# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The BBC has received 266 complaints over a scene in The Vicar Of Dibley which referenced the Black Lives Matter movement.

Dawn French's character Reverend Geraldine Granger took the knee and delivered a sermon about racism in a special Christmas episode which aired last week.

The BBC has previously defended the scene, saying in a statement it "was in keeping with the character and the theme of the show".

Earlier this month, French also appeared to dismiss complaints about the scene.

Amid criticism on social media from some who claimed the scene showed a lack of impartiality from the BBC, she tweeted: "A lovely calm day, full of humanity, compassion and support all round...".

The 63-year-old later clarified in the comments that she was being "a tad ironic".

The scene shows French's character being filmed by parishioner and farmer Owen Newitt as she tells the audience she has been preoccupied with the "horror show" of George Floyd 's death and the Black Lives Matter movement.

Floyd, an unarmed Black man, was killed in May while being arrested by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota, sparking anti-racism protests around the world.

In the scene, the vicar said that Dibley, the fictional Oxfordshire village in which the show is set, is "not the most diverse community".

She added: "But I don't think it matters where you are from. I think it matters that you do something about it, because Jesus would, wouldn't he?

"And, listen, I am aware all lives matter, obviously, but until all lives matter the same we are doing something very wrong.

"So I think we need to focus on justice for a huge chunk of our countrymen and women who seem to have a very bad, weird deal from the day they are born."

She then walks to the parish noticeboard and tears down two posters, one about decimalisation and the other about a missing button.

She said: "I think that in Dibley perhaps we should think about taking down some of these old notices like this and that, and perhaps we should put up one like this instead."

After replacing them with a home-made Black Lives Matter poster, she takes the knee.

The 266 complaints came between December 7 and 20, according to the BBC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hundreds Complain To BBC Over The Vicar Of Dibley's Black Lives Matter Scene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The BBC has received 266 complaints over a scene in The Vicar Of Dibley which referenced the Black Lives Matter movement. Dawn French's character Reverend Geraldine Granger took the knee and delivered a sermon about racism in a special Christmas episode which aired last week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The problem with Kanye West's fashion show

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The controversial artist and Yeezy designer's Paris Fashion Week presentation was nothing short of racism.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/flint-water-crisis-whistleblower-shares-story-of-her-immigration-from-iraq_n_633d4167e4b0b7f89f4660c6

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Social media feuds behind rise in London murders, says senior ex-police superintendent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social media feuds behind rise in London murders, says senior ex-police superintendent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The murder rate in London has dropped. but the number of teenagers killed has risen

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/4/9/a-law-against-islam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
France's 5.7 million-strong minority Muslim population is the largest in Europe [File: Thibault Camus/AP Photo]

A bid by the French Senate to ban girls under 18 from wearing the hijab in public has drawn condemnation, with the hashtag #HandsOffMyHijab circulating widely on social media.

The hijab is a headscarf worn by many Muslim women and has been the subject of a decades-long feud in France.

The French Senate's move comes as part of Paris's push to introduce a so-called "anti-separatism" bill which it says aims to bolster the country's secular system, but critics have denounced, arguing it singles out the minority Muslim population.

While debating the proposed legislation on March 30, senators approved an amendment to the bill calling for the "prohibition in the public space of any conspicuous religious sign by minors and of any dress or clothing which would signify inferiority of women over men".

The ban is not yet law, with France's National Assembly required to sign off on the change before it can take effect.

But a backlash to the amendment was swift, with some suggesting the proposed rule amounted to a "law against Islam".

"Age to consent to sex in France: 15 Age to consent to hijab: 18 Let that sink in. It isn't a law against the hijab. It's a law against Islam. #Handsoffmyhijab #FranceHijabBan," one Twitter user wrote.

Age to consent to sex in France: 15
Age to consent to hijab: 18
Let that sink in. It isn't a law against the hijab. Its a law against Islam. #Handsoffmyhijab #FranceHijabBan

- Manar منار (@RockThrowA) April 4, 2021

Another posted: "I thought we already had this covered. Forcing a woman to wear a hijab is wrong. Just like forcing her to take it off is wrong. It's HER choice."

I thought we already had this covered.

Forcing a woman to wear a hijab is wrong. Just like forcing her to take it off is wrong.

It's HER choice.

