During the Bondi Shooting Memorial, A Pair of Politicians Transformed Grief Into Political Gain. This Is Unforgivable.

Grieving individuals crowded around a sprawling expanse of floral tributes near the Bondi Pavilion this week, their voices quietly lifting in a traditional song of peace. Shalom, shalom, they whispered in unison, while grief descended like the leaden clouds above.

This solemn intensity of the occasion was abruptly shattered by shouts: “Albo must go”, and then a retort, “What exactly did you do? You’re in the parliament too.” The song stopped. Bewildered, I looked over.

There, standing at the front of the crowd, surrounded by formally dressed security personnel and journalists, were two figures widely regarded as some of the most egregious opportunists ever to hold office to the Australian parliament.

Amid the press of somberly dressed people, their expressions etched by sadness, the duo stood out, dressed as if to play for the cameras.

Divisive Language In Shared Mourning

A prominent politician, whose political history has been marked by fostering division since entering politics, spoke about liberty and safety and the right to live “without fear”. She stated she wanted purveyors of hate “dealt with”. And reiterated the central theme of her public persona, “Let’s get back the Australia I remember from my youth … I consider the individuals we are bringing to the country. Certain countries they should not be permitted to come here.”

Some of the crowd, among them a man in particular headwear, visibly approved of her empty sentiments, raising their phones to capture them and then pressing even nearer for photographs. “We love you”, “You’re the only one who speaks the truth.”

Not everyone agreed.

“The Australian people reject extremism,” a volunteer told me, as he struggled to process her comments. “Under her preferred policies I wouldn’t be able to be here.”

Presumably the homelands of the civilians hailed as “brave citizens” for offering their lives to confront the gunmen—one nation and Russia—would not be on her approved list either.

An Attack on the Idea of the Nation Itself

In the immediate aftermath of the violence, the predominant public sentiment has been that this was not just a focused act against Jewish Australians, but an assault on the core notion of the country as an welcoming community where fairness and acceptance were held as principles, security for most people most of the time, and religion did not play a defining role.

That this could happen in a place that brings happiness, a site that rivals the nation’s most iconic landmark as an international calling card, was profoundly shocking. History shows that for terror to work its evil, symbolic places are often the chosen objectives and innocent people the collateral damage.

It is the reaction from leaders should so quickly turn to self-interest, vitriol and hair-splitting—concerning whether to address the evident weaknesses in the country's much-vaunted gun laws or the scourge of prejudice—was an even more telling indication of the era we live in.

Naturally, each issue must be addressed, with gravity and meaningfully, not merely by hiding behind process, announcing reviews or calling for increased monitoring.

A Dereliction of Responsibility and the Rise of a Cruel Spectacle

The public are not alone in facing difficult discussions that require more than superficial responses, but when the primary political groups—even in the face of such a loss—cannot find consensus on the fundamentals, that is a dereliction of their responsibility.

Having listened to the self-promoting remarks, I was still taken aback to overhear a flippant comment while the individual made her way through the crowd to leave the vigil: “Next time carry an Israeli flag into the house and see what they do.” To turn this deep loss, which speaks to what commentators have called a deep schism in the country's psyche, into a crude performance is beyond the pale.

This past year, so much of what was once unthinkable has become almost routine. Hateful bigoted, misogynist and antisemitic rhetoric has been excused under the phoney guise of open dialogue, vitriolic groups on the internet have gone unchecked, and anxiety has become pervasive. It is hardly unexpected that under these circumstances some people become susceptible to divisive figures.

Certain analysts call this period a “pivotal moment”—a time when we caught sight of a potential cruel reality, shaped by those with untouchable influence and resources. We can only hope that the assessment of pollsters is correct when they note that people see through those who “seek to exploit grief, hunt for scapegoats and turn anxiety into a divisive tool.”

We cannot allow this cynical political pantomime become the accepted standard. Addressing it will require determination, courage and selflessness, like that displayed by the ordinary people who followed their impulses to defend others at whatever cost.