(Image: Private Media)
(Image: Private Media)

In Everyday Dilemmas, Dr Leslie Cannold uses her ethical training to help solve your problems. Send your questions to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. She might even reply…

Dear Leslie,

A scorned senator no one has ever heard of takes pot-shots at the PM on her way out of Parliament and every paper in the land runs with it. Sour grapes, surely? And who cares? This woman backed Peter Dutton over Malcolm Turnbull and voted to let celebrants refuse to marry gay people. Good riddance, I say.

Leftie Lou

Dear Leftie,

I agree there’s been generous coverage of Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells’ angry departure speech after she’d been bumped to what all agree is an unwinnable position on the NSW ticket. Because she has long been a favourite of the right, even The Australian has given the senator’s parting shots space, while the left would run the wisdom of a chicken if it squawked “ScoMo sucks”.

More interesting — or maybe it’s depressing — is your assumption that all losers should be expected to be sore losers, and that if we disagree with someone’s politics their dispatch through dicey political machinations shouldn’t worry us.

I disagree with both these claims on the same grounds: that good politics is all about playing fair. While we have seen way too much poor sportsmanship in the political arena of late, this should not be seen as inevitable. Rather it should be viewed like our child storming off the basketball court when she’s fouled and refusing to shake hands with the kids who won. Totally unacceptable.

The only time failing to concede — not graciously but at all — is OK is when the fight wasn’t fair. But you can’t just assert this under parliamentary privilege and expect it to be taken seriously. It needs to be done outside Parliament and through the courts (where the case currently is) because that’s where evidence is required and can be thoroughly tested.

If Fierravanti-Wells really has been shafted in an unfair process we should all care, whether we agree or disagree with her politics. We can’t have a functioning democracy if that happens, and if you don’t speak up for her there’ll be no one to speak up for the candidates you like when it’s their turn to be shafted.

Leslie

Dear Leslie,

I am so upset I’ve had to write to you about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock on TV. How can people defend this? How many years have we been saying violence is never OK and then on international television Will Smith blows it all away? Can you just restate for the record that violence is never right?

Once-was-bashed

Hi Once-was-bashed,

There has been a lot of emotion around this altercation played out live on TV at the Academy Awards, no less in front of millions of viewers worldwide. If ever there was an opportunity to signpost and demonstrate how far contemporary societies have come in their understanding and condemnation of male violence, this was it.

But you’re right. So far the response has been mixed. This can be seen on social media, where comments range from support for Smith for standing up for “his woman” or against “bullying” of people with physical disabilities to condemnations that precisely match yours: that violence can never be justified, period.

Certainly this is the view expressed by Smith in what is by far the best public apology I have ever seen. I’d strongly advise you to read the whole thing, but for our purposes this line is key:

My behaviour … was unacceptable and inexcusable … I am embarrassed and my actions were not indicative of the man I want to be. There is no place for violence …

Ethics isn’t about deciding between what you want and what’s right. It’s about deciding between two positions, both of which are understandable, and determining the unforgivable. While I want to be crystal clear that you are 100% correct that violence can never be justified, it’s helpful to consider the reason why this conflict has drawn so much heat and light that Twitter says it’s the issue that’s drawn the most engagement on the platform ever.

I think it’s because when it comes to morality, the backstory, reasons and motivations of those involved do — and should — matter to how we judge them.

When it comes to Smith’s aggression, it matters that he witnessed male violence against his mother as a young child, and what motivated his unacceptable behaviour was the pain on his wife’s face. Plus that what he was reacting to was classic “punching down” — the pointing and laughing from on high at someone vulnerable — which is itself questionable.

Do any of these things mean Smith should not be held fully accountable for his unacceptable behaviour? Absolutely not. But once restitution is made, it does shed light on the question of forgiveness. Because as he has said, he is, like us all, “a work in progress” — and none of us wants to be judged on the worst thing we’ve done in this life.

Sincerely,

Leslie

Send your dilemmas to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity.