The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Sonia Kruger and free speech.

Sonia Kruger and free speech.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
Once again the AHRC has dredged up an "offended" whinger to file a complaint this time against Sonia Kruger expressing her personal opinion on Muslim immigration. This process will cost 9 news $100 000s and a huge amount of time which supposedly can be claimed back from Sam Ekermawi (the offenderati) which will never happen as "Sam" is unlikely to be able to stump up and has already applied for legal aid (which should be refused on the basis of the frivolity of the case).

Sonia stated, "Personally I would like to see it stopped now for Australia because I would like to feel safe as all of our citizens do when they go out to celebrate Australia Day and I'd like to see freedom of speech."

Apparently freedom of speech is a very low priority for the AHRC. Section 18c should be scrapped.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 2 July 2018 11:49:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not again! Is this the second time this brave young woman is to be pilloried by the anti-free speech brigade?
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 2 July 2018 4:37:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being what some name a left tard you would think I would rush to take issue with shadow minister on this, far from it! about 80 percent of us, from all partys,are weary of any form of PC , ever willing to get out raged about just about any thing those who farm for PC causes do so in my view without ever getting thinking people's support last night an aged Bert Newton joked as he has for 50 years,and the wet hanky mob are after him too,if its PC its an effort to control our way of thinking
Posted by Belly, Monday, 2 July 2018 4:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister - Where is your link to article or info?
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 2 July 2018 6:21:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

Is this case really still going to trial?

Wasn't it supposed to have gone before the courts
in early June?

Give us the link for your information.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 2 July 2018 7:36:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It does appear that it was supposed to have had a hearing on June 19 but I can't find from after that date on the outcome

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/morning-shows/sonia-kruger-has-failed-to-have-racial-vilification-complaint-against-her-dismissed/news-story/eeeddf0544c7edfefeec01071f35c800

Not a case I've followed but from the little I've seen it does seem one where the complaint if upheld would place the ability to publicly discuss controversial issues further at risk. That is I guess the intent but in my view very counter productive.

I'm somewhat ambivalent on the specific topic, I'd like better screening of migrants from some cultures to ensure that there is not a strong objection to some basic freedoms which I consider important but I'm not convinced a blanket ban helps either. I do think that trying to shut down debate also shuts down the opportunity to rebut bad idea's or if not an entirely bad idea to separate out the good from the bad.

My gut feel is that those who try to silence other views with the force of law have to some extent conceded the correctness of those ideas and don't have viable arguments against them.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 2 July 2018 8:58:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert,

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/morning-shows/sonia-kruger-has-failed-to-have-racial-vilification-complaint-against-her-dismissed/news-story/eeeddf0544c7edfefeec01071f35c800

Fixed it, just take the 's' out of 'https'.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 2 July 2018 9:51:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM, you have my agreement, although I disagree with what Kruger had to say in relation to immigration, being all encompassing as it was, but it was not hate speak. A total ban on one group because a small minority within that group are trouble is an unnecessary over reaction, in my opinion.

//better screening of migrants from some cultures// R0bert I would say better screening in general for a whole range of offensive types, not just a loose culture based screening. I don't want to see a sign at the airport that reads 'Muslims to the left, Good People to the right'.

ttbn, //this brave young woman// more an air head than a brave young woman.

Belly on Bert Newton "I like the BOY!" Unfortunately Muhammad Ali didn't like Bert after that clanger! Anyway he was I assume, I don't watch the over paid, under producing, self indulgent crowd pissing in each others pockets at the best of times, just having a shot at some of them, so what.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 6:30:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is not a real lot more I can say about this, however would like it noted that I support SM s view here, and that tagging my side of politics,giving us opinions we do not hold by default is at best a waste of time remember at the very least 80 percent of us think much alike.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 7:28:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Channel 9 took this frivolous claim to court, who essentially ruled that the only requirement for the claim to proceed was that the claimant (the already bankrupt parasite) felt offended.

Channel 9 now faces blackmail in that they have the choice of paying the parasite go away money or spending $100 000s in legal fees to go to court. If they go to court, even when they win and are awarded costs, the bankrupt parasite can't pay a cent.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 8:13:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wouldn't spend one dollar on that court case, I'd represent myself instead and I would say one thing, and one thing only.

"My speech is clearly permitted under Section 18D".

Then I would sue the person who brought the case against me.
I'd use discovery and find an expose the real motive behind it, and I'd use my celebrity status to call out the judiciary as scumbags for even hearing the case, when our laws clearly state her speech was permissible.

It's time to say "No, I'm not copping this bs anymore", and to call it all out.

Good on ya Sonia, I support you, as any true Aussie would.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 8:15:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, Paul,

The problem is that the traditional left stood up for working Australians albeit in a way that I disagree with. The "New left" is pushing a new agenda of identity politics which is coming from ivory tower academics and has little to nothing to do with conditions at the coal face.

18c was introduced by Keating and for decades has been relatively innocuous, it is only recently that the social justice warriors have used the vague language in 18c to fashion a weapon for the thought police to persecute anyone that dares speak their mind.

It is the very reason that proponents of free speech have wanted to remove the loose terms "offend and insult" from 18c, and now even those from the old left should see the danger here.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 8:35:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These cases aren't about winning or losing, they're about punishing.

The very process of pursuing the case, at no cost to the complainant, is the punishment. There's no chance that Kruger or anyone else will be actually punished by the courts for this, but being focred to defend it is indeed the punishment.

People in Kruger's position will learn to self-censor so as to avoid the guardians of wrong-speak. The TV networks will subtly educate their presenters to avoid these 'problematic' utterances. A Bill Leak cartoon won't be published again. University students will have learned to not notice apartheid in their schools.

And we will all be just a little bit less free to defend our freedoms. That is the point of 18c
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 10:51:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day there SHADOW MINISTER...

Gee's this country gone to 'hell in a hand basket'. To think we were lauded as a country of freedom and free speech and these lousy whinges initiate legal proceeding because they were offended - Mate if I got hold of a few of 'em, they'd have something to really whinge about.

I've got this belief, most of this PC nonsense originally emanated from our Universities, where many of the tutors/lectures' and other academics, are essentially from the far 'Left'. They try to inculcate into the minds of our susceptible students, a boatload of this 'Lefty' ideological detritus.

Thus ensuring upon their graduation, they emerge as radical ratbags roaming around trying to convince others of their grand plans for World Socialism? While the rest of us, including we retirees, continue to earn a quid, pay our taxes, therefore ensuring these people may permanently live on the various government handouts they've come to expect.

