(Image: Private Media)

Leslie Cannold has had enough of being even-handed and presenting Both Sides Now. She wants to cut to the chase: what’s the right way to go? In her new column, Dr Cannold brings her ethical training to everyday dilemmas. Send your questions to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. She might even reply…

Dear Leslie,

I am appalled at those who attended that engagement party in Melbourne, violating every lockdown rule and laughing about it. But because I’m also Jewish, I feel a bit embarrassed. And responsible. Am I?

Shamefaced in Balaclava

Dear Shamefaced,

OMG, don’t get me going about that engagement party. I’ve been fuming about it all week! The blatant disregard of rules designed to keep others safe and that everyone else is complying with despite the hardship. The high levels of amusement about that fact evinced by most of the 69 attendees, among them not just the groom-to-be who is an aspiring lawyer, but two medical doctors.

Then, and this really gets my goat, the decision of attendees of this illicit and now confirmed super-spreader event to trip merrily through the shops in the area — including the Coles — confining hundreds to the hardship and misery of 14 days of isolation. Grrrrrrr. It’s totally, absolutely outrageous.

But here’s the thing. Unless you were there or knew about it beforehand but did nothing to stop it, morally speaking you are in the clear.

I’m not dismissing your sense of embarrassment and guilt. I’m Jewish and have been fighting off both feelings all week, as have some of my Jewish friends. But while this episode has and will almost certainly continue to cause anti-Semites to crawl out from under their rocks and spew their abominable lies and hate, the truth is that the most morally egregious aspects of this gathering have nothing to do with the Jewishness of the attendees.

It has to do with their character — and, sadly, self-serving and arrogance comes in all shapes, faiths and colours.

Having said that, I don’t think there is any harm for individuals or groups representing minority communities to distance themselves from the heinous behaviour of their members. Such personal distancing is not an obligation, of course, but at a time when our interdependence and sense of collective obligation is heightened, it can’t hurt.

I know I felt better when former Labor MP Philip Dalidakis said on Facebook that while the event was “not representative of the overwhelming Jewish community” those who took part “should be ashamed” and be “dealt with in the strongest possible terms”.

Dalidakis said something else important, too: “The level of indifference to the health impacts of our wider community is appalling. The insular behaviour of those involved who have hidden behind religious observance or used other loopholes (incl health support exemptions) to continue to meet is outrageous.”

If Dalidakis is right that one Melbourne religious community is taking advantage of the special privileges it’s been granted to avoid the worst of lockdown, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts other religious groups are too. And if that’s the case, as Melbourne stands on a knife-edge regarding the current outbreak of COVID-19, perhaps it’s high time for the religious exemption to go.

Indeed, given the secular nature of a state like Victoria, it’s hard to understand why it was granted in the first place.

Dear Leslie,

I understand the concept of one-vote-one-value in a democracy, but that’s not exactly how it works in my marginal electorate. That’s because most of the small proportion of voters who decide the outcome have absolutely no interest in politics or the issues — so surely the value of their uninterest and apathy isn’t equivalent to my passionate interest and political engagement and therefore they shouldn’t get a full vote?

Marginal Voter

Hi, Marginal,

Your letter reminds me of Churchill’s famous observation that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

But while the witticism makes me smile, it raises the same question as your letter. Is it the theory of democracy that’s the problem, or the practice, particularly as that practice plays out in your corner?

If the very idea of one-person-one-vote irks you, that makes you an epistocrat — someone who supports epistocracy thinks, like you do, that those who know nothing, or less than nothing, about the workings of the world should have less influence on how it runs than those who know a lot.

But while this sounds sensible, the devil is in the implementation. What does the informed voter need to know about, and how informed do they need to be to retain an equal vote? What if I have PhD-level knowledge about a South American snail but can talk sensibly about little else? What if I’m a repository of ancient Aboriginal language and traditions but didn’t finish high school? Who decides and how? Through the presentation of a college degree? A score on a test?

I’m actually a fan of Australia’s compulsory voting system precisely because it engages those you call apathetic. Universal voting moderates the hyper-partisanship tearing strips off democracy in places like the United States, where only highly engaged voters like yourself participate, and by so doing drag the extremes further left and right.

If it’s the practice of democracy in your corner of the world that’s bothering you, the way I see it is, you’re lucky.

Those in marginal seats have waaaaaay more chance of influencing policies in your electorate and the composition of the next government than someone in a safe seat. Not through being granted an extra-weighty vote for being so smart, but by having access to the handful of voters who — if you can influence them — can turn the vote your way.

So why not get organised and find out more about these folks who you live among and are your neighbours? Everyone has things they care about, things that offend and disgust them, and things that they want.

With less than a year until the federal election, the time to engage, activate and persuade them to your point of view is now.

Send your dilemmas to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line and you could get a reply from Dr Cannold in her new column. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity.