The iconic X-file tagline seems to capture a pervasive sentiment in the current media landscape, where citizen journalism has cast a shadow on professional journalism and its methods. In this brave new world, the clamour of voices is a testament to a fundamental human plea: to be heard. But who are we to believe? In an environment that seems increasingly divided between those who report news events for a living, and those who comment on news reports out of civic interest, the task of assigning credibility has become more and more challenging.

Ordinary citizens are now taking up their digital pens and freely sharing their opinions with the world, thanks to the rise of Internet technologies. The ubiquity of web 2.0 has seen this made even easier; news, information and analysis are instantly accessible via social media networks like Facebook, popular microblogging sites such as Twitter, and more ‘heavyweight’ blogging sites such as the likes of The Huffington Post. Leaving a digital footprint is no longer the stuff of farfetched visions of the future depicted in cheesy eighties science fiction films. It’s as easy as one click of a mouse or one swipe of the screen. It is no wonder that average users are eager to take part in the ongoing conversations for which the Internet provides the perfect platform: its reach is global, its effects instantaneous.

But the idea that the World Wide Web represents a utopian ideal of freedom of speech and unrestricted flow of information is perhaps too hopeful a notion. Establishing an open arena for conversation does not erase the tension between the sources of these voices, diverse as they are. The question of whether citizen journalism is as valid an exercise as traditional journalism has been floated around since users have taken to the ‘blogosphere’ to air their thoughts not only on news events, but how they are reported.

Courtesy of NS Newsflash at Flickr

As a media and communications student and blogger, I find myself torn between both sides. Granted, this is not a clear-cut, black-and-white situation. Both citizen journalism and professional journalism have their merits, and certainly a few unavoidable shortcomings as well. A problem only arises when public trust in one form of journalism gradually erodes with the rise of the other – and it’s not the public that don’t trust the public.

Perhaps more alarming is the emerging idea that citizen journalism could actually replace traditional journalism in the future. Considering the former has often earned high praise for its efforts toward transparency and has been lauded as a way to further democratise newsgathering, this is no issue to scoff at or dismiss easily. With the recent News of the World scandal staining the (rather fragile) glass of journalistic integrity, professional journalists may well be threatened by the surge of bloggers and news commentators in the cyberworld. And perhaps they have reason to be.

But what exactly constitutes citizen journalism? Is it a threat, or rather a liberty to be celebrated? Let’s take a look.

Mark Glaser, a longtime freelance journalist, posits that the principle behind citizen journalism is that “people without professional journalism training can use the tools of modern technology and the global distribution of the Internet to create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others.” What this effectively creates, then, is a situation in which power is placed in the hands of the people, should they choose to wield it.

By the public, for the public

News accounts are no longer defined, shaped and motivated by bureaucratic interests, but actively moulded by public contributions. This is not to say that professional journalists are inherently influenced by external motives. Rather, it is important to bear in mind that they are under the foot of media corporations and may, to some extent, represent their corporate and commercial interests. In Australia, this is a legitimate concern; our media industry is dominated by the two major media conglomerates, News Ltd and Fairfax, in what Greens senator Bob Brown calls a “duopoly”. This degree of media concentration is enough to raise the profile of citizen journalism as an alternative source of information outside the power vacuum.

This is perhaps the primary reason for which citizen journalism is hailed as a revolutionary form of newsgathering: the audience is understood not as agents or representatives of media companies, but of the public. Because they do not necessarily answer to other parties, their trustworthiness is generally assumed. The Internet itself is largely difficult to regulate, which is why censorship does not often present a problem. Hello, democracy.

[It’s interesting to note, however, that at the time of writing, the push to implement the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has caused widespread controversy. If the motion is enforced, there may be serious repercussions for the open exchange of information online.]

Since being established in 2005, The Huffington Post has garnered respect for its alternative take on American news. As a self-proclaimed “Internet newspaper”, it is an excellent example of the benefits of pluralism. Bloggers from all walks of life are given the platform to voice their perspectives on topical issues, from the highly contentious arena of US politics to the politically neutral Entertainment section (one assumes that it would have little to do with politics, at any rate). At the same time, however, the site is generally known for its left-wing bias. You can’t have it all.

Courtesy of DaniloRamos at Flickr

Promoting Social Justice?