This is the age of entitlement SHADOW MINISTER; Therefore it's incumbent upon our generation to find appropriate solutions to this dilemma? Perhaps we should consign them to a statutory period of some form of National Service? Completely devoid of weapons of course; armed only with tools necessary to cultivate and prepare the soil. They then, may continue to complain all they like among themselves.
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 11:55:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was a perfect example of hypocrisy on Q$A last night when they debated something Lleyonhjelm apparently said to Hanson-Young.
I think it was the Labor git who blurted out that Lleyonhjelm was "a dick" for saying to Hanson-Young to stop sha..ing men. This quip got a lot of laughs from the audience. I wondered how many laughs there would have been if Leyohjelm called her the female equivalent ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 3:27:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The audience laughed at that comment on "Q&A" because
the Labor shadow minister -
actually said what everyone else was thinking.
And the panelists and the audience agreed -
that an apology was due to the female Greens Senator.
It was an inappropriate remark that should never have
been made especially in the Senate.

As for Sonia Kruger's remarks? They were made in 2016,
At a time when the issue of terrorism was increasing
world wide - and many people were expressing their concerns.
Kruger could have perhaps avoided generalisations.
In any case the bloke - Ekermavi - has been involved in
32 hearings before the courts and tribunals, 22 of them have
related to vilification complaints - he's a serial complainer.
I would be very surprised if the AHRC doesn't throw this case
out. I feel that they will realise that its not worth
pursuing.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 3:50:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lionbreath and Hanson-Young deserve each other. Two idiots who add nothing to the parliamentary system, democracy or comon sense.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 4:11:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,
So, do you consider being referred to as a Dick is fine but a suggestion to your relationship activites (not actually being called anything as opposed to being called names) is inappropriate ?
There were a lot of people who applauded what Leyohjelm suggested to Hanson-Young & they didn't consider it inappropriate. And, yes ttbn is right in his assertion.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 4:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the discussion went down as claimed then it seems to me that Leyonhjelm has done himself no favours. SHY's sexual activity or otherwise is not his business or anybody else's as long as it involves consenting adults and is not in contrast to public moralising on how others should behave.

At the same time the way the debate is framed (and the way SHY appears to be framing it) is a pretty broad brush attack on men for the actions of a small minority who typically hold no regard for societal norms. The reality is that until we can adequately identify those individuals willing to do others harm (in other than self defence scenarios) and find ways to isolate them from the rest of us we all need to do some risk analysis, we need to minimise the risk when in situations where the risk is unreasonable and be prepared to defend ourselves if that's not successful.

Trying to make rape and violence against women about "men" as a category rather than about those who do the harm is in my view far more offensive than the claims about Leyonhjelm's comments.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 6:33:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leyonhjelm is without doubt the phoniest politician in Australia. The fraudulent grub lied his way into parliament. The fool misrepresented himself as a Liberal/Democrat when in fact he is nether Liberal, or democratic. Leyonhjelm represents no one except himself, given his pathetic number of primary votes! The coward hides behind parliamentary privilege to throw crap at others, a total disgrace.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 7:56:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leyonhjelm represents no one except himself,
Paul1405,
That's exactly the case with SHY as well. Coincidence ?
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 8:23:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual,

Then who elected him to the Senate?
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 11:10:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kruger's comments seem to be at odds with her being seen eagerly quaffing champagne in the Emirates tent at the Melbourne cup.
Having a free opinion about Muslims doesn't stop her from helping herself to their free hospitality.

Along the same line, I can't help noticing that those who endlessly complain about something they've seen on QandA just keep watching it.
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 12:24:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't condone Leyonhjelm's language as I believe that it was totally inappropriate, even though after SHY interjected calling all men rapists, that most of the audience would have been thinking the same thing. The same applies to the Labor MP that called Leyonhjelm a "dick".

As for the proposed suit that SHY purportedly is planning, she would be well advised to let it go as it does not fall foul of slander laws or even 18c.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 1:07:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

Ah, but think of the publicity she will get.

She's learning tactics from her more conservative
colleagues in the Senate. She's found out that
you can always learn something from anybody.
And that things are never as bad as they seem.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 1:24:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

There is publicity that you don't want to get. Getting your suit dismissed on the first day and getting stuck with the bill for a couple of $100 000 is not a good look, especially as SHY is still trying to pay back unwarranted expense claims, and a bankruptcy would exclude her from parliament.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 2:50:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

Sarah Hanson-Young is seeking legal advice.
Senator Leyonhjelm has been given multiple
platforms to repeat his slurs against his
female colleague. Media companies that
broadcasted his comments could also face legal
action. It will be interesting to see what
develops. A wise move on Senator Leyonhjelm's
part would be to apologise.

It seems that Senator Hanson-Young has for years
winced and tried not to flinch at innuendos
about her dress, her face (being told by older
men that she didn't smile at them enough) and her
apparent sex life.

What started as mutterings while she was on her feet
speaking or during a debate, slowly over the years
have become slurs that are now shouted across the
chamber floor.

BTW: Senator Sarah Hanson Young won a defamation case
against Bauer Media's - Zoo Weekly magazine.
The magazine has now closed.

I don't think that SHY feels that this is a case of
"unwanted publicity." I think that she believes aome
things are worth fighting for.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 3:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nationalist support against Islamic immigration is on the rise globally.
PC is starting to go out of flavour, white males are sick of being labelled racist and rapists, and all these idiots like SHY and her ilk are all backing dead horses, it's going to blow up in their faces.

Can't wait to watch it all unfold.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 3:59:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic,

I agree with you that no one should be labelled - be it
innocent white males or as you put it - "those idiots
like SHY and her ilk who are backing dead horses."

We can only hope and trust that what does unfold will be
better understanding and better behaviour for which all
of us will be willing to take our share of responsibility.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 4:12:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Imagine that, after the next Muslim attack on innocents, we were to be told that Muslims need to learn to behave better, become more civil, learn to control their base urges. Do you think there'd be an outcry?

Instead we'd be informed that these terrorist Muslims are just a tiny minority and don't in anyway represent the vast majority of peace-loving Mohamedians.

But when a man attacks and rapes a woman we are informed that 'men' must learn to control their toxic masculinity, become more civil, learn to behave better. Not just a minority of men, but all men.

Its hardly surprising therefore that one would wonder why a women like SH-Y would want to be around men when she thinks they're in need or re-education about appropriate behaviour.

That was Leyonhjelm's point. How his comment is defamatory is unknowable. But it was effective which can be seen in the way the left and the ABC (but I repeat myself) have swarmed to try to shut down the dissenter. They like the idea of blaming all men for the actions of a tiny minority.

I hope that Leyonhjelm tells them where they can put their apology demands.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 4:38:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

He did tell her to "F-off!" and he also hurled
remarks about her sex life across the chamber floor
during a sitting of the Senate. If you feel that
he should not at the very least apologise - which
even Cory Bernardi agreed was appropriate - then
you Sir are part of the problem and not the solution.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 4:54:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,
Bernardi was set up & it would have been rather unproductive to incite a slanging match right there.
Leyohjelm could apologise if Hanson-Young apologises first after all, she threw the first stone.
That Backbencher who called Leyonhjelm a Dick should also apologise. Then leyonhjelm can too.
That moron sitting on the left with his ingorant quips should be apologised for by the ABC.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 5:17:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trump's getting ready to drop the hammer on Bushes, Clinton's and the whole cabal.
Even Meuller, There's talk he's going to expose the cover up of 911.

