Racism and government-imposed sacred cows, wrapped in the woolly fuzz of political correctnessWhite people will be banned from Uluru. All non-aborigines will be, and presumably those aborigines who are from the wrong tribal group. Clearly, this is racist. Chances are, women won’t be allowed up there either, even if they have the correct skin colour. Even more concerning is that this is justified on spiritual grounds. One group’s spiritual views are so much more important than everyone else’s that the government has enshrined them in legislation so that our most iconic natural monument can be fenced off. This is not about the legitimacy of the spiritual views of aboriginal people. This is about imposing those views on people who do not share them, and doing so on racist lines. You don’t need to impose your religious beliefs on other people as a test of whether they are sufficiently respected, unless you are a terrorist, or apparently, aboriginal. It is no less absurd than putting a fence around Bondi beach and only allowing white Christians to go for a swim. The rest of you can come and visit and stay in our hotels, but you can only take photos from a respectful distance. We get really upset if you make a big deal about it, so please politely acknowledge our spiritual rights. Our beaches, our national parks, our oceans, our rivers, these are all public property to be shared for the enjoyment of all. They are important to all Australians, not just a select few. They have spiritual significance to all sorts of people. They are not to be sold off to the loudest group of racist, religious zealots, no matter how sympathetic or politically correct their zealotry is. Imagine, for a moment, that a new cult sprung up and declared that climbing Uluru was a religious imperative. Whose religious views would the government decide are more important? Why would it take a cult with white people in it to bring home the absurdity of the situation? If you don't think white people also tend to invent sacred cows and impose them on other races, ask yourself what is inherently wrong with Japanese people eating whale meat from wild caught, sustainably harvested minke whales that are present in huge numbers in international waters. The broader issue here is what it means to be Australian and what our values are. Are we moving to a post racial society where race truly does not matter and we are all truly equal? Or are we moving towards a re-racialised society that forever enshrines racism, superstition and sexism in petty, discriminatory laws? Should Aborigines be treated as equals? If they are our equals, can their spiritual views be more important than ours? Are their spiritual views more important than our right to climb Uluru? Is the historical suffering of their ancestors of more import than the suffering endured by everyone else’s? You cannot have this both ways. Either aborigines are fully fledged citizens with equal rights, equal expectations and equal responsibilities, or they are tribal, stone age voodoo mongers incapable of surviving emotionally in modern society (or managing a corporation) and who must be fenced off in some kind of special zoo for the protection of their delicate, ancient spiritual beliefs. Unfortunately the recent trend appears to be away from equality, and Uluru is just the tip of the iceberg. Our state and federal governments are enshrining in our legislation the soft bigotry of low expectations and the learned helplessness that has institutionalised intergenerational poverty and suffering. Real suffering that a fence around Uluru will do nothing to fix. Unlike everyone else, Aborigines are not expected to carry their spiritual views into the 21st century as personal baggage to be celebrated with those who share it, but not thrust upon others at every opportunity. Instead we must reverse the hard-won separation of church and state and officially recognise the spiritual views of Aborigines at every opportunity. This started with lip service, and has taken us to a fence around Uluru. Where will it take us if we continue to feed this monster? Aborigines are not even expected to manage their own finances. We have constantly evolving boards to hand out government money on their behalf. These boards are not elected. They inevitably turn corrupt, and are then reinvented and replaced with ‘trusted’ aboriginal leaders that everyone likes and that our politicians approve of. We have remote communities that are economically unviable, except for government handouts. Many of these communities are miniature communist states where the Aborigines who supposedly own the land cannot be trusted to purchase and manage their own piece of it. Inevitably, they live in squalor. The development of the land, recognised as necessary by those within and without, proceeds at a pace and efficiency you would expect from a communist regime (the Russian communist juggernaut that for many decades threatened US hegemony was created by literally forcing people out of rural communities and into the factories). We took a wrong turn somewhere. We were heading in a straight line away from our racist, bigoted, sexist, imperialist past. Then we turned around, saw what was behind us, and asked ourselves “how can we fix this past racism with a future of myriad petty, racist rules, sacred cows, posturing and formalised ritual?” This is not respect. This is the excruciating, delicate care you give to a spoilt child while trying to get them to grow up. Did I mention I would like to climb the rock one day? Please, don’t take this opportunity away from us. You will regret it in countless, unknowable ways. You cannot deny rights and freedoms to other people without also denying them to yourselves. The Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park media team have been invited to respond to this article. Update 6/11/17 Malcolm Turnbull has rejected calls for a national, constitutionally recognised "Indigenous Voice to Parliament" that would essentially give Aborigines special extra-democratic rights that other Australians do not. "Our view is that is not a model that is desirable and the reason for that is our national representative institutions are based on the proposition that they are open to every Australian," Mr Turnbull said. "To have a national representative assembly — which is what we are talking about here — would be in the Constitution and to which only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders can be elected. "This is contrary to principles of equality and of citizenship." "You don't respect people by telling them what they want to hear or by kicking ideas you think have no merit off into the long grass or into a committee," Mr Turnbull said. Update 7/11/17 The ABC published an extremely biased article on Turnbull's speech. Much of the article was dedicated to quoting the president of the NSW Bar Association, Arthur Moses SC, accusing Turnbull of misunderstanding the proposal. There was no context or explanation of how Turnbull was misrepresenting it, and the article left out a lot of the clarifying points made by Turnbull in his speech. Arthur Moses does a lot of work for the Aboriginal Legal Services and similar bodies from other states, and has pushed for other forms of legalised racism. For example, in attempting to redress the over-representation of Aboriginal people in custody, Moses has suggested that instead of addressing the underlying issues, laws be passed to make it an express purpose of sentencing to correct this imbalance. That is, that Aborigines get shorter lighter sentences because of their skin colour. The ABC article has since been edited down to a single sentence with a video of Turnbull's speech. Here is a cached version of the original. Malcolm Turnbull defends decision to abandon constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says constitutional recognition of an Indigenous voice to Parliament would have been "contrary to the principles of equality and citizenship". The advisory body was the key recommendation of the Referendum Council and the landmark Uluru Statement from the Heart. Mr Turnbull abandoned plans to hold a referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians last month, saying the body was neither "desirable or capable of winning acceptance". The decision has been described by Labor "a kick in the guts" for the council, who described the proposal as "modest", "reasonable" and "capable of attracting the necessary support of the Australian people". Mr Turnbull said he supported a stronger voice for Indigenous Australians in all aspects of society, before criticising the Referendum Council's recommendation. "Our view is that is not a model that is desirable and the reason for that is our national representative institutions are based on the proposition that they are open to every Australian," Mr Turnbull said. "To have a national representative assembly — which is what we are talking about here — would be in the Constitution and to which only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders can be elected. "This is contrary to principles of equality and of citizenship." PM's comments on recommendation 'misconceived' The Prime Minister said the advisory body would have effectively been a third chamber of Federal Parliament, despite proponents of the body denying this. "You don't respect people by telling them what they want to hear or by kicking ideas you think have no merit off into the long grass or into a committee," Mr Turnbull said. "You have got to be fair dinkum, you've got to be forthright. "We believe it is important to deliver recognition, but focus on things that are achievable." But the president of the NSW Bar Association, Arthur Moses SC, said the Prime Minister has misunderstood the recommendations of the Referendum Council. "In no way does the voice recommendation impact on the sovereignty of the Parliament or create a third chamber of Parliament," he said. "What the Prime Minister has misunderstood is it is no different to the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council which the Prime Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs appoints." Mr Moses also criticised Mr Turnbull's comments on the constitutional recognition of an Indigenous voice to Parliament being "contrary to equality and citizenship". "With the greatest respect to the Prime Minister I think on this issue those comments are misconceived," he said. "It is important that the report be properly understood, first of all by our political leaders and explained by our political leaders to the community and we should never underestimate the decency and intelligence of Australians when it comes to dealing with such sensitive issue. "As a nation we are better than that and that is an issue that warrants serious consideration rather than being dismissed." The Referendum Council's Noel Pearson described the decision to reject the body as devastating for the Indigenous community. "I think Malcolm Turnbull has broken the First Nations hearts of this country, expressed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart," Mr Pearson said. "He accused John Howard of doing that in 1999 and he has done the same thing in relation to recognition of Indigenous Australians." Update 18/11/17 It has been confirmed that some Aboriginal men will be allowed to climb Uluru. All women will be banned, as well as all non-Aboriginal people. This is typical of Aboriginal sacred sites. This information is on a sign at the base of Uluru as well as many books and media articles. |