Interview with Jodie Sizer

[76woodenspooners]

Damien Barrett interview with Collingwood FC board member Jodie Sizer ahead of AFL indigenous round and National reconciliation week.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-05-21/listen-its-just-bullst-and-it-will-never-happen-again

Jodie joined the Collingwood board a little over a year ago. She’s been a long time indigenous advocate. She works for PWC consulting

 

[Mkcaptain]

Eddie would have to be a topic mentioned on the podcast wouldn't he?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Eddie would have to be a topic mentioned on the podcast wouldn't he?

He was discussed a little in the context of how comfortable Jodie was joining the board of an organisation that had that in the history of its current President. She basically answered that she did her due diligence and was convinced that the episode wasn’t representative of Collingwood (she seemed to choose her words more carefully than I’ve recited them here)

A lot more was discussed about the Adam Goodes situation.

 

[Markfs]

i heard that something like 70,000 people voted for Fraser Anning. Of course, that's in Queensland but it does show that a lot of people have a certain opinion, even if its only when they are in the secrecy of the polling booth...

So zero tolerance is zero likely....but i'm a pessimist of course

 

[76woodenspooners]

i heard that something like 70,000 people voted for Fraser Anning. Of course, that's in Queensland but it does show that a lot of people have a certain opinion, even if its only when they are in the secrecy of the polling booth...

So zero tolerance is zero likely....but i'm a pessimist of course

Fraser Anning got 23,000 votes in Queensland and his party has around 62,000 votes Australia wide with 72% of the vote counted.

That’s stuff all in the grand scheme of things. For comparison, the shooters and fishers party (who are a minnow party) have ~161,000 votes Australia wide at the same count stage.

 

[Markfs]

Fraser Anning got 23,000 votes in Queensland and his party has around 62,000 votes Australia wide with 72% of the vote counted.

That’s stuff all in the grand scheme of things. For comparison, the shooters and fishers party (who are a minnow party) have ~161,000 votes Australia wide at the same count stage.

well i need to check my facts, but if all the people who voted for anning went to an AFL game in brisbane a few years ago between the lions and the swans, they could make a lot of racket...

and i probably shouldnt have said zero tolerance is zero likely, more like zero incidence of fans/players abusing or booing indigenous people is not likely.

I think that people like Jodie need to be careful. The population is getting polarised like the USA, and a lot of people will get their back up if they are "persuaded" too forcefully that they need to be educated or reeducated. If this becomes a cause for the lefties only, then the people who are doing the booing are going to be left behind. Jodie seems balanced but she is surrounded by like minded people.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think that people like Jodie need to be careful. The population is getting polarised like the USA, and a lot of people will get their back up if they are "persuaded" too forcefully that they need to be educated or reeducated. If this becomes a cause for the lefties only, then the people who are doing the booing are going to be left behind. Jodie seems balanced but she is surrounded by like minded people.

I reckon you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Totally.

I’d go further and suggest that being a ‘Reconciliation advocate’ (a position that she implies at the end of the interview with her reference to the relationship NZ has with its indigenous culture) is a different thing to being an ‘Indigenous advocate’ (which appears to be her position throughout the rest of the interview).

One example ... I don’t think a ‘reconciliation advocate’ would have conflated her case study about the defaced campaign sign (an act that greater society would unambiguously recognise as racist, likely even including the perpetrator), with the booing of Adam Goodes (an act that greater society clearly considered was contentious).

I don’t think her use of the word ‘truth’ about this was helpful. We live in the time of Trump where society is very wise to the misuse / misappropriation of such terms ... and a person’s credibility can be undermined when they do so. If she wants to refer to a fact that’s either backed up with evidence or otherwise universally accepted as ‘truth’, then cool, go right ahead. But if she’s going to refer to her opinion about a contentious matter as ‘truth’, then she’s going to struggle to make progress beyond the choir she is already preaching to.

I’ve basically just repeated what you just said ...

... but you were able to do it much more succinctly.

 

[Markfs]

I reckon you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Totally.

I’d go further and suggest that being a ‘Reconciliation advocate’ (a position that she implies at the end of the interview with her reference to the relationship NZ has with its indigenous culture) is a different thing to being an ‘Indigenous advocate’ (which appears to be her position throughout the rest of the interview).

One example ... I din’t think a ‘reconciliation advocate’ would not have conflated the case study about the defaced campaign sign (an act that greater society would unambiguously recognise as racist, likely even including the perpetrator), with the booing of Adam Goodes (an act that greater society clearly considered was contentious).

I don’t think her use of the word ‘truth’ about this was helpful. We live in the time of Trump where society is very wise to the misuse of such terms ... and a person’s credibility can be undermined when they do so. If she wants to refer to a fact that’s either backed up with evidence or otherwise universally accepted as ‘truth’, then cool, go right ahead. But if she’s going to refer to her opinion about a contentious matter as ‘truth’, then she’s going to struggle to make progress beyond the choir she is already preaching to.

I’ve basically just repeated what you just said ...