Media keeping quiet on anti Islam protests in South Korea.
Can't be labelled racist, they saw what happened in France and Germany and that's their position.
Poland, Italy, Hungary. EU straining to contain push towards nationalism and closing borders.
Globalist collaborator western leaders outed again for misleading their own citizens.
http://www.google.com.au/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669

Check this one out:
http://thesun.co.uk/news/6662906/magistrate-nigel-stringer-norwich-burglary-assault-morningthorpe/amp/
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 5:30:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not aware of the actual language employed by David LEYONHJELM towards Ms Sarah HANSON-YOUNG, but if it's as bad as they say, why hasn't the Chairman of the Senate called him into account?

I personally can't abide this Ms. HANSON-YOUNG in any way. Nevertheless she is a female, and no female should be subjected to such language as that, which was allegedly used by Mr LEYONHJELM toward her specifically. I couldn't careless that he has some measure of protection while in the Senate proper, that sort of language and behaviour, merely cheapens everybody, including the Australian public.

Moreover an apology is now too little and too late. Official censure, or some other form of punitive measure should be taken against him.

I understand this former Veterinary Surgeon has some 'form', for employing language that is not altogether consistent, with proper Parliamentary behaviour. Yet on the occasions, I've heard him speak, some of the issues he embraces, has quite a degree of merit? I've also heard him described as a 'loose - cannon' Anyway who knows? Perhaps in the next federal election, this gentleman might well be swept from the Senate altogether?
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 6:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu,
I heard on TV that after SHY calling most men rapists he then told her "you should stop shagging men then" or closely to that effect. I agree with him if she can call men names the the least she should be able to shrug off is Leyohjelm's sarcastic quip. But no, the Nr 1 hypocrite saw an opportunity to make a whole mountain range out of an ant turd.
That's all it is, hypocritical opportunism.
One just wouldn't expect that from a Green would one ? ;-)
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 7:25:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual,

Sarah Hanson Young denies having called all men rapists.
That is a remark that she claims was not made. Leyonhjelm
crossed the line when he told her to "F-off," and then
went on multiple platforms in the media and repeated his slurs.
Nobody should be intimidated or bullied by offensive sexist
slurs.

Her sex life is nobody's business, and certainly should not have
been brought up and shouted across the chamber floor.

He should apologise. He's a pig if he doesn't.

No excuses.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 7:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He's a pig if he doesn't.
Foxy,
In my book that makes her a Sow then until she apologises.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 7:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On a previous post Foxy slagged off about Trump treating women like meat. Now she says that Hanson Youngs sex life is her business alone. Which is it to be Foxy or does it depend on the side?
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 8:02:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual,

She was the one who was yelled at in the
Chamber - to "stop shagging men,"
by Senator Leyonhjelm. And when she asked him,
"What did you say?," he told her to "F-off!"

So, what should she apologise for? BTW - she
did not call all men rapists.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 8:03:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Politicians get paid (by us) to abuse each other.
Should he apologise for not abusing her in the correct manner?
Swearing in Parliament? My goodness.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Here's an old clip between the pair.
http://youtu.be/Adh6EQ0DfeQ
Accuses him of being a 'white male'; like shes saying he (and I) committed a crime just by being born.

I support his statements.
If she said what he claims "All men are rapists" (and its believable given the 'white male' comment) then I think his response is reasonable in that context.
Derryn Hinch claims a similar comment was made.
http://youtu.be/1VxS6W7axd4

Finally, it's clear by Leyonhjelm's articles on this forum that he supports personal items for self defense, the issue Hanson-Young raised.

I'm not going hold it against him telling her where to go.
In fact, I'll give him a round of applause, suck it up princess.
Good job Leyonhjelm.

Sick of this 'white male' and 'all men are rapists' bs, it's about time someone publicly stood up and just told them to eff off.

These same Greens don't have a problem with violence and harassment in the public space when it suits them.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 8:05:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With the number of mass shootings, terror acts against the innocent, being perpetrated by Americans these days, maybe dear old Sonia would feel safer if Aussie invoked a blanket ban on Yanks entering the country. Why not, can't be too careful.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 8:15:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there INDIVIDUAL & FOXY...

As I've said in the past; 'it takes two hands to clap'. If this lady uses provocative and insulting language, she shouldn't wonder why, 'some' men will respond in kind.

There's no doubt this lady has a bit of 'form', she not too bright either, and a stirrer into the bargain, especially if she's made statements to the effect that all men are rapists? Still, she is a female, and despite her peculiar behaviour, should be treated as one, as much as it sticks in my craw, if what has been alleged is true
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 9:09:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu & Foxy,
The way I see all this is, that were it not for PC this wouldn't even be an issue. Yes,Lleyonhjelm should have exercised more self control but so should have SHY. One thing is for sure , she's not exactly a lady is she ?
SHY (no not shy) has been playing the victim game by being actually the aggressor in a very insidious manner. Leyonhjelm would not have gone off like that had not SHY challenged him so insidiously. By insidious I mean the standard Leftist tactic of planting the seed but not being prepared to harvest the crop.
Until she can disprove what he claims she said I can only go by her unconvincing acting which makes her look anything but innocent.
I just wished people would not be allowed in such public office with the kind of mentality most authorities in Australia are presently displaying. This, unfortunately is the outcome of watered-down higher education policies encouraged over the past decades. With smarter & more intelligent people the Leyohjelm SHY issue would not have occurred in the first place.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 5 July 2018 12:10:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems we are living in a world that loves to blame the victim and reacts against "political correctness" by going to extremes.

Hanson-Young still has a long way to go before she even gets near the personal abuse showered on Gillard by the ultra-conservative forces amd the media in our country so perhaps she shouldn't complain too loudly as there is surely more to come her way.

Even the pussy-grabbing President of the USA no longer considers international treaties and agreements seriously and has been withdrawing from everything he wants(except Stormy Daniels), so what can we depend on anymore?

Perhaps some men feel threatened by the #MeToo movement and are lashing out, but meanwhile women are still being murdered as a result of domestic abuse.

The Royal Commission on Institutionalised Child Abuse has revealed that despite all their hype, many once-respected organisations can no longer be trusted so who really need standards of decency anymore?
Posted by rache, Thursday, 5 July 2018 1:33:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rache said- "we are living in a world that loves to blame the victim"

Answer- We are all victims in different circumstances. Most things aren't easy to fix- doesn't mean that we don't try but it's important that the cure isn't worse than the disease. You could argue that people are dying and you cannot put a price on life. You can probably put a price on life by comparing it to the time other lives need to spend to fix the issue.

rache said- Perhaps some men feel threatened by the #MeToo movement and are lashing out

Answer- The #MeToo movement says that all men are responsible for a rape culture- basically all men are rapists. "MeToo" feminists are threatening men therefore men feel they need to defend themselves. Even Kaley Cuoco "is not really a feminist" got attacked for her comments.

rache said- women are still being murdered (by) domestic abuse.