Special Projects Editor for The Guardian, Paul Lewis, cites an incident that demonstrated the power of collaborative journalism. The official account of a news vendor’s death at the London G20 protests was discredited in an extraordinary joint effort by Guardian reporters and witnesses who took to Twitter to voice their accounts. Videos emerged of the victim, Ian Tomlinson, being assaulted by a police officer. The evidence provided by reporters and the public culminated in a lengthy investigation into Tomlinson’s death, which police initially claimed was the result of a heart attack. In fact, he had been “unlawfully killed”, as a jury subsequently ruled.

In instances like this, it is not hard to imagine why people are sceptical of ‘official’ sources. The outcome of this episode added weight to the claim that citizen journalism is not only conducive to, but necessary for, a fairer perspective.

Take the journalism out of citizen journalism

At the same time that it has been praised, citizen journalism has also been on the receiving end of scathing criticism – particularly from professional journalists. An editorial feature on The Digital Journalist makes its stance clear:

“Citizen journalism is a misnomer. There is no such thing. There are citizens and there are journalists. Everyone can be one of the former, but to be called a journalist means that you are a professional.”

It’s true that journalists undergo rigorous training to ensure the greatest possible degree of objectivity and integrity. They have access to sources, facilities and information that their citizen counterparts generally do not. There is an emphasis on producing accurate accounts devoid of bias. The idea is that they have been trained to report news. As The Digital Journalist rather crudely puts it, “You will not see many citizen journalists wandering around the battlefields of Afghanistan.” Professional reporters adhere to a set of journalistic principles – one that does not necessarily take precedence among citizen journalists. (Of course, this works on the assumption that the News of the World scandal is merely an anomaly.)

What now?

At the end of the day, citizen journalism means that we no longer receive news from a concentrated pool of sources. In my eyes, this is a good thing. We live in an increasingly pluralistic world, which is heightened in the cyberworld, and this should be cause for celebration. Not only are we passively consuming news content, but we can now actively engage with it and contribute to the newsgathering process. By the same token, there is and always will be a place for traditional journalism and its principles. Integrity is the key, and if we can continue to sew that into the fabric of society, we are closer to realising the dream of democracy.

Luckily we’ve taken it upon ourselves to separate what is just hot air, and what is worth your time in 2012.

Type 1: Worthy Causes

It’s hard to come past an organisation more worthy than the United Nations. This year the UN has announced two official ‘observances’. The first, the International Year of Cooperatives, aims to raise public awareness of the “strengths of the cooperative business model as an alternative means of doing business and furthering socioeconomic development.” (Australia has actually produced a collectible coin to commemorate the year. The second, the Year of Sustainable Energy for All, is intended to highlight the inextricable link between energy production and sustainable development. The two major challenges, according to Ban-ki Moon, are uneven access and distribution, and the political hurdles of climate change negotiation.

Fun fact #1: the first ‘International Year’ was proclaimed in 1959 by the General Assembly. It was the World Refugee Year.

Fun fact #2: We have just entered the second year of three UN-observed ‘Decades’ – the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity, and the Decade of Action for Road Safety.

Fun fact #3: The UN observes lots of things. Like you.

In Britain, 2012 marks the centenary of the birth of computer scientist Alan Turing, who helped crack German codes in World War II but was later persecuted due to his homosexuality, and eventually committed suicide. Alan Turing Year will involve hundreds of events over multiple continents. There have been rumours that Leonardo DiCaprio will play him in a biopic, so maybe 2012 is the year to educate yourself about this mathematical genius.

Closer to home, this year Australia brings us the Year of the Farmer, when we will celebrate the humble origins of our groceries and ugg boots. The Year is aimed to redress the disconnect many urban Australians feel with the agriculture industry, which accounts for 27% of national GDP. It’s been a while since we had Babe to remind us what farm life ‘truly’ entails.

2012 is also the National Year of Reading,  an initiative between the private and public sectors to increase Australia’s literacy levels. Their website makes the (worrying) point that 46% of Australians lack the reading skills necessary to navigate their day-to-day life. If you believe in the staying power of the written word, get involved now.

Type 2: Cynical Claims-Making

Very few surprises here:

Scott Gerber, writing for TIME Magazine, calls 2012 the ‘Year of the Entrepreneur’. He is the founder of the Young Entrepreneur Council in the US.

The Beat, a news blog covering comics culture, adds a prefix and calls this the ‘Year of the Artist-Entrepreneur’.

