Stop everything, Australia! The actors have spoken!
Those people who lead normal, balanced, sane lives and have to deal with all the same day-to-day issues we do (such as whether our Evian water supply is running low or our Met Gala outfit will dazzle the crowds) are sharing their incredible wisdom on the constitutional question of our times.
Australian actor Cate Blanchett – never short of a woke opinion or ten – has told the ABC that this year’s referendum on an indigenous Voice to Parliament is ‘an extraordinary time’ for our nation’s history.
‘It’s a strange time, but it’s an extraordinary time for an extraordinary country,’ she opined. ‘It does make me sad that there’s a lot of fear being generated about a really positive moment for us as a nation.’
So, let’s see; activists want to change our constitution to add an entire chapter – not just a clause – which will demand a special Voice to Parliament for a specific group of people based on their race. This is based on the fact that their ancestors (and maybe just one or two of many ancestors, by the way) got here ‘first’.
Sorry, but that is just obviously, clearly wrong. None of us should feel any less Australian if we were citizens born overseas, or citizens born to non-Aboriginal ancestors within the past 235 years or descendants of the ‘first’ peoples.
That’s the change we are being asked to vote Yes to in this referendum. And dearest Cate, we have every right to be afraid.
Is there anything more enjoyable than a tediously woke Hollywood actor lecturing people about politics and the law? A former Melbourne private school girl with an arts degree from NIDA telling the rest of us how we should think regarding this complex proposed Constitutional change?
Don’t get me wrong. She’s entitled, as we all are, to have an opinion and express it. But Cate is lecturing. It’s not, ‘I like the Voice idea. I think it will be great for Australia. What do you think?’ Nope. It’s a scolding for conservatives and Voice opponents of the Hillary Clinton ‘deplorable’ kind. We’re being condescended to and judged as not as smart or wise as Cate. As if we are somehow foolishly fearful sad little conservatives and classical liberals who don’t understand the deep-feeling humanity of the far morally superior woke left.
And it kept getting better as the interview progressed. With Sarah Ferguson nodding in furious agreement – displaying the kind of partisanship only the ABC is bold enough to exude while shamelessly sponging off the public purse – Cate began lecturing us about the law and the constitution, stuff I never knew they covered at NIDA.
‘We have to remember that the primacy of parliament is not under threat,’ she reassured us, mere mortals. ‘It’s just that, you know, parliament is a place where the important issues of the day are debated and, and, all points of view are listened to, and the government – parliament – makes legislation – they make decisions – the parliament makes those decisions.’
I’m glad we cleared that up. Kamala Harris would be proud.
She’s right, in a sense. The primacy of parliament is not at risk. But the fairness of it is. When you allow a special body or de facto ‘third chamber’ to give special voice to 3% of the population based on their racial heritage, that’s a serious step in the direction of a specific ideology: left-wing identity politics. We’re giving special privileges to a select group of citizens based on their race. Next, it’ll be gender, then sexuality. Everyone has a worthy cause, Cate. If we follow your muddled ‘logic’ pretty soon, there’ll be a rainbow flag variation and a special Voice to Parliament for everyone. But I’m interrupting the artist’s monologue – please carry on.
‘There’s a certain voice that’s never really in a non-partisan way, in an eternal way, represented at that table, and that’s an indigenous voice. And it’s time we evolved to include all Australians.’
Evolve, you right-wing apes!!
Cate might want to tell the 11 Indigenous members of our current Parliament that they don’t have a voice. I’m sure they’d be interested to know that. She’d be astounded to learn they got there on their own merits – without the patronising, condescending racism of low expectations that underlies US-style ‘affirmative action’ policies.
Debating with feelings rather than rationality, as our friends on the political left so often do, it was time to bring out the usual poorly thought-through false equivalency.
‘Women only achieved suffrage 120 years ago…and the debate was all about “the society is going to collapse, and we don’t know what’s going to happen, what’s gonna happen if the women get the vote!”’ she cried, using her Academy Award-winning talents to role-play the ignorance of the ‘deplorables’ of another era.
‘Now, can we imagine a world in Australia where women didn’t have the right to vote? No, we can’t,’ she concluded, with the certainty of someone who’d just delivered a knockout blow.
Can we imagine a world in Australia where people used sound analogies and played to intelligence rather than feelings? No, we can’t.
And that is why we should never take political advice from actors.
This is nothing like women’s suffrage Cate. Aboriginal people already have the right to vote. We took race out of the constitution to ensure this in a far more sensible referendum half a century ago.
I think the more accurate analogy is setting up a special Women’s Voice to Parliament. Worse than that: a special Left-Wing Women’s Voice to Parliament, to be more precise. Could you imagine that? No laws are able to pass in our country without a room full of people who think like Cate Blanchett approving them.
Please take the time to imagine that clearly because it is the best analogy with what they’re asking us to endorse; a special chamber, with special access and rights of consideration, and input over laws that affect everyone, not just their identity group.
If ever there was a clear case to vote No, Cate Blanchett just defined it perfectly. Bravo. Give the woman an Oscar.
