The use and misuse of racism claims by tyrants
I have recently written about the controversy concerning the proposed visit by the Australian cricket team to Zimbabwe. Yesterday, the Howard government moved to ban the team's visit to that country. The ban prompted an attack by the Zimbabwe government, which claimed that the ban was a "desperate" and "racist" move motivated by the increasing number of black players on the Zimbabwe cricket team, that Australia was one of the worst human rights violators in the world and that the ban denied Zimbabwean cricketers' "human rights" to play sport.
Lets get the minor matters out of the way first. I am not a fan of the present Australian government. The Zimbabwe ban is one of the very few times I have agreed with their actions. One of the reasons for the difference in opinion is that the human rights record of the Howard government is indeed dreadful. Their treatment of refugees merits the strongest condemnation (and Labor is not much better in that regard, by the way). Their policies on indigenous people and native title, workers rights, rights of gays and lesbians, of the unemployed and other vulnerable groups are a long way off the best practice human rights standards. Is it true that a country which is not a model of human rights compliance cannot take political action against a government responsible for terrible and persistent human rights violations? If that logic was followed no tyrannical regime could ever be subject to criticism, because there is no nation in the world that has a flawless human rights record.
The second minor matter is that I must confess my apparent ignorance, for in my perusal of human rights treaties I have not encountered anything to suggest that playing cricket against another country is a human right. However, freedom from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture or execution and the right to participate in a democratic process are just a few among the rights that are in fact human rights and that have been violated by Mugabe's regime.
Now to the claims of racism. It is concerning that there is a distinct trend (perhaps aided by the cultural relativist ideals) to use the cry of racism as a shield against human rights abuse allegations. Debate of what exactly constitutes racism is beyond the parameters of a blog post. However, it may be stated what racism is not. Criticism of a vile dictator because he abuses the human rights of his citizens is not racism merely because the perpetrator is black. Racism is not an excuse for unacceptable conduct by someone who is black. Racism is, at its heart, an abuse of power. It cannot and should not become a shield for abuses perpetrated by racial minorities, such as those of the Mugabe regime. Racism is about prejudice. It cannot and should not be a shield for prejudices that are equally as vile and illogical (refer to Mugabe's stance on homosexuals).
Freedom from racial discrimination is a human right. Baseless claims of racism only cheapen and degrade the enormous problem that racism is and do a great disservice to those who are really its victims. No doubt Mugabe's government does not care about racism any more than it cares about the other human rights that it routinely violates. For it, racism is a slogan to be thrown around when convenient. And it is yet one more reason why the Australian government was right to ban the Zimbabwe cricket tour.
RSS