Blog Social Media Today are jumping the gun and saying this year we will spend less time meandering through online shopping sites and watching animals on YouTube, because this will be the ‘Year of the Empowered and Assertive Digital Customer’.

The Allman Brothers have proclaimed this the ‘Year of the Peach’, as we mark the 40^th anniversary of their album, Eat a Peach. We would complain about how much this reeks of a blatant marketing spin manoeuvre, but we can’t stay mad at people who play music like this.

If you’re visiting Belgium this year, and you like beer and chocolate and fries (which we’re assuming you do very much, because what other reason could there be to go there if you’re not a Eurocrat?), you’re in luck: this year is their Year of Gastronomy.

Type 3: Armchair Speculation

We are now entering the Year of the Dragon, according to the Chinese zodiac.* Dragons are the free spirits of the zodiac – expect all things wild and uninhibited this year.

And now for the proper left-of-centre stuff:

Give a warm newspeak welcome to the Year of the World Government.

Tremble before the Year of Persecution.

Oh yeah, and we’re all going to die.

As we say goodbye to 2011, and sift through the sediment of the year that was, let’s brace ourselves for all things known and unknown in 2012. We will be ‘Empowered and Assertive’, we will be the Batman to 2011’s Robin, we will be the Dragon to their Rabbit.

Repeat it like a mantra. What could possibly go wrong?

*No offence is meant to this ancient tradition by placing it under ‘Armchair Speculation’, we just didn’t know what other tab it could fall under.

After failing to secure the vote in the South Carolina primary, Romney’s victory in Florida comes as a massive push to the former governor’s campaign. Romney now enters Nevada as the clear favourite, having obtained both the Iowa and Florida vote, and having convincingly won the caucus in 2008, when he commanded 51.1 per cent of the vote. The next closest candidate in the 2008 Nevada Caucus was Ron Paul, who only managed to secure a meagre 13.73 per cent.

The Florida victory, however, has more far reaching implications for Romney. Out of all primaries and caucuses thus far, Florida most accurately reflects the nation’s geographical, political, and ethnic composition. This comes as a promising sign to the Romney camp, particularly as candidates vow to secure the crucial African-American and Latino vote. Constituency in New Hampshire represented a disproportionate demographic, with African-Americans accounting for 1.1 per cent of the population, compared to 12.2 per cent nationally. Similarly, Latinos only constitute 2.8 per cent of the New Hampshire population, versus 16.3 per cent nationwide. In stark contrast, the Florida demographic is more or less aligned with the national demographic, with African-Americans representing 16 per cent, and Latino’s 22.5 per cent of the population.

Romney’s ability to attract these key voters in Florida dispels earlier concerns that his adherence to the Church of the Latter Day Saints would disenfranchise African-American voters. The Church of the Latter Day Saints has historically had an adversarial relationship with African-Americans. Black adherence to the Church was banned until 1978, and even then, many Mormons still perceive African-Americans as the cursed descendants of Cain. Despite the Church increasingly making concerted efforts to denounce this earlier stigmatisation, many still believed that this historical factor would damage African-American support for Romney. Reverand O’Neal Dozieu seemed to have this sentiment in mind when he told the Palm Beach Post on January 22 that “Blacks are not going to vote for anyone of the Mormon faith”. It would seem that any latent hostility regarding Romney’s faith has, however, been overshadowed by the more pressing issues facing this campaign. Whilst traditionally, the African-American vote has been more important to Democratic primaries, the support will surely give Romney added popularity when the primaries reach the South.

Romney’s success in Florida similarly shows a clear sign that he is able to attract the Latino vote. Despite Gingrich painting him as John. F. Kennedy reincarnate, (which if true, would surely alienate Cuban exiles in Florida), Romney was able to counter any such comparisons by invoking his own Hispanic heritage. Romney’s father George was born in Mexico in 1902 – a fact that led an interviewer on a Spanish-language television program to ask whether he would become the first Mexican-American president. Romney, clearly enjoying the invocation of his family’s history, coyly responded: “I would love to be able to convince people of that, particularly in the Florida primary. But I don’t think people would think I was being honest with them”. Whilst projections suggest that Obama and Romney would tie in Florida, if an election were held today, Romney has still failed to garner as much Latino support as President Obama.

