Uniya Newsletter: Autumn 1995, p 8.

                   The International Year for Tolerance
                                     
        In a quick survey of several areas, John Cauchi argues that
            tolerance itself should not be too easily accepted,
                                     
(John Cauchi is a Sydney barrister and executive member of the Ethnic
Communities Council of NSW.)

THE YEAR OF THE FAMILY has departed, leaving a peculiar aftertaste.
Virtually the whole year, in the public arena at least, was spent defining
the family. Well, that year is over.

  What follows is the United Nations International Year for Tolerance.
Interestingly, this year was at first named "The Year of Cultural
Diversity." A few problems might have arisen from that title. Imagine a
sub-under-secretary in Geneva sending a submission to Boutros Boutros-
Ghali:

  "Dear Secretary General, I wish to raise a slight problem with you.
When you look around the world there are some gaping holes in the
celebration of cultural diversity. Consider, sir, Burma, Cambodia, East
Timor, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Palestine, Ireland, Algeria and Bosnia, to name
just a few. There's not much cultural diversity celebration going on in
those places. We should change the name to one of toleration, and lower
our aspirations."

  And the reply? "Dear Sub-under-secretary, Yes, yes: I agree. Regards,
B.B.G."

  Some aspects of tolerance are bound to raise questions. The term sounds
a lot like radical non-intervention. To become something worthwhile,
tolerance has to be a carefully thought-out stance. It did not work during
the Second European War (World War 2). The existence of the policy of
appeasement among the so-called allies allowed the atrocities of the
Holocaust. Later Pol Pot was tolerated, so was Indonesia's action in East
Timor, and so are many current dictatorships and military governments.
Tolerance may not be a suitable aspiration after all.

  What else is happening in 1995? This is the Chinese Year of the Pig,
the 50th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War. It is 20 years
since the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. 50 years of planned
migration to Australia have taken place, and 207 years has passed since
European colonisation. These events indicate the diversity of Australian
history and society. It is likely, however, that the year's main emphasis
will fall on events that betray us as a "clone" country.

  When thinking about tolerance I recall Carl Rogers' phrase:
"unconditional positive regard". Rogers, in his theory of counselling,
perceived this as a trait that helps to heal. In this sense tolerance,
too, might emerge as a force for good. What Rogers was really describing
is acceptance, something more than tolerance. After the recent funeral of
Archbishop Carroll, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam said of Carroll,
"No-one has contributed more to Australia being a well-educated and more
tolerant society" - a curious thing to say, given that the good bishop was
a "backroom" type of man who allegedly delivered many Catholic votes for
the ALP over the state aid issue.

  During his recent visit to Australia the Pope observed, "The
multicultural society of present day Australia had sprung from the men and
women from all parts of the globe who were seeking a better life for
freedom, justice and tolerance." The multi-faceted aspect of our society
is something about which Australia can rightly be proud. We should not be
lulled into the false security of tolerance, as if it was simply an
important step on the way to acceptance. Mere tolerance as practised in
Australia still provides too many excuses for non-intervention in
important issues. There is a tendency to regard fundamentalists as crazy
and to treat non-christian religions suspiciously. The iconography of
Australia is deficient in a number of areas. Aborigines, migrants, women,
people who live in poverty and the unemployed are all grossly under-
represented in the national recognition lists. They are tolerated but
nothing more.

  Although Catholics are not permitted to argue about it, the papal
"anthropology" that ascribes to "woman" to the role of "motherhood" must
have sounded incongruous to a cathedral full of celibate women! A kind of
"tolerance" over  women's ministry has produced the intransigence the
present papal teaching, tolerating women's overwhelming presence in the
Church but limiting their potential to the point of exclusion from the
sacramental ministry. Similarly, the exclusion of married male candidates
from the priesthood may be described as another product of "tolerance".

  Tolerance, then, is an inadequate yet important minimum step on the
path to acceptance. We ought not be satisfied with any display of mere
tolerance. What Australia and the world need to develop is real
acceptance, with its emphasis on equality.