If there’s one point of unity across the disparate factions of the No campaign, it’s that a Voice to Parliament is “divisive”, and that is a bad thing (albeit, Peter Dutton only thinks a constitutional Voice to Parliament is divisive; a legislated Voice to Parliament is, presumably, unifying). By “divisive”, they of course mean racially divisive, the implication being that First Peoples are getting something based on their race that white people aren’t getting.
Yes campaigners and some commentators have responded to this by arguing — correctly — that the Voice is unrelated to race, that it is not racial difference motivating the Voice but the unique status of First Peoples as the original inhabitants of this continent whose dispossession was the founding act of white Australia. The Voice is about recognising historical reality, not race.
While that argument, correct as it is, is perhaps too subtle for the kind of voters the No campaign is relying on — the ones encompassed by that barrel-bottom, focus-group-from-hell slogan “If you don’t know, vote No” — it’s worth digging a little into the obsession with “division” as a trope for those who want to keep First Peoples silent.
The immediate irony of the emphasis is clear: the malice towards First Peoples that has characterised much of the No campaign; the effort to erase them from the history of this continent that lies at the heart of the rejection of recognition; the denial of the trauma of colonisation; the rejection of evidence-based policy to address systemic disadvantage and the peddling of fictions about a hidden agenda of property seizure all represent a singling out of Indigenous peoples for hostility, lies and rejection.
And unstated in the focus on “division” is what it is in contrast to. What is the “unity” that must be preserved? The status quo — in which First Peoples are uniquely divided from white Australians through the vast gap in educational, health and economic outcomes? A No vote will preserve, intact, this nation-scarring division — one that only Indigenous peoples bear the consequences of. Perhaps it’s not “division” if white people don’t feel it.
Alternatively, in the vision outlined by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and endorsed by her right-wing media supporters and party colleagues, we would have far greater “unity” by pretending that Indigenous peoples no longer exist. In this assimilationist agenda, there would be no Indigenous programs or even an Indigenous affairs portfolio, the existence of intergenerational trauma would be wished away, the dispossession of Indigenous peoples by European invasion erased, colonisation celebrated as the bringer of bountiful gifts; First Peoples would become honourary white people as part of a one big, presumably happy white family.
That assimilationism reveals more about many No proponents than they might care to admit. The “unity” they want to preserve from “division” is a white-dominated unity, one that all other groups must conform to, one characterised by white privilege. To term something “divisive” is code for “threatening white privilege”. The heavy reliance on “divisive” as a criticism of the Voice to Parliament is thus a grand exercise in sarcasm: the status quo that must not be divided is already divided into those in the dominant group — white Australians — and those who aren’t: First Peoples, but also a revolving culture cast over the years and decades: people of colour, Muslims, LGBTQIA+ people, trans people…
Indeed, being “divisive” is the core product of the populist right and right-wing propaganda outlets such as News Corp and the Daily Mail. Division is their stock-in-trade — the identification of an eternal parade of enemies to be othered, indeed to be smitten hip and thigh, in the quest of convincing their readers and voters that they are under threat.
The grand pot-kettle irony of the Voice referendum is the sight of politicians and propagandists who literally draw their salary from flogging division lamenting that a measure designed to close the gap between white Australians and First Peoples is “divisive”, while promoting the maintenance of a unity characterised by exclusion, demonisation and racial privilege.
There are, as it turns out, some people worth being divided from. The No campaign has put them up in lights.
In 1984, George Orwell set out The Party’s slogans, inscribed on the building housing the mighty Ministry of Truth: War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; and Ignorance Is Strength. Now our No campaigners have added another: Division is Unity.
Or, put more hifalutinly, e pluribus unum.
Or more psychodynamically, projection
That’s very good, I wish I’d thought of it. It reads as if it came straight out of the book.
If I pinch it & use it myself I’ll be sure to credit you.
Alexander Downer (Courier Mail 7th October) joins the large chorus of ‘No’ campaigners who are continuing to pedal the blatant lie that a ‘Yes’ vote will divide Australia along lines of race. The one thing that these persons share is a nasty self-serving strategy of creating the very thing that they feign to fear that is division.
The ‘No’ campaigners base their position on justice as treating all persons equally or the same. Too many people accept this simplistic idea of social justice. This displays their complete absence of any substantial understanding of fairness or of the concept of equity or equitable treatment and hence of Australia’s supposedly most treasured national value- ‘a fair go’.
David Smith and David Harvey two well- known geographer and writers on social justices and the following quotes clearly bring out the difference between equal treatment and equitable treatment. Smith states .,., ‘it is unjust to treat people the same if there exits morally relevant differences between them’, while Harvey argues ‘social justice states there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals’
The following quotes and ’’
Equitable treatment is how a good teacher and parents would expect a class of students from widely diverse backgrounds to be taught. It also applies for example to the treatment of the disabled, women and others, but not apparently to indigenous Australians.
The above ideas are not divisive or a threat to our democratic constitution as the No case in its attempts to foster fear and division claim. Rather the Voice seeks to convert an inadequate concept of equal opportunity into ‘fair’ equality of opportunity where all people roughly start from the same point in pursuit of the rewards of life. Hence social justice as recognition of ‘significant’ differences between social groups seeks to promote via equitable treatment a more equal and therefore fairer society. Fairer in the sense that ‘fair’ equality of opportunity offers all Australians the chance to receive a good education, good health outcomes, housing, satisfying and secure jobs with a fairer distribution of income and wealth.
