Disunity Vs Diversity
We have a serious problem in Australian politics when comments that would be considered as moderate, even an accurate portrayal in any other western country, are considered so inflammatory that they preclude a person from being a candidate of a major party in the upcoming federal election. I am of course talking about Ms Parke’s comments on the Palestine / Israel conflict as reported here in the Herald.
These comments are based in fact. What Israel has been doing is illegal in international law, and it is reasonable to make comparisons to other countries that are also gaining territory illegally, such as China, and by doing so inflaming historical and current tensions. As one wit commented under the article – so much for the two state solution. And if you don’t know what is meant by that quip then you don’t understand the subtext for Ms Sharpe’s comments and why they are so reasonable and why the reaction to her comments point to a continuing disastrous future for Australian politics.
The question to ask yourself is not, do I agree with Ms Sharpe’s views on Israel’s occupation of Palestine, or even if you think she has a right to say them, but whether her views are so extreme, so unpalatable that they should exclude her from belonging to a major political party in Australia.
What the reaction to these comments highlights is something that is becoming of greater concern within Australian politics, and society more broadly, and that is the unwillingness to allow, and then to consider, a diversity of views. This was evident in the situation with Folau and his comments on the likelihood of gays going to hell (if it exists). Many people who are opposed to his views and don’t share his religion, are aghast at his treatment.
We are reminded again that in Australia, conformity is the rule. There is the well known saying about party politics that disunity is death, and unfortunately that is where the focus often is when someone speaks openly, and ‘off script’ such as Ms Parkes has done. The media almost goads the party into taking action and silencing the offender, or creating such a storm that the person is required, as in this case, to remove themselves from public debate.
We need to remember we all lose when we diminish the opportunity for, and existence of, a plurality of opinions. We lose the opportunity for our perspective to be widened, and our understanding, of an issue, to be deepened, by hearing opinions not widely held, and even contrary to the norm.
We should consider the impact on our wider society of strictly imposed conformity. Let’s not forget the strength that comes from diversity, including of opinions, and that Australia has at times been a pluralist society rather than a simple single monolithic culture.
Consider the uproar over the comments on ANZAC day by Yasmin Abdel-Magied. What she faced, I thought, was not so much racism, as just the grinding conformity that is modern Australia and the relentless assault by commentators in the media to shout down any views different to their own. When the confronting ideas are presented by someone from another country, the commenteriat that reacts against them is labelled racist, when in fact they are just as often brutally repressive against someone who is white: all in the name of conformity.
Can you imagine the response if someone in the 1970’s had proposed that gay marriage should exist – which would have required at that time a smaller change to the laws – it being before John Howard changed the wording of the wedding act to make it a wedge issue. Anyway, can you imagine the reaction: they would have been howled down with outrage because that view at that time was not part of the orthodoxy.
Ask yourself this, why has Australia been unable to progress debate and create solutions on topics such as drug use, greenhouse and mental health issues? It is because people who present views different from and at times antagonist to the established but often incorrect orthodoxy are removed from the debate, as Ms Sharpe has been.
If from the time I was a child I had refused to consider views different from my own, I would never truly grow up, maintaining an immature state: a reasonable description of the current state of Australian politics.
The well known phrase, “there are two sides to every argument” no longer holds true in Australia if you belong to one of the major political parties, there is only a single allowable position on many major issues. The consequences of this situation for all of us will be an ever diminishing level of public debate and a decreasing possibility of creative solutions to pressing issues.
