Due to recent events in my community, I felt compelled to rehash an article I wrote in 2018. That article related to a decision being made which allowed Billy Slater to play in a Grand Final after it was alleged he committed a shoulder charge.
The subject which has caused me to write this article is not about a football game but is related to a decision made by community elected representatives. The response of some in the community is clearly driven by emotion and possibly other agendas.
When a decision has been made why does there have to be endless debate? Why does the debate get downright dirty and abusive? Why do people make comments without having all of the information? Why do some not have a right of reply?
I, for one, love having a good debate. A robust conversation. A conversation which focuses on the matter at hand, data, and evidence. It is not a personal attack on someone.
The decision, which is the subject of this article, was made by community elected representatives based on policies and processes which must be followed. It is regulated. If those policies and processes are not followed, this then creates a precedent which would be expected to be followed in all similar situations. Yet this doesn’t appear to be recognised in the narrative of those who oppose the decision.
The reality is the only way an individual can influence this type of decision is to become an elected representative. And, of course, their vote. We have policies, processes, and laws for a reason. They have their place and should be adhered to until they become obsolete.
Titling this article, ‘Accepting a Decision with Grace’, may be a stretch for the word ‘grace’. Maybe it should have been titled, ‘Accepting a Decision Civilly’.
Having all of the information before voicing an opinion about a decision bodes well for how your argument will be received. It also reduces the waste of time and energy on something you cannot change.
‘Focus on what you can control, and don’t waste energy on the things that you cannot.’