Comment by Peter Boyle
Since May, when Pauline Hanson began holding public meetings around the country to build her One Nation party, some 45,000 people have taken to the streets against her racist movement. Protesters have far outnumbered those attracted to her racist crusade. Many young people are coming into political action for the first time.
The anti-Hanson protests are growing with each counter-mobilisation, yet there is debate in the anti-racist movement about whether or not to keep organising protests at Hanson's meetings.
While most of the big business press have carried editorials and opinion pieces criticising Howard for not being hard enough on Hanson, and warning of the possible economic consequences on trade with Asia, the media barons are also concerned about the prospects of a militant anti-racist movement. As the anti-Hanson protests have grown, the media have focused more on the supposed "violence" of these protests. They've selectively used isolated images and told outright lies about the demonstrations.
In reality, the anti-Hanson protests have been peaceful if vocal and militant. In Geelong and Hobart, the demonstrators spontaneously entered Hanson's meetings, shouting anti-racist slogans. Hanson's supporters cancelled these meetings in response.
In Adelaide, the police set up a few scuffles by forcing Hanson supporters — including National Action thugs — to shove and kick their way through the protesters.
A small ultraleft minority in the anti-racist movement argue that "no-platforming" Hanson is the way to go. They naively argue that the demonstrations will succeed only if they "intimidate" racists from turning up to her meetings.
While it might be possible to scare away a few individuals from some of Hanson's meetings, this won't affect the most powerful racists, like Howard and company. Nor will it stop racist poison from spreading in the broader population.
To do this, we need to mobilise a large and independent movement in opposition to the Hanson's One Nation and the racist policies being implemented by the Howard government. Which tactics best advance this objective will vary under different conditions, but serious activists must weigh up the cost of giving Hanson's supporters the chance to use "freedom of speech" as a diversion from the racism of her politics.
Since the first large anti-Hanson protests, the police have dramatically stepped up their presence at these meetings — there were 350 cops at the Newcastle meeting. Disruption attempts will shift energy to pointless battles with the cops and take the heat off Hanson's racist movement. The only injuries have been sustained by demonstrators at the hands of police or violent Hanson supporters.
But there is another agenda hiding behind the scaremongering about "violent protests". The ALP, some union leaders and some conservative Aboriginal and migrant community leaders want to divert the response to Hanson's racist push into apolitical celebrations of "cultural diversity" or "tolerance". This prevents the anti-Hanson response from growing into an independent movement that can challenge the racist policies of the Howard government and those of a future Labor government.
If even half of the people who are now outraged at the blatant racism of Hanson and Howard had come out in the '80s and early '90s, when the federal Labor government introduced racist policies — such as limitations on Aborigines' negotiating rights under the NT Land Rights Act, work-for-the-dole for Aborigines, the introduction of the Native Title Act to limit the effect of the High Court's Mabo decision and the restriction of refugees' legal rights — Howard and Hanson would have a harder job today.
It took the crude racist politicking of Hanson to reveal the virulent racism that is still part of Australian society but was covered up with a veneer of official "multiculturalism". But now that more people realise that there is still a struggle against racism to be fought, we should seek to turn this into a powerful and independent movement.
The Labor opposition attacks Howard for encouraging Hanson's racist crusade, but it has very poor credentials on the racist policies being carried out by the Howard government:
- <~>Labor supports the recent immigration cuts, pandering to the racist myth that migrants cause unemployment.
- <~>Labor supports "certainty" of pastoralists' title over native title, but quibbles over the method of dealing with it (extinguishment could be more expensive in the long run, pleads Kim Beazley).
- <~>Labor says it supports compensation for the "stolen generation", but only while it is in opposition, as Howard was able to prove.
- <~>Adding to the Labor's problems of credibility is the current practice of the only surviving state Labor government. NSW Premier Bob Carr supports Howard's 10-point "final solution" to native title.
The game of staying "slightly lesser evil" is tricky, and an independent anti-racist movement could be an embarrassment to Labor. We must strive to keep this new anti-racist movement independent from the ALP, which has a record of demobilising political movements.
This does not mean that Labor politicians and members should not be part of the anti-racist movement, but that they should not be allowed to set its agenda. That would be the kiss of death.