![00_sm[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/3086474196_500065186e_o.jpg)
![hrod[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2959190712_de66aae085_o.jpg)
![00_sm[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2954806435_ab35c693a9_t.jpg)
![raytheon-picture[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2958368213_ff3fb311be_o.jpg)
![hrod[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2955623804_8be2e1e0b1_o.jpg)
Unabashed QUT advertisement - what do the workers in the picture think about this?
Philistines no longer at the gates: final word from QUT lecturer
I do not think there is much in the comments on the Philistines… debate about Michael Noonan’s film that addresses racism, class or disability.
But I am not going to delete them as suggested by various people. 
I do not think that Gary (MacLennan) has ‘a hurtful and oppressive attitude towards disability‘ as claimed.
I do not believe Ciaron (O’Reilly) is a racist any more than I think that John Tracey is one.
I think that Michael Noonan meant well when he took Darren and James out to Boulia for his film.
I respect Gary Foley as a Koori activist and leader ever since I heard him speak in Roma Street Forum in Brisbane during the Aboriginal protests against the1982 Commonwealth Games.
In that speech and the activism that goes with it, down the years before and after, Gary Foley outlined a radical standpoint on the two issues that Workers BushTelegraph is about: class and racism.
I knew nothing of the allegations against Gary Foley until I read them being discussed in the comments by Ciaron and John. I am still not any the wiser. I see nothing in these comments to change my view and respect for Gary Foley as my respect derives from the political not the personal. Gary Foley helped set up Redfern’s Aboriginal Legal Service (in Sydney) and the Aboriginal Medical Service in Melbourne. He is a doer, not just a talker.
I have since looked at the allegations of rape made against Gary Foley in the comments section of Workers BushTelegraph. One view was published in the Melbourne Age by Martin Flanagan on 20th March 1993 in an article titled Looking through a black anger. The mellowing of Gary X
“Foley was an apprentice air-conditioning draftsman. ‘Just what was needed in black Australia at the time [1968]‘. One day, walking along Railway Place, he approached a white girl whom he had previously met at one of Charlie Perkins’s Aboriginal Affairs dances and ‘got lumbered by two smart-arse uniformed coppers’. Foley was beaten until he admitted, falsely, that he’d had sex with the girl. `I didn’t even know her name.’ He was then made to watch while the girl was beaten by two policewomen for ’sleeping with a boong’. The girl was a ward of the state.”
I have now read “Whiteness and Blackness in the Koori Struggle for Self-Determination” by Gary Foley (1999) as recommended by John Tracey.
Also I re-read the pamphlet “The Revolution will not be televised! — A campaign for free expression in Queensland” (sorry no hyperlink) written by Ciaron O’Reilly – a campaign in which John (Nobody) Tracey played a significant role alongside Ciaron and Sean O’Reilly, Jim Dowling, Linda Rushton and many others – all presumably as comrades and friends.
I know little of what caused the falling out between these activists, at least at the personal level, but I suspect a mixture of immaturity, idealism, arrests, sectarianism and eventually defeat by the government of the day had something to do with it. Also I suspect that there is much in the falling out that is personal – these things linger for years – but not too much of that is political. Regarding the relationship between John Tracey and Gary MacLennan, John says that he was never “in” with Gary MacLennan to fall out “with” him. [I accept what you say about that, John, but Gary and you share more than being part of the democratic rights struggle in Queensland.]
John Tracey and Gary MacLennan share the bond of both working class and Irish origins.
Perhaps these are too much for anyone to bear.
Campaign for Free Expression in Queen Street Mall circa 1982
But many of the finer points of these differences will be lost on most.
Claims of ideological differences like ‘you are a marxist authoritiarian’ and ‘he is a Libertarian’ do not really amount to much.
As a friend pointed out to me the other day, some of the biggest authoritarians on the Left in Brisbane were anarchists and libertarians.
Equally, to say that Michael Noonan is a ‘a humble working class Catholic lad’ is not a defence for anything. Would Michael even claim it? I doubt it. Would Gary MacLennan. Certainly not.
Race and Class
We often hear right-wingers say that the Stolen Generations do not deserve an apology from the government because there were white children who were taken from their parents unjustly as well and that they never received a 
government apology (see “The Leaving of Liverpool“). What these naysayers fail to understand is that aboriginal children were taken from their parents on the basis of race whereas the white kids were taken from their parents on the basis of class.
These are different kinds of repression and require different responses.
