Accept the law of the land you settle in
A story on the front page of The Australian last Friday suggests the Howard Government is planning to use the current debate on violence in indigenous communities to not only further extinguish aboriginal culture, but try to go even further and push for full-blown monoculturalism – reportedly even if it is racially discriminatory.
The story was accompanied by a statement of (presumably) unintended irony by the Attorney-General (and former Indigenous Affairs Minister) Philip Ruddock:
“There should be one law for all Australians. Our expectation is that when people come and settle in Australia they are under an obligation to accept the law and the principles that go with it.”
A nice concept and one that on the face of it all people would agree with. So why do the one group of people that were here all along have to have their laws and principles extinguished in favour of those of people who have only recently settled here?
Even more dubiously, the Howard Government has reportedly “widened its plan to remove legal recognition of Aboriginal customary law in criminal sentencing to include the cultural beliefs of all ethnic minorities.”
“The extension of the plan beyond Aboriginal tribal law is understood to have been triggered by concerns that a law directed only at indigenous offenders could be in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.”
Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock last night said no one convicted of a crime in Australia should be able to plead their cultural practices and beliefs as mitigating factors in their sentencing.
All of this sounds lovely until one gives even half a second’s thought about what it would have to mean in practice if you tried to codify it in law. It either assumes the ‘law’ reflects no culture or belief system at all, or that there is some universally agreed set of pre-existing principles that get priority over everybody else’s.
Dog whistling at its most skilful – it will be interesting to see if they push on with this or just let the dogs yap on for a while.
76 Comments, Comment or Ping
dodgyville
When Ruddock says something like that I wonder if he’s aware of the irony, or whether he has no idea. Either way, it’s disappointing.
May 28th, 2006
Evil Pundit
I wonder if you’re aware of the irony of your own claim that the Government is being didcriminatory — when in fact it is seeking to eliminate discrimination.
Having a separate set of laws for Aborigines is, of course, a racist arrangement.
And we do have one set of laws and principles that overrule all the others — Australian laws.
May 28th, 2006
Tom
The law should be what our elected parliamentarians want it to be.
What you seem to want is laws that aren’t made by elected parliamentarians but by someone else. Like Aboriginal elders or self appointed ethnic leaders.
The greatest irony is that you call yourself the Democrats.
May 28th, 2006
Max Baumann
Yes Tom, but Aboriginal Australians don’t have any representation in Parliament. There is no one in Parliament to understand their culture.
Aboriginies often get punished twice. Once by our juducial system and once again by their customary laws administered by the elders of their community.
The social problems in Aboriginal communities around Australia are the result of third world conditions. They don’t have access to the same standard of health and education systems in their communities. They can’t readily access counselling, or family support services.
There is also the fact that there are hardly any police in these communities because the police don’t want to be out in the outback. It is the same problem with doctors and teachers.
Many Australians don’t understand customary law. Customary law is not an easy way out that the media and the Government is depicting it to be. In some instances it is much more severe than our criminal law.
We have to accept that customary law is part of Aboriginal culture and they can’t just have their culture taken away from them like they had their children removed. Customary Law is administered by the elders of the community. The people who commit the crime have to repay their community.
Until Australian governments address the social issues such as poverty, lack of access to services, petrol sniffing, substance abuse and other types of abuse we will continue to see the same problems.
These problems in Aboriginal communities are nothing new. They have been going on for decades. Every now and then it makes the media spotlight and the Government makes itself seem like it is addressing the problem. When the media spotlight dies out, the problems are ignored again.
This is the cyclical nature of these problems. Governments never address these issues, much like they never address problems with the River Murray.
Perhaps the Government should explain why it is often left up to NGOs like World Vision, Oxfam and even the AFL to provide services to these communities.
It is a shame that the elected parliamentarians continue to neglect Aboriginal Australians.
You could provide all the law and order resources you like and throw all the trouble makers in gaol, but this would not prevent this trouble from re-occuring. Law and order is not just about police, gaol or customary law. It needs to about addressing the social issues as well as looking at punishment.
We need to break the cycle.
May 28th, 2006
Mark Bahnisch
Trackback.
May 28th, 2006
Mark Bahnisch
More debate on this issue in comments at Troppo.
May 28th, 2006
Geoff
just one point Max… Aboriginals don’t have a single culture. A point john has already made.
May 28th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
The most farcical aspect of the government comments is that they try to suggest that there isn’t already ‘one law for all Australians’. To use Tom’s comment above (#3), the law already is “what our elected Parliamentarians want it to be.”
That’s a key reason why I am a Democrat and why attempts to make the actions and decisions of government officials operate outside our law (as parts of our refugee laws do) is so offensive.
It also offensive to suggest, as the government is trying to do, that somehow the law doesn’t apply equally to indigenous Australians. Given there is a far higher rate of incarceration for them than for the rest of us, it is laughable to suggest that somehow aboriginal customary or traditional law is enabling them to get a soft touch.