- Najwa Zebian (@najwazebian) April 4, 2021

The issue also attracted the attention of several high-profile figures.

On Instagram, Olympic athlete Ibtihaj Muhammad shared a post suggesting the Senate's amendment indicated "Islamophobia is deepening in France".

"This is what happens when you normalize anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim hate speech, bias, discrimination, and hate crimes - Islamophobia written into law," the post said.

Amani al-Khatahtbeh, founder of Muslim Women's Day and the website Muslim Girl, also weighed in on the controversy.

"No government should regulate how a woman can dress, whether to keep it on or take it off," she tweeted, referencing the hijab.

On a trip to France 3 years ago the border police forced me to remove my scarf to enter the country even though I wore a scarf in my passport photo.

No government should regulate how a woman can dress, whether to keep it on or take it off. #handsoffmyhijab #FranceHijabBan pic.twitter.com/VfuHi02Gqj

- AMANI (@xoamani) April 6, 2021

Somali-born model Rawdah Mohamed suggested the French Senate's move had put it on "the wrong side of equality".

"The Hijab ban is hateful rhetoric coming from the highest level of government and will go down as an enormous failure of religious values and equality," she posted on Instagram.

The National Assembly, France's lower chamber which is dominated by President Emmanuel Macron's centrist La République En Marche (LREM) party, voted overwhelmingly in favour of the bill on February 16 before it was passed up to the conservative-led Senate.

The legislation has been debated in a highly charged atmosphere in France after three attacks late last year, including the beheading on October 16 of teacher Samuel Paty, who had shown his students caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad during a lesson on free speech.

The law does not specifically mention the word Islam, but French Muslims have for months protested against it, saying several of its measures single them out.

Amnesty International last month warned the proposed law posed a "serious attack on rights and freedoms in France" and called for "many problematic provisions" of the bill to be scrapped or amended.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Law against Islam': French vote in favour of hijab ban condemned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bid by the French Senate to ban girls under 18 from wearing the hijab in public has drawn condemnation, with the hashtag #HandsOffMyHijab circulating widely on social media. The hijab is a headscarf worn by many Muslim women and has been the subject of a decades-long feud in France.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Siara Rao and Regina Jackson are the authors of "White Women: Everything You Already Know About Your Own Racism and How to Do Better." They also founded Race2Dinner, an organization that hosts dinners with liberal white women to help them explore their part in white supremacy. Deconstructing Karen

People have long sought forgiveness for their transgressions. In days past, they may have turned to penance, confession or even self-flagellation. Today, white women shell out $2,500 to be told how racist they are.

That's the business model of Race2Dinner, an organization co-founded by Regina Jackson and Siara Rao in 2019. One white woman volunteers to host a dinner party at her home, and eight to 10 others join for a two-hour session with the founders - one who is black, the other Indian American - to discuss their role in perpetuating white supremacy.

Their dinners are for you if "you want to build a racial identity - a white identity - that is not based on whiteness, white supremacy or the oppression of Black, Indigenous or other people of color," its website reads.

Seats are reserved solely for liberal white women. According to Jackson and Rao, women who voted for Trump are a lost cause. And men aren't even worth talking to.

"We don't even engage with white men at Race2Dinner," Lisa Bond, the company's self-proclaimed "resident white woman," recently told John Stewart on his new Apple TV show. "Because, quite honestly, if white men were going to do something about racism, you had 400 years."

Now, those who can't afford the luxury of being scolded in person can be guilted at a discount with Jackson and Rao's new book, " White Women: Everything You Already Know About Your Own Racism and How to Do Better," publishing on Nov. 1 by Penguin Books (described by the authors as a "white institution").

In it, the authors address white women directly:
"If you're reading this, you are most likely white. Most of what's here, you already know. You've known it your whole life. After all, it's you - white people - who created white supremacy, who benefit from white supremacy, who uphold white supremacy. "A critical component of upholding white supremacy is employing a feigned ignorance that brings you here, to these pages, asking a Black woman and a brown woman to explain to you the nuances of this script; a script you wrote, directed, and produced, and from which you've amassed dizzying wealth and power. A critical component of our work is radical honesty. On our part, sure, but - more crucially - on yours. "Resist the urge to exceptionalize yourselves," they warn readers, "to set yourselves apart from the women and scenarios and behaviors we discuss in these pages. You are them. They are you. Yes. You. Are. YES. ALL. WHITE. WOMEN."
The women who sit at Race2Dinner's table - or read their book - are bound to squirm in their struggle sessions. That's by design. "The pain and hurt and discomfort are not ancillary to anti-racism work," Jackson and Rao write. "They are the guts of it."