The apology given by the federal parliament last week to the Stolen Generations was only one of the responses requested by aboriginal people. Both the government and the opposition are deaf to their demands. The apology only achieved the significance that it did on 13 February 2008 because the Howard government refused for 11 years to give it.
Aboriginal people and their leaders have asked for more than just an apology. I am pessimistic about what the executive-in-government will do now.
But I am not so pessimistic about the broader future as the recent comments on BushTelegraph would suggest.
For example, I think that there is a tendency against racism in Australia and America.
A black man is close to being nominated to run for President in the US because he has managed to mobilise black, brown and white. This has been achieved despite the superficial left-of-centre ticket offered up by the US Democratic Party. If Obama is matched against the Republican McCain, I think Obama will win because he has managed to mobilise so many more voters than McCain in a country where the vote is optional and so many poor people do not vote.
There is a trend against privatisation in America and here in Australia.
People are feeling that they cannot do it on their own anymore, as economic rationalist failures increase. Federal government has been unable to control inflation and interest rates. They have relied too much on the private sector which has not been productive, wasting money on the affluence of a few.
Workers want public health, public education, public housing, public parks and spaces. I am not saying that these things will come easily — that will mean class struggle, something not occurring in our recent history.
There is just a trend for these things. How it will play out is hard to assess. But let us not be fooled that Australia (or America) is a democracy. It is executive power that rules here. If the executive so chooses, an apology is given to the aboriginal people by the parliament.
Ian Curr
February 2008
Gary Foley’s papers at http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/essays
The Leaving of Liverpool @ http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1123499.htm
“The Revolution will not be televised! — A campaign for free expression in Queensland” by Ciaron O’Reilly
Filed under: Aboriginal Struggle, No War, Unions
Ian,
I don’t know when Down Under will be released, last I heard was this year.
The pub scene was one of many shot over a week in Boulia where, as I have been told, Darren and James and the film crew got to know a lot of the locals (as much as you can in a week) and, evidenced by the footage that went on the internet of some of the other scenes, was done with the participation of the coordinator of the local ABoriginal organisation.
Apart from implying a perverted reading onto the pub scene, as this court action does, the situation has also been represented as a few moments in a pub rather than a week in the community.
People who have no idea what happened have constructed and generalised a fictional notion of what went on and many have gullibly swallowed it, but to date none of the investigations have.
The very issue raised by Ted, the question of protocol for film makers working with Aboriginal people, the principle of dialoge, consultation, re-consultation and re-re-consultation – especially as problems arise – has been absolutely abandoned as the issue has been turned into a legal/media/ internet spectacular farce.
Noonan has been trying for to talk to May since this all began and her various minders have prohibited such dialogue.
************
Unlearning the problem is just an experiment at the moment, I haven’t written anything new on it yet.
My thinking is that the radical left in Australia is just plain stupid, stupified by the religion of Marx and totally contained within the mainstream capitaist, colonial mindset, representing little more than a change in shade of nuance from the oppressive culture itself. Radical politics today offers nothing to history except a detatched position of commentary totally within its own detatched frame of reference.
So I am trying to step outside the box and see what happens.
Hello John,
I do not know what happened in Boulia, that is what I am trying to find out.
All I have is Ted Watson’s interpretation and the footage that was sent with his short U Tube piece.
I would be interested in seeing Noonan’s rushes of what happened there cos it may inform those interested as to how such different interpretations have been made of what happened in the Boulia pub.
When is Noonan going to put out his film?
That too may give an insight into what really went on.
By the way, how long has ‘unlearning the problem’ blog been up? I have placed a link on W BT see http://unlearningtheproblem.wordpress.com/ under Community and Political Groups. that is the first I have seen of it.
I still have not given up on the collective blog/web idea. time and people are the issue. Have you read the WordPress book (it says that it is for dummies, but it’s not) by Lisa Sabine-Wilson, she describes the technical solution in part three of her book.
Ian Curr
Ian,
you said…”What I am trying to discover is Noonan’s approach and purpose in making the films.”
I suspect you will not discover this until you see the films.
Did you see Unlikely Travellers”? This is a clear indication of Noonan’s approach – same director, same producer and Darren and James are in both..
How is it that you know what happened in Boulia or what the theme of Darren and James Down under is?
As for the money, the game plan is clear – same lawyers, same strategy as the Mac/hook/QUT court action. Make a highly publicised claim painting QUT in a negative light and get an out of court settlement from QUT who just want the problem to go away.
