Activist Ties Himself in Knots to Defend Racist Con

Where will we hold Australia,
we who have no other country?
Not Indigenous, merely born here.

LES MURRAY

Australian politics is periodically rocked by “progressive” fads which generate much sound and fury but ultimately fizzle out because Australians are by and large simply too sensible to indulge such flights of fancy. In the late 90s, it was the Republic push which excited the tiny minds of the inner-city left. But while the luvvies worked themselves into a backslapping lather during their aptly-named “Con-Con”, the sensible mass of ordinary Australians overwhelmingly rejected it when it came to a referendum. The political-media elite likewise keep assuring each other that their imaginary “climate emergency” is “the great moral challenge of our time”: at election after election, Australian voters have quietly begged to differ.

The current fad for Australian “progressives” is a constitutionally-enshrined “Indigenous Voice”. Even the elites are slowly realising that enshrining racial separatism in the nation’s foundational legal document is going to be a hard sell. Enthusiasts like Noel Pearson are tying themselves into ever-more ridiculous knots, trying to deny the obvious.

Cape York leader Noel Pearson says the truth is out about the just movement for a First Nations voice in the constitution and now only lies can defeat it.

Which is kind of rich, considering what comes next.

“Our opponents in the Institute of Public Affairs attempt to put a liberal philosophical sheen on Andrew Bolt’s argument that a First Nations voice would constitute separate treatment on the basis of race in the constitution,” he said.

“This argument succeeds only if you ignore the truth that our claim is on the basis of our being indigenous to this country, not on the basis of race.”

theaustralian.com.au/nation/only-lies-can-defeat-indigenous-voice-pearson/news-story/bd7dedb1938df8052152cacda715d21e

If Pearson has finished calling a spade a rectangular manual earth-moving implement, perhaps he would care to explain how that isn’t about race?

He might also care to reconcile that claim with his previous statement that:

The essence of indigeneity … is that people have a connection with their ancestors whose bones are in the soil. Whose dust is part of the sand. I had to come to the somewhat uncomfortable conclusion that even Andrew Bolt was becoming Indigenous because the bones of his ancestors are now becoming part of the territory.

If Pearson truly believes that statement, then I, with generations of ancestors whose bones are in the soil of my land, am as indigenous as he. In which case, separate “indigenous recognition” for he but not for me can only be on the basis of his race.

Pearson should just admit that he, like every other Australian, already is recognised in the constitution: This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth.

What he, like all the other “Voice” proponents really want is a constitutionally enshrined separate status for just one race of people in Australia. Apartheid, we used to call that.