Over-policing of your speech versus over-policing of your body, your existence. Guess which one infuriates supposedly objective Canadian journalists so much they’re willing to put money towards it?

Cruel is the defence and glorification of a wrongdoing by influential people entertaining themselves by playing victim.

You may be familiar by now with the outrage over Hal Niedzviecki’s editorial in Write, the magazine for the Writers Union of Canada, that begins, “I don’t believe in cultural appropriation.” It then blames the monotonous whiteness of CanLit subject matter on the fear of cultural appropriation. “It discourages writers from taking up the challenge,” says the writer.

Ah, stupid me for thinking the subject matter remains “exhaustingly white and middle class” because others are not allowed to tell their own stories.

However, that controversy is now so two days ago. It was swiftly dealt with. The union apologized, the writer resigned, the editorial was taken down from its website.

This wasn’t some blowhard trying to erase minority experiences. This was flippancy from an I-didn’t-know-how-bad-it-was guy. It’s harsh to lose one’s job over cultural ignorance. At the same time, cultural experience isn’t valued and keeps deserving candidates out of jobs.

As it did with author Joseph Boyden’s questionable indigenous ancestry, the media’s white establishment closed ranks. Just as Globe and Mail columnist Konrad Yakabuski decried the “lynching” of Boyden, Walrus magazine editor-in-chief Jonathan Kay condemned the “mobbing” of Niedzviecki as “sad and shameful.”

Just who should be ashamed here?

Then late Thursday night, the story took a disheartening turn.

The column in an issue devoted to indigenous literature also called for “an Appropriation Prize for best book by an author who writes about people who aren’t even remotely like her or him.”

So, naturally, in the spirit of reconciliation with indigenous people, Ken Whyte, who once ran the National Post and Maclean’s, tweeted he would donate $500 to fund an actual “appropriation prize.”

It didn’t end there.

He got takers. High-profile journalists from the CBC, Maclean’s, the National Post and the Ottawa Citizen – who daily sit down to drive what is supposed to be an unbiased, objective news agenda – offered hundreds of dollars in support.

Take a moment to digest this. For it is rich.

The very people in a position to offer opportunities of expression to all people, but don’t, are rallying righteously for the freedom of expression for a few.

The move shocked even the now-chastened Niedzviecki.

“Calls for an actual “appropriation prize” are extremely unhelpful,” he wrote on Facebook. “They do not represent me in anyway. In the short article I wrote, the satiric notion of the prize was brought up in jest – ie. how can we encourage writers of all backgrounds to explore points of view other than their own? That’s all I meant.”

Appropriation is a complex topic, the snap judgment of which comes from headlines, but the understanding of which lies in the fine print.

Niedzviecki’s point in the column wasn’t entirely without merit, although his expression of it is beyond redemption. Can one group ever write about another’s stories? Of course, they can, and they do. Given that majority of writers are white, if these writers didn’t tell the stories of other peoples, those stories would never be told.

There’s a difference, though, between allyship and appropriation. Fighting for the idea that we should all have the freedom to tell each other’s stories is a mere affectation, a call to action for a phony cause, when it comes from the only group of people that gets to tell those stories. This is white people saying, allow us to tell other peoples’ stories because we’re not going to let the others tell them.

The best-case explanation for the ill-advised support for the “appropriation prize fund” is they all thought it was a joke.

Did you hear the one about those people who can’t use the Whites Only door? They finally got a magazine where they all got to write and, like, one of our own topped it with a piece gutting this whole appropriation thing, and all those people are spouting their usual rage.

Haha. Here’s my money.

If ever anybody needed confirmation that our media powerbrokers comprise inward-looking people protecting their own privilege while talking diversity, this was it.

Dismissing the concerns of the few colleagues who don’t look like them just confirms the cluelessness of the default flagbearers of the fourth estate.

Instead of being compassionate about the rage they saw stemming from the pain of exclusion, they ridiculed the marginalized among their own colleagues and readers they profess to represent.

This is such a betrayal.

Shree Paradkar tackles issues of race and gender. You can reach her @shreeparadkar