Answer- Murder is a crime and those that commit crimes are convicted. Where ever there is a difference of power between two people there will be abuse of power. In some families- abusive mothers. Men generally taller than women and physically stronger. In court women generally have the advantage. Someone else said it takes two hands to clap- in many arguments both sides act aggressively. For someone to go as far as to murder they must feel trapped- they know they'll be caught. Humans are animals when threatened- flight or fight- can't run there is only one option. There are too many people in the world- if there were less people would be more valued- and more effort would be taken to nurture them. In this age relationships are fraught with pitfalls- I wouldn't recommend young especially males to pair bond. There are other less risky ways to satisfy our immediate human needs. Maybe men should go on "marriage and sex strike" (suffrigettes) until policies are changed. But these "Me Too" women of course would say that "we are not men". Why should men care what these Me Too Women say anyway- except when they threaten us.
Posted by Canem Malum, Thursday, 5 July 2018 3:20:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi o sung wu,

I know your bias against the Greens, and you have every right to be. I don't know SHY at all, but in general politicians I have met of all persuasions, along with most serious contenders are to me above average when it comes to intelligence.
I have during many campaigns in the past acted as an "adviser" or "minder" for a candidate. It has only been on the very rear occasions that I have had to step in to save someone from public abuse. The worse I can recall was two blokes, unleashed a tiered of abuse against a female candidate one morning while street campaigning. There beef was over a perceived Greens anti Israel stance, their language was loud and disgusting, the woman was at the point of tears. I suspected they would have not got so extreme if the person was a man they were abusing.
Generally and surprisingly, people of all parties become rather friendly during these campaigns. Doing pre-poll sucks, hours of little to do at times, if the Liberal bloke goes to shout the coffee, and they do, I'll hand out his HTV's while he's away. If your there late at 6pm and the opposition wants to go early, I'll put away his stuff for him, don't want it left on the street, otherwise it wont be there the next morning. Election after election you see the same people.
I have always told candidates, "You need a thick hide in this game."

A good mate I've known for 50 yeats and Labor councillor I would have a few jokes with like; "How's your uncle Eddie (Obeid) going, any free footy tickets coming our way?" Answer "Nah I wish! are you still living in a tree and eating sap, organic of course!". "Nah, I've gone up market now, and moved into a cave, I'm eating dead whales these days."
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 5 July 2018 5:30:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day PAUL1405...

Not quite true my friend; as I've mentioned in the past I was a strong supporter of the 'Greens' and probably still would be, if they'd adhered to their original agenda. Caring for our natural habitats, our native animals, forests etc.

Don't get me wrong Paul, I'm no 'tree hugger' far from it. But having visited Muir Woods near SFO in the USA, and had seen the massive 'Redwoods' and had it explained to me what the 'rings' meant when you fell a large tree, I just couldn't in good conscience, permit the wanton destruction of such historic forests, or native animals (Tassy Tiger driven into extinction)as an example.

Paul, the problem arose when they decided to move away from their traditional green politics, and enter the 'hurley burley' of traditional politics. Worse, was to allow someone like Ms Sarah HANSEN-YOUNG to articulate many of the Green's policies, I think even you would agree with that.

There's no doubt David LEYONHJELM & Sarah HANSEN_YOUNG make a fine pair, what he said to her was wrong - nevertheless she herself is not without sin, either mate.
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 5 July 2018 11:57:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the vitriol heaped on Tony Abbott by the left whingers both Juliar and SHY got off lightly.

As for the vulgarity of Leyonhjelm, given the misandry of the interjection by SHY, a lawsuit has little prospect of success and gives Leyonhjelm a good opportunity to cross-examine her

Considering that this thread started out with the persecution of Sonia Kruger for speaking her mind using the blunt instrument 18c, this thread has digressed more than a bit.

However, it appears to be OK to label all men as rapists, but a slur on someones sexuality is not.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 5 July 2018 12:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day there INDIVIDUAL...

I've just said much the same thing to our colleague PAUL1405. They're both as bad as each other. Moreover, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having fun, and plinking on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Provided the activity is undertaken exercising extreme safely, and with a substantial Back-Drop or 'Butts' capable of absorbing rounds.

Apparently if one is to juxtapose the use of 'guns & fun', then you render yourself offside with the PC Brigade, a group of people I utterly loathe! I wonder therefore, those who enjoy lawfully using their F/A should ensure they have a serious expression on their face, with no hint of a smile or any sign of enjoyment?

When I was a licensing sergeant, I should've carefully scrutinised the faces of each and every applicant, to ensure none of them had any hint of happiness on their faces? Apparently in essence, this is why David LEYONHJELM is in so much bother. He employed language to the effect, that he enjoyed having fun when using his F/A?

I suspect 'if' he'd said he was in tears, each and every time he used his gun, all would be well with the PC Brigade I suppose? Bloody hell INDIVIDUAL, what's gone wrong with our country? I've just heard on the Radio 2GB, kids in Child Care Centres are NOT permitted to play with toy guns, or anything that's been fashioned to imitate a gun?
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 5 July 2018 12:27:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Canem, it is terrifying to think there are men out there who think the way you do. Utterly terrifying. Please go and get an education as it might spare you a future jail sentence. And don't worry about going on 'marriage strike.' You're in no danger of needing to..
Posted by Forwardplease, Thursday, 5 July 2018 2:12:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

Tony Abbott was relentless in his attacks on our
former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. His behaviour
was shameful. As is that of Leyonhjelm. Senator
Sarah Hanson Young did not call all men rapists.
But Leyonhjelm is going to milk this for all its
worth. Nobody knew who he was prior to this act
of his. SHY is merely seeking legal advice at the
moment - but don't be surprised if she does win this
case - should she decide to go ahead with it.
She's already won one case against the now defunct
ZOO magazine. As for Leyonhjelm? He'd better make the
most of his time in the Senate. He only got in by a
small margin at the last election. I doubt very much
whether he'll be successful next time around.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 5 July 2018 2:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forwardplease said- Canem, it is terrifying to think there are men out there who think the way you do. Utterly terrifying. Please go and get an education as it might spare you a future jail sentence. And don't worry about going on 'marriage strike.' You're in no danger of needing to..