However this time, unlike the previous claims against QUT they have claimed against Noonan as well and accused him of forging documents. Noonan is, I suspect, more concerned about the ethics of film making (questions of censorship and the importance of his film in the representation of disability) and in particular defending himself against the claim of forgery and will not simply pay out to make the problem go away as QUT seems prepared to do.
According to the newspaper report, the claim is based on racial villification laws. I urge you to have a look at the legislation and see if you think they have a case. I have looked and their claim appears absurd when measured by the act. For a start it specifically excludes work produced for academic or public interest debate.
An out of court settlement is the only possible hope for success – or a new case based on the allegations that Noonan forged documents, an allegation that has been dismissed to date by at least 2 academic investigations and would involve perjery charges against May if Noonan’s documents are proven to be real.
Because Noonan appears to be standing on principle, even if QUT does want to brush it all under the carpet, means the truth has become a major obstacle to the legal action. The spinelessness of QUT can no longer be relied on to achieve an outcome. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Beyond the particulars of this case, as long as so-called advocates of social justice and social change can so easily cling to lies and illusions and manifest politically and historically on the basis of lies and illusions then all our dreams of justice are betrayed and blown to the winds.
Just as with Marx’s historical materialism and Ghandi’s satyagraha (truth force) or Jesus’ claim that the truth will set you free, as long as political activists cling to anything other than truth they will only tangle themselves up in the complexities of their own ideational contradictions, they have no time or headspace at all to apply themselves to real historical circumstance.
John,
What I am trying to discover is Noonan’s approach and purpose in making the films.
If you will bear with me (I may be slow) is what happened in Boulia, Noonan and his co-filmmakers went there to expose themselves to your stereotypical Australian country town, having Darren and James doing stereotypical Aussie things like chasing girls and going to the pub to find out about Min Min lights?
But things went wrong in the pub because they were a bit rude to May’s partner in that they started talking about Min Min lights but when they (probably Noonan — who, after all, is a journo) saw a good shot of May showing kindness and affection to one of the guys and then they interrupted proceedings and focussed the camera on that?
But unfortuneately this filmic moment was misinterpreted, not the least by Ted Watson, as yet another stereotypical portrayal of a drunken aboriginal woman when in fact (and more likely) it was really a display of gentleness and affection by May Dunne that Noonan wished to capture on film? Perhaps he/they did not expect things to unfold in this way? Do you get what I mean?
Ted Watson, May and her partner just got it wrong?
But more than that, Mac/Hook and their supporters misunderstood what looks on the surface like an exercise in your stereotypical aussie male sexism when really what is happening is that Darren and James are going out there into the stereotypical aussie red neck territority to actually expose themselves to what really happens and how people may view two mildly disabled young blokes? From the footage I have seen they get a not unremarkable reception of small country town cordiality.
I am still wondering about the role of Spectrum in all this. Frankly, they seem sus to me, if only because of the funding arrangements in the ‘disability industry’ where some opportunist and unscrupulous characters with the right political connections seem to always come up roses.
While on the subject of the money trail concerning the Ted Watson human rights application reported in the HES in the AUSTRALIAN saying they are after $100,000 after there was some interest shown in the initial $50,000 — I am wondering who do they think will stump up the cash?
It is highly unlikely Noonan has that kind of dough, do they think QUT is going to foot the bill as they did after their human resources mob unfairly dismissed two of their most experienced teachers?
Ian Curr
September 2008
I suggest the best time to review a film is after the reviewer has seen it!
The difference between Noonan’s films and Malcolm/Forest Gump/Rain man/etc. genre is that Noonan does not use actors to build a caracature of a disabled person in a fictional context, he is a documentary maker that focuses on the real lives and personalities of particular disabled people, a group of 6 in “Unlikely Travellers” and 2 in “Darren and James Down under”, the latter being a major industrial breakthrough in terms of disability in that the 2 disabled stars are also co-writers and co-editors.
This is a long way from Colin Friels, Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise representing the perspective of disability and, I would suggest, not a generic comparison at all to Noonan’s stuff.
It is not Noonan’s films that has caused the heartache and angst but the generalisation of the lies told about the movies, including telling May Dunne that she was in a movie that exploited disabled people which, according to her written statement, is the cause of her shame for being involved.
Whatever Maclennan and Hookham’s original motivation for publically attacking Noonan’s thesis were, the heartache and angst has come from them trying to dig themselves out of a hole when it became evident that their criticism was totally baseless.
The question should be asked of Mac/Hook, was their project of attacking Noonan to score points off QUT worth all the angst and heartache?, not whether or not film makers such as Noonan should try and break new ground in representing disability.
