spinofflive
A Christmas spent alone doesn’t necessarily have to be lonely (Image: Tina Tiller)
A Christmas spent alone doesn’t necessarily have to be lonely (Image: Tina Tiller)

SocietyDecember 24, 2020

The orphan’s Christmas

A Christmas spent alone doesn’t necessarily have to be lonely (Image: Tina Tiller)
A Christmas spent alone doesn’t necessarily have to be lonely (Image: Tina Tiller)

Sam Brooks muses on being without family for the festive season, and creating new traditions from the ashes of the old.

When you think of the word orphan, two images come to mind. One of them is an ash-faced boy who wants more gruel, and the other is of a redhead girl with implausibly clean high notes. You don’t often hear of adult orphans, potentially because no adult wants to be associated with musicals largely performed by pitchy children.

I’ve been an orphan for five years now, and therefore five Christmases. I gained the label when my mother passed in 2014, and my grandmother six months later in 2015. Whenever I tell people this, I have to say “it’s fine”, which is an abbreviation for “it’s fine, it’s almost certainly not your fault, and your sad face is doing neither of us any favours”.

While I might be an orphan in the literal sense of the word, people are orphaned by all sorts of things. I don’t consider myself lucky to be a dictionary definition orphan, but when I consider that people are orphaned by neglect, by too many unsaid words and unhad conversations, I have to at least nod, even slightly, to fortune’s favour. Especially in this year, of all years, when people are orphaned by distance and by pandemic. If it’s your first time being orphaned at Christmas, even temporarily, my heart goes out to you. Your first Christmas without your loved ones feels like having your face shoved against the front window of every happy family’s house; it’s the day when your energy and your strength fails you, and you can truly buckle under the weight of loss.

People say that goodbyes are hard. It’s true, they are. But they’re nothing compared to the silence that comes after. Grief is what fills that silence, in ever morphing ways. First with those five cliched stages and then with little reminders here and there: birthdays, anniversaries, other life events. While it changes, it never goes away. Christmas is usually when grief comes tapping on your shoulder, at the end of a long year, asking to bum a cigarette when your pack is well and truly empty.

Every family has their own relationship to Christmas, or whatever holiday they choose to celebrate. Christmas was a big deal for the Brooks family: meals planned for days, gifts planned for months and open doors for all who required safe harbour. My mother and grandmother, who had long since dispensed with even perfunctory affection, would put down their weapons, take off their armour, and actually share a bottle of wine, sans their poison. They would scrape through their shared history, with so much dirty water under broken bridges, and find common ground. It wasn’t for their sake – they didn’t need each other’s affection, let alone each other’s love – but for the sake of everybody else at the table. A Brooks Christmas was warm, and not because it was too damn hot.

This is closer to where I spend my Christmases now (Photo: Geordie Holibar)

Since they passed, I’ve never been alone on Christmas but, honestly, I have sometimes been lonely. It’s not for lack of people, or lack of invitation; my found family are quick to open doors, offer safe harbour and open wine by the case. But the one thing harder than losing two decades of annual traditions is scrambling to fill that gap with something sufficient. Loneliness doesn’t come from actually being alone, it comes from realising that there’s someone missing.

For the first few years, I tried to overcompensate for the loss, for the loneliness. I blew money I didn’t have on gifts nobody needed, attempted to make food that nobody would eat, and tried to recreate the same kind of event that I’d grown up with. I would try to make every little gathering that happened in the proximity of the 25th an event, because if I filled the hole that should be filled with Brooks Christmas with things that felt a little like it, then it would be fine (see above definition of fine). People could see the effort, because I am not an especially subtle person, even less so in my grief. While they understood, there’s only so many years the spirit – and the bank account – can sustain that schtick.

When I relaxed, or more accurately relented, into the fact that Brooks Christmas wasn’t coming back, it got easier. Because there are, of course, upsides to being a guest at someone else’s Christmas. You get to be a breath of fresh air, a receptacle for stories that everyone else has long tired of, and a new entrant in the annual arguments that come up every year around the table. There’s no better gift you can give somebody than validating a grievance their loved ones have long since dismissed. I think I was a pretty decent son at Christmas, but I know for a fact that I am an excellent guest at Christmas.

Novelty wears off, though, and it’s most obvious when you are the novelty. There was always a moment where everything that makes grief awful crystallised. It would ricochet off of something else – be it a story I hadn’t heard before or a tradition I wasn’t familiar with – and it would remind me of everything that I wasn’t going to get to experience again. I would never get to hear my mother and grandmother walk through their few shared happy moments like actors going through a play they’d rehearsed long ago, and I’d never get to shoot an angry glare when one of them let a barb slip. It might not sound especially pleasant, or worth missing, but I don’t miss Brooks Christmas because it was the perfect time. I miss it because it was ours.