Naturally, the women who flock to their dinner tables are looking to help in the fight against racism. But the answer they're offered is simple - and disempowering: everything they do to help the cause is actually hurting the cause.

Just looking at White Women's table of contents hammers that home. Some chapter titles: "Your Nice Is Actually Evil," "Every Time You Say Love Trumps Hate, You Are Enabling Hate to Flourish," and "Your Quest for Perfection Is Killing Us. And You."

According to the authors, it's perfection - "a white woman's goal in life" - that stands in the way of being a better anti-racist.

"You cannot even start the process of extracting white supremacy from your being until you extract the need to be perfect," they write. "Anti-racism work depends on your acknowledging your imperfections, namely how you have been born into and nurtured by a white supremacist society."

But, once you divorce yourself from the need to be perfect, you'll soon find that there's absolutely nothing you can do right as a white woman who wants to advocate for racial progress. In fact, to Rao and Jackson, you're the precise opposite of perfect.

Remember when Martin Luther King dreamed that his children "will not be judged on the color of their skin but by the content of their character?"

Well, any advocacy for "colorblindness," according to the authors, is actually a sign you're racist, too. And it's an "abusive misinterpretation" of King's words that enables you "to ignore the very real harm of systemic inequalities."

Think you're being helpful by calling yourself an ally for racial change? Wrong. The authors define an ally as "a white person who thinks they are doing the right thing, on the right side of history." But, they chide, "you are so wedded to your good intentions that you are unable to see how your actions are harmful even when we tell you that they are. To your face. Repeatedly."

Think having a non-white spouse or biracial children means you can't be a white supremacist? False! "Reality: You can't f-k your way out of racism."

Think you're not a racist? Also wrong. Jackson and Rao say the claim "I am not racist" is "a statement made by white people that we hear as 'I am very racist.'"

Surely it's a good thing to want to be involved immediately when racial violence is exposed, such as after a police killing, right? Nope. According to the authors that means you're guilty of "White Urgency," and it's a surefire sign you will be "the first to lose interest once it [becomes] clear that anti-racism is a lifelong practice and journey and not a one-day sample sale."

Think being positive and providing a glimmer of hope might be helpful in tense conversations? No, say Jackson and Rao. That's "toxic positivity"- as they define it, "a white woman's need to bright side everything which requires sidelining and erasing talk of oppression."

Or how about just simply being nice? No, no, also bad. According to the authors, it's "something white women aspire to, which means smiling to your face and stabbing you in the back."

Given up yet? Ok, fine. How about just shutting up and promising to "listen and learn"? Well, that's also "a white euphemism for 'I already know and don't care.'"

The bottom line here: liberal white women can't win. No matter what you do, you're irredeemably racist and part of the problem as a consequence of your skin color.

As a white woman, I am supposedly the author's target demographic, and I do believe that talking about racism and grappling with our complicated history is a necessary step in paving a path forward. But Jackson and Rao's mission does not guide the way to a brighter future. It saddles white women with collective guilt and gives them no hope or actionable advice.

Rather than bridging divides and emphasizing common humanity, Jackson and Rao are exacerbating the racial divide. They are telling well-intentioned white women they have no agency, no power to make change happen. There is nothing we can do in the name of progress except pay the authors for redemption in order to cleanse ourselves of the original sin of being born white.

Jackson and Rao have built a profitable business model predicated on cynicism. And I, for one, am not buying it.
Rikki Schlott is a Post columnist and writer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authors say all 'White Women' are to blame for racism - but I'm not buying it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People have long sought forgiveness for their transgressions. In days past, they may have turned to penance, confession or even self-flagellation. Today, white women shell out $2,500 to be told how racist they are. That's the business model of Race2Dinner, an organization co-founded by Regina Jackson and Siara Rao in 2019.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/04/shell-chief-tax-energy-firms-ben-van-beurden-gas-electricity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shell chief: governments may need to tax energy firms to help the poor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ben van Beurden also warns against EU moves to cap price of gas and electricity to protect consumers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fundamental Errors of Jordan Peterson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A critical reading of the controversial Psychology professor's book, '12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Giorgia Meloni presents a danger to the democratic balance in Europe. Her leadership looks to be the antithesis of what Italy needs - and not just at this difficult moment.

