Boy George Shows the Courage So Many Others Lack

In an era when many celebrities seem to follow the crowd, it is refreshing to see someone willing to stand apart.

This week, Boy George released a powerful new song, "We Will Dance Again", commemorating the young people murdered by Hamas during the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel's Nova music festival. The title itself has become a symbol of resilience, hope and defiance in the face of unimaginable brutality. 

You can watch the official video here:

"We Will Dance Again" – Boy George

YouTube Video

What makes this release remarkable is not simply the music itself, but the moral conviction behind it.

Since October 7, much of the entertainment industry has been notably reluctant to acknowledge the atrocities committed by Hamas. Many public figures have preferred silence, while others have adopted narratives that place almost exclusive blame on Israel.

Boy George has chosen a different path.

His song remembers the innocent young people who were slaughtered simply because they had gathered to celebrate music. It also expresses solidarity with Jewish communities who have experienced an alarming rise in antisemitism around the world since those attacks. 

There is no denying that speaking publicly on this issue requires courage. It is no secret that taking a position sympathetic to Israel can attract fierce criticism, particularly within sections of the entertainment industry and on social media.

That makes his willingness to speak all the more noteworthy.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation whose deliberate massacre of civilians on October 7 triggered this war. Israel, like every sovereign nation, was obliged to respond militarily to secure the return of the hostages Hamas had taken. War is always tragic, and civilian casualties are unavoidable. But the claims of genocide are clearly unsustainable. Boy George's song clearly reflects this view, portraying the conflict as a war initiated by Hamas rather than an attempt to destroy a people. 

The tragedy is that so much of the world's attention has drifted away from the victims whose murders began this conflict. The young men and women dancing for peace at the Nova festival deserve to be remembered, not forgotten.

Music has always had the power to preserve memory.

In this case, Boy George has used that power to remind the world how this war began and to honour those who never came home.

If more public figures were prepared to stand against antisemitism with the same determination they show on other forms of hatred, the world would almost certainly be a better place.

Well done, Boy George.

The Economics of Wishful Thinking

Every generation seems convinced it has discovered a revolutionary new economic system that will succeed where all previous attempts failed.

It never does.

A thought-provoking column by Greg Sheridan in The Australian highlights what he sees as the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) within the Democratic Party, arguing that the movement is no longer a fringe curiosity but an increasingly powerful force shaping Democratic primaries and pushing the party further to the left. Readers who have access to The Australian will find Sheridan's full article well worth reading.

Whether one agrees with all of Sheridan's conclusions or not, it raises an important question:

Why are ideas with such a long record of economic failure once again becoming politically fashionable?

Socialism's Familiar Promises

Throughout history socialism has arrived wrapped in attractive promises:

• Affordable housing.

• Free education.

• Government-controlled essential services.

• Equality.

• Protection from "greedy corporations."

These promises sound compassionate. The problem is not the objectives.

The problem is that economics has a habit of ignoring political slogans.

Markets cannot be legislated into producing goods at below-market prices indefinitely.

New York's Latest Experiment

One proposal attracting attention is New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's plan for government-owned grocery stores intended to provide food at controlled prices.

Supporters present the idea as something bold and innovative.

In reality, governments have been trying versions of price controls for centuries.

The results have been remarkably consistent.

Step One: Sell Below Market Prices

If government stores sell products cheaper than private supermarkets, one of two things happens.

Either:

• the stores sell goods at a loss; or

• suppliers refuse to sell unless government pays market prices.

In either case, taxpayers ultimately fund the difference.

Step Two: Private Competition Shrinks

Private retailers cannot compete indefinitely against government businesses subsidised by taxpayers.

Some close.

Others stop investing.

New entrants stay away.

Ironically, competition declines precisely because government has tried to "increase competition."

Step Three: Subsidies Explode

As losses mount, governments face a choice:

• continually increase taxpayer subsidies; or

• reduce the discounts.

Either outcome disappoints voters.

Subsidies become politically difficult during budget pressures, especially when schools, policing and transport are competing for the same public money.

Step Four: Empty Shelves

Eventually products that cannot be sold profitably disappear.

This has happened repeatedly wherever governments have attempted extensive price controls.

Retailers simply stop stocking products that lose money.

Consumers end up paying less—for goods that are no longer available.

Cheap prices mean very little if the shelves are empty.

The Lesson History Keeps Teaching

History is full of examples.

Price controls may provide temporary political headlines, but they rarely solve the underlying problem.

Instead they tend to produce shortages, distort supply, discourage investment and require ever-increasing taxpayer support.

