Movatterモバイル変換

(RILP), Vol. 3, No. 10, 2007, pp. 115-128. To subscribe call 0090 312 212 28 86, or fax: 0090 312 212 25 84.  All rights reserved.

***

On 11^th December 2005, a violent mob of about five thousand young ‘white’ Australians gathered on the beach at Cronulla, New South Wales. Waving Australian flags, singing Waltzing Matilda and Australia’s national anthem and chanting anti Muslim/immigration slogans, the mob verbally abused and physically assaulted anyone of ‘Middle Eastern appearance’. Some days later, revenge followed: cars full of ‘Middle Eastern appearing’ men and youth sought revenge by smashing cars and shopfronts in Cronulla and by beating local residents (See: Inglis: 2006, Abraham: 2005). In an attempt to prevent further violence and an escalation of the events, an exceptionally large number of police were deployed on the beach in the months ahead.

The incidents at Cronulla and the violence which followed it sharply focused national and international attention on identity and race issues in Australia. As evidenced from international reporting of the incidents (See for example Greenless, D, Abraham, Y),the world was left asking whether Australia, known as an international global model for accommodating ethnic diversity promoted under the policy of multiculturalism had resorted to its former racist policies. The Australian Prime Minister and the NSW Premier argued that race and racism were not the underlying causes of the incidents (Barclay and West: 2006). 

We argue that theevents in Cronulla were no coincidence. A root cause of the Cronulla riots lies in the revival of ’new racisms’ which is being increasingly facilitated through the adoption of the politics of fear (namely through law and order and security politics). This article provides a broad overview of the factors that led to the replacement of‘old racism’ in Australia and withmulticulturalism.The‘new racism’ is then discussed and its link to the politics of fear which has been increasingly facilitated by the Commonwealth and NSW governments is explained as a critical backdrop to the events at Cronulla. Finally, by providing some examples, we will briefly elaborate on how the politics of fear has been a significant contributing factor to the events at Cronulla. It is concluded that the continued promotion of law and order as evidenced by the NSW government’s response to the events in Cronulla and the denial of racism as an important contributing factor will do little to prevent another Cronulla.

‘Old racism, multiculturalism and ‘new racisms’ in Australia

Until the 1970s, colonialism and institutional racism dominated the national and international climates. The ‘old form of racism’ in which ethnic minorities were seen as inferior dominated the cultural landscape (Stokes: 1997, McMaster: 2001). The legal fiction of ‘terra nullius’ or ‘empty land’ was engaged by the settlers arriving from England to settle the land on the basis that the Aboriginal people were not cultivating it. This claim was invalidated only after a landmark High Court Case in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland [No2] 1992 175 CLR1).

The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) (Also called the‘White Australia’ policy) lasted until the early 1970s (Larbaleister: 1999). The aim of this Act was to keep out Asian immigrants through a dictation test administered in any European language to any would be Asian immigrant. The policy was motivated by Australia’s deep seated fear of being ‘invaded’ by Asians (‘the Yellow Peril’) who were intent upon ‘threatening’ and ‘polluting’ Australia’s ‘superior’ white race (Dunn et.al.: 2004). This reasoning was used to promote an Australian ‘national identity’ and ‘way of life’,

After World War II, Australia was unable to recruit adequate numbers of immigrants from Great Britain, its traditional source country, and under the slogan of‘populate or perish’(Hollingsworth: 1999), turned to refugees and immigrants from Europe (McMaster: 2001). From the 1950s and 1960s onwards, immigration admission criteria gradually began to be changed to facilitate this intake. In 1973, the Whitlam government adopted the policy of Multiculturalism and eliminated race as an immigration selection criteria (McMaster: 2001).In essence, multiculturalism recognised the ethnicity, culture, religion and language of Non English Speaking Background (NESB) immigrants whose voting power and contribution toAustralia was becoming very significant (Freeman and Jupp: 1992). The policy also officially ended the belief that other races and cultures were inferior. Since the inception of multiculturalism, a whole range of services have been funded to assist immigrants with their settlement process, including the provision of language services for newly arrived immigrants.

Officially, thedefinition of multiculturalism involves a mutual obligation – cultural heritage is recognised and tolerated in return for commitment to Australia and Australian norms (see DIMA website: www.immi.gov.au/). Although progressive at the time of its inception, essentially multiculturalism emphasises tolerance of ethnic groups on condition that the dominant Anglo culture ultimately prevails(Teo: 2003). Following on from this, ‘whiteness’ is the norm from which other cultures are viewed as ethnic. The consequence of this is that ‘whiteness’ continues to dominate the cultural landscape in Australia and it is never adequately questioned (Teo: 2003). Accordingly, the policy has not significantly succeeded in overcoming racism and prejudice in Australia and the concept of race continues to remain as akey element of Australian national understanding (Stratton: 1998).

