strap-ons, etc) to submit photos. This challenges the idea that only cisgender, heterosexual men can send dick pics. She offers a space in which these photos can been seen as beautiful, artistic, and erotic, rather than inherently violent and aggressive.

Read more: Explainer: what does it mean to be ‘cisgender’?

Another blog, Yourdicklooksgreatinthoseheels (warning: this link may be NSFW), features photos of erect and flaccid penises inserted into high heeled shoes, accompanied with witty captions (“are you entertained” and “soggy but serious”). Here, the wearing of heels challenges the dick pic’s association with aggressive male heterosexuality – capturing some of the queer and erotic flexibility of the penis.

Some argue that unsolicited dick pics are common, and expected, within gay and bisexual men’s dating cultures, where “many men are happy to get such pictures, and usually respond in kind.” (Mind you, others point out that unsolicited dick pics are a no in these circles too.)

Framing the dick pic as only violent and grotesque forgets other ways in which it might be sent and received, as well as ignoring how it might be understood in non-heterosexual subcultures.

Recognising the various meanings of dick pics is not meant to undermine people’s experiences of finding them harmful, nor is it to excuse those who send unwanted, unsolicited photos. But dick pics don’t have to be creepy or even outlawed. Between consenting adults, or in certain online spaces, like Holden’s blog, they can also be queer, fun, and sexy.

Anyone seeking support or information about issues discussed above can contact National sexual assault hotline on 1800 737 732; Lifeline on 13 11 14 or crisis support chat; Qlife on 1800 184 527 or online chat; esafetywomen online; mensline on 1300 78 99 78 or online chat; Australia-Wide List of Support Services online

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

For Mathias Cormann, 2018 has been the annus horribilis. After emerging badly bruised from the leadership crisis, on Tuesday he took responsibility for the disastrous snafu over Pauline Hanson’s “It is OK to be white” motion.

The government blames its voting on Monday in support of the motion on an “administrative” error.

The ordinary voters might find that explanation little short of Orwellian.

Whatever the so-called “process” problems, the public might ask: what does it say about Coalition senators that they would vote mindlessly for anything they are told to back, however inappropriate?

After all, following a short but pithy debate Coalition senators sat to be counted, with the white supremacist language there before them, if they had their notice papers, and opposition and Green senators yelling to bring their attention to it.

The motion said: “That the Senate acknowledges:

(a) the deplorable rise of anti-white racism and attacks on Western civilisation; and

(b) that it is okay to be white.”

When these Senate motions – on average there are 50-60 every sitting week – come, the government asks the relevant ministerial office to advise. In this case, it was the office of Attorney-General Christian Porter.

Porter says his staff interpreted Hanson’s as “a motion opposing racism. The associations of the language were not picked up”. An email was sent – advising support – “without my knowledge”.

Porter put the blame on his staff – in fact two were involved – for misinterpreting the motion and so failing to “escalate” it up to him.

One would have thought ministerial staff would be particularly alert to Hanson motions, and think very carefully before concluding she was doing something as unlikely as putting forward an anti-racist one.

Porter’s office gave its first advice in September, when the motion was lodged.

But in a Senate tactics meeting Cormann overrode the view from the Porter office. The Senate leadership decided the Coalition would oppose the motion, accompanying its opposition with a statement that the government condemned all forms of racism.

The motion was expected to come to a vote on September 20 but the Senate ran out of time.

When the motion was looming this week, unbeknown to Cormann fresh advice was sought from Porter’s office, which again declared it should be supported.

Cormann was paired and not in the chamber when it was dealt with; he only found out the government had voted for it after the event (it was defeated 31-29). Cormann hadn’t been informed that his earlier decision had been overridden by the latest advice from the Porter office. Another failure of “escalation”.

Cormann threw himself under the blame bus on Tuesday, but actually he’d tried earlier to stop the government being run over by the Hanson truck.

Despite the government’s handwringing on Tuesday – which led to it having the motion recommitted in the Senate so it could vote against it – on Monday night Porter was tweeting “The Government Senators’ actions in the Senate this afternoon confirm that the Government deplores racism of any kind.”

Cormann said “The Government indeed deplores racism of any kind” in a tweet quoting Porter’s.

It was when the government started feeling the heat – which it is very sensitive to before Saturday’s Wentworth byelection – that it knew it had better do something.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Leane, Associate Professor of English and ARC Future Fellow, University of Tasmania

Antarctica is famous for its survival stories, but one of the most compelling has languished in the shadows for over a century. An unmarked grave in the public cemetery at Ararat has been the resting place of Sidney Jeffryes, the remarkable radio operator of Douglas Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition.

In 1913, Jeffryes achieved a world first when he made ongoing two-way wireless contact between Antarctica and Australia. However, his mental illness during the expedition, and his subsequent committal to a high-security asylum, meant his contribution was swept under the carpet.

Only now has his important role in Australian Antarctic history been recognised with the laying of a plaque on his grave.

A Queenslander, Jeffryes was working as a shipboard radio operator and already making claims to long-distance telegraphy records when in 1911 he applied for a position on Mawson’s expedition. Although another applicant was selected, Mawson considered Jeffryes a “very good man”.

