No more waltzing matilda for me

Apologies to anyone that may find my remarks insensitive at this time

As you most probably know, today is ANZAC Day – a national (or binational, since it is in NZ too) celebration of the actions of soldiers who have fought for the nation. I must admit that I don’t really approve of the whole thing. Here are a few reasons why:

(1) It is nationalistic – Perhaps one reason that I see this as a negative aspect is that I have never been particularly patriotic. I am a dual US-Australian citizen, but I have no real sense of American citizenry, and am unconvinced of my Australianness. I have affection for the land and its people, but am not easily stirred to nationalist fervour.

I also feel as though national boundaries are fairly arbitrary, so I don’t see why I should feel particular solidarity with someone I have never met who lives on the other side of the country. I can’t think of anything that really unites every Australian; there are some beliefs that are generally accepted – such as ‘mateship’, resentment of authority/hierarchy and a love of sport – but it isn’t like these are distinctive to Australia or true for every Australian.

Not only is it an arbitrary construction, but I also often find nationalism to insidious. Nationalism is always reinforced through the exclusion of foreigners and so it is a natural support for racism. It creates an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality which has no real justification or value. When we uphold nationalist stereotypes, like the ANZAC digger, those who fall outside the mould are denied their full status as citizens or even humans.

Nationalism is also a motivation and justification for war. War has always been the means by which nations establish their strength and merit, and taking pride in a nations war efforts suggests war is the solution to the nation’s problems.

(2) It is a glorification of war – I should say first of all that I don’t think all ANZAC celebrations explicitly glorify war. Very often they may reflect on the horror of war. However, they neglect to show the futility of war.

We desperately want to believe all those soldiers sacrificed their lives for a just cause, but for the most part they didn’t. The Australian forces has often acted as a peacekeeping force, but ANZAC particularly commemorates those who give their lives – something which rarely occurs in acting as a peacekeepers. Primarily, we are called to remember the wars Australia fought in, which have perhaps never been just. The country has never had the need to defend its own soil as the only time it was attacked at home was by the Japanese in Feb 1942 – months after we had declared war on Japan. Australia’s wars have generally not been defending its borders or its citizens, but defending its interests, or those of our allies, overseas.

When we remember our war efforts it should not be with pride, but with a deep regret that we were not able to resolve our problems in a humane manner.

(3) It negates the responsibility of soldiers for their actions – There is an idea out there that we should support the troops regardless of whether we believe that the war they are fighting in is justified. I find this an awful and dangerous idea. It suggests that no matter how unjust the war is those fighting are not wrong in supporting it and enabling it.

The universal soldier really is to blame for their actions. Just because you wear a uniform doesn’t mean you no longer have responsibility for your actions. It is always the soldier’s choice to fight, and they are always culpable for what they do (as are those who direct them to fight). I am not a pacifist, and I support armed conflict in some cases (though only ever as a last resort, and even then it is a hideous thing), but I would only ever fight, or support others fighting if the cause was just and means justified.

The intentions of the Australian soldiers defending their family and citizens were very often noble, but no digger should ever be proud of the fact that they attacked and killed other people, especially since those they killed were most often soldiers themselves, fighting for the same cause – the safety of their families. It is wrong for someone to go out and kill for an unjust cause, and there are Australian soldiers that we should be criticising for taking part in unjust wars.

All that said, there are some very good things about ANZAC Day. Most significantly, we are remembering lessons from history. We should never forget what has been done and what is being done to achieve the freedom we have. War often reveals the worst of mankind and we should be remembering what man is capable of. We should be remembering what the consequences are of both choosing to fight and choosing not to fight. And when we remember we should not do so with the non-critical gaze that ANZAC Day suggests is appropriate.

Non-Intervention

I was talking with a friend recently about the Australian Defence Force, and whether it was just that - a defence force. We seemed to be in agreement that it was an offensive force, yet I, unlike my friend, saw this to be a good thing. I am not a big fan of the policy of non-intervention - it seems to me irresponsible to stand by idly by and let evil run its course. They say, 'Evil triumphs because good men do nothing', but I think the man who does nothing is part of the evil, and can’t be separated from it.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we all need to go sticking their hand into every dispute we know about. For example, hindsight shows us that the American intervention in Vietnam escalated a small scale conflict into a huge scale war. It increased involvement from major Communist powers, brought in far more destructive weaponry and ended up costing millions of lives. But where we have the capability, we also have the responsibility to prevent evil.

I can think of a number of reasons I can think of that are given as a defence for passivity:

(1) The Postmodern View - given that right and wrong are products of a society s culture and heritage and therefore there is no universal right/wrong. Because of this, one culture can not criticise another based upon its own understanding of morality. This leads to the tag of neo-colonialism whenever the need for intervention arrives.
(2) Karma – if you believe ‘what goes around comes around’ then any suffering that you witness is the just return for somebody’s wickedness. Thus, to intervene would be to divert the divine course of justice, creating more unbalance.
(3) The Pacifist View – there are plenty of people out there who seem to think that ‘violence is never the answer’. Among the advocates of such a view are the Christian ‘peace churches’, such as the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonites, and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), who somehow got in their head that Jesus promoted non-violence.

On the other hand, we have some strong reasons for being interventionist:

(1) Utilitarian View – ‘the end justifies the means’. If by intervening more suffering is prevented than created, then intervention is a moral imperative. However, one should not intervene if such an action will increase the overall suffering. This can be a useful way about thinking, but it can be unhelpful as you can’t really know how events will turn out (would the US have joined the Vietnam War if they had known the outcome?).
(2) Deontological View – if you hold that there are certain moral absolutes than it is necessary that you defend these absolutes, even if to do so would mean risking your life or the lives of others. So, if you actually think genocide is wrong, and that we ought to avert what is wrong, then you can not let genocide occur. Indeed, to not intervene would be to tacitly consent to genocide.

I wouldn’t be the first to criticise the isolationism of the Allied powers pre-WWII which allowed the rise of Hitler – whose views had been quite clearly stated in Mein Kampf. The decision not to intervene allowed the situation escalate into a world war. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who I consider something of an authority on the subject, claimed,
'There can only be a community of peace when it does not rest on lies and injustice. Where a community of peace endangers or chokes truth and justice, the community of peace must be broken and the battle joined.' [1]
When there is injustice, peace can not be present. First remove the injustice, paving the way for peace.


[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, No Rusty Swords

Discrimination?

Last week there was this thing in the papers about a Christian school which was being investigated by the Equal Opportunity Commission because it had refused offer a placement to a student teacher, Rachida Dahlal, because she was a Muslim [1]. Although this is obviously discrimination, my initial reaction was that it is entirely justified. How can you expect an organisation that aims to promote Christianity to employ those whose belief contradict Christianity?

At the moment I have mixed feelings on the issue, so I'll try and arrange my thoughts onto the two sides of the debate.

In defense of Heathdale Christian College
(1) There should be freedom to practise religion - since practise of the religion includes teaching in a religious framework, forcing the employment of people outside of this religion effectively prevents them from freely practising.
You wouldn't expect a Christian church to accept a Muslim as their minister, is this not much the same? The goal of the school is to create a Christian community, and this is undermined by have people with contrary beliefs in leadership positions.
(2) It is a private institution - unlike state schools, this private, Christian school should be under no obligation to cater for all children. As such, it should have freedom to basically teach whatever it wants to, but if it is expecting the education sector to recognise it would need to comply with curriculum.
It is also spending (primarily) its own money, not the public's, so it can spend it however it likes employing or not employing) whoever it sees fit. Surely we should have the freedom to spend our money as we choose (within certain limits). Although it doesn't sound nice, it seems right that a company is given freedom to employ people based on whatever factors it chooses, be these skill, experience, age, beliefs, or appearance [2]. While it is still passive discrimination, not offering someone a job can hardly be seen as criminal (I'll come back to this later).
(3) Respecting the student teacher's own beliefs - By employing Dahlal and expecting her to contribute to normal staff practises - including prayer devotion and Bible reading at morning staff briefing - they would be demanding she act against her own beliefs (assuming she holds to mainstream Islamic teaching). It is inappropriate that a condition of employment be that she deny her faith.
(4) The school is answerable to the parent's who may have chosen the school because it is explicitly Christian. Employing people who are openly non-Christians may be contrary to the image it presents.

In defense of the student teacher, Rachida Dahlal
(1) Teaching French and Math doesn't really involve religion, so it not unreasonable to expect that her presence would be of little or no detriment to the religious aspect of the school.
(2) In accepting the job she was also accepting the conditions of it. She was aware she would not be able to talk about her faith or against Christianity. Thus, she was agreeing to the school's beliefs in some sense, so the basis for refusing her employment was somewhat unjustified. Private people and institution's should not have freedom over their money when it reinforces inequality and discrimination. Recognising the dignity and equality of all people is a greater good than economic freedom.
(3) It is conceivable that any type of institution could call itself 'religious' and on that basis commit any kind of discrimination. For example, one could say that their religion necessitates that they only employ people of a particular race. If every institution did this it may end up that groups facing discrimination become second class citizens where they can't access any jobs or enter any private property etc.

I think that in this case I do sympathise with the school and I see their actions as justified. But, also, the law needs to protect the rights of all people by keeping discrimination in check. Basically, my first point is the one that I place most emphasis on - that there should be freedom to practise one's religion. There is only a small group of institution's that could be regarded as the practise of religion, and even those Mrs Dahlal's position was explicity religious in nature, the school as a whole can be seen as the practise of religion.

As an interesting aside, The Age quotes the principal of the Christian school as saying, "The way we practise our education is not just nominal, it's actually what parents want for their kids, and it would have been confusing for the kids. It's not that we have anything against her or her beliefs, we just felt it was an inappropriate placement". But surely if it was not just nominal then the principal actually believes in the what the Christian label suggests, in which case he really should have something against her beliefs, since they are in conflict with his own. So, it looks to me like he is basically lying to hide the fact that he really is discriminating against her, as a Muslim, or else really is nominal.


[1] To my great surprise this has actually made international news. It isn't like this is something new, is it?
[2] To be blatantly (and perhaps offensively) honest, stuff like Virgin Blue Airlines employment of only good looking girls as flight attendants seems quite reasonable since it benefits their company image.