Activists in disarray over Kerr racism saga

“M’lud, the defence now calls Ms Lucy Zelic from Australia. She was not present at the incident and knows nothing about it other than what is publicly available."

Lately I have been busy lighting candles for the many activists, academics and commentators who comprise what was known until recently as the ‘Words have consequences’ society. They are in disarray following the revelation that Matildas captain and Chelsea star Sam Kerr faces a criminal charge alleging she racially disparaged a white British police officer.

Typical of their maturity and good grace, these so-called anti-racists have reacted by throwing themselves on the floor, screaming, and ranting about the injustice of it all. To compound their agitation, they have had to contort themselves agonisingly as they employ sophistry to defend their ridiculous arguments and hypocrisy. “It is not possible for a white person to be the victim of racism”, they screech incessantly.

Kerr, who has Indian heritage, has pleaded not guilty to the charge and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. That said, some facts are not in issue. First, this incident arose following a dispute in January last year between Kerr and a London taxi driver, caused by her vomiting in the vehicle. Second, the prosecution will allege the interaction between Kerr and police was recorded on bodycam. And third, Kerr does not appear to dispute she used the adjective ‘white’ in a pejorative sense. It is understood her legal team will argue the phrase used was ‘stupid white cop’ and not ‘white bastard’.

Now given we know little else and that both Kerr and the police are yet to have their day in court, would it be asking too much for commentators to stop carrying on as if she is the female version of a young Nelson Mandela?

Kerr has pleaded not guilty to the charge and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Picture: Catherine Ivill/Getty Images

Sadly, yes, if soccer journalist and television presenter Lucy Zelic is any example. London’s Metropolitan Police, she declared during her appearance on The Project last week, had been found by the Casey Review to be “institutionally guilty of racism, misogyny, and homophobia”. For anyone familiar with the debating tactic of poisoning the well, you know what comes next.

“And the fact that this now puts before us an opportunity to discuss a) who her accusers are, and b) the fact that she’s a lesbian female footballer has drawn some real issues for me,” said Zelic. “And I can’t help but feel – I know this might be controversial to say – but I can’t help but feel that they are really gunning for her.”

Well that settles it, clearly. “M’lud, the defence now calls Ms Lucy Zelic from Australia. She was not present at the incident and knows nothing about it other than what is publicly available. Nonetheless she says she has a ‘feeling’ the police in this matter were, in her words, gunning for the accused. Her evidence is most compelling.”

Zelic did not produce anything to back up her claim this was a bad faith prosecution. She can slam the Met all she wants for its failings as a police force, but that has nothing to do with the integrity of the two officers who responded to this incident. Smearing them by association is reprehensible.

Citing the opinions of two academics, SBS, unsurprisingly, concluded the phrase “stupid white bastard” did not amount to racism. That would require an “unequal power or institutional power dynamic,” postulated associate professor and racism studies expert Mario Peucker of Victoria University.

“[Anti-racism] law was not made to protect those who are in a position of power, and you can’t think of anyone who has more power than a white police officer,” he proclaimed.

Yes, that is exactly what I thought when I saw images of outnumbered officers kneeling before jeering Black Lives Matter protesters in London several years ago. “Here is a clear example that white police possess power above all others,” I said to myself.

If Peucker really wants to know who controls the streets of London, he should take note of the UK government’s counter-extremism commissioner, Robin Simcox. Just last week he warned London was a “no-go zone for Jews” during recent pro-Palestinian marches. Care to explain this institutional power dynamic thingy in light of that, professor?

And according to human rights law expert and professor Lucas Lixinski of the University of NSW, there will be terrible consequences if the case against Kerr is successful. “[That] … outcome would, in my view, reinforce the very type of social harm or evil that the legislation was put in place to correct,” he told SBS.

That is a most impressive case of doublethink. Racial vilification is a social harm. Holding a person of colour to account for allegedly racially vilifying a white person reinforces racial vilification? Turn it up. Laws that criminalise the racial disparagement of another are either good for all or good for none.

If anything, their selective and inconsistent application fosters resentment and undermines social cohesion. But it would be naive to try to appeal on this basis to the goodwill of race activists. They are contemptuous of concepts such as equality and harmony. Instead they use these laws under the guise of anti-racism to protect their power and privilege by sanctioning legitimate criticism and ensuring a chilling effect. At stake is their billion-dollar grievance industry, which exists only because the mainstream is reluctant to challenge their fundamental tenet of perpetual victimhood. No wonder its advocates go off the deep end when whitey argues the same laws should apply to them.

Let me demonstrate by a soccer analogy in which brown team plays white team. White forward attempts to shoot for goal, but instead loses ball when brown defender sticks her foot out in front of her opponent, causing white player to fall. Referee penalises brown player for tripping.

Not fair, protests the captain of brown team. Tripping was invented by white players long ago and used against brown players to ensure the latter would always lose. The act of tripping reflects unequal power. Therefore it is impossible for brown players to trip white players. Only white players can be penalised. To argue the rules against tripping should apply to all players is to ignore the institutional power dynamic of soccer. It would marginalise even further players of colour.

If anything, these race academics and their musings make for a wry laugh. Take for example Lixinski and his claim that anti-racism legislation should not provide avenues for legal action for what he labels “white fragility”. This is the movement that has demanded, among other things, ‘culturally safe’ spaces, so-called positive discrimination, censorship in the form of microaggressions and triggers, a rewriting of history to suit its agenda, and the renaming of streets and places as part of a wider cultural cleansing.

Calling out this rubbish is not a case of white fragility. Continuing to indulge this parasitic and destructive movement, however, is exactly that.