A range of circumstances to do with context, background and the like are often taken into account in the legal process – trying to legislate all of that away is both unwise and undoable. To suggest that forcing the culture of one group in society into the legal system to apply to people from every other culture is being ‘non-discriminatory’ is an oxymoron.
But the government knows all that – they are just feeding myths and division again.
May 28th, 2006
Geoff
isn’t multiculturalism division Andrew… How can an australian culture be many cultures. Often with conflicting beliefs.
May 28th, 2006
John Tracey
The high court has tried to understand customary law in relation to land title and describrd it within common law. Indeed much of what we white folk take for granted in white law, including the details of property law, is the court systems acceptance of our own European customary laws, laws which have not been created by parliament or by court precedence but accepted by both, within tests and limits, because it simply is just “how it is”. Common law, which I am no expert on, is the recognition of pre-existing customary laws that can be accomodated within common law as long as it is not in contradiction with other law or is not disputed by other affected parties. In the case of native title where there was a serious contradiction with other land interests the HIgh Court still recognised the validity of customary land law within common law frameworks but extinguished it where it contradicted such things as freehold title.
However, customary law in relation to domestic violence and child abuse is not the same, where a form of white law is in contradiction with a form of black law. In murri couts (Qld) and similar things in other states , there has been a working relationship between magistrates, lawyers and Aboriginal elders to work together within the frameworks of Aboriginal culture to develop appropriate sentencing options for indigenous offenders. Unlike native title and land issues there is no conflict of interests between the various parties on issues like domestic violence and child abuse. In fact there seems to be a strong confluence of interests – to deal with the situation, for the sake of women and children in particular, to stop the violence “by any means necessary”.
Yet some have tried to undo this developing relationship between white authorities and Aboriginal culture by setting customary law up as somehow antithetical to white law, or at least conflicting. Where is the conflict between Aboriginal culture and white law in stopping domestic violence? Surely “By any means necessary” is the demand of the Australian electorate. Why are Brough and others trying to disempower us all by eliminating Aboriginal culture from the toolbox? We need all the tools we can use.
Fo example, if domestic violence is to stop, men must stop it, as it is mainly men who do it. One of the pillars of customary law is “mens business”, which it seems to me is an ideal cultural element to employ to change the behaviour of men. Yet it is demonised by the likes of Brough. However putting men in gaol (the essence of white law)where they are further brutalised and often raped, for some reason is seen as a solution. However it just makes men worse.
Customary law, in the form of organised mens business, womens business or elders business is needed to support Aboriginal abuse surviuvors to go to the authorities for intervention, as the indigenous womens legal service in Qld does. Again – no conflict between Aboriginal culture and white law but a working relationship with common goals.
May 28th, 2006
Elizabeth
How can you phsyically separate/”…prohibit the “cultural beliefs of all ethnic minorities” from factoring in to sentencing decisions” if cultural law remains?
May 28th, 2006
Michael G
Holey Moley. I’m sorry if this comment appears devoid of substance, but that’s as far as I can get at this moment. Holey Moley.
May 28th, 2006
pc police
Nice touch, Andrew, with your claim thye government is trying to extingusih Aboriginal culture.
I guess when you go on vacation in to the far north you always take a camera with you to show off those pics taken of those interesting species of mammals living on reservations imitating real humans like you.
And in an earlier thread you got you back up becasue I said Dems were a far left grouping.
Andrew, in case you didn’t realize it the best thing that could happen to aboriginals is if they imitated the other folk who live in this country. that way there would be much less misry for these people.
The left never learns, does it?
The indig aren’t museum pieces foe the left to experiment with.
May 29th, 2006
Evil Pundit
Either there is one law that applies to everyonme equally, or there are different laws for different people. Which do you support, Andrew?
May 29th, 2006
Tom2
oh dear, looks like the dogs have definitely picked up the scent and are answering the dog whistle’s call. ‘one law for all’, ‘museums pieces’, ‘reservations’, ‘the fault of the “left”.
beats having to think i suppose.
May 29th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
In response to EP, there are many thousands of laws in Australia, not one, but I believe this body of law should apply equally to eveyone in the country.
In practice, they tend to be applied in a discriminatory way which usually favours those with wealth and power, and more harshly towards those without (although that tends to be political and human nature around the world).
Taking peple’s background and circumstances into account in sentencing has been a part of Australia’s legal system for many years. Trying to remove aspects of this solely for indigenous Australians would be discriminatory, as everybody else would be able to have every aspect of their background and circumstances taken into account except indigenous Australians.
Ths would in effect mean different laws for differnt people, so i presume you would be opposed to the government’s move EP?
May 29th, 2006
John Tracey
I mentioned land title before and it is a good example how different laws can co-exist. e.g. On the block of land that you live on right now, someone owns the 1/freehold title, which is a contract with the crown who holds the 2/radical title. Someone elso owns the 3/mineral title and then there are 4/leaseholders, who fully “own” their leasehold in terms of property rights. White law (much of this worked out in common law frameworks) has evolved to 4 seperate, overlapping laws covering the same bpiece of ground. The high court and native title legislation has added one more layered title – 5/native title.
