The role of Aboriginals in Australian wokedom is to make the woke feel morally superior and good about themselves, to be used as a cudgel to name-cell their political opponents, and to provide government jobs for woke white bureaucrats. So what happens when one of Australia’s foremost proponents of woke interviews an outspoken newly-elected Aboriginal Senator? Very revealing — and ugly.
In the blue corner, we have Senator Jacinta Price who it is blindingly obvious has a heart of gold with a life mission of ending chronic Aboriginal poverty. Price is opposed to the Voice as she believes it’d be an empty gesture and an unhelpful distraction from efforts to improve real world conditions in remote communities.
In the red bandana corner, we have author and columnist Peter FitzSimons who is an energetic crusader for multiple progressive causes. This includes the Voice as he believes it will prevent laws being passed that have a negative impact on Aboriginals.
FitzSimons writes a column for the Nine Newspapers and often uses that space for a Q&A style interview with a prominent figure. Last weekend he interviewed Price. …
FitzSimons disagreed with Price on everything and his tone in print ranges from testy to respectful but she was given plenty of space to make her case.
On Sunday, Price posted on Facebook claims that during the hour-long phone interview FitzSimons was ‘aggressive, condescending and rude’. She wrote:
I don’t know if I’d do another interview with the bloke again. He accused me of giving racists a voice but that wasn’t printed. It was like talking to a brick wall. I’m not a wilting violet but he’s a very aggressive bloke, his interview style is very bloody aggressive.
She later told The Australian:
I was really taken aback and I was exhausted by the energy it took having to defend myself. I was made to feel as though what I was trying to do is wrong and my voice is not as legitimate as those who purport to suffer from 250 years of colonisation.
The Australian contacted FitzSimons on Sunday evening for comment. He is reported to have said Price’s post was, ‘Complete and utter nonsense. This is not remotely a matter of interpretation. Friendly interview, nice text exchange at its conclusion. Every single word is recorded as I told her.’
The post-interview intimidation and legal bullying, to shut her up:
Tuesday’s Australian reported on Sunday evening Price received multiple text messages from FitzSimons. He wasn’t happy claiming, ‘This is a serious matter and you have defamed me. Retract every word. I invite you to withdraw quickly. I repeat, every word recorded!’
Price said she felt intimated by the barrage of texts and concluded the exchange by saying, ‘Please stop bullying me. I don’t ever want to communicate with you again.’
By this stage, Price had deleted the Facebook post … which is understandable after what sounded like thinly veiled legal threats from a wealthy individual. She has since told media it was deleted out of fear of legal action. The Australian claims they were also subjected to legal threats by FitzSimons.
The tape, the bluff, and the hypocrisy:
A central part of FitzSimons’ defence is that the interview is on tape. Taping an interview is a common practice and Price was informed of this in advance.
The public disclosure of the existence of a tape however poses an obvious question, why not settle this and publicly release the tape? It is odd to claim innocence on the grounds a tape exists but then not release the tape.
Price has since been asked if she would consent to the tape being released and responded, ‘I’d be very happy with that. I’d be quite happy for the public to listen to that interview themselves.’ …
The possessor of a taped private conversation is forbidden from releasing it publicly unless the other participant consents. Price has publicly and somewhat enthusiastically consented.
So just release the tape, Mr Woke Bully. But he won’t. By the rules of woke, a white man must always defer to a black woman, regardless of the evidence. So he’s stuffed before he even begins, according to the rules of his tribe. On top of that, Peter is a pretty aggressive person who doesn’t listen carefully, so my guess is that Jacinta’s version of the events is probably nearer the mark.
Chris Kenny takes up the next part:
Exponents of an Indigenous voice to parliament do themselves no favours when they attempt to silence or condemn people with an alternative point of view.
Do they not even conceive of the irony?
They champion a vehicle to give voice to the diverse views of those who previously have been ignored, by attempting to crush dissenting views. Irony be damned, it is rank hypocrisy. …
FitzSimons’s questions to Price as transcribed and published in the SMH were rude and aggressive enough; slurring an Indigenous woman as racially divisive, just because he disagrees with her on a political proposition, when she has only ever campaigned to tackle grassroots dilemmas….
Price has asked for the tape to be released but the SMH has resisted. FitzSimons spruiks an Indigenous voice while silencing an Indigenous woman.
Still, that is a sideshow compared with the central point revealed by this episode. The imagined moral superiority, arrogance and obscene double standards of the political green left are stripped bare.
These same tendencies drive the cancel culture mentality of our universities, media and politics across a range of areas such as climate and immigration. They metastasise aggressively around identity politics.
It is a cancerous blight on public debate imported from the US. Prevalent at the public broadcasters, Guardian Australia, the Nine Entertainment newspapers and Channel 10, this mindless submission to political fashion is best personified by the would-be president of the People’s Republic of Australia, FitzSimons, and his wife, the queen of tabloid television, Lisa Wilkinson.
A criminal trial for an alleged rape in Parliament House, the personal insights of an Indigenous senator, a politician’s concerns about girls competing against biological males, or the Christian faith of Pasifika footballers — this pair stumbles, guns slinging, into every identity controversy.
What is revealed is that no person’s rights or opinions trump their need to pontificate about their woke ideals. …
Feeling superior — Lazy emotionalism and fashion:
When you see the antics of people such as FitzSimons and the ABC barrackers you are tempted to disassociate from the cause as they define it; but more insightfully, you see how so-called progressives eschew rational arguments in favour of lazy emotionalism and fashion.
Which is why, on the republic, they refuse to engage in a debate about how a democratic system based on merit should have at its pinnacle a product of democracy and merit; instead, they go with the jingoistic notion that our head of state should be “one of us” (xenophobic enough?).
Likewise on the voice, instead of addressing the decades-old debates about representation and constitutional recognition, and the impact it could have on practical reconciliation and redressing disadvantage, they prefer to run with emotive arguments such as claims by University of Technology Sydney professor Nareen Young that the “only people asking for detail are people who oppose it” and that the voice is being undermined by Coalition “rednecks and racists”.
Is there nothing admirable about the woke? Go on, call us all “racist” yet again — is that all you got?