The danger arises for Europe because Italy has always been a laboratory: it has foreshadowed the crises of other countries. Italy had Mussolini before Hitler and the leftwing extremist Red Brigades before Action Directe appeared in France and the Red Army Faction followed suit in Germany. Italy had Berlusconi before the US got Trump. And after years of Berlusconi misrule, Italy produced the Five Star Movement, the first populist party led by a comedian, before the rest of Europe caught up. Five Star's agenda was political disruption, often without any thought to the consequences.

Meloni's moral and economic inspiration is Viktor Orbán, the man who in recent years has destroyed the opposition in Hungary and achieved legitimacy by weaponising popular consensus. He has provided an ephemeral sense of security but Hungarians have paid for it dearly in the form of economic instability and, above all, the loss of their rights.

The European parliament declared earlier this month that Hungary could no longer be considered a full democracy. Elections take place, but European norms and democratic standards are systematically ignored to the point that Hungary is now an "electoral autocracy". MEPs from Italy's populist League and thefar-right Brothers of Italy voted against the resolution, and how could they do otherwise? Meloni has never made any secret of collaborating closely with Orbán and his allies in pursuing the common goal of strengthening the European hard right in the name of respect for national sovereignty, defence of the natural family, Christian identity and the social market economy.

The pair have advertised their meetings with friendly selfies on social media. After all, they sing from the same socially conservative hymn sheet on abortion, LGBT rights and migration. They share a goal: societies based not on individual rights guaranteed by European law but on sovereign authoritarianism.

Not even a recent report from the Hungarian parliament's economic watchdog, which warned that an increase in female graduates and female representation in the workforce disadvantages men, threatens population growth and the economy, caused Meloni to question her support for Orbán.

Moreover, the enthusiasm she shows about Hungary's economic policies, especially its flat tax, betrays her naivety and should raise alarm about a financial meltdown in Italy on her watch.

It is in her support for people like Orbán that we see what appears to be the real danger posed by Giorgia Meloni.

Meloni's party has succeeded in expanding its electoral base in Italy over the years by poaching militants from other parties ready to jump on what was supposed to be a winner's bandwagon. This high-risk strategy has worked although it has drawn the Brothers of Italy into controversy and several ongoing judicial investigations, into candidates' alleged involvement in corruption, extortion, sleaze and illegal waste disposal. Yet Meloni has been able to reaffirm her credibility by expelling troublemakers and publicly distancing them. The only figures it seems she has difficulty disowning are politicians whose identity is built on far-right ideology.

Meloni denies that she is a fascist. I don't think it is the most important point of her party's programme, but it is worth addressing. it is a simple game: parties whose lineage can be traced back to neo-fascist movements have gone to lengths to detoxify and soften their image, declaring their opposition to antisemitism, racism and the historical fascist experience.

Meloni dog-whistles to her neo-fascist political ancestors with the Mussolini-era slogan "God, homeland, family". She did it in 2019, screaming from the stage at a rally in San Giovanni: "I am Giorgia, I am a woman, I am a mother, I am Italian, I am a Christian." She reaffirmed it in the same year, at the World Congress of Families in Verona, where she was even more explicit, promising: "We will defend God, the homeland and the family".

During an interview in the current election campaign, she said that " Dio, patria, famiglia " (God, homeland, family) was not a fascist slogan, but a beautiful declaration of love. To those who remember with a shudder that it was everywhere during the fascist regime, daubed on the walls of villages, at the entrances of offices and printed in school books, she countered that the original quote was from the Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini.

God, for her, does not seem to represent faith, but rather a brand of Catholicism imposed as the only religion worthy of rights. The homeland's borders must be defended, with violence if necessary, and the family is not the cradle of affection, but of imposition, obligation and prescription. The family is always heterosexual, its children born and recognised in the imposed form.

