Faine: I’m getting intolerant of tolerance

Good commentary from Australia’s Jon Faine:

It is time to retire the T word from the vocabulary of multiculturalism. I do not want anyone to say that they “tolerate” me. It is patronising and condescending.

Tolerance denotes a reluctant acceptance, a begrudging recognition of something unpleasant that will not go away. Why be so negative about one of the greatest assets we have – our diversity?

Smilingly encouraging “tolerance” for those who used to be described as “New Australians” is actually a backhander, a well-meaning but confused commentary on our almost universally shared commitment to social cohesion.

It is usually invoked by established figures comfortable about their place in our nation, but uttered rarely by anyone insecure or struggling.

I flinch when I hear it, whether from the lips of a government minister, a faith leader or various commentators who regularly pepper it through their offerings.

We live in one of the most socially cohesive, peaceful, multicultural societies on the globe. Although we can and must do better, let us be frank about our successes.

We speak nearly 300 different languages, according to Victorian Multicultural Commission data, and claim almost every known ancestry and every imaginable variation on the human race. More than 25 per cent of Australians are born overseas, and about 50 per cent of us have at least one of our parents born overseas.

Schools, workplaces, marriages, friendships and public and private enterprises are more diverse than ever before. Belatedly, we are beginning to validate and celebrate the unique culture of our First Nations communities and at last have adopted militancy in tackling the entrenched racism to which they have and continue to be exposed.

Australia without generations of migrants and their cultural contribution is unimaginable. But it is also a historical truth that many migrant communities, once established and settled, express reservations about the next wave.

Instead of feeling affinity or empathy, they question their legitimacy — dubbed the “drawbridge” phenomenon. Once a new arrival becomes established and secure, the “drawbridge” is lifted to prevent others from enjoying the same benefits.

It would be nonsense to try to argue that contemporary Australia is the mythical fairytale melting pot, that we all sit around together harmonising Kumbaya. It is equally wrong to portray Australia as a hotbed of racial or ethnic strife.

Last month, a handful of neo-Nazis performed on the steps of Victoria’s Parliament House, scoring the attention they craved along with their goal of saturation media coverage.

Reassuringly, their parade was swiftly condemned by almost all community leaders. Zero tolerance was confirmed at nearly every level. This is how standards are set.

Choosing to turn a blind eye or to stay silent about overt racism is in effect to support it. Saying nothing signifies everything. Not condemning is assisting – the nod, a sly wink, a slight hint of approval is oxygen to racists and assists their recruiting.

The annual monitor from the authoritative Scanlon Foundation, which researches social cohesion and helps migrants transition to Australia, notes a recent change in the value we place on migration. Since the foundation began more than 20 years ago, it has measured and tracked consistent support for immigration as a source of strength for our culture and economy.

That steady support over many years has stalled during the pandemic. Suddenly, our sense of national belonging has declined, according to the foundation, although local belonging has improved. Lockdown and isolation achieved something.

At the same time – and surely, related – fewer Australians think we are still a land of equal opportunity, both economic and social.

It ought not surprise that in times of financial stress, multiculturalism is vulnerable. Growing economic inequality exacerbates social inequality which puts stress on social cohesion.

Fear of “the other” is driving repression and racial tension all over the world, as it has throughout history. Although we have a continent to ourselves, with no land borders to spark friction, we are not immune.

For many years, I was honoured and humbled to be an Australia Day ambassador and to assist at citizenship ceremonies across the state. There are few more moving moments in public life than to witness first-hand the emotion, excitement and sincerity with which new citizens pledge allegiance to their adopted home. I recommend it as a tonic for even the most hardened of hearts and jaded of souls.

Many of us take for granted what for others is a profound privilege, the priceless reward for unimaginable hardship and struggle.

Immigration and diversity add strength to our society and counter the ossification and stagnation that impacts many countries that turn their back on the fresh ideas and energy that comes with welcoming new arrivals.

We must repel the efforts of those who try to exploit and inflame community tensions instead of resolving them, who see an opportunity for power or profit by poking a stick into an ants’ nest, and then wondering aloud why the ants have become so agitated.

Jon Faine is a regular columnist and former ABC Radio Melbourne broadcaster. He is a Vice Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Melbourne.

How Donald Trump’s vision of diversity divides us too: Cohn

Regg Cohn praising tolerance, drawing an appropriate distinction with full acceptance and celebration. And of course, tolerance happens within the context of the Charter and the legal system:

recent column calling on politicians to espouse tolerance in their public speeches sparked comments from some readers (activists and politicos) criticizing me for using that very word: Tolerance, they argued, bespeaks condescension, superiority, insincerity and negativity.

After all, one tolerates something unpleasant — a loud noise, a bad smell. One has “zero-tolerance” for drugs. Surely we should celebrate diversity, not merely tolerate our differences, these readers argued.

Well, yes and no. To me, tolerance is a worthy objective in itself, because it is eminently realistic and achievable. Here’s how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines tolerance:

First, a “willingness to accept feelings, habits or beliefs that are different from your own.” Second, “the ability to accept, experience or survive something harmful or unpleasant.”

Tolerance can, in fact, have a double-meaning — fairness versus forbearance. Which is quite apt.

It’s understandable that many Canadians try to put a relentlessly positive spin on diversity, calling on us to “celebrate” and “embrace” it — appealing to our better angels. But let’s be honest with ourselves.

There’s not always cause for celebration. Not all diversity is delightful.

For example, one can be tolerant of the face-concealing burqa, without necessarily celebrating it. The Islamic call to prayers wafting from a nearby mosque might annoy some neighbours, until they realize that church bells pealing nearby are also part of the religious landscape — and so one tunes out the noise, rather than praying for silence.

Tolerance is an antidote to intolerance and discrimination. We needn’t sugar coat all diversity. Far better to truly understand differences while seeking reasonable accommodation.

Let’s not make tolerance a dirty word. If we persist in pretending that all diversity is positivity, we will quickly get caught out in a lie — and feed the resentment that Trump harvests across America, or that Leitch is mining in the Conservative leadership race.

Live and let live. Even if you don’t always love the lives others lead.

It’s better than living a lie. The best way to defend diversity is with honesty — not defensiveness.

Source: How Donald Trump’s vision of diversity divides us too: Cohn | Toronto Star