Answer- Thanks for your feedback Forwardplease. Please see following article for Graham's hierarchy of disagreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Posted by Canem Malum, Thursday, 5 July 2018 8:04:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
being PC compliant equals being socially inept.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 5 July 2018 10:05:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//being PC compliant equals being socially inept//

Sold in Australia under the title of 'The Parent's Granny flat-Dewlling-Neckbeard's Guide to Internet Etiquette'.

Volume 1: Women are Stupid and I Don't Respect Them, or, in which we learn to despise women that are smarter than us, that women secretly do want have sex with Neckbeards but are brainwashed not to do so by the feminaziarchy, and how to masturbate without crying after you finish.

Only $4.99 for Volume 1! Subscribe for all twenty volumes and receive a free ring-binder!

Coming soon in Volume 2 - Inside the Green Triangle: Communists, Drug Addicts and Homosexuals
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 5 July 2018 10:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis said- (People that are opposed to PC Compliance believe) "Women are Stupid and ... Don't Respect Them"

Answer- This is an important point- should people be respected because of "who they are" or "what they say and do". Of course everyone is biased- but given that women make up at about half of the population they should be able to get their way in a democracy if they have a good argument.

Individual said- being PC (Political Correctness) compliant equals being socially inept.

Answer- My understanding is that Individual is saying that PC is invalid. In a democracy- policy is ideally based loosely on the vote- PC has a few components- gender/ racial/ religious equality is some components- but different identities are not equally represented within the community- hypothetically if judging based on "equality" rather than a "vote"- this appears to subvert democracy. It's one thing to be polite and another to let the minority control the majority. In many cases PC allows "possibility" to be falsely compared to "probability"- for example if you can find a way to be identified as a member of a small minority and argue that this minority should have equivalent rights as the majority you can subvert the majority. This leads to Individuals point- "In a democracy PC is perhaps invalid because it ignores the rights of the majority"
Posted by Canem Malum, Friday, 6 July 2018 1:46:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Most of TA's attacks on Juliar were because of shameful behaviour on her part incl the carbon tax lie, the protection of Craig Thompson, and the whole Peter Slipper debacle.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 6 July 2018 9:28:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

That is simply not true. There is so much material on
the web that you can Google concerning the behaviour of
Mr Abbott towards Julia Gillard during her time in office.
I could give you the
links however I don't see the point because you shall
dismiss it as "Leftist propaganda." I really find that
inter-acting with you is a complete waste of my time.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 July 2018 10:54:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to see Gillard government investigated over the millions she paid to the Clinton Global Initiative, and how that relates to 'Pay to Play' revelations exposed by Wikileaks;
As well as her involvement with The Podesta Group and how this related to our coal industry.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 6 July 2018 11:04:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Canem Malum,

One of the pre-requisites for democracy is tolerance of
dissent. A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting
opinions is fundamental to democracy. Governing parties
must resist the temptation to equate their own policies
with the national good, or they will tend to regard
opposition as disloyal or even treasonable. Similarly,
democracies must avoid the danger of the "tyranny of the
majority." In some cases, the democratic process may
work in such a way that a small minority is rendered
permanently powerless.

For groups, in this position, democracy might as well not
exist, and it is important that government should
recognise the grievances of minorities that have little
political clout. If the losers in the political process
do not accept the legitimacy of the process under which
they have lost, they may resort to more radical tactics
outside the institutional framework.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 July 2018 11:10:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic,

If you're really interested in Australia's involvement with
the Clinton Foundation you should start with
2006 and Minister Alexander Downer's involvement, and
then continue on with Julie Bishop's over the years.
The Clinton Foundation has been involved with our governments
for quite a long time. I believe that it began with the
fight against HIV-AIDS in New Guinea and Asia (our region)
and continued our supporting various programs in Vietnam,
PNG and Indonesia. But hell what do I know - Miranda Devine
and Andrew Bolt can fill you in on the details I'm sure.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 July 2018 11:37:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

A debate should be on the facts. Giving links to fact-free opinion pieces from left whinge blogs carries little to no credibility.

An example of shameful attacks by TA on Juliar would be a good start.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 6 July 2018 1:20:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

You lived during those times and are fully aware of
Tony Abbott's pugnacious style to oppose the then
Prime Minister at every turn. Under him the Coalition's
"whatever it takes" approach was extraordinarily vicious and
downright dishonest. Distortions, misinformation, and
innuendo were all thrown into the mix designed to whip up
fear in the community and generate an atmosphere of chaos.
What drove the man was his hunger for power. As Tony Windsor
stated at the time, "That man would sell his arse to be PM."

Diverting from its usual practice for the Opposition to hold
the government and ministers to account - instead of seeking
information and explanations - Abbott turned Question Time
in Parliament into a hectoring session against the government
and especially the Prime Minister. Abbott was relentless on her.

Frivolous censure motions, abuse of points of order,
interjections, and a barrage of heckling became standard
practice in Question Time. Abbott's strategy was to totally
disrupt Question Time.

Look, you know all this. And these facts are there on record.

I don't want to argue with you. I could go on - but as I
stated earlier - it's pointless.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 July 2018 2:46:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, you lived in those times as well.

I'm no fan of Abbott but from my perspective much of the complaints about the criticism of Gillard involve a massive set of blinkers. People who saw no issue with the continual focus on Abbott's budgie smugglers, on his ears, on his unusual speaking style etc who were outraged at any comment on Gillards look's, dress sense, or style of speech.

Her redefinition of misogyny in that famous speech directed at Abbott was a particularly low moment in Australian political life.

Many of the same ones who were horrified at the treatment of Gillard appeared to think the comments about physical characteristic of Amanda Vanstone, Browyn Bishop etc were all fair or at least not worth objecting to.

Gillard and Abbott both played very rough when it suited. A world view that says that women should be able to go for the jugular but be treated with kid gloves by men does not fly.

I'd personally like to see much higher standards of civility across all of our political debate but I don't think that should ever involve men being required to play to an entirely different set of rules to the ones expected of women.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 6 July 2018 3:18:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

I totally agree with you that there should be civil
behaviour from all of our politicians and that they
should be judged accordingly if they misbehave whether
they are male or female. However our former PM Julia
Gillard was the first female PM of Australia and
Tony Abbott's aim was to make her seem illegitimate and
obscure her government's achievements.

From day one after
the 2010 election she had the blow torch applied.
Despite Tony Abbott's predictions in 2011 that he'd live
in the Lodge by Christmas. Julia Gillard successfully
managed to navigate through the treacherous waters of a
minority government to ensure that it saw out the full
term and in the process she introduced a raft of broad
ranging policy initiatives.

I remember that Christopher Pyne never referred to our
former PM Julia Gillard as "Prime Minister," but as "she."
That was the tone set by the Coalition under Mr Abbott.
Her "Misogyny Speech," was her final reaction to all of the
extraordinarily vicious attacks from the pugnacious style
of Mr Abott whose strategy was to oppose the PM stridently
on every front. He got what he deserved. And then some.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 July 2018 4:02:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julia Gillard successfully managed to navigate through the treacherous waters....
Foxy,
It may have looked that way from your southern viewpoint but looking at it from the North it appeared more like Gillard muddied the waters & then they became treacherous.
Posted by individual, Friday, 6 July 2018 7:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual,

I'm merely stating what I saw and read at the time.

