Latham rocked up to a Labor women's meet. He proposed its expansion to a broader gender affairs role, citing a raft of issues faced by working class men in particular. This was no Evil Pundit style baiting; he pointed to depressing matters that need addressing, such as lowering uni entry levels and diminishing prospects. He copped a room's worth of hateful stares. Someone commented that this was why men shouldn't be able to attend their little meet at all.
So, for how long does 'positive discrimination' remain untouchable within Labor? So sensitive that a comment like
It’s sexist to have a Women’s Department when there is no Men’s departmenton a left-wing thread attracts the threat of deletion, even though it is neither irrational nor vicious and is at its face entirely correct.
I believe 'discrimination' can be 'positive', but under the most limited and extraordinary circumstances of exclusion. For an egalitarian party there is, or at least has been, some merit in using this tool to rectify massive imbalances. But this must always be weighed against the fact that discrimination is discrimination, and to treat arguments against positive discrimination as heretical in my view borders on offensive.
I have the newest High Court justice, one of the most powerful and barrier-busting women in Australia, on my side...