AA,

I have shown conclusively that Roxon had the texts, and thus the ALP had access to them several months ago. Who Roxon shared them with is a different matter. If you want to play semantics, having access to something does not mean that everyone has seen them.

However, since the texts were published days before the Slipper vote, and robust discussion was held it would be difficult to claim that any ALP members were ignorant of the texts at the time the vote occurred, and all shared in the hypocrisy.

That is a slam dunk.

Andrew Bolt quoting the Australian has a good analysis of Roxon's role in the Slipper affair:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/roxon_out_of_her_depth/

I find this a more reliable source then Alan's fanciful support for Gillard and opposition to the denounced ogre, Jones.

And this point needs repeating whenever the likes of Alan get up and start their sanctimonious sermonising: Jones can be switched off; Roxon and this wretched government can't.

Hello again Shadow Minister and Cohenite,

Why are you so agitated about Slipper and Roxon? This really is way off topic. No?

Yes, Shadow, we now agree all the MPs had the texts in October. But not in May. Good. We are making progress.

Cohenite, you are quoting Andrew Bolt again. Why?

It has been overwhelmingly established in courts of law, in ACMA hearings, in academic findings and elsewhere that he is a serial fabricator. So why consume his ‘data’ which will almost certainly be false?

It seems an odd approach to education and awareness. Oh well, it’s your education and awareness, I suppose, Anthony.

Anyway, we seem agreed that Slipper is not worthy of support. And I trust we agree it is good that he is gone.

But this thread is actually about Alan Jones – whose offensive sexist abuse was far more serious than Slipper’s in that:

(a) it was aimed at specific named women – the PM, Christine Nixon, Clover Moore and others;
(b) the language was deliberately insulting – “lying bitch” Julia Gillard, “brain-dead Sarah Hanson-Young”;
(c) the slur was extended to all women via the comment “women are destroying the joint”;
(d) the insults were made in a highly public forum; and
(e) they were clearly intended to provoke fear and hatred.

Slipper’s offensive texts, in contrast, were none of the above.

So do we agree that:

1. Peter Slipper and Alan Jones have both shown unacceptable sexist conduct and do not deserve support any longer to continue in influential public roles.

2. MPs who have supported Slipper or Jones in the past should not have done so and should be ashamed of themselves.

3. MPs who continue in the future to support Slipper or Jones in maintaining positions of authority must be condemned and voted out of office.

I trust so.

Cheers, AA

“women are destroying the joint”

A nasty comment but it seems fair to ask why feminist writings that suggest the worlds problems are all the fault of men don't rate the same outrage.

From the US version of Emilyslist comes a quote that seems to be a close mirror to Jones comment.

"Men have been running this country long enough, and look where we are."
http://emilyslist.org/blog/what-women-want

There is plenty more around using various phrasing that claims men have wrecked the joint.

R0bert

"MPs who continue in the future to support Slipper or Jones in maintaining positions of authority must be condemned and voted out of office"

By all means vote for whoever you like for whatever esoteric reason you wish; but I repeat Jones is not in a "position of power".

You can switch him off; what you really mean is that you think people who are 'influenced' by him will continue to be 'influenced' by him and not vote in a way you approve of. That is straight out of the Finkelstein handbook of hubris ridden justification for censorship.

You mention a number of women; Gillard, Moore, Hanson-Young and Nixon.

Each of these holders of high public office is deserving of criticism, and in Nixon's case public opprobrium due to her disgraceful behaviour during the bushfires as well as law and order policies.

I have explained the episodes in Gillard's past which deserve much more scrutiny; Hanson-Young's hypocrisy in disavowing any Green responsibility for the deaths of boat people and Moore's general hair-brained schemes all justify Jone's criticism but not his manner of criticism.

So, Alan tell us, is it Jone's criticism of these women or the manner of this criticism which disturbs you?

G’day R0bert,

Fair questions. Have been pondering those throughout this saga.

The answer pretty much is that we just don’t hear the same gender abuse in reverse.

For example, we hear criticism in Melbourne of Premier Ted Baillieu, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle and Planning Minister Matthew Guy. But we never hear anyone add “men are wrecking the joint” or anything like that, do we?

I’m trying to think of anyone with power or influence in Australian public life who slander all men as Alan Jones and his ilk do with women.

I just can’t. Can you, R0bert?

Yes, we sometimes read quips in feminist manifestos or hear it as an expression of exasperation. And I expect the sentiment is fairly widely held.

But it seems nowhere is there a relentless, sustained, vicious campaign maligning both named individuals and the entire gender.

I'm struggling to come up with even a one-off abusive anti-male comment from anyone significant.

Anthony, the answer to your question is in the article, at about the two thirds mark:

“From the various online groups it is clear there are long-held, deep-seated concerns at Jones’ activities on many levels. These include: his history of fabrications, receiving secret cash payments for on-air comments, fomenting racial hatred and violence, abuse of staff, ridiculing and censoring callers who challenge his facts, unbalanced treatment of political parties, crude sexist attacks on the Prime Minister, false accusations against political opponents, calls for the death of political enemies, public vilification of those he disagrees with, hypocritical exploitation of charities, the hypocrisy of calling for direct community action but complaining when the community acts directly against his excesses and, finally, his hollow apologies when cornered.”

If you go to the piece, there are 12 embedded links to the source articles or audio.

His malignancy is multi-layered.

Cheers, AA