... but you were able to do it much more succinctly.

I didnt bother to go back to try to find out what she defined as the truth.... and she may have done that. However, she should assume that the wider community doesnt speak about this stuff much... in fact, it's a bit like the jargon you get in a lot of occupations. Outsiders dont understand the language. Obviously, the australian history I learnt wasnt the truth or the whole truth (and nothing but the truth ...ed) and the younger generation is learning something nearer the truth. So the question is whether she wants to make inroads into the older generations.

In another example from today, the Fremantle council is investigating adding or changing the Fremantle name with the indigenous name. Either additional or complete substitution. The Fremantle council is remembered as the body that stopped giving citizenships out on australia day. Lots of Freo people support it..... but lots didnt. It is polarising. Polarising is not a good word when you are using other words like educating people etc. If you polarise people, then people pick sides and you might find out that there is more booing because people ( conservatives ) dont like being told what to do... unless of course it's being told to go to war then they happily go off and get their heads blown off or come back in various states of brokenness. ( I should note that conservative rich people have no such like for being told to go to war and studiously avoid it and make sure that they make a truckload during the process) Of course that's another matter.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I didnt bother to go back to try to find out what she defined as the truth.... and she may have done that. However, she should assume that the wider community doesnt speak about this stuff much... in fact, it's a bit like the jargon you get in a lot of occupations. Outsiders dont understand the language.

Haha, you’re not wrong. I once came across somebody who seriously thought an indigenous “Deadly ears” program was about providing life saving healthcare to indigenous people who were afflicted with some kind of aural life-threatening disease.

Obviously, the australian history I learnt wasnt the truth or the whole truth (and nothing but the truth ...ed)

I’d describe the Australian history I was taught at school was closer to non-existent.

...and the younger generation is learning something nearer the truth. So the question is whether she wants to make inroads into the older generations.

In another example from today, the Fremantle council is investigating adding or changing the Fremantle name with the indigenous name. Either additional or complete substitution. The Fremantle council is remembered as the body that stopped giving citizenships out on australia day. Lots of Freo people support it..... but lots didnt. It is polarising. Polarising is not a good word when you are using other words like educating people etc.

Our society has a straight forward way to resolve polarised matters - at the polling booth. If the party who wants change genuinely believes in the strength of their convictions on the matter, then they should seek a mandate from the voters. Of course we’re not Switzerland, we don’t need to run referendums on everything ... but for name of e place where people live, that is something that the electorate should have a say about.

If you polarise people, then people pick sides and you might find out that there is more booing because people ( conservatives ) dont like being told what to do...

It’s not constructive to think of people who have different ideas to you as ‘conservative’.

Compare the conservative result at the referendum that was barely six months ago with the conservative result at the federal election just gone. How do you explain the massive difference?

Just because somebody is socially conservative, it doesn’t mean that they are fiscally conservative. You certainly can’t assume that everyone who votes Lib/nats is a climate change denier. Clive Palmer sent his preferences to the lib/nats, but who do you think he took the votes away from? Hint: Not from parties normally associated with being conservative.

 

[sirlothie]

First time i ever heard of Jodie Sizer. Missed the memo on that one...

 

[jmac70]

She’s a very impressive person.

 

[76woodenspooners]

First time i ever heard of Jodie Sizer. Missed the memo on that one...

She joined the board at the start of 2018, at the same time as Paul Licuria.

They replaced Alisa Camplin and Ian McMullin.

 

[76woodenspooners]

She’s a very impressive person.

She speaks well and is clearly a capable person and is very passionate about Collingwood ...

... but I think the interview was a bit of a wasted opportunity to get to know her and our indigenous program better, but I more blame Barrett for that ...

... especially given that there’s a lot that comes out of the club that can’t be discussed for IP protection reasons, and this was an opportunity to talk freely about something that the club should be able to talk freely about.

(1) I would have liked to have heard more about these indigenous programs we’ve been running. Apart from an Instagram snap or two from Tennant Creek every year, and the annual unveiling of our indigenous round guernsey, nobody would have any idea that we even have an indigenous program or what it does. Jodie reeled off the names of the programs and some of the people running them, but I would have liked to hear more details about what the programs do.

(2) Didn’t even know we had an indigenous advisory board. What role does it play, when is it used?

(3) An obvious question that didn’t get asked ...

... she clearly believes Collingwood has a strong role to play in indigenous awareness, and it’s looking like there’s a bunch of things that are about to be launched in that area, so how would she respond to the inevitable barbs that would get thrown by much of the supporter base that Collingwood should just stick to winning AFL Premierships? All the more so since the Murphy review when Collingwood clearly changed its strategy to let its footy do the talking? Will these programs be contained to the walls of the club (such as the staff cultural awareness training)? Or is it intended that there will be programs that will engage the fans / members / wider public?

(4) She’s clearly immersed in indigenous issues and across the indigenous program at the club, but I thought she could have spoken in a way that was more accessible to people who are outside that bubble.

