Guard against polarisation and knee-jerk reactions

I hesitated last weekend before posting on social media a video that was destined to be a hotbed of a hornet’s nest.

But I went ahead because the post was more of an experiment — an attempt at instant investigative journalism, in a way.

Something that we need now, during this global shock wave, because more than ever, we must understand ourselves before we can understand what is happening around us.

After double-checking that the video was legitimate, based on its appearance in mainstream media across a few continents, I wondered how people were going to react to it.

The video shows a woman being arrested in Sydney, Australia, and her child being removed from her arms.

The official police statement reportedly explains that she was not authorised to protest (she was holding a protest sign), among other things, and was later issued with an infringement notice for failing to comply with direction relating to Covid-19 social distancing restrictions.

The reaction of her child and other bystanders, however, paints a more dramatic picture.

The child was screaming — clearly traumatised — and people were asking why the woman was being arrested.

So, I posed this challenge as an introduction to the video: “Lots of different perspectives on this (both sides of the argument were adequately covered in reports).

“But let’s set that aside for a moment. Consider how you would feel if this happened to you.

“The mother, police officers, father and child are all traumatised. Have consideration and compassion for every single player in this situation.

“And then, consider how we can do things differently, together, in the future.”

Responses were understandably polarised — some blamed the mother for taking her child out and getting him involved in protest action.

Others felt the police were too heavy-handed. Another felt the mother pretty much got what she deserved, since her actions could cause the deaths of others.

But my motive for reviewing this upsetting video had nothing to do with picking sides and everything to do with the dangers of polarisation.

As a dear friend later said — so much can be learnt from this period in our history.

So many contradictions have been highlighted and there is much that many of us don’t want to see.

Polarisation, in my view, is toxic.

The number of knee-jerk reactions and ‘triggered’ people on social media over the past several weeks highlights that.

As Australian ambassador and former politician Arthur Sinodinos says in a www.theconversation.com article, the media “is becoming a polarised ‘battleground’, which is dangerous for democracy and science”.

Media culpability aside, we need to check ourselves for our biases.

Because, if you take a step back, you may feel uncomfortably aware that you have many — no matter how liberal or neutral you purport to be.

“When politics are tied inextricably to morals, everything becomes sacred, from guns to flags to race,” argues Stephanie Pappas of www.livestrong.com

“And when sacred values are threatened, people lash out. Debates are no longer disagreement, they’re treason.”

Read that again — debates are no longer disagreement, they’re treason.

As we go about our business, dragging our opinions with us, let us not forget to be kind.

At this stage that’s all we have — and it’s more than enough.