In May 2008 Ted Watson said this about the Noonan film and its repercussions:
“It looks like the final chapter in the sordid saga of Queensland University of Technology’s(QUT) PhD project Laughing at the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains is about to be played out.”
This dispute never seems to go away — Look at from today’s (18th September 2008) higher education supplement of the AUSTRALIAN :
“LAWYERS for an Aboriginal woman have said they are about to launch a damages claim against the Queensland University of Technology, reigniting bitterness over a contentious PhD film project called Laughing at the Disabled … more at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24356762-12332,00.html]…
I ask the funding protagonists of the film — Coaldrake, the Queensland University of Technology, the various privateers in film and disability industries — who benefits from this?
Comment
There have been very many Australian films about disability. Some of them very good. Films like Malcolm a comedy about the story of an innocent, socially retarded mechanical genius named Malcolm (played by Australian actor Colin Friels). The plot for the film involves Malcolm losing his job at the tram station in Melbourne, after taking a joyride on one of his tram-like inventions on the public tramlines one afternoon.
One film critic wrote this about it:
“Personally, I enjoyed ‘Malcolm’.
The Australian stereotypes, the familiar landscapes and the intelligent ‘Aussie’ humour are all aspects of Australian cinema that appeared in Malcolm that I enjoy watching.
In particular I enjoyed watching the central character, Malcolm.
Colin Friels played the role of the shy, socially disabled yet brilliant Malcolm so well, it resulted in his character drawing sympathy from the audience. This is a sign of quality acting and it’s probably this reason why Friels won Best Actor at the AFI Awards in 1986.
It’s amazing how an audience seems to attach themselves to the central character if that character is mentally impaired in some way, but still has some sort of brilliant ability…like Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, or Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot.
In ‘Malcolm’s case it was Malcolms’ social shyness and isolation connected with his amazing ability to make mechanical toy’s and inventions which captured the audience. I think this fact, along with the films sharp humour is what carried the film.”
Since Malcolm was released in 1986 we have seen a plethora of films and docos that focus on characters with disability.
To advance this ‘Aussie film genre’ requires sensitivity, creativity and courage.
I just can’t see why this project by Noonan justifies all the angst and heartache it has caused.
Ian Curr
18 September 2008
Editor’s Note:
At Ciaron O’Reilly’s request, I have deleted his comments to this article.
Ian Curr
25 Feb 2008
Ciaron,
Your interventinism demoralised and immobilised the Jabiluka blocade.
Your similar intervention demoralised and immobilised the protests at Shannon airport.
Your ideology divides what ever movement you pop up in.
You attack Aboriginal resistance leaders such as Gary Foley and Jacqui Katona.
Your attacks on Black Power leaders is eerily similar to the FBI’s propaganda and subversion of the Black Panthers.
Your dismissal of Aboriginal self determination on the basis of sex crime, is exactly the same line John Howard was pushing. A coincidence?
If you are serious about profiling dogs you should sniff your own bum.
Hello Ciaron, John and others interested,
For the record, see What do we want? — Land Rights! for an historical view of the Aboriginal Land Rights movement of the 1980s.
Ian Curr
19 Feb 2008
Ian,
If, as you say, you fail to see the racism in Ciaron’s comments, in particular his comment on the other thread about “traditional smokescreen” and his Howard like dismissal of Aboriginal self determination (and “black power dudes”) because of sex crime, then you are just another stupid white brick in the wall too.
As you stand in solidarity with your racist mate, you dismiss the perspective and struggle of the Mirrar as, at best, irrelevant. I have heard Jacqui Katona speak of this issue on two seperate occaisions and discussed it privately with her. I have heard Isobelle Coe of the Tent Embassy talk of this issue. While you may not see the racism in Ciarons words and actions, Aboriginal Australia certainly does and has spoken out against it. Ciaron has made it into the the dreamtime stories of the Aboriginal oral tradition as an example of how white activists cannot be trusted.
As you stand by your racist mate you betray the elders who spoke at the Invasion day rally and went to the Canberra Convergence, for they are the very “black power 60’s/70’s dudes” that Ciaron so hatefully villifies, as is Ted Watson who whose video you promote on your blog.
I had a good night sleep and re-read your post and I still cant figure out what you are trying to say about the personalities of the early 80s Bris. anarchist movement or indeed of class and race.
I find tour comment ” I think that there is a tendency against racism in Australia and America.” to be most naive and more a product of a racist culture than a critique of it.