It is unsurprising, then, that the following year, when the expedition vessel, the Aurora, left Hobart to bring the expeditioners back from Antarctica, Jeffryes was offered a place as its wireless operator. What he didn’t realise was that he would end up spending an unexpected year in the far south.

When the Aurora arrived at the expedition hut in Commonwealth Bay to take all the men home, three were missing: a sledging party led by Mawson had failed to return. With the season growing late, the ship’s captain had to leave to collect a group of men at another continental base. So he took most of the expeditioners with him, leaving five behind to wait for the missing party. Jeffryes agreed to stay behind and take the place of the original radio operator, Walter Hannam.

When Mawson returned to the hut, he was alone. His two companions had perished during the journey. Thus began a very trying year. Mawson was recovering from an extremely arduous journey, and he and the five men from the original expedition were mourning the loss of two beloved friends. As the only newcomer to the hut, unused to the extreme conditions, and under pressure to make the wireless work better than it had, Jeffryes was in a difficult position.

Despite these pressures, he made a success of his unanticipated role. In March 1913 the Australian press celebrated the establishment of wireless contact with Australia. The expeditioners were delighted to be able to communicate with their loved ones, although there was tension over whose messages would get priority. Jeffryes had to operate under testing circumstances, working late into the night, when reception was best, to try to pick up the faint and noisy messages.

Read more: Sledging songs, penguins and melting ice: how Antarctica has inspired Australian composers

In June 1913, after a particularly strong gale, the always troublesome wireless mast blew down, making it impossible to send or receive messages. Shortly afterwards, Jeffryes began exhibiting unusual behaviour, at one point challenging another man to a fight.

‘Delusional insanity’

Over the next few weeks he exhibited a series of symptoms – including delusions of persecution, paranoia and decline in hygiene – that are consistent with what we now classify as schizophrenia. The expedition doctor, Archie McLean, diagnosed “delusional insanity”. With none of the men able to leave the hut in the freezing, dark winter, the situation became very trying for all.

Believing his companions were trying to murder him, Jeffryes began sending out messages secretly on the wireless, including one saying that five others were “unwell” and he and Mawson would have to escape. Luckily, it was never received, but Mawson eventually dismissed Jeffryes – a strange situation given he was unable to leave his workplace.

The seven men struggled through the next few months, and were relieved when the Aurora arrived to pick them up towards the end of 1913. Jeffryes’ behaviour remained erratic and he took no part in the celebrations that greeted the expedition on its arrival in Adelaide in February 1914.

Nonetheless, he was allowed to board a train alone, presumably headed home to distant Toowoomba. The next that was heard of him was media reports that he had been found wandering in the bush in regional Victoria, starving despite the money in his pocket, and saying Mawson had hypnotised him.

Jeffryes was quickly committed to Ararat Hospital for the Insane (as it was then called). Initially his prognosis was hopeful, and he was transferred to Royal Park and Sunbury asylums in the hope a change of scenery would help. In Sunbury, however, he attacked a staff member, which landed him back in Ararat, this time in “J-Ward”, the facility for the criminally insane.

Life in the high-security ward was notoriously hard and the temperatures could be very low; a cell in J-Ward must have made the hut in Antarctica look like a picnic. Yet Jeffryes survived for another 28 years, until his death from a cerebral haemorrhage in 1942.

With mental illness highly stigmatized in the early 20th century, and incongruous with the heroic framework within which Antarctic explorers were viewed, Jeffryes’ part in the expedition was deliberately downplayed. He gradually vanished from exploration history, his impressive achievement largely forgotten.

This changed today (Tuesday), when Mawson’s Huts Foundation chairman David Jensen unveiled a plaque on Jeffyres’ grave, officially marking his contribution to wireless history and Australian Antarctic history.

We are moving beyond our obsession with heroes and now telling richer, more complex accounts of human presence in the far south.

This article was co-authored by Ben Maddison.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sven Brodmerkel, Assistant Professor for Integrated Marketing Communications, Bond University

A painting generated by artificial intelligence will go up for sale at auction later this month – raising again the question of whether a machine can be creative.

The painting, called Edmond De Belamy, is estimated to be worth between 7,000€ and 10,000€ (A$11,375-A$16,250).

The auction house Christie’s says the painting is the product of a Generative Adversarial Network, in which one artificial neural network (the so-called Generator) creates an image based on its analysis of a database of 15,000 paintings by real people.

Another network (the Discriminator) then compares the new artwork to human-made paintings. If the Discriminator cannot tell the difference, the computer-generated image has passed the test.

Read more: When AI meets your shopping experience it knows what you buy – and what you ought to buy

But isn’t art the highest expression of what it means to be human? How could machines possibly emulate truly creative practices, which are often regarded as the pinnacle of human achievement?

What is creativity?

Ultimately, the nature of creativity – and whether machines will ever be genuinely creative – is a deeply philosophical question that rests to a large degree on where we look for creativity.

If we locate creativity in the actual artwork, it is hard to deny that machines are capable of being creative.

Margaret Boden is a pioneer in the field of AI and computational creativity. In her 2016 book AI: Its nature and future she defines creativity as:

…the ability to produce ideas or artefacts that are new, surprising, and valuable.

She then distinguishes three different types of creativity: combinational, exploratory, and transformational.

Types of creativity

Combinational creativity combines familiar ideas in new ways. A good example is the AI artist Pindar van Arman, who trained his robots to paint portraits, including self-portraits. In his view, artistic creativity:

…is little more than a complex mix of competing generative algorithms.

Exploratory creativity, argues Boden, exploits some “culturally valued way of thinking” (styles, genres, and so on) and generates new work within these parameters.

For instance, The Next Rembrandt, a campaign by the Dutch bank ING, used feature-extraction algorithms to identify all the stylistic elements that characterise Rembrandt’s work. It then used this dataset to create a new portrait in the unique style of the famous Dutch painter.

Transformational creativity does not just explore a given genre, but goes beyond it. It drops, negates or complements existing styles to such an extent that new artistic conventions might be developed in the process.

This form of creativity can be achieved by so-called evolutionary algorithms that can transform themselves and evaluate their “ideas” based upon criteria provided by the programmer.

The advertising agency M&C Saatchi used these algorithms to create an outdoor poster for a fictional coffee brand that “evolved” based on the level of “engagement” it elicited from consumers.

Equipped with facial recognition technology and connected to the internet, the algorithm determined which features of the ad – colours, typography, copy, layout – were successful and worth being replicated in further “generations”.

So it can be said that machines have successfully conquered all of the conceptual domains of creativity.

The artist’s intention

If we locate creativity not in the actual artwork but in the mind of the artist, two key objections are commonly made:

• The actual creative act does not reside in the output generated by the machine, but in its initial programming. Therefore, it is still fundamentally human ingenuity that drives the creative process.

• The art generated by AI is not creative, because it is unintentional.

Given recent advances in the creation of deep neural networks and learning algorithms, the first objection is increasingly hard to defend.

When Google/Deep Mind’s AlphaGo beat the highest-ranked human player of the ancient Chinese board game in 2016, some of its moves had never been played before by humans and were described as “creative”.

Importantly, AlphaGo does not follow pre-programmed rules. It uses general machine learning techniques to figure out for itself how to succeed at the game. It would therefore only be fair to attribute creativity to both the human programmers and the machine.

The second objection is more difficult to dismiss. We hardly ever appreciate creative artefacts based solely on their immediate appearance and the responses they evoke.

As Ellen Winner, a professor of psychology at Boston College, argues in her upcoming book How Art Works, the notion of an unmediated experience of art is most likely a myth.

The value we ascribe to art is deeply influenced by multiple forces – an important one being what we think the artist’s intentions were when creating the work.

Just look at debate over the value of the Banksy artwork Girl With Balloon that went to auction. Some argue its value has increased after the artist deliberately part-shredded the artwork.

The artwork, now renamed Love Is in the Bin, was described by Sotheby’s Alex Branczik as:

…the first artwork in history to have been created live during an auction.

Seen from this perspective, we will accept machines as being genuinely creative only when they attain a sense of self and the capability to explain why they did what they did.

Disrupting the creative economy

But machines don’t need to be genuinely creative to have an impact on jobs and industries. According to a large survey of machine learning experts in 2015, AI is predicted to be able to write high school essays by 2026, generate a top 40 pop song by 2027, and write a bestselling book by 2049.

These experts also expected AI to beat humans at Go in 2027 – a feat AlphaGo accomplished in 2016. Do we need to worry then? Are machines going take over both the mundane tasks and the creative jobs?

While they will definitely displace humans when it comes to routine creative activities, a study by McKinsey expects that overall jobs in the creative economy will increase.

Read more: Yes, AI may take some jobs – but it could also mean more men doing care work

But job profiles will most certainly change, and established value chains in the creative economy will be disrupted. For instance, machines already compose high-quality music or imagine new video games from scratch.

How exactly these advances in machine creativity will affect the creative industries – and what economic, social and ethical consequences this entails – is an issue deserving much more attention than it receives at the moment.

But none of this will matter when the portrait of Edmond De Belamy comes up for auction. What matters then is only how much appetite bidders have for AI-generated art – keeping in mind that there might be much more of it in the future.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Gogarty, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Tasmania

The Commonwealth government’s decision to wave through a controversial tourism development in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was made in defiance of strident opposition from the expert statutory advisory body for the region’s management, it was revealed today.

In August, federal environment minister Melissa Price’s office decided the proposed luxury development on Halls Island did not need to be assessed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

But according to documents tabled in Tasmania’s parliament by the Greens this morning, the state’s National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council had advised the opposite, as well as recommending that the proposal should not be approved at all in its current form. The council also argued “contentious projects” like this one should not be considered for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area without “an agreed framework to guide assessment”.

This situation is not unique, and reveals a deeper problem with our national environmental laws. They may look strong on paper, but their strength can be eroded by bureaucratic discretion.

From conservation to commercialisation

Tasmania’s wilderness has long been ground zero for the struggle between conservation and commercialisation of our natural estate. In the 1980s, the Commonwealth government nominated the area for World Heritage listing to stop the state government building a hydroelectric dam on one of Australia’s last truly wild rivers.

The “locking up” of large parts of wilderness from industrial development has prompted deep social divisions. Nevertheless, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) has since become part of Tasmania’s cultural and natural fabric. Yet this wilderness is now under renewed threat, as commercial interests seek to capitalise on its tourism potential.

Read more: Explainer: wilderness, and why it matters

World Heritage Areas must have an up-to-date management plan to ensure compliance with Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. In 2016 the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments revised the TWWHA management plan to reflect its “socio-economic” value, allowing a range of tourism uses that were banned under the previous 1999 plan.

The World Heritage Committee warned in 2015 that without “strict criteria for new tourism development”, there would be significant risks to the area’s “wilderness character and cultural attributes”. Australia accepted the recommendation but has still not meaningfully implemented strict criteria to assess and protect wilderness values, even as it accepts proposals for tourism developments.

Since both levels of government agreed to open up the TWHHA, a range of commercial interests have proposed tourism developments there. Expressions of interest for commercial developments are done behind closed doors, but it is clear that at least 30 commercial development proposals have been made for sites in the TWWHA, including projects involving permanent huts, lodges and camps, and some that would necessitate helicopter access.

Halls Island

The first of these proposals to be released for public comment and assessed under the 2016 management plan is a plan to build a “luxury standing camp and guided ecotourism experience” at Halls Island in Walls of Jerusalem National Park – a remote highland region of the TWWHA.

The plan includes a proposal to reclassify the lake surrounding Halls Island from “wilderness” to “self-reliant recreation”. On March 22, 2018, the proponent (Wild Drake Pty Ltd) referred the proposal to the Commonwealth Environment Minister to determine whether it should be formally assessed under the EPBC Act.

Upon referral the proposal met with widespread opposition from scientists, conservation specialists, civil society, and recreational users of the park, especially the fishing community. What became clear today is that it was also strongly opposed by the expert advisory council for the TWWHA.

Expert advice

The National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council (NPWAC) is a statutory body of independent experts, with responsibility to advise on the management of the TWHHA in line with Australia’s national and international World Heritage commitments. The documents released today show that on July 13 2018, the NPWAC argued strongly against the proposal being allowed to proceed, stating that it “does not support this project progressing at this time”.

It cited a range of objections, including the fact that the development would effectively grant “exclusive private commercial use” of an area in the TWWHA, and that the opening up of airspace to helicopters would set an unwelcome precedent. It also described the development’s planned “standing camp” as a “pretence” because it would involve the construction of permanent buildings for year-round use. And it pointed to the proposal’s failure to address adequately the risk to threatened species and the fire-sensitive nature of the property.

Like the World Heritage Committee, NPWAC argued that the range of projects currently proposed for the TWWHA “should not be considered until there is an agreed framework to guide assessment”. Yet despite this, the minister’s delegate allowed the proposal to proceed without further assessment under the EPBC Act.

Commonwealth government’s decision

On August 31, 2018, the delegate of the minister decided that the referred action “is not a controlled action”, which means that it will not be subject to any further assessment, or even attention, by the Commonwealth government. No other reasons were given to reject the NPWAC’s recommendations, or the submissions from 78 individuals (including expert scientists) and 808 campaign submissions opposing the development.

Government ministers are not bound to act on expert advice. But they do have a duty to take it into account in a meaningful way. That is especially the case when expert advice is so clear, and supported by a range of relevant, independent and compelling public submissions from scientists and specialist groups.

In the case of Halls Island, these factors should have tipped the balance towards undertaking a proper, legal assessment of the proposal and its likely impacts.

Examined against the government’s increasingly cavalier attitude to our national estate, world heritage, and role in global environmental governance it is tempting to conclude that Tasmania’s wilderness has become yet another place where economic values trump conservation ones.

The Commonwealth is supposed to provide a check and balance on states’ self-interest in exploiting areas of outstanding universal value. But with another 29 development proposals on the list, our fear is that Tasmania’s World Heritage “wilderness” will become a lot less wild in the future.

Federal Environment Minister Melissa Price was contacted for comment, but did not respond before publication time.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marissa Parrott, Reproductive Biologist, Wildlife Conservation & Science, Zoos Victoria, and Honorary Research Associate, BioSciences, University of Melbourne

Conservationists are in a desperate fight to save the last of the world’s gorillas. Numbers of some subspecies are so low that organisations are literally saving the species one gorilla at a time.

A perhaps unlikely foe in this battle is human-borne disease, including malaria, which has the potential for transmission from people to gorillas via bites from female Anopheles mosquitoes. Central Africa, the home of the gorillas, is highly susceptible to this disease, driving poverty and desperation amongst its communities.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do humans not have fur like chimpanzees and gorillas?

As human populations expand and deforestation increases, gorillas are brought into closer contact with people and the risk of disease transmission rises – with devastating effects.

Malaria infects people and our great ape cousins

In 2012 and 2017, I was lucky to see the magnificent, gentle and intelligent gorillas up close in both Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda, and Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I learned about the vital work of Zoos Victoria’s partner, Gorilla Doctors, in the protection and veterinary treatment of gorillas.

Malaria is the biggest disease killer of humans of all time, having claimed billions of human lives. Roughly half of the world’s population is at risk, and around half a million people die from the disease each year.

While the effects of malaria on human communities are horrifying, the effects of this and other human-borne diseases on gorillas, with so few remaining, pose the threat of extinction.

