The Mob's New Hobby of Guilt By Association is a Fool's Game

The mob are insistent that Australia’s richest woman must repudiate the racist comments of her now-deceased father.

Lang Hancock said in a 1984 television interview that Aboriginals should be sterilised; a disgraceful comment, to be sure.

And now - only 38 years later - the Left are demanding an apology from his daughter Gina Rinehart who never said any such thing.

You can’t accuse the mob of not taking justice seriously. I jest of course. This isn’t about fairness or about justice - concepts the mob wouldn’t recognise even if they had to wear them as patches on their uniform.

The mob don’t care that the words upsetting them were spoken 40 years ago, and much less that Gina Rinehart never said them.

Nor do they care that Gina Rinehart has reputed her father’s words million of times through her philanthropy toward indigenous people.

And it hasn’t seemed to occur to the mob that the very thing they want Gina Rinehart to apologise for (racism) is akin to the very thing they are now doing to her (imputing sins to her because of her bloodline).

Sporting legend Anthony Mundine told the Herald-Sun …

"Anyone that thinks like him (Lang Hancock), speaks like him, believes what he believes, is detrimental to humankind.”

Fair point.

But then, inexplicably, Mundine added …

"She (Gina Rinehart) could have apologised for her father's comments, distanced herself from them and told us that she doesn't believe those things."

Why should Rinehart apologise for things she never said? Should Mundine, a Muslim, apologise for 9/11?

Of course not.

And why should Rinehart tell us she doesn’t believe in genocide? Should Mundine tell us he doesn’t believe in violent jihad?

This is a fool’s game, and fools love to play it.

Former Independent MP Tony Windsor made the startling point that …

“Rinehart was 30 years old and working with her father when he made the comments about “doping their water” … she was no child.

Tony Windsor @TonyHWindsor

Rinehart was 30 years old and working with her father when he made the comments about “doping their water”…she was no child.

As someone quickly pointed out, Tony Windsor was 44 when the Rwandan Hutus publicly called for the extermination of the Tutsis, but we’ve not heard Windsor repudiate that call.

Are we to assume Windsor supports genocide?

“It’s easy to say ‘I don’t agree with those comments’ - easy,” wrote one social media user, echoing the thoughts of many.

Mao thought denunciation rallies were easy too!

The Monthly contributing editor Rachel Withers went peak Twitter. She wrote:

“Apparently Gina Rinehart would rather pull sponsorship than admit that genocide is bad.”

Rachel Withers @rachelrwithers

Apparently Gina Rineheart would rather pull sponsorship than admit that genocide is bad

That’s certainly one take on the events of last week.

Another take is that Gina Rinehart pulled her $15m sponsorship to let the mob know they will not control her and that they have no business making her culpable for the words of someone else.

Nah, she probably just loves genocide. What do you reckon?

And then there was this comment, cheered on by the likes of ABC personality Jane Caro …

“If I can be held accountable for the actions of every South Sudanese person in Australia, then Gina Rinehart can acknowledge the actions of the man she inherited her fortune from.”

In other words, people have been unfair to me so it’s only fair that people be unfair to Gina Rinehart.

With that tit-for-tat attitude, reconciliation is a fool’s errand.

Let me give you six reasons Gina Rinehart is right to not play this silly game of guilt by association.

1. Gina Rinehart didn’t say the words, so she has no business apologising for them.

2. There’s a principle at stake here. We should be judged by the character of our content, not by our bloodline. You’d think Indigenous activists would applaud that principle rather than insist it be violated in order to score a cheap political point.

3. The Woke mob is never satisfied. Does anyone really believe that once Gina Rinehart apologises for her father’s 1984 comments, they won’t find comments from 1985 and then 1986 and on and on ad infinitum, demanding those be repudiated too?

4. Lang Hancock made the racist comments 40 years ago. No one thought Gina Rinehart needed to apologise for her father’s words until five seconds ago when sports starts realised throwing a leather bag of wind through a hoop doesn’t change the world, and so decided to become moral arbiters in order to realise their dream of doing something meaningful with their lives.

   It’s an opportunist political attack on a woman who happens to be (a) conservative (b) wealthy and (c) in the mining industry.

5. Gina Rinehart would be foolish to engage with the mob since the mob do not act in good faith, and nor do the mob seek justice. If Rinehart’s accusers were acting in good faith, and if they were in the least bit concerned about justice, they would not be insisting that a woman answer for the sins of a man. Does anyone really believe that if Rinehart did as they asked, her apology would be graciously received? The mob don’t want an apology, they want a scalp.

6. If Gina Rinehart apologises, she empowers the mob to go after you for all the things you never said. Do you really think that if the mob discover they can compel the speech of a billionaire they will hesitate to threaten you if you don’t say as they say?