Look at how difficult things are made for other
female politicians as well. I bet you can think
of several yourself.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 July 2018 8:50:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy I don't think being the first female PM should have got her a free pass from what appears to be the norm of political behaviour if others are subject to similar tactics. When I say similar tactics the specifics might be different but the approach of attacking PM's, cabinet members etc in pretty much anyway they can is a well entrenched pattern. Gillard had some weakness that her opponents tried to exploit, Abbott, Rudd, Howard, Turnbull etc each have their own and their opponents play them pretty ruthlessly.

Your posts seem to suggest that you think that it was somehow unfair that Gillard copped the style of treatment that she, her party and supporters happily dish out (as do their opponents).

From where I sit it looks a lot like a plea for special treatment for women in Gillards case rather than any real case that her treatment was measurably worse than what is dished out to (and by) others with a different set of genitalia.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 6 July 2018 9:22:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear ROBERT,

I'm not the only one who thinks that our former PM
Julia Gillard got a raw deal because she was a woman.
The treatment of her was not something that was simply
par for the course as you infer. It was vicious and
relentless. The following links support that:

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-gender-agenda-gillard-and-the-politics-of-sexism-20120225-1tv7n.html

And -

http://theconversation.com/julia-gillard-hits-back-at-a-long-history-of-sexism-in-parliament-10071

And -

http://www.theguardian.com/2012/oct/12/julia-gillard-sexism-australia-women
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 July 2018 9:30:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

Please excuse my omission in the last link. Here it is again:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/julia-gillard-sexism-australia-women
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 6 July 2018 9:36:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Once again, you provide links to political waffle about how badly Juliar was treated which is almost completely devoid of detail. The worst offence actually referred to is TA giving an address with protesters standing behind him with offensive posters. Seriously? In the same period, there were many more cases of left whinge protesters with hundreds of far more offensive language attacking TA such as hundreds of people in F Abbott T-shirts.

That TA attacked Juliar continuously and robustly was precisely because that is what opposition leaders do and it's what he did to Rudd. Was that sexist?

If there is a case that Juliar was attacked solely because she was a woman, you certainly have not made it in any way.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 7 July 2018 7:01:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Foxy,
I didn't pay too much attention to Gillard and Abbotts parliamentary battles, but I could make the observation that Abbott was conservative similar to Trump, and they both faced liberal female adversaries, who both wanted to play with the big boys but then cried 'poor me, I'm a girl' to change the narrative when it suited them.

Also women opposed to Abbott's alleged mysogyny largely displayed the same misandry with Trump's election.

Is it really men, or just whinging disgruntled females?
Maybe it's a little of both, and maybe the bad behaviour of men is due to idiot women, and vice versa.

Regards your earlier response to Clinton Foundation. Way to go Foxy, I wouldn't have expected such insight from you on this topic.
Usually you're altogether dismissive of anything bad related to Hillary.
I believe Downer was compromised at some point, he's a part of this whole deep state attempt to install Hillary / depose and indict Trump, Russia Collusion narrative.
Trump's secretly had sealed indictments and the whole lot of them secretly investigated for some time; that's why he's let this go on so long so they will all hang themselves,apparently.

I don't know if Gillard was just playing by Hillary's rules, or what she got in return, but something stinks about that 130 million in payments to me. Hillary is not an honest politician and she was not running an honest non-profit.
Anyone who believes she was, would believe anything.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 7 July 2018 7:46:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy I'm well aware that the corporate media run that line as well. A bunch of people agreeing does not make it so.

Thinking about your earlier response re the critics of the Clinton Foundation (and Clinton) which appeared to suggest that it's just some figures on the right making the allegations of widespread corruption, pay for play and very little benefit going to those the foundation is set up to help there are voices on the left saying the same thing Jimmy Dore is the most prominent current voice that I'm aware of of. While he was still alive Christopher Hitchins did some pretty strong expose work on Clinton corruption and the damage that they were doing to the Left and in particular the Democrats in the US. Amongst the notable points he made was his view on Hillaries role in intimidating women who had been allegedly assaulted by Bill. I don't know if John Pilger has addressed the Clinton Foundation specifically but he had quite a bit to say regarding Hillaries ties to the Arms industry. The Wikileaks emails had some very damming material in them (and as far I'm aware none of the material they have released has ever been shown to be doctored or fabricated).

Whilst they are in my view largely on the Right of politics Judicial Watch have unearthed a bunch more damming material on Hillary via FOI requests and lawsuits. For reference they have also gone after Trump in some areas (travel expenses being one I'm aware of).

Likewise Veritas although conservative have released some pretty damming video material regarding the operations of Clintons campaign and other issues.

Perhaps do some searching on the role of the Clintons and the Foundation in Hati.

Left leaning corporate media opinion pieces will not typically be particularly critical of Clinton and the family foundation but it's not just the right wing deeply concerned about the Clintons and the wrongdoing associated with them.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 7 July 2018 2:12:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Abbott/Gillard contest went too far. Beyond the
normal push and shove of Parliament. The level of
personal vitriol levelled at the former Prime
Minister in Parliamentary debates was of a
substantially different nature from anything we had
ever seen in the past. Abbott's strategy had been
to paint Gillard as untrustworth and he repeatedly
focused on her gender. When doing this he invoked a
deep suspicion of successful women which resides in
Australian culture.

Anyway - I shan't argue any further.
The record is there for those interested. And those of
us who remember those times - do know what went on.
No matter how many times we're told that it was "par for
the course." It wasn't. And it certainly wasn't
politically "waffle," or "whinging," - it was sexism and
mysogyny. And the PM finally called it out.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 7 July 2018 2:43:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

Hillary Clinton has gone.

And as far as I am aware they didn't find anything
on her. The investigation into Donald Trump is
still ongoing. Who knows where that will end?

In any case history will judge them both.

The same as they will our present and past PM's.

Take Mr Howard's
"non-core promises," his selling of the Iraq War,
Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction,
the AWB's dealings with the same Hussein or Howard's
appaling behaviour regarding the children overboard
affair. And all this treated to chapter and verse about
how complaints were the sort of thing that only concerned
"Howard haters." That decent and ordinary people were too
busy getting on with their lives to concern themselves with
hair-splitting about what Howard did or didn't do or say.