Read more: How drones are helping in the fight against malaria

At least 10 species of malaria can infect gorillas, with three being the same or highly similar to those found in humans. In one study, more than 30% of gorillas were infected with malaria parasites. However, difficulties in studying the often remote and critically endangered gorillas means potential transmission pathways remain unknown. More research is required to determine the effects of this disease and how to protect gorillas in the future.

My own battle against malaria

Despite never feeling or seeing a mosquito bite, I learned about these issues first-hand when I caught malaria myself.

During my PhD, I taught practical classes on malaria, and it was this knowledge that led me to believe I was in trouble in 2017.

Despite taking malaria-prevention medication, I had encountered one of the few diseases found in both humans and gorillas: Plasmodium ovale, a parasite that appears to be growing a resistance to some medications.

My local Australian doctors had never encountered this species, and despite blood tests showing massive liver damage, I was not diagnosed for weeks. I spent a week in hospital, hooked to intravenous fluids, and left in a wheelchair.

The effects of malaria are horrific. P. ovale has a 49-hour life cycle, bursting in their millions out of blood cells to infect and multiply. The first sign is nerve pain – every touch feels like sandpaper – followed by a loss of circulation to your arms and legs, then crippling fevers, sometimes over 41℃. You shake so violently and uncontrollably that you tear your muscles. In the aftermath, your blood pressure drops, in my case close to half of what it should have been.

Malaria is also called “Blackwater Disease”, because your urine turns the colour of Coca Cola while your body excretes all your destroyed blood cells. On one hand this was fascinating to see. On the other, it was terrifying. I really needed those blood cells.

Read more: Why Kenya isn’t winning the war against malaria in some counties

Twelve months on, I’ve been lucky with my recovery. We don’t know whether a gorilla infected with P. ovale would suffer the same symptoms, but I can’t fathom the fear a gorilla could feel with this crippling disease. Or the pain a mother could feel while watching her baby convulse with fevers. As with human children, malaria and other diseases are often most prevalent in younger gorillas.

To protect gorillas, you must protect people

Thankfully, there is hope. Gorilla Doctors monitor Eastern Lowland and Mountain Gorilla families deep in the jungles for signs of illness and injury. They deliver hands-on treatment for viral, parasitic and bacterial diseases, often via darts, or in severe cases under anaesthetic. They also support research, with PhD students studying a variety of diseases including malaria.

With such devastating diseases, the work of organisations to protect both local communities and gorillas is paramount. Ecotourism brings new people, and potentially new diseases in contact with gorillas. But it also brings crucial funding for the species and management of national parks. It is a delicate balancing act.

Studies suggest the greatest risk of disease transmission comes from local communities. Gorillas Doctors support One Health Initiatives for local communities and their domestic livestock. You cannot care for wildlife without caring for local communities and the health of staff who work in the national parks to protect the great apes.

Read more: The origin of ‘us’: what we know so far about where we humans come from

Visiting national parks and supporting well-run ecotourism brings much-needed income and attention to these areas, although you should see your doctor for appropriate malaria prophylaxis. Zoos Victoria also supports Gorilla Doctors’ work in the wild through their mobile-phone recycling program “They’re Calling on You”.

Support organisations to protect gorillas and the people who care for and live beside them.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Liao, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for East Asian & Pacific Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Fifty years ago today, American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their black-gloved fists in the Black Power salute on the medal podium at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics to protest against racial inequality.

The protest became one of the most indelible sporting moments of the 20th century. Much less known, for a long time at least, was the silver medallist, Peter Norman, a white runner from Australia, who stood in solidarity with Smith and Carlos.

You may wonder why Smith raised his right hand while Carlos raised his left. Carlos forgot to bring his gloves to the ceremony. It was Norman who suggested they share the only pair they had, leaving an even stronger impact on the viewer.

Norman didn’t raise his fist, but he did wear an “Olympic Project for Human Rights” badge on his chest. After the games, he said:

I believe that every man is born equal and should be treated that way.

Different ways of remembering someone

Whether a person is remembered, and how a person is remembered, can vary by time and space. Individual memory may not be consequential for society. However, collective memory by a group of people, especially the people of a nation, can be very influential. But collective memory is also selective, as French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs noted, as different groups of people can have different collective memories of the same person or event.

French historian Pierre Nora distinguished between what he refers to as lieux de mémoire (sites of memory) and milieux de mémoire (real environments of memory).

Examples of lieux de mémoire include monuments, memorials, museums, anniversaries and treaties. These are partially preserved memories of a person and are often fragmented. In contrast, milieux de mémoire attempt to completely preserve a person’s memory through historical depictions of their lives and accomplishments – biographies, documentaries and the like.

Read more: ‘I will stand with you’: finally, an apology to Peter Norman

When it comes to Norman, two countries have experienced different collective memories of him. He has been celebrated for his contributions to civil rights in the US, while Australia, a country that pursued a whites-only immigration policy for decades, chose to selectively forget him until recently.

The US has produced both lieux de mémoire and milieux de mémoire of Norman. Despite the initial outcry over the salute by Smith and Carlos, Norman became gradually integrated into the history of the civil rights movement in the US.

At the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, Norman was invited as a guest, not by the Australian Olympic Committee, but by the USA Track and Field Federation.

