Bolt accuser gets red pilled

Caption: Photographer Bindi Cole Chocka.

Probably more ink has been spilled over Eatock v Bolt than any other case in recent Australian history. Now, a fascinating new paragraph is being added.

When a group of Aboriginal activists sued conservative columnist Andrew Bolt under the controversial Section 18C of Racial Discrimination Act, most of the left gleefully danced on the metaphorical grave of one of their most hated Goldsteins. A very few saw clearly the danger of the decision. ABC journalist Jonathan Holmes described it as ?profoundly disturbing?. Trade union leader Paul Howes called it ?Orwellian?.

Now, at least one of the plaintiffs has taken the red pill. Quote:

A Melbourne photographer who was among the nine indigenous artists who took columnist Andrew Bolt to court over two articles he wrote discussing their identity and skin colour has said she ?probably wouldn?t? follow the same course of action if she had the time again.

In a video posted to YouTube, Bindi Cole Chocka, whose grandmother had Aboriginal heritage, said her exposure to conservative views during and after the matter changed her political stance and identity.

She said she was no longer a left-wing ?social justice warrior and ?virtue signaller? and now identified as a conservative Christian with mixed heritage. End of quote.

This was the gist of Bolt?s argument all along: that people with mixed heritage had a choice about identity.

Unfortunately, Bolt not only did some sloppy research but wrote in a ?tone? that the judge took exception to because it would ?offend and humiliate? those concerned. Which it surely did. But, as Holmes noted, ?inflammatory and provocative language? is almost a columnist?s job description. Quote:

On Thursday, Bolt said Chocka?s change of heart was proof ?that race was in this case, at least, a question of choice?.

?One of my key arguments in those pieces was that these nine Aborigines had a choice of how to identify themselves: Aboriginal, white, both or whatever,? he said. End of quote.

This is almost standard leftist dogma. If people can change their gender on a whim, why not other aspects of their identity ? especially race, which the left argues is a ?social construct? anyway?

That?s just one of the dazzling contradictions of leftist thinking: at the same time that identity is ?socially constructed?, ?intersectionality? groups individuals into iron hierarchies of victimhood. Quote:

In Chocka?s YouTube video, she said identifying as ?a victim? meant she did not have to take ?responsibility for her behaviour. ?I could constantly blame everything and everyone else,? she said.

?What I was was a social justice warrior and a virtue signaller.?

She told The Weekend Australian yesterday that she had always believed she was of mixed racial identity. ?I realised there is a problem with identity politics and intersectionality,? Chocka said.

?When you do identify in these ways, you are so often buying into a victim identity.?

Chocka said she had ?become a Christian and had shifted her political views from the Left to the Right. She said she ?probably wouldn?t? use the Racial Discrimination Act to sue if she had her time again??I still think the things Andrew Bolt wrote about me were not good; he tore down my character and was not fair; he didn?t know me. But I wouldn?t want to limit free speech.? End of quote.

This is a fair assessment: of course, being hung out to dry by a high-profile columnist is going to hurt. No-one wants to be mocked in public. Chocka was a public figure, perhaps, but a very minor one. What is more interesting is that she now concedes that the dreadful possibility of mockery is part of the price of free speech.

Free speech can be a pill every much as bitter as the Red one: but both are ultimately liberating.