Here is a link to Ciaron’s book http://www.takver.com/history/brisbane/freespeechqld.htm
For the record, I gave permission for my photos to be used in Ciaron’s book but I have never endorsed its perspective.
I had parted ways with the Catholic worker well before the book was written.
The book is a good record of a small bit of history but its analysis is shallow and egotistical, as was the politics of the whole Mall campaign.
Our “Free Speech” campaign was racist too. We deliberately kept our distance from the land rights movement that was building at the same time because we were anarchists and therefore could not tolerate Aboriginal authoritarianism or the notions of private property inherent in land rights. “2 or 3 gathered in his name” produced a leaflet in the lead up to the Commonwealth games entitled “Land rights for all Australians” which is a phrase that Pauline Hanson later came to use to dismiss the Aboriginal movement.
The anarchist movement had resisted the “black Fascists” since the springbok tour. Brian Laver maintained a constant criticism of Aboriginal culture as inherently sexist and, in his terms, an authoritarian gerantocracy.
Laver and the anarchists issued several leaflets during the 70s land rights campaign condemning the “black fascists” and like Ciaron did at Jabiluka, did their best to demonise the Aboriginal leadership in the eyes of white radicals.
The Mall campaign was very much influenced by Laver’s critique of the land rights movement.
Laver’s Libertarian Socialist Organisation maintained a firm moral principle of not engaging with Aboriginal Australia during the Commonwealth Games. However many anarchists from the other tendencies and factions did engage with the Commonwalth Games protest and, like the rest of the left in Australia in the 80’s developed an understanding of and solidarity with Aboriginal Australia.
However there were many who were left behind in their white ideologial Cocoons such as Ciaron as well as Laver who to this day and despite his connection to Sam Watson, rejects the notion of Aboriginal sovereignty and rejects Aboriginal culture as authoritarian gerantocracy. In his more inebriated moments he will publically declare that the workers councils will fight the traditional owners if the traditional owners will not conform to democratic principle.
Some of the most blatant racism of the Anarchists in the 80s and 90s manifested in the local West End community in response to Aboriginal street crime and violence. LIke the racist communities of Alice Springs and Townsville, the anarchists even went as far as calling for vigilante squads at one stage to tackle the “aboriginal problem”.
The fear and hatred of Aboriginal people is a key pillar of Australian racism and it is well and truly entrenched in the history of anarchism in Brisbane as well as in Ciaron’s contemporary global condemnations.
Here is a history of the Jabiluka dispute
http://www.takver.com/history/jabiluka1998.htm
As Foley’s article suggests, the divisions were much broader than the plowshares people. Nationally, the Jabiluka Action Group split over the question of Mirrar control of the campaign.
Jabiluka was a crucial experiment that failed. It was the first time since the 88 bicentenial protests that a national campaign was launched in the first instance with Aboriginal people in control, but also a national mobilisation of non-Aboriginal support for an Aboriginal agenda (as opposed to the mainstream agenda of reconcilliation).
What was unique about this mobilisation was that it was tribal people calling the shots, not urban activists. They put in place bridges between their tribal reality and non Aboriginal supporters with activists such as Gary Foley and Jaqui Katona coordinating the “white” business such as media, protesters and fundraising.
However, essentially because white activists could not leave their sacred cows at the gate and embrace this powerful experiment it collapsed. Either that or it was undermined by collaborators.
The basic principle demanded of the Mirrar – Aboriginal sovereignty on their own land was just too much for many of the white supporters to handle.
In pure colonial fasion, Ciaron and others appealed to European notions of democracy to discredit Aboriginal decision making processes. White activists insisted on their democratic right to make decisions about Mirrar land simply by their presence on it. Thats what Captain Cook did.
p.s. Ian,
My only source of information on the Foley rape allegation is Ciaron. I have never heard anyone else speak of it.
Ciaron,
If I was a collaborator and I had an agenda of, for example, the facilitation of uranium mining in Australia, what I would try and construct is a bitter division between traditional owners of minesites and non Aboriginal activists in the cities.
I would, if I was a spy, have had a serious challenge at Jabiluka because the Mirrar had instituted a direct line of communication and authority with Aboriginal activists in or from the city to coordinate the campaigns. That would be the target I would choose. I would throw personal mud at the key Aboriginal links to deligitimise them in the eyes of the white supporters and behave offensively on Mirrar land to teach the traditional people that they can’t trust white activists. Thats what I would have done at Jabiluka if I was a spy. But I didn’t have to because you already did.