Meloni'sreal beliefs and goals may not appear exactly the same, but her words can often carry echoes of Mussolini. Her speeches play on the need for identity,on the very human fear of being marginalised or going unrecognised.In her hands identity becomes a propaganda tool for dividing the world into Us and Them, where "they" are LGBTQ+ communities, migrants or those who don't see themselves represented in established structures or the labels imposed by others. The impression given is that they are the bad people, who jeopardise the identity of the entire nation. Totalitarianism has, since time began, leveraged such fears to convince people to voluntarily deprive themselves of their own rights, on the promise of being defended from an external enemy.

Although she denies any connection to fascism, Meloni appears to want to retain support from the wing of the radical right who consider her party too moderate, and only vote for it to make up the numbers against the left. Fully repudiating the party's fascist roots, it seems, would mean losing a lot of these votes.

On the other hand, continued association with neo-fascism would put Meloni in a very uncomfortable position internationally. She has opted therefore for a rebrand, but it is partial. The Brothers of Italy keeps the same logo - an Italian tricolour in the form of a flame - used by the now-defunct neo-fascist Italian Social Movement (MSI), founded in 1946 by such regime supporters as Pino Romualdi, a leading figure in the Fascist party and Giorgio Almirante, who was convicted of collaborating with Nazi troops.

Sign up to This is Europe

The most pivotal stories and debates for Europeans - from identity to economics to the environment
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Meloni appears the most dangerous Italian political figure not because she explicitly evokes fascism or the practices of the black-shirted squadristi (militia), but because of her ambiguity. During the election campaign she promoted a democratic, liberal-conservative side. She condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine and has been vocal in support of Nato and military aid for Kyiv. But she opposed EU sanctions on Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. And in her2021 book I Am Giorgia she wrote that Putin's Russia "defends European values ​​and Christian identity".

Matteo Salvini, the leader of the League, gets the blame for his admiration of Putin, but the radical right in Italy more broadly has positioned itself close to Putinism. Meloni avoids Salvini's mistakes. Yet they were both, together with Berlusconi, part of the political alliance that most supported closer economic ties with Russia.

Meloni in her ambiguity, has directed her attacks on migrants. She has fuelled Italians' fears, created an enemy, a scapegoat on which to offload blame for public incompetence and mismanagement.

During the election campaign she has tried to pass for a moderate, muting her message and advancing what she claims are new ideas to solve the so-called migrant emergency and restore the Italian spirit.

The far right can succeed in Italy because the left has failed, exactly as in much of the world, to offer credible visions or strategies. The left asks people to vote against the right, but it lacks a political vision or an economic alternative. The left sounds elitist when it communicates, while the right has found a hypersimplified discourse: keywords, slogans, concepts reduced to the most basic, especially on migrants, from whose violence and terrorism Italians, it seems, must be saved. No wonder Meloni had no qualms, despite a public outcry, about tweeting the video of a rape allegedly perpetrated by an asylum seeker.

Meloni is, I believe, dangerous because she comes closest to the Berlusconi school of political lies and the populist playbook that says the more total a lie is, the more people will believe it.

Be careful, because where Italy goes, the rest of Europe will soon follow.

Roberto Saviano is an Italian author, essayist and screenwriter. His 2006 book Gomorrah, an exposé of organised crime in Naples, was adapted into a film and TV series

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Giorgia Meloni is a danger to Italy and the rest of Europe | Roberto Saviano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Giorgia Meloni presents a danger to the democratic balance in Europe. Her leadership looks to be the antithesis of what Italy needs - and not just at this difficult moment. The danger arises for Europe because Italy has always been a laboratory: it has foreshadowed the crises of other countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he Australian War Memorial's decision to more fully chronicle the frontier wars between First Nations resistance fighters, colonial troops, police and militias is a welcome progression from an institution that for decades has obstinately defied the bloody truth of Australia's foundation history.

The noble mandate of the memorial, this country's most revered and politically protected national institution, is to "assist Australians to remember, interpret and understand the Australian experience of war and its enduring impact on Australian society". But under a succession of memorial directors the AWM has resisted meaningfully depicting the wars for this very continent - those of violent dispossession and ongoing oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people upon which the Australian colonies, their wealth and finally the federation were constructed.

The decision, apparently at the behest of the memorial's notoriously conservative governing council, comes at a time of great change (and controversy) at the institution.