However, Romney’s valiant attempts at attracting Latino support have not gone unnoticed; particularly the incident in which his son Craig addressed a crowd in Spanish saying:  “my father does not speak Spanish, but he speaks the language of economics”. Whilst the Democratic Party has historically been more accommodating to the Latino population, it seems that Romney is relying heavily on his economic accolades to attract Latino support. The former CEO’s strong economic message was well received in Florida, where there is a 10 per cent rate of unemployment, and where two-thirds of voters stated in an exit poll that a restoration of the economy was their top issue.

The only issue deemed more crucial than economic restoration was which candidate would be most likely to trump President Obama. More than half of those questioned in an exit poll stated that the most important factor influencing their vote was which candidate stood the best chance of defeating Obama in the election later this year. This comes as yet a better sign for the Republicans, particularly given the ubiquity of negative campaigning in the primaries, which is increasingly becoming the subject of public censure. However, for all the vitriolic slandering within the Republican Party, they still remain unified on one point: a common hatred of Obama. Romney was quick to revert to partisan rhetoric in his victory speech, when he drew the attention of his supporters to the bigger picture of this election:  “While we celebrate this victory, we must not forget what this election is really about: defeating Obama”. “A competitive primary does not divide us”, Romney went on to say, “it prepares us. And we will win”.

Despite his upset in the Florida primary, Gingrich is vowing to fight on until the very end. In his speech following the results, he was to be seen standing behind a podium donned with the message ‘46 states to go’, and told his supporters that “we are going to contest every place, and we will win”.

Back runners Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have also made their intentions of continuing their campaigns clear. Despite having lost momentum, and more importantly, funding, Santorum and Paul envisage that they will not drop out of the election in the foreseeable future. However, as both become crippled by a drop in funding, and become increasingly dependent on single donations, it is unclear whether they have the resources needed to sustain their campaigns, and whether a continuance in campaigning would yield any tangible results. It is estimated that Romney spent $15.4 million on his Florida campaign. In contrast, Santorum and Paul collectively spent only $900, 000.

Candidates now move to Nevada, where the caucus election is to be held on February 9.

Image courtesy of Associated Press.

Jackson Busse

@jacksonbusse

Australia’s demographic make-up is changing rapidly. AAP Image/Dean Lewins

By Bob Birrell, Researcher at Monash University

One of the sharpest divides in attitudes to Australia Day celebrations is between those who think of Australia as a nation of migrants and those who regard Australians as a unique people and culture.

For those who see Australia as a nation of migrants, evidence of growth in the numbers and diversity of the overseas-born is a cause for celebration. They can claim Australia is becoming an even more exciting multicultural mix. On the other hand, those who think of the Australian identity as a unique outcome of generations of settlers’ encounters with the land are likely to see migration as a challenge.

The latter group are typically proud of the egalitarian value set, down-to-earth lifestyle and sense of place that they believe is the outcome of this experience. For them, the challenge is to use Australia Day to articulate this heritage, in the hope of persuading migrants to embrace it as their own.

The changing face of Australia

Australia’s population has grown rapidly from migration over the past decade. This partly reflects the economic buoyancy triggered by the resources boom and the decisions of successive Australian governments to encourage employers to source their permanent and temporary worker needs from migrants. It has also been driven by the influx of overseas students, almost all coming from Asia. They have been responsible for around a third of the growth in net overseas migration during the past decade.

The result,  according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates, is that the share of Australia’s population born overseas has grown from 23% in 2000 to 26.8% in 2010. Australia is the developed-world champion in this regard, with our nearest rivals being Canada with 21.3% of its population overseas-born in 2010, Sweden with 14.1% and the USA with 13.5%.

In terms of diversity, the outcome is even more striking. Again, according to the ABS, 58% of the migrants who arrived in Australia over the decade 2000 to 2010, who were still here in 2010, were born in Asia, North Africa and the Middle East. As a consequence,  the share of Australia’s total population born in these regions as a percentage of Australia’s total population has grown from 6.7% in 2000 to 10.6% in 2010.

This is a remarkable transformation, considering how controversial Asian migration was in the 1980s. At that time, suggestions from critics that 5% or more of the population might be born in Asia by the early 21st century were regarded as outlandish.

A tale of two cities

A further relevant demographic outcome is that the surge in Asian, North African and Middle Eastern migration has primarily affected Sydney and Melbourne, since most choose to live in these two cities. This is largely because that is where the main communities from these countries are established.