Markets are not perfect.

But they do communicate information about scarcity, demand and production costs that governments often struggle to replace through bureaucracy.

Why Does Every Generation Believe It Will Be Different?

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect is not that these ideas continue to be proposed.

It is that they continue to attract enthusiastic support despite so much historical evidence.

Every failed experiment is explained away as having been poorly implemented.

Every new proposal is described as "different."

Every generation assumes it has finally discovered the version that will work.

Yet economics is remarkably stubborn.

Governments can temporarily override prices.

They cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand.

A Warning Worth Considering

Sheridan argues that the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America represents a significant ideological shift within American politics, one that deserves far more attention than it currently receives. He points to the DSA's success in Democratic primaries and its increasingly mainstream influence as evidence that ideas once regarded as politically marginal are gaining traction.

Whether these policies ultimately remain campaign rhetoric or become governing reality remains to be seen.

But before embracing another round of government price controls and state-run enterprises, it would be wise to ask a simple question:

If the same ideas have repeatedly produced shortages, subsidies and declining choice around the world, why should this time be any different?

History suggests the burden of proof lies not with the sceptics, but with those claiming that economic laws have suddenly stopped applying.

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 31 of 2026

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• The Anti-Israel Industry

• Tony Abbotts Warning on Multiculturalism
• Hamas Destroys the Genocide Narrative
• Traitors have no right of return
• Customer Service Has Left The Building
• The Economics of Wishful Thinking
• Boy George Shows The Courage So Many Others Lack

Cartoon of the Day

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Customer Service Has Left the Building

There was a time when "customer service" meant exactly what the words implied. You had a problem, you phoned the company, a human being answered, listened to your issue, and tried to solve it. It wasn't perfect, but at least everyone involved understood the purpose of the exercise.

Today, customer service has evolved.

Unfortunately, it has evolved in the same direction as the dodo.

Recently I had to contact the service centre of a large telecommunications company because my internet service wasn't behaving itself. I approached the task with the same enthusiasm I reserve for dental appointments. Experience has taught me that dealing with large organisations can be a test of patience, endurance and occasionally blood pressure.

The phone rang.

A cheerful robotic voice welcomed me warmly.

"Your call is important to us."

Excellent, I thought. That's encouraging.

Then came the conditions.

Before speaking to anyone, I was reminded that I must treat the company's staff with courtesy and respect, and that abusive behaviour would result in my call being terminated.

Fair enough. Nobody should abuse customer service staff.

But it struck me that the relationship seemed a little one-sided.

They could keep me waiting for an hour, but heaven help me if I sighed too loudly.

Next came the reassuring announcement that my call would be recorded for training purposes.

Given some of my previous experiences, I couldn't help wondering exactly who was being trained.

Then the helpful robot explained that, to connect me to the right person more quickly, it would ask why I was calling.

I explained.

It repeated my explanation.

I confirmed that, yes, that was indeed why I was calling.

Progress!

Next it requested my customer number.

Then my account details.

Then my telephone password.

Then it asked me to finish by pressing the hash key.

Surely now I was about to reach the promised land...

No.

"Your call is important to us..."

...followed immediately by...

"Have you considered visiting our website where many common questions can be answered online?"

An interesting suggestion.

If my internet service had been working properly, I probably wouldn't have been calling about my internet service.

Back to the queue.

Every minute or so I received another comforting reminder that my call was extremely important.

This message gradually lost its emotional impact after hearing it for the fifteenth time.

Apparently my call was very important indeed...

...just not important enough for anyone to answer it.

Eventually I became convinced that modern customer service departments have redefined the word service.

Their primary objective no longer seems to be helping customers.

Instead, it appears to be preventing customers from ever reaching anyone capable of helping them.

The irony is that these systems are invariably introduced in the name of efficiency.

Efficient for whom?

Certainly not for the customer who has already spent forty minutes talking to a robot, listening to recorded messages, and hearing smooth jazz loop endlessly while contemplating life's poor decisions.

In my case, the problem eventually became serious enough that I wrote directly to the company's Managing Director.

Something remarkable happened.

A real human being telephoned me.

He introduced himself.

He gave me his direct telephone number.

He told me he would personally manage the case until it was resolved.

And do you know what?

He did.

The issue wasn't fixed in five minutes. It required several conversations and a number of technical investigations.

But every time I called, I spoke to the same person.

He knew the history.

He knew what had already been tried.

I didn't have to explain everything from the beginning.

