Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution

I think that today will go down as a significant moment in the life of this nation. At lunch time today the expert Panel appointed to advise the Government on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could be recognized in the Constitution delivered its report and recommendations to the Prime Minister. The report can be read at http://www.youmeunity.org.au/

In 2 Corinthians 5:18 Paul says that God has reconciled us through Christ, and has given us a ministry of reconciliation. The Basis of Union says that God’s desire for the whole creation, the end in view, is its reconciliation and renewal, and that the church’s task is to serve that end (para. 3).

This suggestion to change the Constitution is a practical step in reconciliation in Australia, one that has had the active support of the Assembly of the Uniting Church and of the Uniting Aboriginal and islander Christian Congress.

The panel consulted widely. It received 3500 submissions, and conducted more than 250 consultations with over 4600 present. It conducted a number of surveys and opinion polls, and the overwhelming evidence is that a vast majority of people supported the idea of changes to the Constitution that would recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and which would prevent discrimination on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin.

The actual suggestions are:

·                    To repeal Section 25 of the Constitution which allows the possibility that a State Government could disqualify a particular race from voting.

·                    To repeal the current races power (Section 51 (xxvi)) and its replacement with a new power (Section 51A) which would allow laws to be made for the well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (where the present power allows laws to be made that are detrimental to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples).

·                    This new power would be preceded by a preamble containing a statement of recognition.

·                    The addition of a new power recognizing English as the official language of Australia, but honouring the languages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as part of our national heritage.

The next step is for people to engage in extensive debate, and to encourage people to be well-informed when the referendum happens.

Anti-whaling protests and street theatre

A lot of years ago I read an interesting article that compared the life and work of Martin Luther King, jnr and Father Daniel Berrigan. King, of course, was famous for his fight against racism and his use of non-violent action, and his willingness to go to gaol in an attempt to change the system. Dan Berrigan was an active opponent of the American involvement in Vietnam and of the use of nuclear weapons. He, too, spent a lot of time in gaol as a result of his actions.

The article – which I can no longer put my fingers on – makes the point that King believed that the American system was basically OK, but that there were parts of it that needed change and individuals who needed to change. Essentially he saw sin as structural and personal, and took actions which he believed would change those parts and people that needed changing.

Berrigan, on the other hand, thought that the sin around war and nuclear weapons was not simply structural or individual, but went deep into the culture of the country. Changing a law or a part of the system or a few people was not going to change this culture. So he and his friends engaged in street theatre, in attempts to highlight the sheer craziness of things. They poured napalm – which was being dropped on Vietnam – on draft cards in an effort to show the absurdity of being charged for destroying cards when people where being burned in this way. They broke into nuclear defence facilities and painted peace slogans on bombs.

I was reminded of King and Berrigan this week when the three men in Western Australia boarded a Japanese whaling vessel. The moral outrage has been extraordinary, and the government has responded by (i) defending its failure to insist that international law is followed in regard to whaling with the usual excuse about how complex this issue is and how much needs to be done behind closed doors, (ii) working very quickly to get the men released so the issue moved from the front page of the papers, and (iii) speaking about the amount tax payers will need to pay for their return to Australia in order to get tax payer sympathy on the Government’s side.

I think we have a major clash of approaches. The government insists that, yes there are a few minor issues with whaling but if we play the game right changes can occur. I think that the three men confront us with Berrigan’s issue: is the failure to act a deeply cultural one about a game that stinks, and the only way to force change is a form of street theatre that shows the absurdity of what is going on.  

Action ficks and redemptive violence

Over the short break between Christmas and New Year I indulged in my liking of action flicks, the kind where good usually triumphs over evil and there is a fair bit of martial arts action. This time it was Nikita, and the ongoing struggle for a few people to destroy a black op program out of control.

I often wonder about my liking of this kind of film; what attracts a person opposed to war and violence to such action and violence, and the tendency for these films to explore redemptive violence.

A sense of redemptive violence sits under much of the church’s understanding of the atonement. It’s what makes it possible for the church to live in a very ambiguous place around war and support for the military, and refusal to give peace-making a priority in its life.

I think that sort of theory of the atonement provides the implicit basis for a country as overtly religious as the USA to pursue pre-emptive strikes as the foundation for its foreign policy. Evil has to be named, shamed and destroyed, and violence is OK if used by the righteous in the service of the salvation of the world.

I think it is what often makes churches ambiguous about the death penalty, and keeps us quiet about the fact that far too many people – and particularly those who are poor – are in prison. Punishment and violence!

That seems so contrary to my understanding of the cross of Jesus, an act not of violence by God but of suffering servanthood that undermines all pretensions to Empire.

And yet there is something attractive about the way violence is used to protect and destroy in the movies (and in real life). It is always a deep temptation for us in our personal lives and for our countries; much easier than peace-making, reconciliation and the need to share with others in a struggle that gives life and not death. There is this seductive sense that things get put right, and good triumphs, and all the evil is on the other side and has been dealt with. And we don’t need the one who is Emmanuel, because we have everything under control.

I’m not sure I should, but I still enjoy those movies.