We await the results of the 2011 Census for up-to-date estimates of settlement patterns. But according to the 2006 Census, 77% of mainland-China-born migrants still in Australia who arrived between 2001 and 2006 were living in Sydney and Melbourne; 75% of the India-born, and 91% of the Lebanon-born. There are still large numbers of UK and New Zealand migrants coming to Australia, but their destinations are largely Perth and South-East Queensland respectively.

Australia is now two nations as regards ethnic diversity. Sydney and Melbourne sharply differ from non-metropolitan Australia and from the other state capitals.

There is only a dim awareness of the magnitude of these demographic changes within the wider community. Nevertheless, such is the scale of the Asian, North African and Middle Eastern presence in Sydney and Melbourne that there can be few residents who have not noticed changes in the ethnic make-up of their community.

A nation divided

The celebration of Australia Day 2012 will reflect the divide in attitudes towards diversity and national identity outline above. For those who embrace the nation-of-migrants perspective, recent demographic developments are an occasion to highlight Australia’s distinctive diversity.

For those who believe a unique, shared culture and way of life has been forged here, an emphasis on diversity may generate a sense of unease and even loss. They would prefer to see their heritage venerated.

I’m afraid demography is against them.

Liked it? Find more articles like this at The Conversation

Miss us? After a short summer hiatus, fastBREAK is back for 2012.

We’re having an underground launch for the new year by taking an evening to look back at how it all began. Every beginning has new challenges, set-backs and fist-bumps to honour first achievements.

fastBREAK: Beginnings
9:00pm – 10:00pm
Thursday 9th February
Surry Hills Library
405 Crown St, Surry Hills
Cost: Free (catering provided)
Bookings: phone Surry Hills Library on 8374 6230 to book your spot!

 So has our crippling desire for “more” actually left us with much “less”?

This is what proponents of ‘collaborative consumption’ believe. Collaborative consumption is about communities sharing resources so that we purchase less goods and therefore produce less waste. It is the notion that we should ‘borrow’ rather than ‘buy’ and ‘share’ rather than ‘own’.

Collaborative consumption is emerging, not only a new sector of the market, but as an entire culture. In fact, last year TIME magazine named it one of the “10 ideas that will change the world”. Entrepreneurs have been quick to recognise the popularity of this growing trend and have developed business models which facilitate the sharing of everything from cars to cakes, fashion to food and even houses.

 In Sydney, where there is an ever increasing number people to borrow from, and a rapidly shrinking amount of space to store things, the collaborative consumption business model is a perfect fit. Lisa Fox, co founder of Sydney based collaborative consumption business Open Shed spoke to Vibewire about how Open Shed is facilitating this new practice  in Australia.

“There is a real movement away from hyper-consumption. People are becoming more aware of all this “stuff” that they have”

Open Shed is a peer to peer rental site which connects those people with ‘stuff’ that they rarely use to the people who want to use it. Owners can list their an item on Open Shed and set the terms of rent. They choose a daily or weekly rental rate and the bond the renter must provide.  Renters log on and search in their area for the item they’re after. Once they find it, they can communicate with the owner to organize when to pick up the item. Like online auction giant Ebay, Open Shed utilizes profiles and feedback to provide greater assurance for both renters and owners. In addition to this, a secret code must be transferred from the renter to the owner for the owner to access their payment. This acts as a ‘virtual handshake’ and ensures that both parties have come to agreement before any payment or transfer of items is made. Items available for rent include everything from golf clubs, bread makers, cameras, suitcases and even an Ipad which is available for rent at $2 a day

Lisa believes that one of the biggest challenges for Open Shed  is shifting people’s habits from ‘owning’ to ‘sharing’. But it seems that Australians have been quick to catch on.

“One guy in Melbourne had put his entire shed on there after we had been online for 3 days”

Open Shed and collaborative consumption is also gaining recognition amongst the business community. After being online for just 7 weeks, Open Shed recently won the Nokia’s In Hindsight competition. This saw them walking away with a prize of $10, 000 and a mentorship program with the CEO of the iconic sports brand, Skins.

 So what does Lisa think is the secret to Open Shed’s success?

Want to make a bit of cash? Have stuff in your garage/cupboard/basement that you never seem to use but think that someone else might need?  Find out what collaborative consumption is all about by visiting www.openshed.com.au and listing your item. But first, check out Open Shed’s ‘How to’ video below. 

 Know any cool businesses based on collaborative consumption? Let us know in the comments section below!

Feminism is dead…and anti-feminism killed it.