It was almost like stepping into a time machine and discovering customer service as it used to exist.

The experience confirmed something many of us have suspected for years.

Technology is wonderful.

Automation is useful.

Artificial intelligence has enormous potential.

But none of them should replace the simple act of one human taking responsibility for helping another.

Somewhere along the way, companies convinced themselves that customers wanted fewer humans and more menus.

I don't believe they ever asked the customers.

Real service isn't measured by how effectively you can keep people away from your staff.

It's measured by how effectively your staff solve people's problems.

Perhaps the greatest innovation awaiting corporate Australia isn't another chatbot, another automated menu, or another AI assistant.

Perhaps it's the revolutionary idea of answering the phone.

Now that would be a genuine customer service breakthrough.

Traitors Have No Right of Return

There was a time when the word "traitor" carried enormous weight. It described someone who had knowingly turned their back on their country and sided with its enemies. Throughout history, traitors were among the most despised of criminals because they did more than simply break the law—they betrayed the very society that had given them citizenship, protection and freedom.

Yet today, we are expected to treat such people as unfortunate victims deserving compassion and rehabilitation.

Australia is once again debating whether Australians who travelled overseas to join ISIS should be allowed to return home. Some of the so-called "ISIS brides" have already been repatriated amid considerable controversy. Now we are hearing of ISIS fighters imprisoned in Iraq seeking to return to Australia, reportedly with assistance from advocates and a willingness by governments to consider their cases.

Let's stop sanitising what these people actually did.

These were not misguided tourists who made a poor choice while backpacking overseas. They voluntarily abandoned Australia to join one of the most barbaric terrorist organisations in modern history. ISIS enslaved women, executed prisoners, beheaded journalists, murdered civilians and sought to establish a murderous Islamist caliphate through terror and genocide. Those who joined its ranks did so knowingly and willingly.

When an Australian travels overseas to fight alongside ISIS, they are making a profound declaration: they have rejected Australia and everything it stands for. They have chosen the enemy.

In any meaningful sense, they have already renounced their membership of the Australian community.

Citizenship is not merely a piece of paper. It is a social contract. It carries rights, but it also carries obligations. One of the most fundamental obligations is loyalty to your country. If you willingly join an organisation at war with the values and interests of your nation, you have broken that contract.

The question therefore should not be, "How do we bring them home safely?" The question should be, "Why should they have any right to come home at all?"

We are repeatedly told that Australia has legal or international obligations that require us to consider their return. If that is true, then perhaps the problem lies not with public opinion but with the law itself.

Laws are not sacred texts handed down from a mountain. They are created by elected governments and can be changed when they no longer reflect the values or security interests of the nation.

If Australian law is inadequate to permanently exclude citizens who voluntarily join foreign terrorist organisations, then Parliament should amend it.

If citizenship laws are too weak, strengthen them.

If constitutional issues arise, address them.

If international agreements impose unreasonable obligations, reconsider them.

The first responsibility of any government is to protect its own citizens—not to provide a taxpayer-funded pathway home for people who consciously chose to fight for our enemies.

There is also a practical consideration that governments seem reluctant to discuss honestly. Even if such individuals are prosecuted and imprisoned upon their return, many will eventually be released into the Australian community. Some will remain committed extremists. Others may influence vulnerable young Australians. Security agencies may be required to monitor them for years at enormous cost and with no guarantee of success.

Why should Australians bear that burden?

Some argue that these individuals were manipulated or radicalised. That may occasionally be true, particularly in the case of children taken overseas by their parents. Children are victims and deserve protection and rehabilitation. But adults who voluntarily travelled to ISIS-controlled territory and pledged allegiance to a terrorist organisation are something entirely different.

Personal responsibility still matters.

Perhaps the most offensive aspect of this debate is the assumption that citizenship is unconditional—that no matter how grave the betrayal, Australia must always welcome its citizens home with open arms.

That is not compassion. It is moral confusion.

Every nation has the right to decide who belongs within its borders. If citizenship means anything at all, then actively joining an enemy force must surely be one of the clearest acts by which an individual forfeits the privilege of membership in that nation.

The overwhelming majority of Australians are loyal citizens. They obey the law, contribute to society and would never dream of joining a terrorist organisation dedicated to destroying the very freedoms they enjoy. Those Australians are entitled to expect that their government will put their safety and interests first.

Traitors made their choice when they boarded the plane to join ISIS.

Australia should not be required to rescue them from the consequences of that choice.

And if our laws say otherwise, then our laws need to change.

Because some choices should have consequences that are permanent.