The fascist model of law is one people, one nation, one law – and everyone must conform or suffer the consequences and we have seen plenty of examples of those consequences such as “the final solution” of Hitler. However other concepts of law are that the law should facilitate the complicated and multidimensional needs of humans, and accordingly the law must be complicated and multi-dimensional. It is no big deal.
May 29th, 2006
the amazing kim
There was an interesting article in the Age the other day about a similar topic – how the emphasis on domestic violence in Aboriginal communities overshadows the violence happening in the mainstream. Here it is. Seems we’re projecting the unpleasanter parts of ourselves onto a minority and ignoring our own peculiar history, problems and bias. Who would have thought.
May 29th, 2006
Donna
l don’t think murdered women are reported that much these days, unless it’s done by a stranger. It just seems to be the domestic violence fatalities get a slight mention somewhere in the back pages.
May 29th, 2006
Dan Byron
Its a funny thing, I was just reading this post for a bit of procrastination when I went back to my research on citizenship and exlusion. I started reading about assimilation in Australia and thought “bugger it I’ll procrastinate some more”. Throughout Australian history we have tended towards an ethnocentric view that everyone should be part of white, anglo-saxon Australia’s culture and I’ll admit, its better than some of the alternatives (like a military dictatorship for example); but its pretty self absorbed of us to think that we have the answers to everything. Many aspects of “tribal” justice are in fact far more advanced than those of our white justice system; for example, once a punishment is undertaken, in most cases, the crime is forgotten. This is in clear contrast to what happens in mainstream justice where even though you “do the time” the crime still hangs over your head. I think the use of customary law works and is far more effective, in most cases, in the communities in which it is used. I also think it is seen as a “get out of jail free” card by some lawyers representing Indigenous clients which has led to this misconception that murder, rape and abuse are a cultural tradition.
Well thats my thoughts on the matter anyway.
May 30th, 2006
Thomas Wertheim
John Howard,as far as I am concerned,did sweet buggerall for the Aboriginal nation,and in fact he is as racist as the rest,of the Anglo mind is about the Aboriginal nation,this land belongs to the Aboriginal nation,no charter,no federation,no constitution,has the moral right to dictate to the Aboriginal Nation.
May 30th, 2006
kartiya
John Howard said one of the most moving events in his life was to go on traditional “mens’ business ” on one of his rare trips north to Aboriginal Australia.
HE has done very little to advance our First Nation in his ten years as the boss.
Does he fear the wrath and bullying of a large number of his LIBERAL AND NATIONAL PARTY colleagues if he stands up to them in an effort to improve the lives of Aboriginal Australians. I think so .
May 30th, 2006
Evil Pundit
Andrew, as I understand it, the Government is proposing to outlaw the use of cultural backgrounds as a defence for all people, not just Aborigines.
There is nothing discriminatory about such a proposal. In fact, it would remove existing discrimination, such as we saw recently when an Aboriginal man was let off with a one-month sentence for raping a 15-year-old.
Perhaps if communities which are prone to violence were held to the same standards as other communities, there would be less violence overall.
May 31st, 2006
Donna
Evil Pundit at 24# says ‘Perhaps if communities which are prone to violence were held to the same standards as other communities, there would be less violence overall’
Can you name other communities of the same socioeconomic status as indigenous communities recently published that are less violent?
Jun 1st, 2006
Evil Pundit
Yes. That would be every other community in Australia.
There are no other communities in which the levels of violence even remotely approach those in dysfunctional Aboriginal communities.
Jun 2nd, 2006
John Tracey
EP
andrew put up info a while back, which I admit is my only source , stating that child abuse occurs in Aboriginal communities at a lesser rate than the mainstream.
Donna,
while my immediate reaction to your above post was Yeah!. that’s right! on consideration, I wonder if domestic violence and child abuse occurs at the same rate with higher socio economic groups, not just the poor? I can quote no statistics but I suspect it is manly rich folk who go on Asian sex tours and such things seeking sex with minors in places where they can get away with it and their friends and familiies don’e even have to know.
Also if a rich woman is bashed by her man, she can leave, she has options. But the man remains a basher and a perpetuator of the basher ethic. he will seek another partner and the cycle continues, but with less sensation than “dysfunctional” families.
but anyway,
In all this talk about customary law, I look at the Queen’s law and it seems to me that it is failing terribly to address domestic violence, child abuse, street violence etc. in all communities. The one solution to all social problems – gaol, or at least the threat of it, simply isn’t working. What our society needs, white and black is a culture and ethic of respect and responsibility. A social ethic to be enforced through peer group pressure as well as imposed by elders, teachers and authority figures. If the fear of gaol wont work, then the fear of social ostracism might. Such fear seems to determine a great deal of our behaviour in life, so I say lets develop that process. The clean up Australia campaign made many of us feel too guilty to drop rubbish, not because we might get fined, but because we will get sneered at as irresponsible pollutors, so we dare not do that. Same thing with the safe sex campaign, the clumsy unatractive and too often overlooked condom became a superstar and a prerequisite for going to a party, along with food and drink – just in case, be prepared.
This is all social engineering, manipulating our minds to achieve social goals such as less rubbish or less sexually transmitted infections. Our collective behaviour changed. This is, I believe how we can change behaviour such as family violence and sexual abuse. by social engineering and creating a culture of respect and responsibility. In this sense we would be very much making a “law” but it would be up to us ourselves to enforce it, not some dysfunctional state agency.
Jun 2nd, 2006
Evil Pundit
Good move. If the problem is too embarrassing, simply deny that it exists.
This is political correctness at its best.
Jun 3rd, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Not sure who you’re suggesting is doing the denying, EP.
I find the political correctness of Mr Howard and co very frustrating, with their continual denial of the existence of most of the history that aoboriginal people have endured over the century or two, let alone the consequences of that history.
That unackowledged history causes big problems today, but political correctness demands it be denied, ignored, or belittled – whether that’s because it’s too embarrassing as you suggest, or just too confronting, I don’t know, but it still does not help in dealing effectively with today’s consequences.
Jun 3rd, 2006
Evil Pundit
Andrew, you are misusing the term “political correctness”. You know as well as I do that political correctness is that which seeks to deny the reality of Aboriginal crime and violence, while blaming everything on non-Aborigines.
Political correctness is the force that perpetuates the violence, rape and murder in dysfunctional communities by excusing the perpetrators, while unjustly blaming white people. Political correctness is a racist draud that keeps Aborigines in a state of perpetual victimhood in order to serve its own ends.
I know you’re trying to change the generally accepted meaning of the term, but it won’t work.
Jun 3rd, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Political correctness is using language that tries to avoid causing offence, offending political sensibilities or highlighting uncomfortable truths.
You can’t pick and choose which things it applies to. The left’s sensibilities are offended by comments which puncture the myth of the ‘noble savage’ or that indigenous people bear no responsibility for their plight; the right’s sensibilities are offended by comments which puncture the myth that the country wasn’t taken by force, with people being forced off their land and many massacres, rapes and poisonings occurring, or that this history directly effects current reality, or that racism still exists.
Just because the right only wants to use the term ‘political correctness’ against its opponents doesn’t mean that they aren’t guilty of it themselves.
Jun 3rd, 2006
Evil Pundit
That’s an even-handed description of what the term “political correctness” probably should mean, and may mean eventually.
But its meaning as of now reflects its roots in the Trotskyist factions of tewnty or so years ago, where particular positions were defined as “ideologically correct”, “ideologically sound”, “correct line”, and the like.
Eventually this usage on the far Left of politics, which began as a sincere endorsement of particular positions, morphed into a mockery of left-wing party lines, while the varying terminologies coalesced into the phrase “politically correct”.
So in current usage, which is historically determined, “political correctness” applies almost exclusively to left-wing myths. Though, since you and others are trying to change that, one day it might become more generally applicable.
Jun 4th, 2006
Deborah
I always thought that PC is, as outlined by Andrew in #31 above, and I believe most people view it as that. I’ve never heard anyone explain it as you have EP (maybe it’s a “right wing” thing) it seems to have become a catchcry for certain people when opposing any humanist policy!).
Jun 4th, 2006
Donna
Thanks for your response John Tracey. I find your blogs informative.
I just wanted to respond to your comment ‘if a rich woman is bashed by her man, she can leave, she has options.’
Rich women don’t have as many options as one would think, or the options are quite poor ones for themselves and their children. Many men use economic abuse as a means of controlling their wives and families. And I must add that some women, if they are the dominant personality within a couple, will also exert unreasonable financial control over her spouse and children. In these families, spouses are literally sneaking money from their husbands/wives purses. They are treated like children.
It was recently highlighted in debate on ‘middle-class welfare’ that several high-incoming earning families were receiving Family Tax B. The thought that came to my mind is that if the women of these households had applied for FTB, it is quite feasible that the FTB is their only source of income, even if living in McMansions.
Jun 4th, 2006
Evil Pundit
Well Deborah, I can only conclude that you have lived a very sheltered life. Most people know what “political correctness” means, and it is not what you and Andrew claim it is.
Jun 4th, 2006
John Tracey
Donna,
what you said is true. you have given a clearer example than mine of how abuse exists in richer groups as well as poor. At least welfare recipients get an indepenent income.
EP
if your comment in post 28, about denial, is a response to my post 27, it is interesting that you label a search for solutions as “denial” yet a parrot like recital of the sensation of the problems, which no-one has denied, is considered relevant. May I humbly suggest that if Australia, including you stopped being obsessed with the problems and focussed on solutions we could see our way to preventing a great deal of suffering.
I was being a bit mischevos in post 27, prescribing a culture of respect and responsibility for us all as what I wrote is what I believe to be the much maligned customary law solution as articulated by Aboriginal people for their own communities. It seems to me to be a pretty conservative, family values kind of approach – not politically correct at all. But I wrote it aimed at us white folk as we might learn from such an approach. Saying that domestic violence and child abuse affects all communities, not just Aboriginal communities is not denial, just facing the facts. Gettting beyond the facts to create strategies for change is the real task.
Jun 4th, 2006
The Feral Abacus
EP #32: Like you I’d agree with Andrew B’s definition for ‘political correctness’ in #31, and like you, I hope that it becomes the widely accepted meaning. Where I disagree with you – and agree with Deborah – is that Andrew’s definition includes something of its original meaning; that is, to avoid causing unnecessary offence.
Never having been a Trotskyist myself, I can’t comment on your recollections in #32: I checked the Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, but my copy is too old (1987) to contain any records of usage of the term.
My recall is that it arose in the 1980’s to describe attempts to remove the taint of victimhood from minorities and disadvantaged groups by using a more neutral set of labels, and to describe thoughtful use of language in response to an awareness of others’ sensitivities.
During the 1990’s, some of the linguistic infelicities that arose made it an easy target for a campaign by opinion makers, and the term soon became a perjorative. So we now have a situation where both myth-making and – when politically useful – simple courteous or thoughtful behaviour can be derided as being ‘politically correct’.
Jun 4th, 2006
Evil Pundit
Feral Abacus, your interpretation of “political correctness” as having to do with sensitivity and inoffensiveness tells only half the story.
The other half concerns the reasons the term became perjorative in this sense. Far from being “courteous or thoughtful”, politically correct speech codes were, and remain, a form of discrimination. The consideration of people’s feelings applies only to certain narrowly-defined groups, and even then it excludes members of those groups who fail to conform to leftist ideals.
The hypocrisy of political correctness lies in the fact that while it claims to be against discrimination and offensiveness, it allows and encourages discrimination and offensiveness against targeted groups — whites, males, heterosexuals, and others.
This hypocrisy, in addition to ridiculous excesses, has led to the bad reputation which political correctness has today. That is why it’s important to remember that the origins of the term, and its current application, signify the discriminatory identity politics of the Left.
Jun 5th, 2006
John Tracey
I reckon waffling on about semantics(*1) is denial (*2) of the real issues.
Don’t talk about the war!
*1
semantics
|səˈmantiks| plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ] the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning. • the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text : such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff.
*2
denial
|diˈnīəl| noun the action of declaring something to be untrue : she shook her head in denial. • the refusal of something requested or desired : the denial of insurance to people with certain medical conditions. • a statement that something is not true : official denials | his denial that he was having an affair. • Psychology failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defense mechanism : you’re living in denial. • short for self-denial . • disavowal of a person as one’s leader.
Jun 5th, 2006
Deborah
I don’t view it as a hypocrisy EP. I see the PC approach as being the means to address the inbalance of minority groups being discriminated against by the largely white, male, heterosexual majority. This majority already has the entrenched power. For centuries they have created and sustained the laws to protect the powerful and wealthy and ruthlessly oppress minorities.
People who feel that they are hard done by in relation to minority groups are simply raging against giving any advantage to anyone, they somehow erroneously believe it’s a level playing field for all. They fail or refuse to see historic and systemic inequality, and are blind to disadvantage and injustice in our society.
Jun 6th, 2006
Evil Pundit
Deborah, that is the typical false argument used to justify politically correct discrimination.
All discrimination is discrimination. You can’t fight discrimination by adding more discrimination on top of it — this simply increases the total amount of discrimination.
The hypocrisy of politically correct discrimination reveals the true motives of its proponents. They are not acting to create a society of equality, but they want to create a society of punishment, because of their hatred of certain groups, which is based on preconceived mythological notions.
Thus, political correctness is not the antidote to discrimination. It is the poison itself.
Jun 6th, 2006
Geoff
Go EP…
Political correctness is about censorship and lies. George Orwell pointed it out in “1984″… Some people deny the truth as they are part of the problem.
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
The funny thing EP is the fraud of those “lefties” accusing others of PCness today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
“Those who use the term in a derogatory fashion often express a concern about the potential dilution of speech and the failure to articulate important societal problems. They argue that the political criticism of diction may inhibit freedom of speech, particularly the expression of opinions that risk offending some group. It is often suggested that politically correct speech constitutes an excessive indulgence of some particular minority group, and that it is used to avoid acknowledging any misconduct or shortcomings of individuals belonging to such a group.
Having been used in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the Party Line following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the term was transformed and used jokingly within the left by the early 1980s, possibly earlier. In this context, the phrase was applied to either an over-commitment to various left-wing political causes, especially within Marxism or the feminist movement; or to a tendency by some of those dedicated to these causes to be more concerned with rhetoric and vocabulary than with substance.”
Funnily enough this Wiki piece has now warnings attached and has been changed from the original reference. How PC.
Jun 6th, 2006
Evil Pundit
Here’s the latest from the ABC:
Nope, no problem here.
Jun 6th, 2006
Deborah
So EP, how do you address the discrimination of minorities by the white majority? What is the remedy for inequality and social injustice for a powerless and voiceless minority?
Also, does the PC go both ways? ie if you can’t accept positive discrimination being applied to minorities, do you also accept that it should not be applied to Israel? Especially the PCness demanded of media, to the point where certain words must be used to imply certain meanings eg Palestinian retaliation described as terrorism but Israeli attacks/terrorism described as defensive and justified.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/hanania21.html
and
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9976
Jun 6th, 2006
Geoff
Lets say a job is advertised in the public service but is flagged for Aboriginals or torres strait Islanders only.
1/ Is this discrimination?
2/ is it race based?
3/ Do you support it?
etc, etc, etc….
If this was in a reverse situation… where only NOn-Aboriginals could take the job, it would be called discrimination by the PC brigade and it would also be called racism by them.
Jun 6th, 2006
Donna
Geoff says:
“Lets say a job is advertised in the public service but is flagged for Aboriginals or torres strait Islanders only.”
1/ Is this discrimination? It’s appropriate differentiation. Would you consider it appropriate to apply for a position in a refuge for indigenous battered women Geoff?
2/ is it race based? Again, appropriately so. Indigenous women would find it difficult to trust and relate to anyone who did not share their circumstances.
3/ Do you support it? Absolutely.
etc, etc, etc….
“If this was in a reverse situation… where only NOn-Aboriginals could take the job, it would be called discrimination by the PC brigade and it would also be called racism by them.”
Possibly they’d be more astute, not just the pc brigade, but the general ‘LIBERAL’ brigade.
good try Geoff
Jun 6th, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Geoff: As far as I can see Orwell never used the phrase ‘political correctness’. Many websites attempt to portray Orwell’s ‘Newspeak’ as a precursor to ‘political correctness’, which IMO is misplaced. Newspeak was the language used by government in ‘1984′ to depict something decidedly negative as being something glowingly positive, and to shape thought in such a way that criticism of the government became literally unthinkable. Political correctness, in any of its usages, is obviously quite different.
By the way, the term that was so widely used among the left during the 1970’s and 1980’s was ‘ideologically correct’, not ‘political correctness’. I certainly don’t remember hearing ‘political correctness’ used in the context mentioned in your quote, at least not in my town.
And as for the warning on the Wikipedia entry, well that simply states that the content is disputed. I fail to see what is ‘PC’ about the Wikipedia editors acknowledging that the term is an ideological battleground; sounds to me more like an honest attempt to be even-handed and represent various viewpoints.
And if you do indeed have evidence that Orwell used the term in any of his writings, please send details to the Editors of the Oxford English Dictionary. I’m sure they’d be grateful, because the readers who cover 20th C literature for them must have missed it.
Jun 6th, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Hi EP – I’ve been struggling with a reply to #38. You’ve put forward a set of assertions, and I’ve made a contrary set. I have no expectations of changing your opinion on this, and I doubt that you entertain any illusions of changing mine.
All I can say is that, in my experience as a white hetero male, I cannot think of any instance where I have felt discriminated against or offended by anything that might be described as political correctness. At worst, I’ve felt mild irritation at a trivial application. I can think of circumstances in which I have felt disadvantaged, but they don’t fall within pc territory. Perhaps your experience has been different from mine.
As an aside, we need to distinguish between ‘useful’ discrimination (eg. setting tax scales on ability to pay) and adverse discrimination that has detrimental outcomes (eg. job discrimination on the basis of irrelevant characteristics).
I think that arguing about these definitions is be important, and I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t feel that the anti-PC move was being used by sections of the Right to suppress important debates. But John Tracey made a good point in #39: we need to guard against letting these arguments become a distraction from tackling injustice.
Jun 7th, 2006
Evil Pundit
Feral, my whole point here is that political correctness is itself the cause of injustice, and of course political correctness is used to suppress discussion of injustice as well.
In the case of Aborigines, political correctness insists that (1) There is nothing wrong with Aboriginal culture, and (2) If there is, it’s all the fault of big bad whitey. These arguments are used bu both John and Andrew in this thread to deny the dysfunctional nature of Aboriginal welfare communities.
Then, political cortrectness actively prvents solutions for the problems of child rape and so on, by insisting that children cannot be removed from abusive Aboriginal families — because we had this mythical thing called a “stolen generation” which was very bad.
So you see, PC is the problem in itself.
As for Donna and Deborah, both have clearly revealed their politically correct prejudices, so that part of the argument would appear settled to any reasonable person.
Jun 7th, 2006
Geoff
Feral I never said Orwell used the term, but clearly what he used IS what we refer to as PCness.
Deb, you still failed to answer the question. that in itself says much.
Jun 7th, 2006
Geoff
Oh and BTW Feral… Doublethink as I have already pointed out in #44 was in “1984″ and was part of Newspeak… Doublethink was willful blindness to contradictions in a system of beliefs. See #44. Only those not in denial, know that what Orwell created in his book, is a reflection of what we in the real world call PCness.
Also…
According to the novel, doublethink is:
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. … To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 35, 176-177) ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Jun 7th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
EP – I now have to take back what i have just said abut pc person’s comments about me on the dam thread. You have exceeded even him in grotesquely misrepresenting my views and statements.
No wonder you don’t want people to use an terms like politically correct and doublethink in an ideologically neutral way.
Jun 7th, 2006
Evil Pundit
It appears that I have misrepresented your views, Andrew, based on this quote from John Tracey in comment 27:
I made the mistake of accepting this statement at face value. I apologise for that.
Jun 7th, 2006
Deborah
Sorry Geoff, I didn’t realise the question was addressed to me.
Donna answered it as I would have, so thought no need to add my comment to hers.
Jun 7th, 2006
Geoff
Sorry Deb I’ll try to be clearer in future (lack of sleep)…
As for Donnas answers re jobs… I could recite many where “race” has no bearing at all. A clerk in an electricity utility for example I’d think has no racial requirement. So no use trying to pull on excuses for the policy.
Unless you are saying you absolutely support a policy that discriminates on the base of race as Donna has. Which according to any left winger over the last few decades makes you a racist.
Also that crack about being more astute… LOL… that would just make them hypocritical not astute. Astute doesn’t seem to come into it, else many people over the years wouldn’t have been branded as racists… hence my comment on contradictions.
Jun 7th, 2006
Deborah
EP, I would rather be prejudiced toward PC and not offending minority groups than be prejudiced against it, by adding to the racism and bias that they already get aplenty.
You still haven’t stated what, in your opinion, is the best way to address the inequality and injustice of white, male, hetero superiority.
Just arguing about the history of the terminology, doesn’t help anyone. To put it in context, I doubt that a white person suffers very often from the application of PC policy, not in any way comparable to the prejudice that a member of a minority group or race suffers from each and every day of their lives.
Jun 7th, 2006
ken
Unfortunately Deborah there is no solution. Much as we might like to hope otherwise – years and yeasr of social engineering , imposed correct language, regulatory and legislative attempts et al still produce tribalism, groupings based on similarltiy and the inherehnt predjudice that goes with it.
Jun 7th, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Geoff: The first appearance of ‘doublethink’ on this thread is in your post #51. Also, #44 that you referred to as your previous usage of the word is one of Deborah’s posts.
I think too that your statement in #42 ‘Political correctness is about censorship and lies. George Orwell pointed it out in “1984″…’ could easily be read as saying that Orwell had used the term.
I’m happy to accept that was not your intent. Please catch up on that sleep so we can follow your arguments more readily!
Jun 7th, 2006
Geoff
Right… #44 should have been #45
Doublethink is part of Newspeak…. is part of “1984″ etc, etc, etc…. I’d have thought the connection to PCness was obvious. Apparently not.
Still no joy on the sleep front unfortunately…
Jun 8th, 2006
The Feral Abacus
Geoff: #42 perhaps?
I can see the point you are making re Doublespeak as a metaphor/analogy for PC, but it seems to me to be drawing a very long bow i.e. I think any connections are tenuous. I think you’d be hard-pressed to establish a convincing case that PC demands holding incompatable views in every instance, or even most instances. And I think attaching Orwellian connotations to PC is more than a little Orwellian in itself. If Doublespeak had been coined by, say, Camus or Koestler, rather than by Orwell, I wonder whether anybody would be attempting to draw a comparison.
Off-topic: Good luck with the zzzzz’s. I sympathize – I know how it feels. I assume you’ve tried all the obvious things – hot milk drink, camomile tea, a chapter of Kreyzig’s Adv Engineering Maths at bedtime… When my problem persisted, I had to swallow my pride, see my GP and get medicated. I can recommend it – it sure beats feeling like a zombie day after day.
EP: I’m not ignoring you, just procrastinating.
Jun 8th, 2006
Evil Pundit
I’m procrastinating too.
Jun 9th, 2006
Geoff
LOL, yes there seems to be lots of procrastinating. And waffling EP.
If a policy is based on discrimination due to race and one finds it acceptable for one race and calls it racism and unacceptable for another, then that’s contradictory.
Jun 9th, 2006
Deborah
It’s called Affirmative Action or Positive Discrimination and it is accepted by most, except the racially intolerant, as the best way to address the inherent bias, prejudice and disadvantage that exists in the dominant white run institutions and systems.
Couldn’t find a relevant Australian article but here is a thought provoking US one.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/feb95wise.htm
Jun 9th, 2006
Donna
Deborah
Talking about inherent bias, I was offered a job in a bank in South Africa a number of years ago. I have no banking experience. I did not apply for the position. But I met the criteria of being ‘white’.
I was offered this job by the wife of my husband’s friend. Her reasoning was that given the anti-discrimination legislation (not affirmative action) that the new post-apartheid government were about to introduce, they wanted to fill bank positions with white folk before legislation and all unfilled positions had the potential to be filled with ‘kaffas’ (her words not mine). All current bank employees were requested to find someone, anyone, as long as they were white and reasonably employable.
Jun 10th, 2006
Deborah
Hi Donna
No, no bias there!
I wonder as to the stats on immigration of white South Africans since the new government there. How easy has it been for those kaffir (horrible word, I agree) hating whites to emigrate to Australia? Apparently there’s quite a few in Toowoomba.
“Death threats force Sudanese shoe man out
27.04.2006
by Kathleen Donaghey
HE WAS driven from his home country by murderous militia and now Sudanese businessman John Yaak has been driven from Toowoomba.
Mr Yaak finally closed his discount shoe store in Margaret Street after six months of death threats and abusive phone calls from faceless racist cowards.
A sign in Mr Yaak’s blackened shop window says it all: “We are now closed as we are unable to conduct our business in peace. Thanks to our valued customers and supporters.”
excerpt from:
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3681990&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=
and a comment from Online Opinion writer Stephen Hagan – “If you’re white, you’re right”
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4490
“It seems perversely ironic that I have not read any media stories of racial trouble associated with recently settled white South Africans – after all they arrived in Toowoomba at the same time during the past decade, but in greater numbers than the 750 Sudanese people who have taken up residency in this ultra-conservative community.”
Might be joining Geoff re no sleep and little comment for a month – World Cup, Go Australia! :yawn:
Jun 11th, 2006
Evil Pundit
“Affirmative action” is just another name for racism and sexism. It consists of deliberately choosing members of one race or gender over another, purely because of their sex or colour, and it’s wrong however you cut it.
It isn’t supported by “most”, as Doborah claims, but only by a few ideologues on the Left. It has been a disaster in the US, where it is progressively being abolished. It never really took off in Australia, for which we can be thankful.
Jun 11th, 2006
Donna
Deborah
Most of the South Africans that have come to Australia are educated people. They’re decent folk, and not ones that supported the Apartheid regime. Most likely a bit too complacent because it made them rich. But what I have to unfortunately accept about my fellow Australians is a perverse culture of racism and moral self-righteousness that has reared it’s ugly head since Pauline Hanson gained a dominant voice.
Given that Pauline was once a Liberal before breaking ranks, and JH & Co are now ecoing ‘values’ of Hansonism, I suppose we can only blame the Liberals for this hostility towards refugees, single mothers, gays, the Indigenous etc…
Living in Australia under this present Liberal Government brings back eery memories of living in South Africa during those Apartheid days. The South Africans use to say that the only difference between Australia and South Africa is that South Africa was stupid enough to make Apartheid law. They ended up being banned from participating in sport and global economics. I’m wondering if that’s what will end up happen to us if we continue down this far right-winged path.
Jun 11th, 2006
Evil Pundit
If you don’t like our path, Donna, I suggest that you move to Zimbabwe, where racism is nonexistent and everyone is happy.
Jun 11th, 2006
Donna
EP, do you only acknowledge racism when it’s suffered by whites?
Jun 11th, 2006
Donna
EP
By the way, who’s ‘we’ white man?
Jun 11th, 2006
Deborah
So typical of the far right – if you don’t like it leave!
We don’t like it, neither do half the voting public of Australia, so don’t make out that JH and Co are supported by all of Australia EP.
We don’t like the way it is here and we don’t wish to leave our country, we want the politics and supporters of fear, division, hatred and racism to leave the country.
Jun 11th, 2006
Evil Pundit
“We” are the Australian voting public, Donna and Deborah. The people who keep re-electing John Howard and the peopel who support equal treatment for all, regardless of race.
It’s you, with your racist ideas of special preference, on the far-left fringe, who have rightly been rejected by the general public.
Australia is a democratic country and the voters decide how it is to be run. If you want to live in a country where some races get special privileges, I suggest that Zimbabwe is an appropriate choice for you.
Jun 12th, 2006
Donna
You do not speak for the nation EP. You don’t even speak for the Liberal Government. The Labor Government wouldn’t be paying you by any chance to turn voters of the Liberals?
Unless you haven’t heard, a large population of voters are swinging voters.
THe problem the Liberal government is facing is how to get us back. When they’re attracting the likes of you, it’s going to be an uproad battle for them.
Somehow I think they’d prefer the likes of Deborah and myself. You are doing irrovacable harm to their image.
Jun 12th, 2006
Donna
Oh EP
You are sounding like a particular Minister at the moment after all … someone who’s catch cry is ‘all things being equal’.
I think he wagged his social justice classes at law school. That’s why he’s now a Howard politician.
Jun 12th, 2006
Evil Pundit
I’m sure you’re a swinging viter, Donna.
Deciding between The Greens and the Socialist Alliance is probably a tough decision you have to make at each election.
Jun 13th, 2006
Donna
EP
I’ve never considered them before. Thanks for the tip.
Jun 13th, 2006