Australia: The Battle for Legal Racial Privilege Begins. By Greg Sheridan.
Peter Dutton is the right choice to lead the Liberal Party. This is certainly a time for a pragmatic conservative. However, as leader there are some questions of principle he and his party should not dodge.
Perhaps the most important this term is that they should oppose, in principle, the move to establish in the Constitution an elected voice to parliament exclusively for Indigenous people. Dutton is right to wait for the details of Labor’s proposal, but people should make the in-principle argument against racial classifications in the Constitution or a bad and emotional decision will be made.
The main reason to oppose the voice is not conservative but liberal, the basic principle that race and ethnicity should have no place in civic status.
This is part of the tradition of Christian universalism, that race and ethnicity cannot establish any kind of religious hierarchy. St Paul declared: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female, but you are all one in Christ Jesus.” That was a religious statement with profound civic consequences. No race, no social status, no sexuality, had favour with God compared with anyone else. The individual, not the group, has an immortal relationship with God.
This universalism became the heart of Western liberalism and the basis for human equality. It goes without saying that no nation has fully lived up to the universalism and non-discrimination that is true liberalism. …
The bogus arguments for racism:
I wish Aboriginal people every advancement and success. But I do not want racial categories added to the Constitution. There are already racial clauses in the Constitution but they do not allow discrimination, or they are not acted on at all. …
The argument that First Nations status is about culture, not race, is disingenuous. If it were true, then anyone could gain First Nations status by adopting the culture and anyone could lose it by abandoning the culture. That’s nuts, of course. …
One of the most unattractive aspects of this debate is the way advocates intimidate opponents into silence by accusing them of racism, a lack of empathy or a range of lesser sins. … It cannot be racist to insist that there be no racial distinctions in civic status, and it is entirely possible to operate from goodwill, and with full knowledge, and still disagree with the constitutional proposal. …
Foot in the door:
We already live in a society rich in symbolic recognition of Indigenous heritage. When I was a kid, civic functions often began with a prayer or, if a meal, grace. Now, routinely, on aeroplane flights, at official meetings, business and other functions, we start by acknowledging the traditional custodians etc. Like saying grace 50 years ago, part of the purpose is to show how pious and religious you are. Just a different religion. …
It is in the nature of all modern identity politics that the symbolism is never complete, the apology never sufficient. Acts of atonement for history become performative, endless and ever more demanding. Next on the agenda will be treaties, acknowledgments of dual or multiple sovereignty, veto rights in certain policy areas and who knows what else.
Major trends, once underway, continue until they are stopped. How far along the path to tribal rights and segregation will we go until we stop this time? Will we need racial identity papers in a decade or two?
hat-tip Stephen Neil