Recently, I was directed to an article published last year by Susan J. Douglas entitled ‘Girls Gone Anti-Feminist’, naturally I was intrigued. Douglas, a professor of Communication at the University of Michigan argues that 1970s feminism (stigmatized as dowdy, man-hating and unnecessarily radical) is thought to have already met the goals of the women’s liberation movement. This makes feminism ‘fait accompli’, and contemporary youths immune to any new notion of Feminism. Instead, sniffing, smirking and traipsing off in our glittering Manolo Blahniks.

Reading Douglas’ words, I noticed myself engaged in ferocious head nodding and tsk tsk’ing (which no doubt concerned the fellow passengers in my train carriage). This woman had articulated what I had artlessly repeated time after time: Feminism is polluted, un-cool and un-popular amongst both men and women of my generation. In the post ‘90s enlightened sexism’ phase, we no longer understand there to be a choice between Feminism and anti-Feminism, in fact most of us have resigned to apathy. Feminism is to the young what environmental activism is to Rick Perry–seeking to remedy something that doesn’t even exist.

Have we come as far as we think? Is our nonchalance justified? Pop culture paints a portrait of the independent, essentially free female. The market endorses this idea by encouraging our buying power, trumpeting the notion that goods-goods-goods shall set you free. We accumulate clothes, wax ritualistically, rock up to trendy bars and sip from twenty-two dollar Mojitos because in the words of Destiny’s Child: we are the ‘mommas making dollas’. But the question persists, are we satisfied with our newfound independence? Douglas thinks not, and I am inclined to agree.

The fact is we do these things because chivalry is dead, because women today are forced to vie and compete for male attention and because our gender identity is more muted than ever. This is not post-feminism, “it’s good, old-fashioned, grade-A sexism that reinforces good, old-fashioned, grade-A patriarchy”. But this time we have joined in, validated and ultimately legitimized the oppression. Whilst some of us continue to believe we can have it all, others are more pessimistic and point to the continued sacrifice ‘all’ requires. The legacy of the 1990s gender balance was purchasing and sexual power at the expense of feminine political and economic legitimacy. No great deal of equilibrium there. That is not to say we have not come a long way in these fields, but at what cost to our ‘femaleness’?

On the subject of media power, Douglas has an interesting theory about our own sense of awareness. She dubbs it ‘Media Irony’. Television programmes like Top Model, The Hills, Gossip Girl, The Bachelor, My Super Sweet 16 and so on, parade largely unsavvy girls who make mistake after mistake, hold superficial values, lack substance, exhibit little modesty and then bitch and moan for our entertainment. Why do we watch? Douglas posits it is less about our identification with the contestants and characters, and more about our ability to feel superior when we mock them. We know the media is flattering our intelligence, and we eat it right up.

It seems to me that more and more we relish the downfall of other women. We will call each other ‘whores’ and ‘skanks’ and ‘backstabbing stut-faced ho-bags’ (Janis Ian’s words not mine), if only to build ourselves up. Female unity, girl power and sisterhood have flow the coop; it is every Birkin-toting girl for herself. We have allowed sexism to divide us because we feel threatened by each other.

But if we are aware of our eternal manipulation by the media and corporations, why do we still opt for Anti-Feminism? I will share with you what I think is at the heart of Anti-Feminism: fear, good old-fashioned grade-A panic. We are terrified of winding up spinsters, ‘cat-ladies’ or worse: successful businesswomen who sacrifice their femininity in order to play hardball in a workforce that favors masculine traits. We do not want to be Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada—an ice queen despised by all. We want to be whatsherface who skips out on the industry because her boyfriend feels momentarily neglected as she turns down yet another of his Jarlsberg toasted sandwiches. For us, the important trend to note is how this fear resigns itself to apathy when faced with a real choice: Feminist or not?

Susan Douglas is the author of ‘Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism’s Work is Done’, 2010. Read Susan Douglas’ article online at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5575/girls_gone_anti-feminist

The kinds of roles child soldiers assume are widespread. Not only do they become front-line combatants, but mine sweepers, spies, cooks and sex-slaves can also be found through the ranks of both corrupt government and terrorist forces, with grave outcomes seen in all. Child suicide bombing, perhaps the most disturbing trend to date, is not unheard of either. Particularly pronounced in the Arab-Israeli conflict, terrorist leaders successfully tote the virtues (often via indoctrination) of martyrdom to fresh recruits, usually aged fourteen to fifteen years. If and when these children are arrested, it often emerges that their superiors frame them to appear as though they carried out the task wilfully. Photos of children with the Qur’an and weapons surface and some are even forced to write out a will. In these instances, the project of prosecuting the perpetrator is muddied by their dual role as both perpetrator and victim of a wider, starkly inhumane cultural phenomenon.