But it's a different story when it comes to Julia Gillard
and Hillary Clinton. They're women, and not to be trusted.
That's life.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 7 July 2018 3:15:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sexist and misandry would be a more apt summation especially of the view that Gillard copped more than is dished out to male or conservative politicians.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 7 July 2018 3:16:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
especially of the view that Gillard copped more than is dished out to male or conservative politicians.
R0bert,
If she hadn't brought it all on herself it wouldn't have turned out the way it did. What's that old saying of laying down with dogs,.....
Posted by individual, Saturday, 7 July 2018 11:52:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the personal attacks on Gillard were somehow deserved because of the Carbon Tax and Peter Slipper?

Is that the same tax that Peta Credlin recently admitted was never really a tax but a convenient political weapon to use at the time?

The "tax" based on a two second edited grab from a TV interview that left out the following statement about an intended price on carbon - the same fact that was published in the Australian the day before the election?

And Peter Slipper - the Liberals own nominee for Deputy Speaker who his party was already planning to dump in order to make way for the corrupt and conspiratorial Mal Brough? His Party nickname name was "Slippery Pete" when he was under their protective umbrella before he agreed to become replacement speaker and was later turned on by his own when he made Abbott's intended coup harder.

Abbott effectively endorsed all the abusive personal protests against Gillard by never condemning them - an act he was later said to regret, but then we've all seen clear examples of his morality and decency in recent years. Unlike him, there has been no "sniping or undermining" from Gillard since.

Funny that nobody ever asked Abbott if his wife was gay during a radio interview or portrayed him in a satirical (ABC!) TV comedy as a bogan PM having sex in his office under the Australian flag.
Posted by rache, Sunday, 8 July 2018 1:04:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I forgot to add the incident of Gillard appearing on a Liberal Party fundraiser menu as "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail - small breasts, huge thighs and a big red box".

Really classy, especially when "Jewellery Asbestos" Bishop later called for Gillard to apologise for a statement about the abortion issue possibly becoming a political plaything for men.
Posted by rache, Sunday, 8 July 2018 1:12:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many had a lot of hope for Julia Gillard. There were a few damning policies- such as "Big Australia", "Computers For Every Child", questions of influence of her partner by the Jewish lobby (not sure how well these were founded). I didn't object to the way she obtained power as this was I believe Wayne Swan's and others influence. She left office with a grace unmatched by any in recent years. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were initially an impressive team. The suspicion is that the ALP has lost its way- and has become more partisan to special interest groups. At this stage perhaps the Liberal party is less partisan- despite their apparent support of the big end of town. It appears the two major parties have reached a "Hegelian Synthesis" and the only hope for the Australian people is with a large coalition of independents able to block power in the Senate. We'll find out what happens by April next year- and probably earlier in "September 2018 this year". If there is a September election we will find out in "July next month"!
Posted by Canem Malum, Sunday, 8 July 2018 2:19:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,

Foxy and all the other Gillard Luvies think that Juliar was the best thing since sliced bread and that her term in office was such a dismal failure was because the opposition was mean to her, and not because she was a duplicitous weasel with a long list of policy failures.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 8 July 2018 1:32:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

You're someone who's regularly displayed very rusted
on views on a variety of issues so you're not in any
position to criticise any one else. As for Julia Gillard
she definitely was not perfect. However she was treated
in a manner that was unprecedented in the history of
Australian politics particularly by a man whose political
ambition drove him beyond and above normal political
behaviour. He got kicked out as a result of that - by his
own party.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 8 July 2018 2:32:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whose political ambition drove him beyond and above normal political behaviour
Foxy,
Are you deliberately using sanitised wording here because it looks as though you're avoiding telling facts. These facts are that the man for want of a better description, is an up-himself academic with not an ounce of common decency. One could not claim decency & then send your own country & its people down the gurgler & still have the audacity to claim you care.
No, he was & still is an egoist of disproportion to his competence.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 8 July 2018 3:03:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"However she was treated in a manner that was unprecedented in the history of Australian politics"

I really think that view is a product of obliviousness to what is dished out to male politicians rather than an accurate reflection on what went Gillards way. A product of the men being disposable and what happens to them really does not matter what happens to them mentality rather than an accurate reflection of tone of politics.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 8 July 2018 7:07:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

Strongly disagree.

Amazingly the fact that Gillard won an election,
negotiated 4 separate agreements with Independents and
The Greens to form a minority government was seen by
her critics not as a crowning achievement but as sneaky
and treacherous. What does a girl have to do?
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 8 July 2018 7:33:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy how effective Gillard was at pushing her agenda vs the treatment she received being unprecedented or somehow out of what is a pretty horrible ordinary are very different things.

Clearly we disagree strongly on the latter and I suspect some disagreement on how much we liked some of that agenda.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 8 July 2018 7:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

Perhaps the following links may help:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-03/dunlop-the-imagined-failings-of-gillard/3985592

And -

http://theconversation.com/julia-gillard-hits-back-at-a-long-history-of-sexism-in-parliament-10071

And -

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-gender-agenda-gillard-and-the-politics-of-sexism-20120225-1tv7n.html

And -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/julia-gillard-sexism-australian-women
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 8 July 2018 8:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For some perspective of the Gillard (and Labor vs Coalition generally) economic performance, consider this comparison -

1983 – The Coalition under Malcolm Fraser with John Howard as Treasurer hand over to Labor an economy ranked 20th in the world

1984 – Paul Keating wins Euromoney’s Finance Minister of the Year
1996 – Paul Keating and Labor hand over to the Coalition an economy now ranked 6th in the world

2007 – John Howard and the Coalition hand back an economy to Labor that had slipped down to 9th place in the world

2011 – Wayne Swan wins Euromoney’s Finance Minister of the Year
2013 – Labor under Rudd/Gillard hand over to the Coalition the best performing economy in the world, boasting AAA credit ratings after navigating Australia through the GFC.

2017 – The Coalition under Turnbull/Abbott have presided over an economy that slipped back down to 18th in the world, although I think we've since crept back up to about 11th, mainly due to additional infrastructure spending because of increased population growth.
Posted by rache, Sunday, 8 July 2018 11:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Foxy,
Thanks for posting the links in your last comment.
I saw your earlier comment on this thread on Saturday, 7 July 2018 3:15:14 PM but choose not to respond at that time, but now that I see where you got your info to base your comments / arguments I will.

I looked at the first 2 links, came to the conclusion it wasn't news but the opinions of idiots; here's why:

1. They are both opinion pieces; not news do you realise the difference?
2. You quoted this earlier - "Anyone who brought up his "non-core promises", his selling of the Iraq War on the basis of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, his and his ministers' knowledge of matters to do with the AWB's dealings with the same Hussein, or his appalling behaviour regarding the children overboard affair, was liable to be treated to chapter and verse about about how such complaints were the sort of thing that only concerned 'Howard haters'."

Just want to point something out
'Selling of the Iraq war on the basis of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction...'
- So Saddam was a good guy? Then this;
'his and his ministers' knowledge of matters to do with the AWB's dealings with the same Hussein...'
So Saddam's a bad guy now?

