(Bloody) Oath

Last week, it was announced that Australian Girl Guides would no longer swear allegiance to God or the Queen. Although there has been some media comment, and a minor kafuffle on talkback radio, the new version has been well accepted, except by Bert, and Bert isn’t happy.

The existing verse that Girl Guides recite included reference to both the Queen and God.

I promise that I will do my best;
To do my duty to God,
To serve the Queen and my country
To help other people
and keep the Guide law.

The new, inclusive version is here:

I promise that I will do my best
To be true to myself and develop my beliefs
To serve my community and Australia
And live by the Guide Law.

We heard Bert’s sincere disapproval on 612ABC Brisbane’s Cereal Box segment this morning. He was so incensed that he wanted to round up all the Girl Guides and send them to Afghanistan for not recognising the Queen. Now Bert’s an ex-Nasho, and ex-Public Servant and he’s always sworn allegiance to the Queen. In mu opinion, he's also a silly old goat, but I don’t think that requires a sworn oath of any kind.

Surprise, surprise, neither does being a Girl Guide. After all, it’s girls, some as young as seven, making a promise, not declaring an Oath. In fact, the Girl Guides call it that: it’s the Promise, and I think it’s entirely appropriate for young people to make a promise that is relevant to them.

When Julia Gillard, an atheist, became Prime Minister, she had the option of taking an oath or an affirmation. The difference is that the Oath is religious in nature, and the Affirmation is not. She was roundly criticised by conservatives and Christian groups for choosing the Affirmation, which does not mention God. I consider Ms Gillard’s choice was the only truthful alternative. How could she swear an oath which includes a God she doesn’t believe in? Wouldn’t that have been the height of hypocrisy? It’s a no-win situation: she is criticised for not observing prayers, yet every time she sets foot inside a church, particularly for state funerals, she is criticised for that too.

Bert was passionate in his determination that Girl Guides who did not recognise the Queen were unworthy somehow. It’s important for Bert to understand that an Oath, or Affirmation, or Promise is a deeply personal experience. It needs to mean something to the person who is swearing their Oath. It’s pointless swearing allegiance to a religion, a god, or a monarch that has no significance to you.

At this stage, both options still acknowledge our monarch, as do the Oath and Affirmation for servicemen and women joining the Australian Defence Force. There’s a good reason for that: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is still our head of state.

I asked Rob about his Oath: it was before there was a choice of an Affirmation available, so he spoke the words about the Queen and God with one hand on the Australian flag, but the words did not hold literal meaning for him. He was swearing his allegiance to Australia, promising to do all in his power as a soldier to protect Australia. The words that were written down (see below) weren’t entirely relevant or irrelevant, but he made them personal. It’s the personal vow that Rob held onto, because that’s the one that held meaning for him.

And the Girl Guides have done the same thing. After a project lasting for about a year, the Australian Girl Guides found the right words that allowed people making the Guides Promise to find their own meaning, regardless of religion, skin colour, origin, or political preferences. The Promise includes the words, “to Serve my Community and Australia”, and Bert can assume that clause includes Australia’s head of state, The Queen.

The World Association for Girl Guides has ratified the new wording, noting that it ensures that today’s Guides and those of the future will be included, rather than excluded, from the Promise. The Queen might be an important figure in Bert’s life, but irrelevant in the life of a seven year old girl who was born in Thailand or Kenya or Argentina, in the same way that swearing allegiance to a Christian god would make no sense for a Buddhust, Hindu, Jedi or atheist.

I hope Bert continues to hold dear the words he spoke all those years ago, because they mean so much to him. Australia needs her history (and people like Bert to keep it alive), but she also needs a future that is inclusive of everyone who may be willing and able to serve, whether it’s as a politician, a public servant, a member of the Defence Force or a Girl Guide. No-one wants to take away Bert’s Oath or challenge his beliefs.

Bert’s Oath is Bert’s Oath. The Girl Guides are simply helping the next generation to find words that mean as much to them as Bert’s Oath means to him.