Although reports of child suicide bombing have decreased since the scaling down of the War on Terror, the prevalence of child combatants has remained. According to the United Nations, 300, 000 children of the world are currently embroiled in front-line conflict with another 500, 000 in indirect roles such as those mentioned above. By ‘children’, they do not just mean fifteen to seventeen-year-olds. Juvenile combatants are known to be as young as nine. In fact, with the development of lightweight weaponry such as the AK-47, young children are more primed than ever to be abducted by groups such as the infamous Lords Resistance Army. Founded by Joseph Kony, whose very name incites ripples of fear across the African continent, the LRA has abducted an estimated 66, 000 children in Uganda, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1986.

While half of the world’s child soldiers are located in African countries, the problem is not uniquely ‘African’ in nature. Asia and the Middle East are responsible for many thousands of children enslaved into the armed forces with Myanmar providing a unique example. Children between the ages of twelve and eighteen provide one quarter of Myanmar’s military regime, making them the worst single-nation contributor. We should not hesitate to ‘name and shame’ the countries that hold children in their national armies. As of 2011 they also include: Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen.

The question that persists is whether or not it is morally abhorrent to prosecute children for the crimes they commit during war. Although the international community holds a different set of rules for children, nation-states continue to find juveniles guilty of war crimes, such as in the case of Omar Khadr. Perhaps the most controversial trial of a child soldier to date, in 2002, at the age of fifteen, Omar was detained in Guantanamo Bay detention camp by the U.S. government. His detention lasted for seven years before he was finally convicted of five charges including murder and material support for terrorism and jailed for an additional eight years.

To many, this outcome is less than ideal. But what alternatives exist? How do we bring retribution to the victims of violence at the hands of a child? There are two viable substitutions for criminal prosecution. The first is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TCR) and the second, Disarmament Demobilization Reintegration (DDR), both endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council. Although these may not be applicable in all cases, it is crucial that the international community acknowledge and give credence to other means of processing juvenile combatants.

The reasons that children are brought into war are varied. Some are abducted, others volunteer. Regardless of the degree of autonomy with which the child carries out the act, there must be a recognised process among nations through which to determine their guilt. The role of international bodies such as the UN is to deliver this framework. If this occurs, national governments will be empowered to distribute justice with special regard to the status of the child.

The Occupy movement, began four weeks ago in New York, where protesters occupied Wall Street to protest against the 1% in society who thrive on corporate riches while the other 99% are faced with financial and environmental uncertainty and equality. To date there are now 1600 occupations globally.

I first went to inspect the Occupy Sydney movement, last Tuesday and was met with less than 50 people camping out in the upper part of Martin Place, appropriately placed outside the Reserve Bank of Australia. With a few lack lustre police officers standing around, it certainly didn’t demonstrate the same passion and emotion I had witnessed of other global occupations. Attending yesterday’s raid showed quite the opposite, with around 400 people in attendance, it was a lively affair.

In saying that, it certainly wasn’t the thousands people that I expected at the campaign against capitalist greed. It felt like there was a definite core group of passionate protesters who were heavily involved in the democratic proceedings of the general assembly and then a whole load of half hearted spectators and other people using the event as a way to make money, selling t-shirts and pamphlets for unrelated causes (become a Marxist anyone?) Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a stuffy right wing conservative, I fully support the Occupy Sydney movement and all that it stands for, which is an equal society through a fair and true democracy. I felt the other people there were detracting from the whole event and from an outside perspective, made the whole place seem disorganised.

Arriving at the rally, I was met with lively Latin music, with hundreds of people dancing and cavorting around, enjoying a sausage sizzle – it certainly wasn’t what I was expecting of a rally. About half an hour in, the General Assembly got under way and as mentioned before, only a third of the assembled crowd appeared to be involved in the decisions. Whilst a little disorganised, it was great to see so many people out there who are passionate and care so much about the society they live in. Watching the General Assembly communicate via hand signals and pass motions in a wholly democratic way was inspired. There were an array of speakers, and I think this is what is so unique about the Occupy movement; that people from so many parts of society, and so many industry sectors have come together to speak out against the same issues. There were Economic Professors, representatives from various teachers associations, and speakers from another protest happening at the same time, The Chilean Solidarity Movement – who are protesting for the right for free education in Chile.

