"Slipper's emails were part of his sexual harrassment of an employee and were revealed in the course of complaints by the employee..."

That is simplifying that whole grubby episode...which is outlined more fulsomely here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/james-ashby-v-peter-slipper-the-shameless-game-was-always-about-politics

"The sequence of events is well known. The sexual harassment claims against the Speaker were struck out in December 2012 by Justice Steven Rares. He found that the real purpose of the litigation was to bring down the Speaker and damage the minority government, and should never have been brought in the court.

That was subsequently overturned by a full court majority in February. It left us with two judges saying this was more about politics than the law, and two saying this was more about the law than politics. Contrary to spin from the Ashby camp, the full court made no findings of fact about his allegations. That was to be determined by a trial that never happened because the complainant withdrew from the contest."

And what about Brough admitting he urged Ashby to photograph Slipper's diary?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/christopher-pyne-had-no-specific-knowledge-over-james-ashby-slipper-claims/story-fn59niix-1227051208133

"“You have someone that was previously a cabinet minister, who was wanting to be a member of the federal parliament again and is now a member of the federal parliament owning up to having encouraged a member of the staff of the speaker of the House of Representatives to steal the property of the speaker,” he said."

Loads of "interesting machinations" abound in that episode.

I like what Barry Humphrey wrote in The Australian on this matter: "HAS Australia gone slightly mad? I read in the London press of some poor professor in Sydney who has been persecuted and suspended for sending emails to a friend in which he employs outrageous vernacular epithets for race which would be offensive if they were not so clearly jocular.

His reported response to the storm in a teacup which followed this revelation is, unsurprisingly, bewilderment. How could anyone take such deliberate touretting seriously? The answer, I fear, is that there are a lot of Australians these days who are totally bereft of a sense of humour. The new puritanism is alive, well and powerful.

Not long ago some poor guy was actually prosecuted for saying that the Aboriginal welfare services were sometimes exploited by faux Aborigines, even though we knew it was true.

Recently, I announced that when I curate next year’s Adelaide cabaret festival I will ban the F-word, and there was a howl of protest, indeed outrage, particularly from comedians. What kind of comedians were they, do you suppose? Why, comedians with no sense of humour of course! Or comedians whose stand-ups would be meaningless if deprived of one over-used word.

We really ought to be aware of this malignant brand of cultural fascism, and restore our reputation as a funny country before it’s too late.

Barry Humphries, London, UK"

Great article!

Rabbi Gershom (960-1028 AD), decreed that a messenger may not open or read the letters they deliver. This was very progressive at the time, just like his other famous and widely-accepted decree that a Jewish man may marry only one wife (at a time) and may not either marry or divorce her without her consent.

Now on another aspect:

This is a war situation - the "New Matilda" people do not accept Mr. Spurr's power to influence the school curriculum to which their children are subjected. The reason they resorted to this crime was not pornographic: they wanted to achieve the goal of removing his influence over the curriculum, but were of the wrong view that "the end justifies the means".

We should however really ask ourselves how this is possible in the first place that someone unacceptable to you can influence the curriculum of your kids in school. In other words, how is it that a national curriculum is in existence in first place, rather than allowing parents to decide for themselves what their children are going to study.