At a Bondi Beach Attack Vigil, A Pair of Politicians Turned Tragedy Into Political Gain. This Is Unforgivable.

Mourners gathered around a sprawling sea of flowers near the iconic pavilion this week, their voices quietly rising in a timeless song of peace. Shalom, shalom, they whispered together, as sorrow descended akin to the leaden clouds above.

This solemn intensity of the occasion was suddenly shattered by cries: “Albo must go”, followed by a rejoinder, “What exactly did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The singing stopped. Bewildered, I glanced around.

There, positioned at the forefront of the crowd, surrounded by formally dressed security personnel and the press, were two individuals widely regarded as among the most egregious opportunists ever elected to the nation's legislature.

Amid the press of modestly dressed people, their expressions contorted by sadness, the pair stood out, attired as if to perform for the media.

Polarizing Rhetoric In Collective Mourning

One figure, whose career has been marked by creating discord since first entering politics, talked about freedom and security and the right to live “without fear”. This individual stated she wanted purveyors of hate “dealt with”. She reiterated the central theme of her career, “Let’s get back the Australia I remember from my youth … I consider the people we are bringing to the country. Certain nations they should not be allowed to come here.”

A portion of the onlookers, including a individual in particular headwear, visibly welcomed her empty words, holding up their phones to record them and then moving even nearer for selfies. “We support you”, “You’re the only one who speaks the truth.”

Not everyone agreed.

“The Australian people reject extremism,” a volunteer remarked, as he struggled to process her comments. “Under her preferred policies I likely would not be able to be here.”

It follows that the nations of origin of the civilians hailed as “brave citizens” for sacrificing their lives to confront the attackers—Syria and another—might not be on her permissible list as well.

A Violent Act on the Concept of the Nation Itself

Following directly of the attack, the overwhelming national feeling has been that this was not just a targeted act against Jewish Australians, but an assault on the very idea of the nation being an welcoming community where fairness and acceptance were held as principles, safety for the majority most of the time, and faith did not play a defining role.

The fact this could happen in a location that brings happiness, a site that rivals the country's most iconic symbol as an international representation, was profoundly shocking. We know that for terrorism to work its evil, symbolic places are always the chosen targets and human beings the tragic consequence.

It is the reaction from leaders should so rapidly turn to self-interest, vitriol and pointless debate—concerning whether to address the obvious weaknesses in the nation’s much-vaunted gun laws or the problem of antisemitism—was an perhaps more telling marker of the era we live in.

Naturally, both must be addressed, with gravity and substantially, not simply by hiding behind process, referring to inquiries or demanding more monitoring.

A Dereliction of Duty and the Emergence of a Cruel Spectacle

Australians are in good company in facing difficult conversations that require more than simplistic responses, but when the primary political groups—even after tragedy—cannot agree on the fundamentals, that is a abdication of their core duty.

Having listened to the self-aggrandising remarks, I was nonetheless stunned to hear a quip as the individual moved through the gathering to depart the memorial site: “Next time carry an Israeli flag into the house and see what they do.” To reduce this deep loss, which speaks to what commentators have called a deep schism in the country's psyche, into a political pantomime is inexcusable.

In recent times, so much of what was once unthinkable has become almost normal. Vile racist, sexist and antisemitic language has been excused under the false guise of free speech, angry mobs online have gone unchecked, and anxiety has become pervasive. It is scarcely unexpected that under these conditions some individuals become prey to demagogues.

Some call the current era a “hinge year”—a phase when we caught sight of a new inhumane order, shaped by those with untouchable power and wealth. We can only hope that the observation of analysts is accurate when they note that the public recognize those who “seek to weaponise grief, search for easy targets and turn fear into a wedge.”

We cannot allow this cruel political pantomime become the new normal. Addressing it will require determination, bravery and selflessness, like that displayed by the ordinary people who acted on their instincts to protect others at any cost.