While all these speakers were excellent and all did an amazing job of articulating the thoughts and feelings of so many, one speaker whose anger and frustration really resonated with me was Warren Smith from the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). He discussed how important it was for the MUA to be with the protesters as it showed a sign of solidarity since they (the MUA) believe in the principals of the movement. He was there to speak out against corporate greed to stop the consistent attacks on working men and women. He addressed some really interesting facts about fuel powerhouse Shell, who have been criticised for employing people to work for cheap labour despite the company earning $35, 000 in profit. Per minute. He mentioned that nothing comes without a struggle, but it would all be worth it. He was the only speaker who I could truly say captured the entire crowds attention and really raised the morale.

The Occupy Sydney movement, won’t be in Martin Place tonight as the future direction of the movement hangs in the balance. The eight days that Sydney was occupied, despite in small numbers, did show in incalcuable ways how much the 99% are defiant that things must change and now. Or simply put it’s time for us to ‘unfuck the world’.

Other things are better enjoyed when combined with something else. One-sided basketball is never quite as exhilarating as playing on a team, against an opposing team. Vegemite and cheese is actually the world’s best sandwich combo, though both are pretty satisfying to begin with.

And finally, something aren’t fun to begin with, and need a helping hand to make them better. Imagine trying to learn the ABC without the song?

The effects of mental illness are horrible for sufferers, who often feel alone, discarded or weak. These perceptions are completely warped by the illness and often affect those who care about the person struggling. Sadly, incidence of mental illness are on the rise, with one in five Australians now effected. Chances are, you know more than one person who has or had suffered from it. According to W.H.O (World Health Organisation) by 2030, depression will be the number one cause of disability.

In a society such as Australia, this is often a difficult concept to understand. We are one of the most economically advantaged countries in the world, yet the sharp cut of “what a first-world problem” when someone experiences a difficulty seldom does anything constructive. The effects are even worse in a sufferer of depression. Mental illness does not discriminate, a fact backed up by findings in the 2004/05 ABS National Health Survey (ABS NHS), showing that 9% of those who reported having a behavioural or mental illness lived in the least disadvantaged socio-economic areas.

So what can be done to help? The 2004/05 ABS NHS reported that in the last fortnight before surveyed, 19% of adults had used some form of medication to support their mental health. This included 27% of people using anti-depressants, 23% using sleeping pills, 10% for anxiety or nerves and other medicinal therapies included increased intake of certain vitamins or minerals and herbal alternatives. Unsurprisingly, 75% of those aged 15 years and over who reported having behavioural or mental problems, also reported having sedentary or low levels of exercise.

Beyond Blue and The Black Dog Institute have both acknowledged the link between exercise and depression treatment and, as Elle Woods so eloquently put it “exercise gives you endorphins, endorphins make you happy.” Exercising with others also increases social contact which has been shown to helps with depression. There’s no better way to exercise with other than by joining a team sport.

Local councils are a great way to make initial contact and many provide links to local sport associations. Even if you’re not the most skilled sport player, short, local competitions are often run in the pre- or post-season (Spring or Autumn depending on the sport) which encourage new players to give it a go. Playing sport has also shown to actually increase energy levels and lift mood, even if the participant is fatigued to being with. Similar to this, according to Beyond Blue, the effects of sport have shown to help block negative thoughts and the effects can last up to several hours after the initial exercise has ceased.

This year, Beyond Blue is aligning itself with Mental Health Week in a massive effort to raise awareness. Mental Health Week runs from Sunday 9 October to Saturday 15 October to coincide with World Mental Health Day on Monday 10 October. Want to be get involved?

Exercise Your Mood is a national fund and awareness raising campaign of The Black Dog Institute. These funds will go towards research into effective diagnosis, treatment, early intervention and the ability to expand their services Australia-wide. Check out how you can be involved here. The Black Dog Institute also holds regular community support groups, community seminars and education sessions, as well as an annual Writing Competition and Photo competition!

Mental illness is a tough hurdle to face, but together, we’re up to the challenge. With time, effort and support, mental illness can be beaten. So let’s get better, together.