Twetiquitte

Social media has opened the channels of communication between politics, media and the public, giving us in the cheap seats unprecedented access to the movers and shakers in our world. This is particularly true of Twitter, where the short message format of 140 characters means communication must be to the point. No-one expects a deep and meaningful conversation about values on Twitter, which is good. They rarely happen.

Of course not everyone is on Twitter, so not everyone has this experience. Some don’t want to, some don’t know how to, some don’t see the benefits, and others only see the risks. Whatever the reason, those who haven’t taken up the Twitter invitation are missing out on two levels: firstly, they are not privy to the information flow which is now my primary source of news; and secondly, they can’t contribute to it. There’s a whole world on Twitter and they don’t see it.

More and more, it’s becoming a choice to opt out, rather than a choice to opt in.

The other factor is that people who don’t use Twitter and aren’t part of the “Twitterverse” may not understand it. As with any society, there are standards of behaviour and etiquette to be observed. Within that, there are subcultures with their own “cool” language and their own version of what’s okay and what’s not.

Just last week, Brisbane’s BMag ran a story by reporter Laura Stead, entitled Brisbane’s Top Tweeters. It caused a few ripples amongst the Twitter folk I run with, because it seemed as though she was reporting on a parallel Twitterverse, where the rules were different and so were the people. Ms Stead proposed four major rules for tweeting:

Twitter etiquette

• It’s ok to follow people you don’t know – they can choose whether or not to follow you back.
• It’s better to message someone rather than tweet if you’re making plans or having a personal conversation.
• It’s also ok to openly tweet a reply to a question asked by direct message if you think your
audience could benefit from your response.
• Promote and support others as well as promoting yourself – it’s a nice way to show
support for your community.

I was particularly concerned by her version of Twitter Etiquette (above), which is a little different to mine, and those of the thousand or so people I interact with on Twitter. Points 1, 2 and 4 are basically okay, but anyone who was to follow the third point might find themselves embarrassed.

Just yesterday, I saw an instance where a very experienced and popular tweeter sent a DM (Direct Message, which cannot be seen by anyone other than the sender and the recipient) to a radio personality who has chosen not to tweet, although he and his producer have access to the radio station’s twitter account. The radio man, not understanding the rules, then shared the content of the DM on the airwaves. That’s simply bad form: it's twignorance.

At the opposite end of the twittersphere is Paul Murray Live, a news/chat/commentary show on Foxtel’s Sky News Australia. Last night, Mr Murray mentioned Independent MP Rob Oakeshott on air, and invited viewers to tweet their response to an anti-Oakeshott campaign being run by the National Party. One of the tweeps who responded was Mr Oakeshott himself, who will be most likely appearing on PM Live tonight as a result of that random tweet last night. The difference here is that both participants knew how to conduct themselves on Twitter. Oakeshott, who tweets as @OakeyMP, agreed via Twitter to appear on the show, but arrangements were to be made this morning, off Twitter.

Ms Stead’s BMag piece completely misinterpreted what it takes to be a top tweeter. It’s certainly not about the number of followers, as was suggested in the article. As social media, it’s about engaging with the tweeps you follow, and with those who follow you. Photographer Greg Wilson was noted in the article for having over a million twitter followers across a range of twitter accounts. Bully for him. Does having a swag of followers provide anything of value for Mr Wilson? If his purpose was to amass millions of followers, he’s well on his way. If it was for something different - driving traffic to a website, engaging, making new friends - has he achieved his goals?

BMag also included the @QPSMedia account as one of their Top Tweeters, and that’s entirely justified. QPS's Twitter account is a great service. They provide timely information, they engage with their tweeps, they share some really bad puns, and they’ve earned their place as cluey users of social media.

Spencer Howson, who introduced both Mr Wilson and I to Twitter, would be one of Brisbane’s Top Tweeters. With around 7,000 followers, he’s far short of the million plus reach of Mr Wilson, but the difference is in engagement. Spencer, who also writes for BMag in addition to his regular gig as 612ABC Brisbane’s breakfast host, makes a point of engaging with his followers daily. He understands that Twitter is not a broadcast medium; it’s a means of personal communication with many people at a time, much like radio.

It’s not about the numbers; it’s about the people. It’s the “social” in social media.