Stan Grant: Ken Wyatt, a man in the crosshairs of history

Stan Grant writes about Ken Wyatt, a man in the crosshairs of history.

Ken Wyatt is invoking the spirit of ’67, but he also knows its lesson: it was a victory of fairness over difference. Australians are wary of difference, suspicious of questions of rights. Australia has no bill of rights; our constitution is a rule book, not a rights manifesto. Australia is a triumph of liberalism where people are not defined by their race, religion, ethnicity or culture. Australia is a place where migrants are encouraged to leave their histories and old enmities behind. Nationally we are more comfortable mythologising our own history than probing its darkest corners.

Indigenous people live with their history; they carry its scars; it defines them. In a country founded on terra nullius — empty land — where the rights of the First Peoples were extinguished, where no treaties have been signed, this — as the Uluru Statement says — is the torment of their powerlessness.

When it comes to Indigenous recognition — symbolism or substance — black and white Australia speak with a very different voice.

Emphasis Mine

Grant is invoking a version of Australia that never was: it was born of racism. Australia existed to keep the Chinese and others out. For over 70 years, the White Australia Policy keep them out.

Grant has to hope that non-Aboriginal Australians will revive the spirit of 1967. I am doubtful as the NT Intervention continues, the off-shore detention of refugees continues, and the rates of Indigneous incaration remains high.

Australia is still a very racist country. And both major political parties have to be mindful of that to get political power. When racism keeps a political party in power, that party has no incentive to reduce racism.

Read more!

John Riddell: On the democratic character of socialist revolution

John Riddell writes On the democratic character of socialist revolution.

All experience shows that the electoral process under capitalism is constrained by the surrounding institutions of the capitalist state and economy, which prevent elected governments, under most conditions, from initiating radical social change.

Movements for social change usually run far ahead of the electoral process or bypass it entirely. For example, the great mass movement in the U.S. for Afro-American human rights in the 1950s and 1960s gained ground through a campaign of non-violent mass action that defied existing segregationist laws and endured fierce and brutal police repression and rightist violence. Dozens of activists for Black freedom were murdered before their movement won significant legislative support.

In a similar way, the movement for abortion rights in Canada mobilized in the streets in the face of a campaign of widespread rightist violence that killed ten supporters of abortion rights in the U.S. and attacked many others in Canada. The movement in Canada openly defied existing prohibitions, winning mass support to the degree that the reactionary law against on a woman’s right to choose became unenforceable. Only at that point did parliament take action, repealing the reactionary law.

Great social movements redefine legality and human rights, setting in motion a process of change that becomes irresistible. Socialists utilize electoral opportunities while recognizing that they are far from the whole story.

A workers’ government committed to socialism will probably be achieved as the democratic ratification of a program that has already gained majority support through discussion and mobilization among the population at large.

Emphasis Mine

Riddell contends that too many Socialists are enamoured of the insurrectionist nature of the Bolshevik revolution. This has enabled the security services to persecute Socialists in preventing the overthrow of the State.

Riddell argues correctly that Socialists should work for the expansion of democratic rights with the view to transition to a Socialist state through democratic means. In 1917, this path was blocked by the provisional government as it flirted with a military dictatorship in order to suppress the Workers' Soviets. Then the insurrection became self-defense.

Read more!

IPA and Race Provisions in Constitution

In Pauline Hanson unleashes on airlines over mid-flight Welcome to Country speeches, the IPA is quoted in such a way to give the impression that it is ignorant of the Australian Constitution.

The right-wing think tank the Institute for Public Affairs said any Indigenous voice to parliament was “a divisive ideology based on race” and that “race has no place in the Australian Constitution”.

Emphasis Mine

This quote would lead the reader to believe that the IPA is ignorant of the race-based provsions in the Australian Constitution. This is not so as the full IPA news release shows:

“Reports that Prime Minister Scott Morrison would veto a divisive indigenous-only ‘voice to parliament’ represents a win for the principle that all Australians are equal,” said Daniel Wild, Director of Research at the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

“This position affirms the democratic values on which Australia was founded. The Australian Constitution should treat all Australian citizens as individuals, with equal rights and equal responsibilities.”

“This represents a repudiation of a divisive ideology based on race. Race has no place in the Australian Constitution.”

“If the government chooses to pursue any changes to the constitution it should remove the provisions that currently refer to race — section 25, and section 51 (xxvi),” said Mr Wild.

Emphasis Mine

The quoted sections are:

25 Provision as to races disqualified from voting

For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

…

51 Legislative powers of the Parliament

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

…

(xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;

There is a contradiction in the IPA statement—Australia was founded as a racist state. This is shown by the two (2) parts of the constitution.

The repeal of section 51 (xxvi) would imperil all or part of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 because that act relies on that section among others for its authority:

AND WHEREAS it is desirable, in pursuance of all relevant powers of the Parliament, including, but not limited to, its power to make laws with respect to external affairs, with respect to the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws and with respect to immigration, to make the provisions contained in this Act for the prohibition of racial discrimination and certain other forms of discrimination and, in particular, to make provision for giving effect to the Convention:

Emphasis Mine

Section 51 (xxvi) is problematic as it can be either used to persecute a race or to redress past wrongs done to a race. The section's very nature is discriminatory, but that should not be used to remove the section from the constitution.

A recent example was the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 which was directed at aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

Read more!