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.
focus on getting tangible outcomes
I only just realised how meaningless this phrase is. And I’m pretty sure it’s used a lot. It’s like this kind of language is deliberately crafted to scramble our brains.
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.
deleted by creator
I think people on the hard left or hard racist are more likely to specifically feel angry when criticized because the specific association of “makes me uncomfortable = evil” is much more likely. In the left’s case, they’re in the child prodigy “I’m too smart to be emotional” camp. In the hard right’s case it’s because the possibility that their gut instinct should maybe be interrogated is unfathomable to them.
In other words I think both One Nation and the Greens are made up of people with low EQ.
deleted by creator