 

[Markfs]

Just because somebody is socially conservative, it doesn’t mean that they are fiscally conservative. You certainly can’t assume that everyone who votes Lib/nats is a climate change denier. Clive Palmer sent his preferences to the lib/nats, but who do you think he took the votes away from? Hint: Not from parties normally associated with being conservative.

Another of your famous cut and pastes... I started a count of my posts that have attained this honour...

You make a good point about social and economic conservatism. As it's panned out, the people typified by the Republicans in the US have a "let the individual sink or swim" mentality in economic life, but when it comes to individuals deciding that they want to be homosexuals ( shamelessly provocative expression ) then these Republicans want to throw the bible at them and stop them from doing something that is not affecting anyone.... And these conservatives ( if you want to call them that) shamelessly dont see the contradiction.

I see more consistency in the Jeff Kennetts of this world who say sink or swim and do what you want in the bedroom. Here he explains himself. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-26/jeff-kennett-an-unlikely-champion-for-gay-community/3973700

The other point of Jeff's position is that he was willing to change his mind. You dont get that from the religious lunatics who are social conservatives and economic rationalists. So these people cant change their minds and they dont see the contradiction of their position..

And yes they have a right to be stupid....I understand that people get programmed when they are young and its hard to engage their brains when ideology is clouding their opinions...

Let me also offer an opinion on Israel Folau while I'm here. Everyone seems to be saying that he is supporting his christian values. As a child I was programmed by religious people and I understand christianity and i understand the difference between the old and new testaments. I understand the stories that are purported to be from Jesus of Nazareth and he didnt say anything about homosexuality. So these social conservatives or moral majorities or whatever are building their views on bigotry and the opinions of men living in tribes thousands of years ago.

I could say a few "truths" about the left as well. They do tend to groupthink and that was apparent in the election. However, they have a consistent view that they see the individual as part of a wider group and they want to impose their views on them ( somewhat tribal and a lot of people dont like it - political correctness, nanny state etc) but they are also willing to support that individual economically. So they dont have that inherent contradiction. I tend to respect a true commie and Jeff Kennett because of that.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Another of your famous cut and pastes... I started a count of my posts that have attained this honour...

Cut and pastes? I’ve only just figured out what you mean. No cutting or pasting involved. Just end a section with [/quote], type away, then start a new section with [quote]

I see more consistency in the Jeff Kennetts of this world who say sink or swim and do what you want in the bedroom. Here he explains himself. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-26/jeff-kennett-an-unlikely-champion-for-gay-community/3973700

In US Republican Party parlance those folks are called ‘Libertarians’ and it’s a significant movement within the party.

I could say a few "truths" about the left as well. They do tend to groupthink and that was apparent in the election. However, they have a consistent view that they see the individual as part of a wider group and they want to impose their views on them ( somewhat tribal and a lot of people dont like it - political correctness, nanny state etc)

What do you define as ‘the left’ though? The ALP or the Greens or ...? Those groups have very different dynamics and it’s as difficult generalise about them as it is about the right.

 

[Markfs]

In US Republican Party parlance those folks are called ‘Libertarians’ and it’s a significant movement within the party.

What do you define as ‘the left’ though? The ALP or the Greens or ...? Those groups have very different dynamics and it’s as difficult generalise about them as it is about the right.

Libertarians is more generic than the US but in the US it is the hatred of gov't.... for the French it might have been more about freedom of the ordinary folk to do as they please without the oppression of the state and churches etc etc. At any rate, it's a peculiarity that the "Right" comes around to meet the anarchists of the Left... well they are termed left but if you believe in anarchy you're probably outside the system of classification. At any rate, both groups are similar in theory although the US liberitarians just want to entrench their own money and power and keep the state out of their lives....lol... self interest to the extreme.

Regarding definition of left, let me pass on something from uni that i actually remembered.

You can ask a person, what they mean by equality.

1. equality before the law
2. equality of opportunity
3. equality of outcomes.

Its always more complex than that. Equality of outcomes might mean the same outcomes. Everyone gets the same job, the same house etc. or it could mean the everyone can take what they need and give back what they can.

ALP is different from Greens, although many people joining the ALP could easy be in the Greens. Labor lawyers for one. The main differences - off top of my head - is that the ALP is rigidly organised with factions etc and they actually have a chance of making govt. This leads to "pragmatic" policies, while the Greens might be more idealistic. I think the ALP lost a bit of its pragmatism in defining its latest policies. The right of the ALP would define itself as the pragmatists with the Victorian left being the idealists.....lol. This is a broad brush of course. The question will be if Albo from the Left will be more Right in the next phase. I think he will. He signalled it. The Vic Left needs to pull its head in. I'm not sure how the Greens operate but they put more reliance on internal democracy and more idealism. The Victorian ALP would like some of the Greens ideas but they couldnt stomach the lack of discipline.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Another interview of her this week. It’s pretty much a carbon copy of the Barrett interview

https://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/video/2019-05-23/media-street-jodie-sizer