These arguments are further complicated by the reality that multiculturalism is not enshrined in legislation and i s only encapsulated in policy, making it easy to change. As a result, under the Howard government, multiculturalism has merely been tolerated and its formal status has been weakened. For example, after coming to power, the government terminated the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) and the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research (BIMPR). The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), SBS television and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) were impose with sever funding cutbacks (Manne: 2002). OMA was the government’s official advisory body on multicultural affairs. The BIMPR conducted very significant research into the settlement needs of ethnic communities. It can be concluded that Australia has a multicultural policy, its application is inconsistent and influenced by the government in power and prevailing public opinion. Certainly, the incidents at Cronulla show that by virtue of its ‘ devalued’ status, multiculturalism under the Howard government faces many challenges.

‘New racism’

Following the implementation of multiculturalism, the ‘old racism’ in which ethnic communities were viewed as inferior has been largely replaced by ‘new racism’ (also termed ‘cultural racism’). With the advent of this form of racism,ethnic communities are differentiated as being a ‘threat to the cultural integrity’ of the Anglo Celtic host society (Dunn et.al: 2004). Questions as to who does/does not belong to Australian society, what/who is/is not Australian are integral aspects of the intolerance to some groups and the new racism in Australia (Dunn et.al: 2004). The answers to these questions have changed with time: Asians and Indigenous Australians have historically been identified as the other. Most recent examples include Arabs and Muslims (Dunn et.al: 2004). Essentially,the key element of ‘old racism’, the so called ‘incompatibility’ of different ethnic groups and their ‘inability’ to co-exist, remains as an integral aspect of ‘new racism’ (Corlett: 2002). Especially since 2001, the new racism has been facilitated and promoted through the politics of fear.

The politics of fear: law and order/security politics

The use of fear for political gain is not new (Jamrozik: 2001). Fear of difference is a recurring theme in Australian political discourse. At federation, governments promoted fear of neighbouring Asian countries. During the 50’s and 60’s attention also focused on fear of certain political groups (such as the Australian Communist Party). In recent times, fear has been ‘dressed’ with contemporary issues and concerns. These include land claims by Indigenous communities, portrayed as claims which would absorb large areas of Australia, being swamped by terrorists or asylum seekers or the so called dangers of Asian/Muslim gangs. Often, thefear is ‘manufactured’ to justify coercive legislation which curtails peoples’ freedoms and civil liberties (Jamrozik: 2001). Recent examples of such legislative changes include the raft of legislative reforms made to the Migration Act since 2001 in order to restrict the rights of asylum seekers, the introduction of anti- terror legislation in 2002 and 2005 and the introduction of new legislation after the incidents at Cronulla.

The reason for increased resort to fear politics since the 1980s is related to economic globalisation and a retreat from the welfare state. McCulloch points out that the reduction of services and programs by westerns governments (things which can be measured) have been replaced by the promotion of security and/or safety (things which are harder to measure and quantify). Under a neo-liberal philosophy, problems such as crime or unemployment have been portrayed as problems which are engaged in by individual choice and that coercive legislation and punishment, rather than state assistance being the answer to solving these problems. Groups or individuals (eg youth, asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants) who were once considered as being ‘at risk’ and considered as requiring the support of the state are now portrayed as groups/individuals who are a ‘risk’ to society (McCulloch: 2006 ). Citizenship and belonging are portrayed as a privilege rather than a right. The social consequence is that a sense of anxiety and insecurity is created amongst the community (McCulloch: 2006). Solutions to this anxiety are presented in the form of coercive legislation and a powerful political campaign which“emphasises a return through cultural renewal to a more secure – often mythical – idea of community” (Jayasuriya: 2006, p. 3).

Law and order politics have been an important aspect of NSW state elections since the 1980s. Focusing on crime, NSW politicians have ‘identified’ problems which they have promised to address through legislative and sentencing changes. In the lead up to the 1988 election, the then premier Nick Greiner built a powerful election campaign on anti-corruption and criminal justice reforms. Bob Carr effectively exploited law and order issues in the 1991 and subsequent elections (See Totaro, Brown & Hogg: 1996, Lee: 1996 for law and order politics in NSW). Racial tensions were increased when the Carr government focused on the ethnicity of the gang rapists in 2005. In public discourse, Muslims and people from the Middle East were portrayed as being violent, barbaric and less civilised (Dreher: 2001). 

The security politics pursued by the Howard government has had a massive impact on race relations in Australia (Poynting & Noble: 2004). The security politics (through promotion of the so called refugee crisis and the war on terror) resorted to in the lead up to and during the 2001 federal election campaign has revived the new racism in Australia and has led to the dehumanisation, demonisation and marginalisation of asylum seekers and people from Muslim and Arab backgrounds. While direct reference to race or religion has been unacceptable since the inception of multiculturalism (Poynting & Noble: 2004) (Edmund Rice Centre: 2005), the Howard Government engaged in ‘dog whistle politics’ and described those on the Tampa as people who jumped queues, payed people smugglers, associated with criminals and terrorists and that such people were not welcome in Australian society (Van Acker and Hollander: 2003, McCulloch: 2006). Although ‘race and racism’ are value-laden notions and appear contrary to democratic societal values, racism against asylum seekers was articulated without denouncing democratic principles and through transformation into more ‘legitimate’ and contemporary concerns (McCulloch: 2006). Societal messages were perpetuated through public discourses on immigration, multiculturalism, refugees and citizenship (Henry et.al. 2000). In public discourse, the arrival of boat people from the Middle East was framed in terms of a threat posed by Muslims and Middle Eastern communities (Dreher: 2001, Van Acker and Holander: 2003). McCulloch rightly points out that the impact of fear politics is particularly effective if the issues are generalised as posing a threat to the values and beliefs that are cherished by the community (McCulloch: 2006).

The ensuing war on terror since 2001 has also been accompanied by similar discourses and anxieties relating to safety, community and nation. These notions have become blurred and enmeshed and have generated a sense of anxiety and uncertainty which  has become generalised.  In their reports, Dreher (2005) and Poynting & Noble (2004) elaborately detail the experiences of racism, and verbal and physical abuse faced by Muslims and Arabs in NSW after September 11, 2001.

The new racism and its impact on the events in Cronulla

It has been pointed out that some of the Cronulla beachgoers may have been responding to specific local issues (Barclay & West: 2006) – and some probably wereresponding to local issues. Others have pointed out that alcohol was a contributory factor (seefor example, Smith (2006) and Inglis (2006) for an overview of the events) or that talkbackmedia inflated tensions in the lead up to the events (Wise: 2006). These factors may have beencorrectly pointed out but the events were more deep seated than local factors or the impact of alcohol, talk back radio or the unfortunate bashing of two off duty lifesavers. Over the last tenyears, the climate for refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants has become more and moreunwelcoming. Whilst Pauline Hanson was elected on an anti-immigrant/refugee platform, callingfor an end to all Asian immigration, the Howard government adopted her hard line policies intomainstream politics (Abraham: 2005).In pushing its harshasylum and counter terrorism policies and its hard line stance on the war in Iraq, the Howard government hasdeliberately and persistently negatively portrayed Arabs and Muslims as the ‘other’ with the effect ofdemonising and dehumanising them ( Poynting and Noble: 2004. Higgins & O’Brien: 2005; Howie: 2005).

This has been accompanied by the portrayal of this group to appear ‘responsible’ for ‘threatening’ Australian values and Australian identity. In the ideology of racism, the distinction between racism directed upon ethnic, racial or national grounds is often confused, blurred and enmeshed so that diverse communities with different social and cultural backgrounds are seen as a singular category (Dunn et al: 2004). The anti-Arab and anti Muslim overtones in Cronulla were not accidental. The question of who belongs in Australia and who threatens Australia’s social cohesion was quite clearly expressed by the slogan shouted by the crowd at Cronulla:“wewill decide who comes and stays in Australia” (Mitropoulos: 2006: p. 2). This is the exact slogan articulated on numerous occasions by the Prime Minister since 2001.

The official responses of the Commonwealth and NSW governments failed to tackle the deep seated racism which accompanied the incidents. Prime Minister Howard told reporters that he did not accept that there was “underlying racism in this country” (Smith: 2006, Barclay & West: 2006). Smith argues that if Howard accepted that racism was an underlying cause for the incidents, then he would have to specify the causes of such negative sentiments (Smith 2006:9) and this would certainly have drawn attention to his own government’s policies and practices . The NSW Premier Morris Iemma also followed suit and publicly argued that he didn’t believe that “Australia is a racist country or that Australians are racist” (Barclay and West: 2006). In following the precedent set by his government, the premier adopted a law and order response (Higgins & O’Brien (2002), Brown & Hogg (1996), Cameron (2006) ) and promisedto ‘take back the streets’  and crack down on‘criminals, thugs and hooligans’ . On 15 December 2005, the Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005 (NSW) was enacted. This legislation provided police with increased powers to close off streets, declare alcohol free zones, shut down licensed premises, conduct random searches and to seize vehicles. Under amendments to the Crimes Act, penalties for riot and affray related convictions were extended to 15 years and 10 years respectively (see also NSW Crimes Act. Refer to Hunt and Wickham’s (1994) elaborate discussion on the ‘sociology of the law as governance’).

Conclusion

Whilst increased police powers may have been important to enable the police to respond to the violence at the time, they are an inadequate response on their own.The way forward does not lie in the pursuance of law and order politics or the denial of racism as a contributing factor to the riots.Clearly, such public comments signify a ‘retreat from the spirit of multiculturalism’ and do little to address an important underlying cause of the Cronulla incidents. If Australia is to prevent another Cronulla, racism needs to be tackled at the local, regional and national levels and the Commonwealth’s government’s deliberate and negative portrayal of asylum seekers and Muslims as the ‘other’ needs to be replaced with policies that are more accommodating and inclusive.