ACUTE ANGLES: Multiculture vs Monoculture – The Jewish Angle

Dear Rabbi.  Pauline Hanson said Australia must exist as a “monocultural society”  What would Judaism have to say?  J. K.

Rabbi.  One Nation is the most pro-Israel party in Australia. Would you vote for them?  L.B.

In her maiden address to the Australian National Press Club, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson declared Australia “cannot be multicultural and must exist as a ‘monocultural society.’”

I have no idea who wrote and edited her speech but whoever it was should no longer be in the job, as that ridiculous statement has very sadly, once again, called into question Hanson’s credentials as a potential leader. Such a pity because most of the rest of her speech was eminently sensible – but people will only remember the “mono” word.

Multiculturalism as a political philosophy, like many “isms”, is a policy which one can support or oppose. However, as a demographic fact, Australia is multicultural, whether Pauline Hanson, I or anyone else likes it or not. Italian, Greek, Croatian, Chinese, Filipino and Aboriginal Australians, not to mention Aussies of British, Irish, New Zealander and South African extraction inter alia make up the melting pot of Australia’s population, and we Jews with roots in all parts of the world add to the cultural mix.

It was evident from the rest of her speech that the immigration to which Hanson is principally opposed is that of radical Islamic groups, cited by her several times. She spoke of Australia’s “Judeo-Christian” ethical roots and cited the Bondi massacre – at an event celebrating Jewish religious culture, not “monoculture” – as a watershed moment for Australia. Notwithstanding her “monoculture” declaration, she has no apparent issue with Jewish men sporting a kipa nor, I believe, with Belz or Satmar chasidim traversing the streets of Ripponlea in their kapotas or bekishes. Nor with Jewish women wearing a sheitel, tichel or snood.  Her problem with the burka is that she associates it, rightly or wrongly, with the Taliban and Islamic State.

I believe the word that Pauline Hanson should have used to express her worldview more accurately, instead of “monocultural”, is mono-allegiant. Australians can maintain their different cultures, provided they are not at odds with the country’s core values, but must obey and uphold the laws of the land. This is, of course, a Jewish halachic tenet dating from the dawn of our diaspora experience – dina de-malkhuta dina, “the [civil] law of the land is law” enshrined in the Talmud (Nedarim 28a, Gittin 10b, Bava Kama 113b, Bava Batra 54b) The roots of this concept are found in Jeremiah who exhorts us to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray to G-D on its behalf, for in its peace you shall have peace!” (29:7). Sadly such a concept is not upheld in Islam where sharia law is sought in whichever country they find themselves.

Would I vote for One Nation? I might! At present, its values align more closely with Jewish values than do those of any other major party. On abortion, it is pro-life.  It doesn’t support gay marriage, and, as Hanson’s speech illustrated, has zero tolerance for the cult of transgenderism. It doesn’t align with Judaism in its tolerance for so-called assisted dying (seeing it no doubt as a “freedom of choice” issue), but then again nor, sadly, does any other party. It also embraces work-ethic and supports the Aussie concept of “a fair go” for those who likewise espouse this notion.

It is also the most pro-Israel of any party at present.  To my knowledge, Pauline Hanson has never said a bad word about Judaism, Jews or Israel and I can personally testify to her support for us. At the Bondi massacre memorial evening held at the Sydney Opera House, I was buoyed to see her seated in the same row as my wife and me. I thanked her for her support as she left just before the end. As a prominent public figure, she could easily have claimed a box seat alongside the other political identities present. But she came and left unannounced, quietly and in a private capacity.  Our roof-bodies’ coldness towards her is woefully misplaced and certainly not in the interest of Australian Jewry.

So to sum up my answers to J.K and L.B: Pauline Hanson’s use of the word “monocultural” was unfortunate, and mono-allegiant would have done justice to her message and covered her with glory. Australia already is a multicultural society, and this is not likely to change.  And I would certainly consider voting for One-Nation if it were to smooth over its slightly rough edges and maintain – and ideally enhance – its embrace of Noachide-style moral values.  Oh, and please find a new speechwriter/editor for Pauline!