Watched Q and A last night. Probably got through about half of it before I'd had enough of the relentless idiocy of the lefties on the panel. Predictably they engaged in repeated PC cant, as well as heaps of vindictive sliming of conservatives. But the prize for the most vain, sanctimonious and infantile contributions surely went to Lisa Wilkinson.
Needless to say the numerous numpties in the audience thought that the vapid tele-bimbo was the duck's nuts. She revelled in this adulation, displaying an annoyingly smug expression throughout much of the jawfest.
Her first brain fart occurred early on:
LISA WILKINSON: I'm a passionate believer in freedom of speech but not if that freedom of speech allows somebody to racially vilify or humiliate or marginalise or isolate a particular group and I think that's what 18C is about stopping having happen. And if there is going to be freedom of expression, that has to be balanced with freedom from oppression and I think that's what also 18C is about and really it's about the rules of the playground applying in adult life outside of the playground where bullies are no longer allowed to bully and get away with it.
The particular part of the RDA that the current government is focusing on is Section 18C. And it seems that all they want to do is remove the bit that makes it unlawful to offend or insult. So she seems not to have done her homework.
Or maybe she was referring to that particular section in the above rant. In that case she is so stupid she thinks that offending and insulting members of certain races constitutes oppression of them. Talk about a low bar ...
And I love her line about the rules of the playground applying to adult life. I've often heard lefties use such schoolyard analogies, BTW. They clearly think adult citizens are like sprogs, an attitude that ironically is far more childish than the grownups they purport to want to protect. Hell, if adults are so delicate that they need to be protected from insult, then it's not such a stretch to say they are too feeble minded to vote ...
In the above quote she seems to be saying that the state should tell people how to behave, much as a teacher brings justice to a playground. But if adults, who surely should be able to think, speak, and argue for themselves, need to be disciplined in such an overbearing way, then isn't the state the bully?
Being the PC feminist that she is, Wilkinson was very likely going to use that ol' sob sister standby: blaming the white male patriarchy. And of course she did:
LISA WILKINSON: Do you think part of the reason why you can't sympathise or recognise what’s...
GEORGE BRANDIS: No, I didn't say I didn’t sympathise.
LISA WILKINSON: But you can't seem to understand how that would cause enormous discomfort for somebody and they would withdraw from public life. Do you think that’s because you are a white, able-bodied, heterosexual male?
Two things: Imagine if Brandis had used that sexist line on her, arguing that she didn't understand some point he was making because of her gender, etc.
And the falsity of it is so bloody obvious! If Brandis's race, sexuality and gender render him incapable of concurring with her stupid cant, then why was Chris Bowen on her side? He belongs to the same demographic she used to describe Brandis, remember.
The tired ol' bimbo-feminist thesis she put forward implies that any straight white male who supports nanny statist PC policies is fundamentally incapable of fully grasping them. So if he claims to supports them, he's surely being insincere, right?
So why wasn't Bowen offended by her statement and say as much? Come to think of it, why do jelly backed leftie males never react with indignation to this implied smear? (Oh, wait. I think I just answered that. )
This goes right back to something that the majority of the population grasps completely: People are primarily individuals, not members of a group. Just as there are many glib, soulless SNAGs like Bowen, there are also many black lesbian women who can actually think for themselves, and are therefore conservatives. (Condoleezza Rice is a prominent example.) Lefties like Wilkinson (and Bowen, for that matter) are so thick and primitive they simply cannot grasp this obvious truth. It's as sad as it is disturbing.
Just to reconfirm Wilkinson's lack of intelligence she used the exact same gender card a little bit later:
GLEN RADFORD: Question is this: Liberal backbencher Sharman Stone has suggested that the party should introduce mandatory quotas to boost the number of women in Federal Parliament. What does the panel think of the quotas as a way to redress discrimination? And aren't quotas a form of reverse discrimination against those in the majority who have been selected on merit?
TONY JONES: Let's hear first from the women on the panel. Lisa Wilkinson?
LISA WILKINSON: It's interesting that that question comes from a man because maybe you would have to be a woman to get, you know, exactly what this is all about.
She then went on to blather about the need for more women. Interesting that she's fixated on gender. Why not more homosexual males instead of women. Why not more disabled people? Why not more people who are extremely tall?
Could this be because she's a white, able bodied, heterosexual woman? Er, no.
It's 'cause she's a doctrinaire nanny statist seeking to engineer society's rules to her own advantage. She wants to be sure that she and other right-on mediocrities are bestowed positions of power and influence without having to prove that they are capable and deserving of them. She, like almost all lefties, is always trying to get there the easy way (while making others pay). Typical socialist -- always thinking about her own needs and wants above those of others.