Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (10)
Thankfully, Peter Fitzsimons has been acquitted of the charge of racism for calling a dusky South African bodyguard a ‘gorilla’ on national TV. Counsel for the defence, Peter Fitzsimons, persuaded the judge, Peter Fitzsimons, that it would be impossible for the accused, Peter Fitzsimons, to be found guilty because
“It would be bloody strange if he was racist towards black South Africans when, in the 1980s, he was far and away the loudest Wallaby to speak out strongly against apartheid. Stranger still, that circa 1993, he was on the organising committee and MC-ed the Sydney Town Hall fundraiser for Nelson Mandela as he emerged from prison after 27 years, to launch himself and his people in their first election campaign in the newly liberated South Africa? And that, consequently, the most treasured possession in his house is the signature of Nelson Mandela.”
It seems Fitz’s innocence of the change was confirmed by the absence of Twitter fury following the original putative offence, which was merely the employment of the widely used Aussie vernacular of the term ‘gorilla’ in reference to
“an aggressive security guard”, not dissimilar to the Oxford dictionary definition, “1.informal, A heavily built aggressive-looking man”.
Yes, Leftists routinely take to Twitter to denounce the failings of their favourite progressive figures!
If I have the logic right, because Fitzsimons didn’t intend to give offence, none could possibly have been taken, even by a black South African, probably unfamiliar with good old Aussie parlance.
So, by the same token, one wonders if a 13-year-old girl at the MCG was simply using the term ‘ape’ to refer to a heavily built aggressive looking man? A young girl disadvantaged by the fact that she has not yet had the opportunity to establish her anti-racist credentials by MCing a Town Hall fundraiser for Nelson Mandela.
But to cut to the chase, I would concede that Fitzsimons is not racist just because, in the heat of the moment, he carelessly used a colourful phrase. It’s just a pity that he and many others like him cannot allow the same magnanimity to lesser mortals. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act does not take account of the fact that Fitzsimons did not intend to give offence, and he certainly had no 18D defence. I wonder if Fitzsimons have gotten off so lightly had the ‘gorilla’ in question had been an indigenous Australian?
Sadly, judging by the hypocrisy of the Left and the fact that Fitzsimons is a virtue-signaller of national prominence, most probably he would.
Fitz is a preferred and privileged bien pensant. As such he acquires the benefits of a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card. All of which exposes the extraordinary naivete and hypocrisy of the aggrieved Left.
> ” … hypocrisy of the aggrieved Left”
I’ve pondered on that for some 20+ years. Why are those from the Left so deeply, deeply hypocritical and seemingly so very unaware of it ?
Some people tell me it’s to validate their very low feelings of self-worth.
I think more likely it’s ineradicable vanity and Noble Cause Corruption, but that’s just my educated guess.
Do you have an explanation you prefer ? I find it an interesting question in that if we could find an accurate answer, it may help to deal with the phenomenon … also may not, of course.
Ian, it’s the’very unaware’ part that is the intractable problem. Sarah Hanson-Young is a classic example.
I believe much of what they believe has been promulgated at university. Many of them went to university steamed up about social injustice from their own families and they’ve caught the zeitgeist about the possibility of change. Of course, many of them go onto successful and affluent lives but many do not and this is where the grievance becomes so important. It’s very important to understand that the fundamental naivete of the Left is at the heart of many of their ‘beliefs’ (I would argue that most believe in nothing but can be conned into anything!). Being separated, and in a bubble, from the mainstream also allows them to suck on the cool aid of so-called progressivism. The echo chamber of the inner city Left has got to be one of the most closed-minded, stifling environment you could possibly imagine. And if you need a prop to sustain your flagging sense of self (and want to avoid the hassle of actually thinking for yourself) then attaching yourself to the herd and their baggage seems an easier deal. Rather like the herds of wilderbeast on the plains of Africa whose sheer numbers help them to move forward together and to survive.
Peter, you must appreciate that card carrying members of the Moral Superiority Party are governed by an entirely different set of rules than us, the “contemptibles”. More than that, their leaders are absolutely beyond reproach.
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
(What is permissible to gods is not permissible to cattle.)
Peter Fitzsimons is just another legend in his own lunchbox who thinks he is morally superior to the rest of us and therefore beyond reproach. In other words just another lefty windbag.
Bill being part of the “deplorables” I can accept but being part of the “contemptibles” seems a bit harsh:-)
Peter,
You must have been reading a version of the Adam Goodes incident that had been truncated for maximum effect by the useful idiots in the MSM. The little girl called him not an “ape”, but a “big hairy ape” – a phrase I probably used (out of earshot) for any large bearded man when I was a kid. Largeness and hairiness were the issues, not skin colour. It turns out the little girl in question had the same view, and only found out that “ape” was a special insult to Aborigines after the event. A slight truncation to remove that context makes all the difference. I accept that bandanna-brain is no racist, but I don’t accept that the average Aussie thinks that “gorilla” is slang for “security guard”.
I agree.