These moments come less and less, as time marches mercilessly onwards. The trigger for that moment, for that pang of grief, has worn down. Five years on, that gun is well and truly empty. I love my Christmases now, spent with a found family that comes by warmth easily and has never known how to lock a door, let alone close it. I share the old stories with them, carry a few of the old traditions, and fill the silence with those: it’s different, but it’s still Christmas.

Keep going!
The Martha Mine in Waihi (Photo: Vašek Vinklát/Flickr)
The Martha Mine in Waihi (Photo: Vašek Vinklát/Flickr)

OPINIONSocietyDecember 23, 2020

We went to court to protect Coromandel from toxic waste. Now we owe $79k in costs

The Martha Mine in Waihi (Photo: Vašek Vinklát/Flickr)
The Martha Mine in Waihi (Photo: Vašek Vinklát/Flickr)

‘A kick in the face for Christmas’ – that’s how Catherine Delahunty, chair of Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki, describes the news that her group must pay almost $80,000 in costs after losing its bid to stop a toxic waste dump near Waihi.

It’s the week before Christmas and I am trying to buy grandchildren presents that will last and think about food for Friday. It’s the end of a long hard year for many people. Then I get an email from the High Court via our lawyers stating that costs have been awarded against our group Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki, stemming from the judicial review case we lost against Crown Law and Oceana Gold, a multinational mining company. They want us to pay these well resourced agencies $79,000. These decisions always seem to come out the week before Christmas – not because the judiciary are trying to make us even more stressed, but because they are finishing up work for the year. And what we might feel about the timing just doesn’t matter, we are just citizens fighting for public good and thus invisible as human beings carrying the weight of failed policies to protect the environment.

If I sound bitter it’s based upon 40 years experience of David v Goliath. Goliath ( the High Court judge in this instance) ruled that our case against ministers David Parker and Grant Robertson and Oceana Gold had no public interest value and no public importance. Therefore we should pay costs we simply cannot afford.


Read more:

Why we’re taking the government to court over mining in the Coromandel


There is history with this case which starts with Oceana Gold applying to buy 178 hectares of farm land at Waihi to build a new toxic waste dump and expand their gold mines. As a foreign company, it had to apply to the minister of lands information who at the time was Eugenie Sage. She declined consent, saying the toxic dump was a bad land use which risked future costs, the climate and the community. Oceana Gold sought a judicial review into the decision, and applied again to the government. The new application was taken off the minister of lands information by cabinet and given to Parker and Robertson, who deemed it a great idea which would create jobs. This whole process was a sabotage of Eugenie Sage and ignored the consideration of risks when assessing the national benefit of the project. So Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki took them to the High Court.

We lost, and now the judge has awarded costs against us on the grounds that there were no public interest issues. We believe there are two vital matters which should have been acknowledged as public interest. The first is that the Overseas Investment Act is all about national benefit but needed clarification as to whether detrimental issues should have been considered. If you buy a car you look at the benefits and you look at the possible risks, that is how judgements are formed. So we wanted the issue of detrimental issues in the assessment of national benefit to be clarified,

Secondly, the Green and Labour government ministers were divided over the detriment issue and made opposing decisions. The public needed clarification. Public interest is the driver for groups of volunteers like ourselves who derive no personal gain from seeking clarity on these matters. As a former MP I know how sloppy our laws often are and how testing them has to be carried out via the courts. I know also that the public interest is something that all courts should consider when looking at the motivation of voluntary groups testing the law. I know that judicial review is a legitimate mechanism for holding ministers to account for their decisions and that we acted seriously and carefully. We paid a small amount to our lawyers who also gave much free time to this case and also believed it was a public interest issue.

Why do the miners want a second toxic waste dump at Waihi? They want to expand via a new open cast pit and underground mine there, and they want to tunnel under DOC land behind Whangamata: the habitat of a taonga species, the rare Archeys frog. They cannot see the value of the land, only the gold. But we will not accept undermining of Coromandel forest, even if DOC has given them access.

As a result of this judgement we face a huge financial challenge which is a drop in the bucket to Crown Law and Oceana Gold. I do not know yet how we will address this challenge, but I do know that we will never give up challenging those who threaten the land and waters and communities with toxic mining. The “jobs versus environment” argument is a tired distortion of the issues. We could create many jobs mining e-waste and stop the desecration of the natural world; it just takes some imagination and state investment. All the rhetoric of “build back better” seems to mean “do more of the same” when it comes to extractive industries.

We are sick of the rhetoric and the punishment we are receiving for questioning the desecration of the country. We are sick of powerful interests being facilitated at the expense of the voiceless natural world. We suggest that government ministers take a look at their “nuclear moment ” and do something real about stopping climate change emissions and toxic industries like gold mining. That would be a real Christmas present.

In the meantime we will carry on defending the beautiful place in which we are privileged to live and we will call on people who love it to support us. The court might rule there is no “public interest” and “public importance” in our legal challenges, but they are clearly not the best judge of what that means. Standing on the right side of history is costly, but doing nothing will cost far more in the long term.