Good morning all.

Thanks for these responses.

@Cohenite: The question remains, doesn’t it? That my “unquestioning loyalty to the ALP/Green/left side of politics is so evident”.

Evident where? There’s nothing in the article or following posts positive or supportive of Labor or of the Left as a party, movement or philosophy. And there’s nothing negative or critical of the Coalition or the Right as a party, movement or philosophy, is there?

So it's somewhat curious – and wryly amusing – that someone advocating civility, honesty and integrity is automatically labelled a partisan of the Left.

Think about it, Anthony. What are you admitting?

Regarding Pakistan, that is precisely why the sexism and misogyny of Abbott, Heffernan, Bernardi, Jones and other prominent Australians must be resisted.

Are you familiar with the genesis of Australia’s RDA, Anthony?

Racism and misogyny are global phenomena which must be confronted everywhere. Australia cannot speak with integrity to Pakistan or anywhere else while we allow these evils in any form – however mild in relative terms.

Good morning Shadow Minister,

You are doing it again, old son. You say “trying to get him [Jones] fired for an off colour remark to a student function”.

Pinocchio !!

Just not true, is it, SM?

The key movement striving to boycott 2GB – Destroy the Joint – was set up six weeks ago, well before the tawdry remarks at the Liberal function.

Don’t let the liars and fabricators suck you in, SM. You will end up believing Bob Carr is not foreign minister, Geoff Clark is not Aboriginal, and your PM has a criminal past.

Reading the Murdoch media in Australia, SM, is like watching Fox TV in America. It just makes people really really dumb:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

By way of illustration, SM (and Cohenite), you say “Nicola Roxon (running Slippers case) had access to the texts months ago, which puts paid to their claims that they intended for Slipper to resign.”

Questions arising:

When did Roxon learn the content of the texts? How do you know? When did other MPs learn the content? How do you know?

Cheers, AA

"When did Roxon learn the content of the texts? How do you know? When did other MPs learn the content? How do you know?"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/attorney-general-nicola-roxon-admits-government-solictors-knew-of-former-speaker-peter-slippers-vulgat-texts-in-may/story-fndo48ca-1226493765591

Hi again Cohenite.

You are doing it again. You are reading political reports in the Herald Sun as though they are true. They are not true, Anthony. They are distortions at best and fabrications at worst.

You really should understand this by now. This is why you keep losing arguments and credibility.

(Except sports results. The Herald Sun sports journalists generally get things right.)

If you go to the actual Hansard of October 11, Anthony, you will find the Attorney General repeats the earlier information that "material was provided to the Government Solicitor at the end of May. Undertakings were made, as required by the court, by all parties that the material could only be used for the purposes of court proceedings."

Have you checked the Hansard, Anthony?

If you compare the report in the Herald Sun with the actual proceedings in Parliament you will spot the typical Murdoch falsifications. They are pretty obvious, as always.

So the questions remain: When did Nicola Roxon learn the content of the texts? How do you know? When did other MPs learn the content? How do you know?

To try on the answer: "In May, because I read it in the Herald Sun" is just risible.

But we are laughing at you, Anthony, not with you.

So, any advance on the Herald Sun?

The other questions, seeing you are persisting with Slipper, are these:

When did the Liberal Party become aware of Slipper's dodgy dealings?
When did the Liberal party refuse to vote him into senior Parliamentary positions?
Should the leader of the Party at the time he was last endorsed as a candidate be forced to resign?

Cheers, AA

AA,

The facts brought up in the Newscorp papers are very seldom challenged, and when they are, it is mostly on minute details such as incorrect terminology, or as in your case, with 20/20 hindsight when things had changed, and Juliar had managed to put down the resistance to Bob Carr.

If as you say, your Don Quixote like crusade against the "hate" media started long before AJ's comment, then I would add paranoia to the list of things linked to the left.

At least Juliar has abandoned the media censorship board proposed by the Frankenstein report commissioned by senator Conjob, the minister for excommunication.

As for when Roxon had access to the texts,

http://www.afr.com/p/national/labor_had_slipper_texts_for_months_d1ITfu4zPbLq7ot0G8f9yK

"A large spreadsheet of text messages on Mr Ashby’s phone was sent by his lawyers on May 28 to the Australian Government Solicitor and to lawyers defending Mr Slipper against the sexual harassment case brought by Mr Ashby........

Asked when she was made aware of the former speaker’s text messages, a spokesperson for Ms Roxon said last night the government’s legal advice and preparation was under legal professional privilege and was confidential."

With Slipper his misdeeds prior to 2010 involved over claiming on his allowances which he had to pay back, and was dropped as parliamentary secretary. His repeat action lead him to be dis endorsed for the next elections.

All of this Juliar knew when she endorsed him as Speaker.

As for Craig Thomson:

When did the Labor Party become aware of Thomson's dodgy dealings?
When did the Labor party refuse to vote him into senior Parliamentary positions?
Should the leader of the Labor Party at the time he was last endorsed as a candidate be forced to resign?

Juliar knew of CT's dodgy credit card purchase of prostitutes with union funds prior to the 2010 election, and had full confidence in him even when the evidence of about $500 000 of fraud was surfacing.

In the film "Disclosure", the lead character was stitched up by an abusive woman in power. He was ostrasiced and written off worse than AJ is. His companies version of Hansard had him done to rights.

But then an accidental answer-machine recording of the REALITY came to light like the arrow-of-truth and the woman was exposed for the liar and cheat she was.

There was pity. Everyone thought she was crushed. We felt sorry - till she exalted her abuse as women's rights and attempts to humble her as MISOGYNY. But astoundingly her abuse continued, till she was caught out in a large enough forum to bring her down.

Can AA or anyone tell us that this scenario is not playing out in Canberra as we speak, making this clumsy afore-planned boycott triggered by AJ's betrayed boo boo, totally insignificant.

The key quote form "Disclosure" was "a woman in power can be every bit as abusive as a man".

The Australian electorate has yet to come to terms with this truth.

No pillow smotherings from the south of France nor sterile political leadership from Canberra (which may as well be in the south of France or on the Moon as to its relevance in multi-culturally gridlocked Australian life) can change the way this unfinished script, "The Knifing of Rudd", will play out.

Its not over!

I have deeper concerns about the ALP that cannot be silenced vis-a-vis an AJ/free speech assassination.

Womens' reproductive rights and immigration are the core pillars of ALP economic growth plans. It cannot be called misogyny or racism to speak against these iniquities. Never mind decency in discourse, we all, including our ecologies and environment need & want a decent place to live in. The enviro-degradation of Australia cannot be blamed on AGW when BIG population increases by economic Growth politicians wielding Misogyny like a sword, are at its core.

The danger in extending an AJ boycott to misogyny and thus to reproductive rights resulting in environmental destruction is a vile "disclosure" that can bring this country to a modern version of French revolution.

Alan, your Hansard quote proves Roxon, and therefore members of the government, knew about Slipper's sexism in May; or are you saying the chief legal officier was not privy to what her employed solictors' knew about a highly politicised case? We know you are naive but surely not that naive.

So, we can say Roxon and her fellow feministas knew in May and therefore they had had plenty of time to consider their position when the texts became public; and their considered position was they still voted to keep Slipper as speaker despite his comments being far more egregious than Jones'.

Jones' comment was particular, not related to Gillard's sex but entirely in the context of Gillard's incompetence, lying and unreliability. Slipper's were generic and indicative of a highly personal animosity towards all women.

That you cannot distinguish the difference says all that we need to know about your unfettered partisan support of Gillard and your inability to perceive true sexism, which is coming from this government.