Geoffrey Gibson December 27, 2007 THERE is a lot of confusion about whether we should say that we are sorry for the wrongs of our past. In dealing with this, I would like to refer to the observations of Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which is a moving case of intellectual honesty on one of the most difficult issues that the Western world has to face. She wrote this: "Many people today would agree that there is no such thing as collective guilt or, for that matter, collective innocence, and that if there were, no one person could ever be guilty or innocent. This, of course, is not to deny that there is such a thing as political responsibility which, however, exists quite apart from what the individual member of the group has done and therefore can neither be judged in moral terms nor be brought before a criminal court. "Every government assumes political responsibility for the deeds and misdeeds of its predecessor and every nation for the deeds and misdeeds of the past . Every generation, by virtue of being born into a historical continuum, is burdened by the sins of the fathers as it is blessed with the deeds of the ancestors." There are three things to note. First, if you want to claim the wins, you have to share the losses. The English cannot enjoy the Magna Carta but forget Ireland. If you want to raise your glass to Stan McCabe taking the paint off the fence at the MCG while punishing the Bodyline bowlers, you have to hang your head over the Aborigines we murdered and raped and robbed. Second, we are talking about political entities - bodies politic or, when the High Court is in one of its romantic moods, "polities". We are not talking of Tom, Dick or Harry. Third, we are talking of political responsibility, not moral responsibility, much less guilt. To say that an entity is politically responsible is not to say that Tom, Dick or Harry is morally responsible, let alone morally or legally guilty. A government cannot avoid a liability on an obligation by saying that it was controlled by a different political party when the obligation was assumed. A nation cannot escape an obligation by saying that all of its citizens involved in the acts giving rise to the obligation are dead. We are talking of the responsibility - some now prefer the term accountability - of the nation, not an obligation of any of its citizens. Lawyers regard as elementary the proposition that a legal entity, such as a company, is distinct from its members. This is no abstract legal point. Try telling a Magpie that Collingwood could not claim the benefit of its four flags in a row from 1927 to 1930 because none of the members then is still a member now. When people, mistakenly, say, "I cannot apologise for something that I did not do," they should simply ask themselves what "I" means. They are being asked to apologise not for what "they" did, or even for what "their" ancestors did, but for what their nation did. If they do not accept this, they should then pop up to the RSL and tell the members that the Japanese are off the hook for the Burma railway and send a congratulatory letter to Ankara, saying that Turkey is now off the hook for the Armenian genocide. The point is not difficult or obscure. But some politicians, such as Tony Abbott, are uncomfortable with it. Among other things, Mr Abbott says that we are talking about semantics. He fears that an apology may lead to claims for compensation. This is awfully mean from a former minister of the Crown, especially one in charge of public health. If Aborigines recover compensation for what was done to them, it will be from a court of law that binds the government, and which has found that we, represented by that government, are as a matter of law liable to compensate these people, these citizens of this nation, for a legal wrong that this nation has done to them. Who is he, or who are we, to play games if those games may lead to our victims not recovering from us what our law says is due to them? The same man, Mr Abbott, is used to giving absolute moral judgement on other issues that might be said to be "political". He goes in like a programmed centurion and says that they are life-and-death issues. Well, if I may say so, the continued existence of the Aboriginal peoples is a life-or-death issue. Nor do I believe there is one hope in hell - a term I would not otherwise use - that the position adopted by Mr Abbott would be looked upon with anything other than horrified pity by the teacher who gave us the Sermon on the Mount and in whose shadow Mr Abbott claims to tread. It would be good if those blessed with moral absolutes from God could find it in their hearts to bring the same level of moral conviction that they have about the possible extinction of a life before birth to the virtual extinction of a whole people. Some balance, sense and compassion would help. So, where are we? The German nation murdered more than 6 million Jews. In recognition of that fact, Germany has recently completed a monument that is inscribed to the memory of "the murdered Jews". It is about the size of Federation Square and occupies a space as significant in Berlin as Federation Square does in Melbourne. This does, I think, show how far we are behind Germany - morally, intellectually and politically. In this country, it seems we will go on snuggling in and dreaming of another white Christmas, all part of our white man's dreaming. Geoffrey Gibson is a Melbourne barrister.
top of page