And when he died in 2006, the federation declared October 9, the day of his funeral, as Peter Norman Day. Then, in 2012, CNN aired a documentary, The Third Man: The Forgotten Black Power Hero, about Norman’s life story.

There are also two monuments remembering the 1968 black power salute in the US. One of them is at the new National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC. It includes a statue of Norman, gazing stoically from the medal stand in front of the American sprinters.

The other monument was erected in 2005 on the campus of Smith’s and Carlos’s alma mater, San Jose State University in California. For this piece, the second-place podium was left empty. Norman had declined to be depicted, to allow visitors to stand in his place in solidarity with the two Americans instead.

Read more: Human rights and the Olympics: games of freedom or oppression?

Australia’s slow acceptance of Norman’s place in history

Australia, by contrast, has only belatedly made efforts to remember Norman and his achievements in athletics and contributions to racial equality.

When Norman returned to Australia following the 1968 Olympics, he faced intense criticism from the public and media. He was also ostracised by the Australian Olympic Committee, who decided not to send him to the 1972 Munich Olympics, even though he had met the qualifying time on numerous occasions. (The AOC maintains he was injured at the national Olympics trials and didn’t qualify.)

Norman retired soon after.

After his death in 2006, some Australians began recasting Norman’s actions in a more positive light.

In 2008, Norman’s nephew, Matt Norman, produced a documentary, Salute, retelling the sprinter’s story. It was nominated for best documentary in the Film Critics Circle of Australia Awards.

Read more: History shows Sidney Crosby could have stood up to racial injustice

But it was not until 2012 when the Australian parliament issued an official state apology to Norman. And this April, the Australian Olympic Committee bestowed an Order of Merit posthumously to Norman. It was a significant gesture, given the AOC has consistently denied blacklisting Norman after his return from Mexico.

A statue of Norman will also finally be erected outside a stadium in his hometown, Melbourne, which is due to be completed in 2019. And October 9 will also be recognised in Australia as Peter Norman Day, too.

This recognition through both lieux de mémoire and milieux de mémoire is long overdue. Remarkably, Norman’s time in the 200m from the 1968 games still stands as an Australian record today. But his contributions to society should be remembered for far longer than what he achieved on the track.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Lou Rasmussen, Professor, School of Sociology, Australian National University

Part of the Ruddock report on the review of religious freedoms was leaked last week in the media. The review was commissioned on the eve of the legalisation of same-sex marriage. The review addresses schools’ right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

There appears to be a lack of public support for any exemptions that allow schools to have policies that exclude students based on sexual and gender diversity. But this doesn’t mean discrimination will suddenly disappear.

Read more: Coalition trails 47-53% in Newspoll, as Ipsos finds 74% oppose law discriminating against gay students and teachers

Perversely, mandating that schools publicly advertise their position, as recommended by the review, might provide stronger safeguards for students and teachers. Families and young people might be able to better determine which schools are definitely not inclusive.

What do Australian teens think about religious exemptions?

Young Australians of diverse backgrounds are emphatic on this point: they don’t support this type of discrimination in education.

A team of researchers from Australian National University (ANU), Deakin University and Monash University surveyed more than 1,200 Australian teenagers. We also conducted post-survey interviews with 30 teens.

Our survey found teens strongly support the right of religious people to express their faith. But they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the inclusion of LGBTIQ issues in education. We found 80% of Australian teens surveyed believe sex education should include information relevant to LGBTIQ people and 84% think secondary students should be allowed to express any sexual or gender identification.

In post-survey interviews, we asked 30 teenagers what they thought about religious exemptions. Specifically, whether schools should be able to discriminate in relation to what gets taught at school and the hiring or firing of staff in line with schools’ religious beliefs.

The majority of the young people we interviewed were not aware of the existence of religious exemptions. Surprise and shock were common responses to hearing about them. One participant noted: “You can still believe being gay is wrong, but you shouldn’t be able to fire someone only on the basis that they are gay.”

What we know about the review

The review makes three key recommendations about how schools should deal with discrimination based on gender and sexual diversity:

1. the school must have a publicly available policy, which outlines its position in relation to the matter, and explain how the policy will be enforced

2. the school must provide a copy of the policy in writing to all employees, prospective employees, students, prospective students and the parents of all current and prospective students

3. in relation to students, the school must have the best interests of the child in mind as the primary consideration in its actions.

Until now, the federal Coalition government and the ALP have been in lockstep with regard to religious exemptions in Australian schools. After the passage of marriage equality legislation, both agreed religious exemptions should remain in place. The prospect of challenging the status quo is too high for both sides.

At this point, religious institutions are exempt from all human rights legislation. But what some are campaigning for is for this exemption to be turned into a legislated right, fixed in law. This would provide an even stronger legal basis for exclusionary policies centred on characteristics such as sexuality or marital status. There are no publicly available statistics on how many teachers and students have been expelled from religious schools.

LGBTIQ teachers’ experiences of discrimination

A recent report on LGBTIQ teachers’ experiences of workplace discrimination and disadvantage found a high percentage of teachers experienced discrimination at school.

Read more: Ruddock report constrains, not expands, federal religious exemptions

A report published by the South Australian Law Reform Institute in 2015 included submissions from lesbian and gay teachers in religious schools in South Australia. They reported living double lives, in constant fear of being outed and losing their jobs.

