“Our” ABC’s Â anti-free speechnik Waleed Aly is very good at telling white people what they should and shouldn’t find offensive. Needless to mention that for Wally’s ilk Â all Aussies are racist by default and Islam is a race.
I have had two articles banned after I mocked the retribalising of Australia – the absurd new “racial” divisions being forced on us. It is bizarre that arguments against racism are now being denounced as racist.
But todayÂ The AgeÂ runs an opinion piece arguing just that point – that resisting racial division is itself racist. This is Orwell meeting Kafka. (Continued below the fold)
Greens and Labor’s Left dream of the perfect egalitarian PC world where no-one is offended by anything and everyone sleeps in the same conjugal bed. Well, that’s not the way it works, fellas, and it’s you lot that have made an art form of offending people. (Larry Pickering, COMMENTS)
In it Waleed Aly argues against the Abbott Government’s proposal to reform the Racial Discrimination Act so comments are judged by the standards of the “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community”:
And what race is this hypothetical “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” meant to be, exactly?Â If you answered that they have no particular race, then you’ve just given the whitest answer possible.Â It’s the answer that assumes there is such a thing as racial neutrality. Of course, only white people have the chance to be neutral because in our society only white is deemed normal; only whiteness is invisible.
I’m astonished. Aly is arguing that those of us who say we should have a colour-blind view of the “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” are actually racist, blind to anyone not white themselves. We are “too white”, even if some of those holding this position are not white at all. Aly says we must instead see everyone not as individuals but representatives of some “race”. To judge people by their “race” or “whiteness” is now the only wayÂ notÂ to be racist. Dead is the argument of Martin Luther King that we should believe “all men are brothers” and create “a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. Did King give “the whitest answer possible” in dreaming of “racial neutrality”?
Aly’s argument also relies on an offensive stereotype that any judge, magistrate. human rights commissioner or jury member being asked to consider the views of the “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” is either white (and therefore blind to other “races”) or simply racist, and unable to conceive of any “normal” construct of Australian identity which isn’t “white”.Â This is not only false, but arguably racist, assuming a lack of insight in whites that I suspect Aly credits in himself as a “non-white”.
Then there are the double standards and claims for race-based privileges in argument.Â Aly has been given jobs on the ABC, Channel 10 and Monash University, as well as book contracts and columns inÂ The Age, yet isÂ very good at telling “white people” whether they should or shouldn’t argue back:
This matters because – if I may speak freely – plenty of white people (even ordinary reasonable ones) are good at telling coloured people what they should and shouldn’t find racist, without even the slightest awareness that they might not be in prime position to make that call.
To judge how offensive and racialist that statement is, try another equally unacceptable formulation: “Plenty of black people (even ordinary reasonable ones) are good at telling white people what they should and shouldn’t find offensive, without even the slightest awareness that they might not be in prime position to make that call.”
Excuse me, but how about we just deal with people’s arguments, and not judge those arguments by the colour of the person making them?
Instead, we are being retribalised along spurious “racial” lines, reduced to racial caricatures and robbed of our freedom and right to protest.