Racist ideas are more effectively countered in debate, rather than in court or jail

AS General Dwight Eisenhower led the Allied forces that swept across Europe he could not believe what he saw as he walked through the concentration camps and gas chambers in which millions of Jews died, along with social democrats, communists, Gypsies, homosexuals and any group hated by the Nazis. Eisen­hower demanded that everything be recorded so future generations couldn’t claim it didn’t happen.

It hasn’t stopped the idiot brigade from spreading their vile ideas. Fortunately, most of the world’s population know what happened during World War II and they believed it.

Which brings us to the question of the Prime Minister’s decision to amend the Racial Discrimination Act, so that on all questions of race there can be public debate without the fear of offending someone and finishing up in court — or jail.

Many readers might find it strange that someone with my background — Jewish and Labor — would take the stand I’m taking. Let me explain.

A few weeks ago, I told of my experience of being described by three classmates at a new school as a “dirty effing Jew” and being barred from joining a top-class Sydney golf club because it did not accept “Jews, jockeys or jailbirds”. I never forgot those insults and many others that led me into politics. While I loathe anti-Semitism as much as, if not more than, when I was a young boy I have come to the conclusion that you cannot change people’s minds by legislation and, if anything, doing so will only make things worse. Anyone reading this column who thinks they can is in for a shock. It will just drive the bigots underground.

Can people be changed from bigoted to tolerant by legislation? I don’t think so. You have a better chance of persuading people by opening their minds and talking to them rather than throwing them in jail. Consider what life was like in the US south before the civil rights campaign got under way. Within a decade or two the debate had swung around. Some will argue that it was action by governments that forced state legislatures to change their views. And they were right.

Real change, however, occurred only after public debate opened up and changed public opinion. It wasn’t quick or easy but sanity prevailed and it became no longer acceptable to express racist views.

Then there was South Africa. I haven’t been there for some years but South Africa is a far more tolerant society today than it was just a few years ago. Views that were once acceptable in public debate would now be cause for social ostracism. You are able to think what you like but it is impossible for a public figure to express racist views — if they want to advance.

That’s also true in Australia. Those who were around during the human rights and civil liberty battles in the 1950s and 60s will recall the vile insults thrown at Charlie Perkins, Ken Brindle, Faith Bandler, Kath Walker and many others. It’s very rare for such insults to be thrown around these days unless you are thinking of emigrating.

Much of our legislation is designed to shut people up instead of widening the debate and have important issues placed under public scrutiny. No better example exists than the definition of who is an Aborigine. I have never witnessed a debate where people are as terrified of stating their views. Ask Andrew Bolt. Almost anything one says can be branded as racist.

You don’t think so? Let’s start with a few more of the more obvious ones.

A person states they are Aboriginal but doesn’t look remotely like one. Their skin is as white as snow, their features are Anglo-Celtic and they have little if any knowledge of Aboriginal history, culture and language. They can take their place in society without fear of racial vilification. What assistance should be provided to those whose great-great-grandparents suffered bru­tality, hum­iliation and deprivation in the 19th century? Despite them showing no signs of Aboriginal descent and no longer being publicly discriminated against, should they be compensated for injustices perpetrated a century ago? When they have had a good education, healthcare, housing and social justice, and are free of persecution, should they and their children continue to receive compensation for injustices that occurred in the distant past?

If we do believe that, why stop at Aborigines? Why not take up the cause of the millions who have been similarly treated in their countries of origin? Of course it’s ridiculous. All of the above should be assisted only on the basis of need — black, brown or brindle. It’s called equality.

There are far too many Aborigines who still live in appalling conditions but they should be helped also on the basis of need.

If people believe they are Abor­iginal and want to learn about the history, culture and language of their antecedents we should make it possible for them to do so, but that should apply to every ethnic group in our society. There is a limit to what can be done for them. Cherish one’s heritage, by all means, but we all have to accept what we are today.

If we want to wipe out racism then each generation should be educated about the evils of racism whether it is anti-Semitism, slavery, persecution of the Irish, the Armenians or any group that migrated to Australia to escape brutality at home.

There are many in our multicultural Australia who will object vehemently against such “revisionism” for they have a different view of history. We cannot accommodate every version of history to take account of the prejudice of the latest arrivals. The only legal taboo should be the right to preach hatred and urge violence.

Barry Cohen was a minister in the Hawke Labor government.