A survey of lesbian and gay teachers in Australia found greater reporting of homophobia in public schools. The authors speculate public school teachers felt more able to be “out” with colleagues than in religious institutions. This may reflect an increased visibility, whereas in Catholic schools diverse sexualities are generally less visible and often explicitly forbidden, providing fewer opportunities for discussion but also observable harassment.

Some religious schools of diverse denominations continue to support the principle that teachers need to abide by specific character and value statements in order to be appointed. Such statements are generally not explicitly about sexual and gender diversity being incompatible with a school’s mission. But among sexual and gender diverse teachers there is a strong perception that some schools use these statements to effectively exclude teachers who are “out” at school.

Teachers’ professional obligations

Australia’s professional standards for teachers mandate they are able to support students with disabilities and students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds. There are no specific AITSL standards for supporting sexual and gender diverse students.

The majority of Australian teachers also receive little to no education as part of their training related to these issues. Proficient teachers must be able to engage with parents or carers and maintain respectful collaborative relationships with parents about their children’s learning and well-being. It’s difficult to imagine how this standard could be adhered to if a school or teacher was trying to expel a student based on their gender or sexual identity.

Read more: Australia has finally achieved marriage equality, but there’s a lot more to be done on LGBTI rights

There appears to be national consensus that schools should not be able to discriminate against sexual and gender diverse students. Creating change for students but not teachers is unjustifiable. Teachers facing discrimination for their sexual and gender identity can’t support students to deal with theirs.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Whitehouse, Winthrop Professor, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia

New Australian autism guidelines, released today, aim to provide a nationally consistent and rigorous standard for how children and adults are assessed and diagnosed with autism, bringing to an end the different processes that currently exist across the country.

There is no established biological marker for all people on the autism spectrum, so diagnosis is not a straightforward task. A diagnosis is based on a clinical judgement of whether a person has autism symptoms, such as social and communication difficulties, and repetitive behaviours and restricted interests. This is an inherently subjective task that depends on the skill and experience of the clinician.

Read more: Why do some people with autism have restricted interests and repetitive movements?

This judgement is made even more difficult by the wide variability in symptoms, and the considerable overlap with a range of other developmental conditions such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), intellectual disability, and developmental language disorder.

Further complicating autism diagnosis in Australia is the lack of consistent diagnostic practices both within and between states and territories. This leads to patchy and inconsistent rules around who can access public support services, and the types of services that are available.

It is not uncommon in Australia for a child to receive a diagnosis in the preschool years via the health system, for instance, but then require a further diagnostic assessment when they enter the education system. This is a bewildering situation that has a significant impact on the finite financial and emotional resources of families and the state.

The new guidelines aim to address these inconsistencies and help people with autism and their families better navigate state-based support services. It also brings them into line with the principles of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), which seeks to determine support based on need rather than just a diagnosis.

National guidelines

In June 2016, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC), where I’m chief research officer, responded to these challenges by commissioning the development of Australia’s first national guidelines for autism assessment and diagnosis.

We undertook a two-year project that included wide-ranging consultation and extensive research to assess the evidence.

The guidelines do not define what behaviours an individual must show to be diagnosed with autism. These are already presented in international manuals, such as the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) and the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11).

Read more: Autism diagnostic standards fall short of the mark

What the new guidelines provide is a detailed description of the information that needs to be collected during a clinical assessment and how this information can be used to inform the ongoing support of that person, including through a diagnosis of autism.

The guidelines include 70 recommendations describing the optimal process for the assessment and diagnosis of autism in Australia.

Understanding strengths and challenges

A diagnostic assessment is not simply about determining whether a person does or doesn’t meet criteria for autism. Of equal importance is gaining an understanding about the key strengths, challenges and needs of the person. This will inform their future clinical care and how services are delivered.

In essence, optimal clinical care is not just about asking “what” diagnosis an individual may have, but also understanding “who” they are and what’s important to their quality of life.

We know diagnosis of autism alone is not a sound basis on which to make decisions about eligibility for support services such as the NDIS and state-based health, education and social support systems.

Some people who meet the diagnostic criteria for autism will have minimal support needs, while other individuals will have significant and urgent needs for support and treatment services but will not meet diagnostic criteria for autism at the time of assessment.

Some people may have an intellectual disability, for example, but not show the full range of behaviours that we use to diagnose autism. Others may present with the latter, but not the former.

In the context of neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism, it is crucial that a persons’s needs – not the presence or absence of a diagnostic label – are used to determine eligibility and prioritisation of access to support services.

What may influence an autism assessment?

The guidelines also detail individual characteristics that may influence the presentation of autism symptoms.

Gender is one key characteristic. Males are more commonly diagnosed with autism than females. But there is increasing evidence that autism behaviours may be different in males and females. Females may be better able to “camouflage” their symptoms by using compensatory strategies to “manage” communication and social difficulties.

Read more: Memory and sense of self may play more of a role in autism than we thought

It is similarly important to consider the age of the person being assessed, because the presentation of autism symptoms changes during life.

The guidelines provide information on how gender and age affect the behavioural symptoms of autism. This will ensure clinicians understand the full breadth of autistic behaviours and can perform an accurate assessment.

