Dorinda Cox accuses Greens of racism in scathing resignation letter
Dorinda Cox accuses Greens of racism in scathing resignation letter
In a fiery resignation letter, ex-Greens senator Dorinda Cox accuses her former party of racism and ignoring serious claims she raised.
In short:
Greens defector Dorinda Cox says her former party failed to address serious concerns she raised and enabled a "toxic" culture.
Senator Cox also denied any suggestions she has ever perpetrated bullying, despite a number of complaints from former staff that were reported last year.
What's next?
The senator says she is eager to now focus on getting tangible outcomes for First Nations people.
You're viewing a single thread.
If you start believing that racism is the cause of all your woes you'll see it everywhere, particularly if - for example - you're still salty about losing a vote to be deputy leader.
It is amusingly ironic though because the Greens both appear the least likely party to actually be racist and the most likely party to have enabled such a mindset during her time with them.
I'd say the Greens are the most likely to be racist. They're the kinds of people who could never even conceive of the possibility that they are not completely virtuous ("they' as in themselves, not POC. I'm not claiming some reverse racism BS).
I cannot imagine them being called racist and them not feeling angry at the accusation. I cannot imagine them admitting to fault. And I cannot imagine them growing as a result.
It took a while, but the trigger for me switching my vote from the Greens to Labor was when Bandt asked Albanese something in question time and was absolutely seething in anger when the (Labor) speaker said his question was against the rules. The Greens (or at least Bandt) are people who consider anything that makes them uncomfortable to be absolute evil.
As a previous Greens' member (I live overseas now) I can say that my experience is that Greens' members are generally pretty sensitive to causing offence and are more than willing to apologise if they are told they're causing it, at least by other members. This is of course anecdotal though.
Also maybe changing your vote because you thought an individual action by someone was stupid is a childish way of thinking about politics?
I can't speak much to your anecdote, as you said. I can easily imagine the Greens apologising for using the wrong pronoun or mocking disability. I'm not sure where the exact line would be (in my almost entirely imagined idea of the Greens). The idea that their decisions are any less than perfect seems to be a sore spot for them, the only public self-reflection they've done regarding the last term is that "Labor ran an effective campaign on us blocking the HAAF for a year" IIRC.
I think they're a lot more sensitive regarding the Greens political party than they are individually. They are also sensitive individually when they're speaking on behalf of the Greens publicly (see my earlier example with Bandt, and Max Chandler-Mather's comments about other politicians being mean). You could instead say they're sensitive to humiliation, but that wouldn't fit my (entirely imagined) narrative of the Greens being racist so I'll put that theory aside.
Also maybe changing your vote because you thought an individual action by someone was stupid is a childish way of thinking about politics?
I didn't change my vote because of that. I became open to reconsidering my views after that. Although I'm not even sure if that was the exact snowball that started this.
the only public self-reflection they've done regarding the last term is that "Labor ran an effective campaign on us blocking the HAAF for a year" IIRC.
Basically no political party is going to have an open public discussion on this. There's clearly two "factions" of the Greens, one more pragmatic and the other more 'activist'. I think the observation that Labor ran an effective smear campaign on their own unwillingness to negotiate is pretty obvious (not to say that there isn't also some need for a discussion about how much blocking is the right amount). But everyone seems to think the Greens are "this must be perfect" type people despite the fact that they showed in the last term they were willing to reduce demands or vote for things they didn't like so I guess it isn't.
...Max Chandler-Mather's comments about other politicians being mean
Other MPs complained about how he was treated so... (See here).
I think, given the (presumed) widespread perception that the Greens are arrogant, they ought to publicly air that reflection. If I'm speaking purely strategically, that would be more likely to win votes from me than what they ended up doing. I think the reason they don't is because they're incapable of such reflection. The only policy changes I recall them making are to support increased defense spending following Trump's win, and to oppose IRV and support PR after Bandt lost his seat (I BTW, support going the opposite direction with Condorcet).
As for Chandler-Mather, I think the other MP's complaining is more to do with them not seeing him as an adult than the severity of his treatment. Given how he went on the radio to complain about the treatment, I'd say they were right to.
I think the perception that the greens are arrogant is mostly a media thing to be honest, and I'm not sure how much they can do to fight that. Imo there is a general perception of any activist or left wing group that they're all arrogant/holier than thou types.
They ended up backing Labor's housing policies despite the analysis from think tanks like the Australia Institute saying they would do nothing. This all seems like a double standard anyway to me, did Labor change any policy on housing? It took months to extract some direct cash on top of the HAFF then they refused to negotiate, the greens at least tried to, yet the greens are arrogant.
Sorry for the late reply, I wanted to think through my response and then I got busy.
The Greens could publicly behave with humility. As I said, the claim that "they don't show humility because it would hurt them politically" doesn't hold up if the Greens are being "slandered" in the press for lacking humility.
And as for the HAAF, a few points:
- The Australia Institute is broadly untrustworthy. They're biased towards minor parties, or rather just anyone that'll give them attention. They're also closely tied to the now defunct Australian Democrats and those people would prefer if Labor was closer to the Liberals not just in practice but in ideology. Worst of all though, they're a think-tank. Think-tanks are, quite honestly, full of idiots. Policy-area experts, like those in the construction industry or those that work in social services, they're much more reliable than a bunch of upper-class consultants.
- The HAAF was supported across the board by people who are directly engaged with vulnerable people, and they said it was especially critical that it be passed immediately. The delay was opposed by any organization that actually dealt with vulnerable people, and the resulting delay of 1-year resulted in less housing being built. Hell, considering the state of the Australian building industry I wonder if more housing would be built even if the Greens got all their demands after this delay.
- The idea that it'd do nothing, that is absurd.
And on the double standard. The fact is the Greens would not be able to win elections without Labor. Labor could easily win elections without the Greens. You could argue that's because the system is rigged and that the system should be changed, but we're one of the best-performing democracies in the world. This isn't America where voting is optional, elections in Australia are fought in the center and Labor are much more palatable to the average Australian than some inner-city tree huggers who have never worked a day in their life. Maybe an Adam Bandt dictatorship would make the country better, who knows, but I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it.