Equitable treatment which is what the Voice is all about does not seek to elevate one group above another as the No case falsely claims, it is but an alternative path to achieving greater overall equality. It takes the saying ‘to walk in another’s shoes’ a step further. Rather than try to interpret the message that the footprints leave behind it is far better to communicate directly with the source or person making the footprint so as to gain greater clarity of the message and then to act accordingly. That is what a ‘fair go’ should really mean in a substantive manner. John Rawls an imposing and extremely famous writer on social justice names his universally acclaimed text ‘(Social) Justice as Fairness’. But for social justice to succeed a sense of justice needs to lie within each individual citizen.
On voting day find your sense of justice and if you feel the need stare down the purveyors’ of fear, division and self interest, those who have no idea of what social justice for all means. What is sorely required now are active and informed citizens who have a good understanding of what a ‘fair go’ should really mean in terms of promoting greater equality. Dutton and others like him for example Pauline Hanson use the catch cry of equality to argue their points of view simply because it has instant appeal as a common sense position to take. They either choose to ignore or fail to grasp the idea of equity and equitably treatment of difference. You need to decide whether ‘fair go’ is simply a nice catch cry to make us all feel good about ourselves or something more.
Alexander Downer. He thinks the sun shines out of his rear orifice—one of those born-to-rule types. Keating ridiculed him for his pomposity. Downer is now advising the UK government on offshore processing. The same Downer who thought bugging the cabinet office of Timore Leste was a fabulous idea. He makes me sick.
The same Alexander Downer whose ancestor John Downer was complicit in the massacre of numerous Indigenous Australians in the NT (which was then part of SA) in his role as governor of SA.
Sixteen people,at this writing, seem to believe that a person is responsible for the actions of their ancestors.
No wonder public discussion is so banal.
Or could it be that the moral values of the ancestors are passed down to their descendants? Downer must have got it from somewhere.
While no one is responsible for the actions of their forebears, they are responsible for examining the attitudes and privileges of those forebears and either accepting or dismissing them’
Downer is a classic case of maintaining those precepts and being unable to examine them. Sure. as with all privileged, there is a veneer of civility, but it comes from the sense of noblesse oblige, rather than a tru undestanding and empathy for ALL their fellow humans.
Downer and ilk are just sock puppets for the rapacious.
What you don’t see locally in media, is who and where Downer, Abbott (& advisor), Sheridan et al. visit and present to in UK, US and Hungary.
Think tanks linked to US fossil fuel Koch Network e.g. Tufton St. London and IPA, nativism of Tanton infused in media and immigration policies, plus institutes supported by the regime of Hungarian govt. PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban; one wonders whose side are they one i.e. seem more interested in the 19thC UK, US and Russia than Oz?
Good for you, Lionheart! I agree with your well-articulated comments. The right to vote goes hand in hand with the responsibility to seek out, if necessary, accurate and credible information. Educating oneself in order to come to an informed decision enhances the privilege of your opportunity to vote.
A strong and impelling sense of social justice is what a ‘fair go’ really means; to honour the dignity of all and to take another significant step toward equality and equity, not to perpetuate the watered down or scaremongering meanings usually bantered about. EVERYBODY MATTERS!
Absolutely agree with all said. It’s truely horrid how sound concepts and ideals are perverted by zealots and charlatans to gather support from those that are angry and/or lost. Can Rational, Calm and Objective thinking ever be applied to issues without them faltering to human frailties? How sad it is that humans today generally lack a resilient humanity despite all the historical learnings. What hope is there to build a fairer, healthier world for everyone, everywhere.
This gets to the heart of the matter. Assimilationists want to revert to an Anglo/Irish assimilation in which there are actually first and second class citizens. That was a time when Aboriginals were safely out of sight in fringe camps and missions and non-British migrants anglicized their names and were discouraged from too active a role in political life.
Liberal once meant being willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; to be open to new ideas. In a political sense, it meant favouring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
Conservative meant being averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values. In a political sense it meant favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas. To this extent the current Australian Liberal party is at best conservative rather than liberal.
In recent years the Liberal party seems to have adopted the following approach:
1. Any proposal or policy suggestion put forward by the Labor Party is automatically regarded as completely wrong and thus must be opposed.
2. The opposition to such policies or proposals must include facile slogans, fearmongering, ridicule, falsehoods, divisiveness and even personal attacks.
In Australia the Liberal Party, described by some as being conservative, would more accurately be called the Reactionary Party.
Demonstrated by footage I saw the other day of Sussan Ley saying that on Saturday she’ll, “be voting No with a heavy heart.” I didn’t bother listening to whatever contortions of logic she attempted to justify such a position. Presumably she feels compelled to toe the party line even though she would prefer to support the Voice? I thought they were a “broad church” but she came across as unhinged.
Sussssssssssssssssan Ley has always been unhinged. Primary evidence ? Putting an extra ‘s’ into her name at the behest of numerology.
“Sussan Ley: Another example of MPs rorting the system”As well as being a bare-faced liar – “So that means the Prime Minister can’t rule out that the Voice has the de facto veto rule on, for example, our national days of commemoration such as Australia Day or Anzac Day.”
The No campaigners accusing the referendum of being divisive are like a domestic abuser saying ‘Now look what you made me do!’