Mark of disrespect

IF MAKING good decisions was easy, everyone would do it all the time. And there are many moving parts to decision-making: the substance of the decision itself, how you frame it, the timing, the temperature of the room and so on.

Only one of those things needs to be misjudged and instead of nailing your triple axel, you are left flat on your face, sliding undignifiedly across the ice.

There have been a few instances of this since the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It’s beyond me how some cannot suspend their politics for a short time to acknowledge a woman who dedicated her entire life to service and duty.

A woman who was still working two days before she passed, aged 96. A woman who was both the exception and exceptional.

I keep close company with both rampant monarchists and republicans, though I am neither.

I sit firmly in the ‘if it’s not broke then don’t fix it’ camp.

And while I have no particular affection for the monarchy, I do greatly respect our late Queen for her dedication, her measure and her tireless work.

Her service to the public good has been unwavering over decades and was conducted without the gratuitous self-adulation that tends to accompany patronage fuelled by new money.

Devout republican and former Prime Minister Paul Keating summed up the Queen’s commitment to public life in what I consider to be the most elegant and respectful of acknowledgements. He was well able to recognise her great attributes and accomplishments quite separate from his preference for Australia to become a republic.

This nuance has been missing from quarters of our public discourse.

This brings me to the decision by the AFLW to refuse a minute silence for the passing of the Queen last weekend, justified on the basis that it was the Indigenous round and the monarchy is a representation of colonisation.

The attempt to link a modern Queen to colonialism is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst.

The final subordination of the monarchy to the English Parliament occurred in 1689, well before Australia was settled by the British; and Elizabeth did not ascend the throne until 1952, well after the practice of colonialism had been abandoned.

The insinuation that the Queen was a bulwark of colonisation is incorrect and indecent. And it dismisses the great work she did in improving the lives of those who were former subjects of the empire as attitudes changed in the 20th century. In reality, she encouraged their attainment and exercise of selfdetermination and free will.

Perhaps the AFLW can go through its list of corporate sponsors and admonish them for the wrongs of their respective pasts.

I’m sure NAB, the lead AFLW sponsor, will be glad to receive a lecture about how wrong it was to charge dead people for financial advice they did not receive.

This was admitted by NAB during the Banking Royal Commission so any chastisement is more appropriate than trawling through bygone eras and generations past.

This is unlikely given how money talks, although it does show this current activism for the ideologicallydriven, intellectually-vacant rubbish that it is.

The decision is also arrogant given it assumes Indigenous people are monolithic in their view of the monarchy.

Senator Pat Dodson’s emotional statement regarding the Queen helps us to appreciate the practical, direct and positive impact she had on Indigenous Australians.

That impact is more real and tangible than any vacuous blackarmband narrative about the ills of colonialism and the bequeathment of generational collective guilt.

Ultimately, reconciliation is unattainable without mutual respect and recognising the individual contributions of those deserving of it.

Equally egregious is that the AFLW, a women’s sport, has, in its snub, dismissed the innumerable personal achievements of perhaps the greatest female trailblazer of our time. Regardless of your view of the monarchy, there is no denying that the Queen was a prominent leader in a world where circles of influence were largely dominated by men.

She served diligently and was respected across the globe.

That is something women of today should aspire to, rather than malign. And you would think in a nascent league like the AFLW, management would be keen to avoid making decisions which dismiss and disrespect the accomplishments of other women.

But as is often the case, women are, unfortunately, their own worst enemies.

And while well-behaved women seldom make history, one should always aspire to, simultaneously, be dignified and effect positive change.

And we are pushing the proverbial uphill to promote women if the discourse is led by crude indifference.

Evidently, this decision is selfdefeating. It is an example of the modern malaise of people feeling entitled to respect they haven’t yet earned but refusing to give respect to those who have served. Here is one for free: respect goes both ways.

There is a time and place for political statements and now is not the time. The AFLW could do with guidance in both civics and civility.