These two issues are incongruent; they don't fit together...
Putting them together in the same sentence makes me imagine a person with Downe Syndrome uncontrollably headbutting a brick wall.
Senseless.

3. Next article, Cheryl Kernot.
Same stupid retards logic.
"Thus we get no reference to unbridled Lady Macbeth ambition when Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews pull a leadership challenge on Malcolm Turnbull (defeating him by one vote), or Kevin Rudd on Kim Beazley, or Paul Keating on Bob Hawke (a sitting Prime Minister), or Alexander Downer on John Hewson. That’s just political business as usual. No problem with legitimacy in any of these examples."

??

She's saying there's no equality because nobody called those blokes 'unbridled Lady MacBeth'?

None of those males are ladies.
Cheryl's not making any sense...
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 9 July 2018 1:30:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Cont.]
She adds:

"In 2012 this coincides with the anonymity of social media, which unchallenged gives permission to use abusive terms such as “lying scrag” and “old cow” more widely. No male Prime Minister has had this level of deeply personal abuse aimed at him."

The left are so full of it.
Just because they say it doesn't make it true, they are just counting on those gullible enough to believe it, and mostly it's all bs.
I thought I'd test her argument, so I googled 'Turnbulls a f---wit' then 'Abbotts a c---'.
Well anyways you might wanna check that out, we've got Facebook groups and songs dedicated to that, so Cheryl's full of it.

These people have (by their own logic) advertised themselves as complete idiots.
But for you; (no offense') but these are the 'opinions' you turn to for your info?

I hope you don't mistaken my comments today as personal Foxy, because they aren't.
I just have to call out stupid bs wherever I see it.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 9 July 2018 1:31:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disliked Julia Gillard at first because she stabbed Rudd in the back.
I didn't like him either; but it just wasn't a good look - a disunited party; and someone taking the leadership by stabbing one of their colleagues in the back.

But I hated Julia Gillard for one reason and one reason only.
- She was a lying sack of crap -

She said there wasn't going to be a Carbox Tax, and then she went and did EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

So she lies to the entire nation and stabs her own people in the back, and you girls want to think it was all about sexism?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 9 July 2018 2:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No guys, leave the sexism to me. I am the in house expert. Just thought I'd get in on this point while it's current.
I don't like that maggot Gillard, because I just don't like her.
I know you guys don't accept a comment if it's not embellished with an attempt at trying to justify it.
Well I'm not going to justify it with long and meaningless explanations so as to satisfy the argumentative side of some on OLO.
The reason I dislike her, with a passion, is that she dared to presume herself to be of Prime Ministerial material, (and she's ugly).
There are words like arrogant, ugly skank, and so many more along the same line to describe her but I am above all that so I won't.
Not here and now at least.
So to those of you barking for a fight, I did not call her an ugly skank. (I said, 'she's ugly)
There is no denying she was a 'bad look' as a PM, and arrogant,so arrogant.
Totally inept for the job.
She was a perfect point in case for my 'anti-female in high office' campaign.
Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 9 July 2018 3:45:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic said "She said there wasn't going to be a Carbox Tax, and then she went and did EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE"

Answer- One of my views on that subject were to give her a pass. Of note- John Howard did the same with the GST after the election with the help of Meg Lees. The argument for a carbon tax is- if a price is put on the release of carbon less people will release it. The situation with the Greens was interesting- they held out for 20%- the ALP believed they could only get 10% through- in the end the Greens didn't get anything.
Posted by Canem Malum, Monday, 9 July 2018 3:51:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey ALTRAV,
Personally, the matter of her gender and looks didn't matter to me, all I really cared about was her ability to do the job and make good decisions as our nations leader.

Hey Canem Malum,
"One of my views on that subject were to give her a pass..."

Nope, not me. Never. Not a chance in hell.
I won't give a single one of them a pass for lying to the citizens.
You see If I tell the people a whole pack of lies to get elected then once voted in I do whatever the hell I like, that's not democracy.
I don't care about the argument for or against the Carbon Tax, or whatever particular issue in question is.
I care about our leaders staying true to the positions they held when they were campaigning for our vote.
I think if they are to propose going against campaign promises then that issue must wait until a new election, meaning they would have to announce their new position and let the people vote for that new position first before it can be implemented.
I also think that 'If they make the rules for us, then we should make the rules for them'.
If they are allowed to make the rules for themselves then there's no real balance of power, and once again it's not really democracy.

It's more like 'Democracy Lite' I suppose;
which is probably a nice way of saying 'Rigged Democracy';
And which, when you look at it isn't really a democracy at all.
Just the appearance of such.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 9 July 2018 5:24:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//But I hated Julia Gillard for one reason and one reason only.
- She was a lying sack of crap -//

Well how does that make her any different from every politician ever?

I'm sure you've all heard the old joke:

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.

People claim Gillard's dishonesty as the reason for their dislike, but it's clearly just an excuse rather than the reason or they'd have similar levels of dislike for all politicians on both sides of the fence.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 9 July 2018 6:38:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Toni,
Yes they all do seem to lie and decieve to some degree, (maybe that's a generalisation) but I accept your point.

Julia Gillard did it blatently though, in a way that showed utter contempt towards the nations citizens.

First she stabbed Rudd in the back,
Then she stabbed us in the back.
And then she carried on like nothing had happened.
And then she screamed misogyny, and took the focus off more important issues;
(Not saying some of the women's arguments aren't without any basis)
Whist giving Hillary 130 million.

- But that's my opinion.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 9 July 2018 7:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic- Thanks for your feedback
Posted by Canem Malum, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 12:53:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Canem Malum - Thanks for saying thanks! That's such a super thing to do!
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 1:45:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your welcome Calum,
- but I really didn't do anything.
Thanks for yours (and everyone else's) contributions too.

Hey Foxy,
Hillary Clinton's not gone.
She will likely run in 2020.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 6:16:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh crap.. sorry Canem Malum for messing up your name in the previous comment.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 6:20:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Juliar gave an ironclad guarantee to the Australian that "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" and few weeks after gaining power indicated that there would be a carbon tax under the government she led. The sheer breathtaking audacity of her lie and duplicity outraged the voters and was a gift that any opposition leader would have been negligent in letting pass. Her rank dishonesty with regards to Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper took Labor's vote to 25% and led to the party booting her out.

That Abbott was any more hectoring than Shorten, Rudd, or Beazely, is also complete bollocks. The difference is that the attacks hit home primarily because what Juliar was doing was blatantly duplicitous. The carbon tax lie cost Juliar, Windsor and Oakeshott their jobs, and Juliar will be remembered for incompetence and deceit by most Australians.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 8:43:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic said "Oh crap.. sorry Canem Malum for messing up your name in the previous comment."

Answer- I didn't notice the name until you mentioned it. All ok. Don't call "me late for dinner". :)
Posted by Canem Malum, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 10:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy