Tolerance requires open debate, not closed minds
 |
| Julia Gillard speaking at the lanch of the Australian Multicultural Council (AMC) and a new local ambassadors program to champion inclusion and highlight the benefits of Australia’s diversity. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Those politicians, activists and organisations who seek social change should be especially aware of the need for a plurality of views in open debate.
How else to seek progressive change if you are not prepared to hear, discuss and, perhaps, overcome prevailing attitudes? Trying to shout down the status quo or prevent conservative voices from being heard is no way to show respect for mainstream values, much less win people over. We raise this at the end of a week in which Julia Gillard cancelled a speaking engagement with the Australian Christian Lobby because she disagrees with the poorly chosen and insulting words of its leader. And in The Weekend Australian today Matthew Denholm reveals the antipathy of Greens leader Christine Milne towards the Catholic Church because its leadership doesn't share her views. Demanding tolerance from religious believers, the Prime Minister and Senator Milne ought to consider a more conciliatory stance themselves. By agreeing to address a community group, Ms Gillard does not endorse its views: rather it is the duty of national leaders to speak to a wide variety of audiences, agreeing where their interests and values intersect, and enjoining reasoned debate where it is appropriate. There are limits, of course; we would not expect a national leader to address a fringe group of extremists.
But the ACL is a mainstream religious organisation whose invitation had been accepted, and its members deserve better consideration from the Prime Minister. Its leader, Jim Wallace, bemused many people and offended others when he compared the health risks of homosexuality to those of smoking. Yet if there were no health issues there would be no need for the plethora of publicly funded gay health services tackling HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C and other diseases.
Ms Gillard would do better to attend the ACL conference and preach tolerance on gay issues to a gathering of senior Christian activists. This newspaper takes a liberal view on social issues, favouring freedom of speech, open-mindedness, tolerance and personal responsibility. Ms Gillard has chosen to take a stand against gay marriage, which has put her out of step with progressive elements of her constituency. Perhaps she has over-reacted to the ACL in an attempt to win back some of that support.
Before attacking the Catholic Church for not backing her extreme positions on asylum-seekers and the environment, Senator Milne should have considered the amount of work the church and its followers do (usually quietly) to support, nurture, educate and advocate for the poor and needy -- including refugees. Whatever their religious views, political leaders should not overlook the good works of the churches, and should not assert the moral superiority of their own political prescriptions over those of others. Most voters, even if they are not overtly religious, tend to have a benign view of religion and a healthy respect for the values it instils.
At heart, what Ms Gillard and Senator Milne have demonstrated is a lack of understanding of mainstream values. Most Australians, it seems, are unexercised about gay marriage and many of the social issues that trouble progressive thinkers. But they do understand significant social changes warrant open public debate. Those who find gay marriage unsettling or confronting must be allowed to speak their minds, even if it is just so the progressives can win them over.
Likewise, the Greens leader might need to undertake the same policy journey as the Prime Minister on border protection; to realise the most compassionate approach to the asylum-seeker issue is to dissuade the people-smugglers and prevent the boat arrivals. Many Australians -- Catholics, Muslims, Anglicans and atheists among them -- hold that view, and whether or not you agree with it there is no escaping the fact that it can be a coherent, rational and, yes, tolerant position. Telling mainstream Australians they are not worthy of a speech or their views are morally repugnant is a sure way to foster intolerance and lose their respect.