Brendan Nelson, a former federal opposition leader, defence minister and memorial director is stepping away from his most recent role at the institution as council chair to become president of weapons manufacturer Boeing International in London. It ends, for the time being, his long and influential formal association with the memorial during which he has argued: Australian frontier conflict did not equate to war; it was the agreed job of the National Museum of Australia to depict colonial Black-white conflict, and that Australian-raised military units were not involved in such fighting.

Under his directorship, celebrated by Labor and Coalition governments, a $500m expansion of the memorial was announced to enable it to, among other things, stage more exhibitions on contemporary military operations and display more military hardware. The expansion (the cost of which has blown out by $50m) was opposed as unnecessary and as an affront to the institution's commemorative dignity by many supporters of the memorial, including eminent historians and former directors.

(Many were also angered by the memorial's continued acceptance of funding from companies that manufacture the weapons of war.)

Once the memorial expansion became a fait accompli and building started, opponents shifted their anger: despite all of the imminent new display space there would, apparently, still be no significant gallery dedication (besides some visual art bought in recent years) to frontier conflict.

Today's announcement by Nelson that the AWM governing council wants a "much broader, a much deeper depiction and presentation" of frontier violence is, undeniably, a significant about-face for an institution that has been stubbornly intransigent on the issue to the point of historical denial.

Defenders of the status quo have long cited a memorial act which allows it to document colonial and post-federation operations of crown military forces raised in Australia, while denying the mandate extends "beyond the experience of deployed Australian forces overseas in war and in peace".

A former war memorial military historian, Peter Stanley, recently succinctly explained the AWM's contortions regarding frontier war:

'The problem you see', the Memorial explains, shrugging its institutional shoulders, 'was that frontier clashes involved British soldiers, or police, or armed settlers. None were members of military units raised in Australia. What can we do ... besides display an abstract painting alluding to frontier violence?'

Two problems. First, members of the Mounted Police, a British military unit raised in Sydney in 1825 did conduct 'campaigns' against Indigenous resistance. So, one of the Memorial's responses is and always has been wrong historically.

Second, the Memorial's evasive response relies on a ridiculously legalistic definition of war. We now know . . . that conflict accompanied European settlement. Those 'warlike operations' made possible the creation of this nation, perhaps Australia's most costly conflict. How can an institution intended to commemorate 'wars and warlike operations' evade that reality? Because of a definition in the Act? . . . Here's an idea: change it! Every parliament amends dozens [of acts]. We need to change the Memorial's legislation to make it accord with the reality of Australia's history."

Over the decades a veritable platoon of government ministers has held the AWM's conservative line. Partly this is because, as the Australian shrine to the Anzac national foundation story, the memorial has largely been sacrosanct from criticism on a range of fronts.

As historian and novelist Peter Cochrane has written, "Drape Anzac over an argument and, like a magic cloak, the argument becomes sacrosanct."

Indeed.

But perhaps, as Australia engages with broader notions of Indigenous recognition (including a voice to parliament), and mainstream truth-telling about frontier violence such as Rachel Perkins' powerful series The Australian Wars, the Anzac cloak is becoming that little bit less opaque.

Matt Keogh, the minister for veterans affairs (which administers the AWM) rightly points out "the recognition and reflection on frontier conflict is a responsibility for all of our cultural institutions, not just here at the war memorial".

No other institution has shied away from doing so. Most have long assumed this responsibility in various ways. But if this is Keogh's diplomatic way of dragging the AWM into the progressive face-saving light on one front at least ( too much of the ugly, brutal truth of Australians at war generally is culturally sanitised including at the memorial in my opinion), he should be commended.

I hope today represents the beginning of some broader evolution of government attitude on how the memorial operates more generally.

The integrity of Australian history deserves no less.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Anzac cloak has shielded the Australian War Memorial from criticism. Its recognition of frontier violence is long overdue | Paul Daley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he Australian War Memorial's decision to more fully chronicle the frontier wars between First Nations resistance fighters, colonial troops, police and militias is a welcome progression from an institution that for decades has obstinately defied the bloody truth of Australia's foundation history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘I am not a victim’: Tips for reporting on dementia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People living with dementia discuss how the media can better phrase its coverage of the illness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
International Women’s Day reduces feminism to fancy brunches and empty slogans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I think about what the day itself does to create tangible change, I keep coming up short