The next step is for all clinicians and autism service providers across Australia to adopt and implement the guidelines. This will ensure every child and adult with autism can receive the optimal care and support.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Flood, Associate Professor, Queensland University of Technology

Young men who conform to traditional definitions of manhood are more likely to suffer harm to themselves, and do harm to others, according to a new survey of Australian men aged 18 to 30.

This is the first major Australian survey to map ideals of masculinity among young men, commissioned as part of the Jesuit Social Services’ Men’s Project, which is dedicated to helping boys and men live respectful, accountable and fulfilling lives.

The researchers surveyed 1,000 young men on their attitudes toward seven pillars of traditional manhood: self-sufficiency, toughness, physical attractiveness, rigid gender roles, heterosexuality and homophobia, hypersexuality, and aggression and control over women. These represent what we call the “Man Box”, or the ideals of manhood that can be both influential and restrictive to young men.

The men were asked about their perceptions of societal messages about manhood and their own endorsement of these messages.

Our findings showed that many young men remain greatly influenced by these societal messages of what it means to be a man. For example, young men were particularly likely to agree with statements that society expects men to act strong (69%), fight back when pushed (60%) and never say no to sex (56%).

However, some traditional ideals seem to be dropping away. Few young men agreed that society tells them they should use violence to get respect (35%), straight men should shun gay men as friends (36%), boys shouldn’t learn how to cook and clean (38%), and men shouldn’t do household chores (39%).

Read more: Masculinity should not be defined by the Kavanaugh hearings

There was also a consistent gap between social messages and personal ideals, with lower personal endorsement of every element of traditional manhood.

Still, a sizeable number of young men believed men should act strong (47%), be the primary breadwinners (35%) and fight back when pushed around (34%).

Fewer respondents agreed that men should have as many sexual partners as they can (25%), avoid housework and child care (23%) and use violence to get respect (20%).

In a particularly troubling finding, 27% of young men believed they should always have the final say about decisions in their relationships and 37% believed they should know where their wives or girlfriends are at all times.

What other researchers have found

Our findings are consistent with other research on the societal impact of traditional masculine ideals.

First, there is a consistent gap between men and women when it comes to views of gender roles. Young Australian men are less aware than young women of sexism and more supportive of male dominance and violent attitudes toward women.

Research in the US has found that young American men are also less aware than young women of the harms of traditional masculinity.

Read more: ‘Ideological masculinity’ that drives violence against women is a form of violent extremism

Second, there is diversity among men. Young men have different ways of expressing their masculine identities, depending on their peer groups. There are also large variations among young men in their endorsement of sexism and violence.

Third, men are changing. While the “Man Box” survey is not longitudinal, other research points to shifts over time in men’s attitudes toward gender roles. Other studies have shown more young men supporting gender equality and rejecting violence against women, although there are also signs of regress and backlash.

The harms of acting like a ‘real man’

Conforming to ideals of traditional masculinity has a real cost, both for young men themselves and for the women and men around them.

Our findings show that being inside the “Man Box” – having higher-than-average agreement with traditional masculine ideals – is bad for young men’s health.

According to our survey, young men in the “Man Box” were more likely than other men to have poor mental health (including feeling depressed, hopeless or suicidal), to seek help from only a narrow range of sources, and to be involved in binge drinking and traffic accidents.

This accords with a large number of other studies that have found men who endorse dominant ideals of masculinity are more likely than other men to have greater health risks and engage in poor behaviours. They are more likely to consider suicide, drink excessively, take risks at work and drive dangerously.

Read more: Why the masculine face? Genetic evidence reveals drawbacks of hyper-masculine features

Recent media discussions of “toxic masculinity” have emphasised that patriarchal notions of manhood are dangerous not only for men themselves but for those around them.

Our survey also bears this out. Young men who agreed more strongly with the ideals of the “Man Box” were six times as likely as other men to have sexually harassed women in the last month – making sexual comments to a women or girl they didn’t know in a public place or online.

They were also more likely to have bullied other people in the last month, physically, verbally and online. And they were far less likely to intervene when other men were acting violently.

Again, these findings should not be surprising. Conformity to traditional masculinity is a well-documented risk factor in domestic violence. Men are also more likely to rape women if they are hostile towards women, desire sexual dominance, accept rape myths and feel entitled to women’s bodies.

Masculinity also is a significant contributing factor in male-to-male violence. Indeed, men’s violence against women and men’s violence against other men are interrelated, and both are shaped by traditional ideals of masculinity.

Beyond the ‘Man Box’

There is an urgent need to promote change in the way we view masculinity in Australia. Three tasks are vital.

First, we need to raise awareness of the harms of the “Man Box”. And in doing so, let’s avoid a focus only on harms to men. We must also address how masculinity contributes to ongoing sexism and male privilege in society.

Second, we need to confront traditional masculine ideals and try to reduce their impact on society. We need to engage men and boys in critical conversations about manhood, encouraging them to embrace identities of their own making rather than conforming to constrained masculine scripts. We should also highlight how young men are changing and adopting diverse viewpoints on what it means to be a man.

Third, let’s promote healthy and ethical alternatives to traditional masculine ideals. Whether we call it “healthy masculinity” or something else, we need to promote ideals for boys’ and men’s lives that are positive, diverse and gender-equitable.