Cruelty is a vice in my estimation. It may be simply being witty at someone else's expense. It may involve torture or murder. It may be someone in power abusing their authority by humiliating a subordinate. There are many forms and degrees of cruelty. It is a vice in any form or degree.

Sex is not a vice unless it is accompanied by some form of fraud or
compulsion. Whatever consenting adults do between themselves that hurts nobody is really nobody else's business.

Julia Gillard is a person who has sexual desires. That's nothing unusual. She has apparently satisfied them. There is no evidence that there was compulsion, fraud or violence involved. Yet runner is upset. Why? As far as I know she has not been cruel to anybody. That would be a serious character flaw.

runner states, "Those that claim that ones private life is no one elses business are first to criticize Abbott for his private beliefs." That is one of runner's assertions without proof.

We don't know what Abbott's private beliefs are. Any beliefs he has stated are no longer private. I am worried about what I know of his public acts. As minister of health he was unwilling to do anything about the ads for goodies and sugar-laden cereals on TV. Those ads contribute to an unhealthy life style and are a burden on the public health system. However, he was unwilling to interfere with the making of a dollar. Both the present pope and the previous pope have spoken against our materialist and consumerist culture. In that area he ignored his religion.

What it comes to sex that is different. As health minister Abbott banned the morning-after pill until the authority was taken away from him.

Certainly an atheist can repent wrongs. Be conscious of the fact that one has done wrong and try to make up for it by trying to do something to make it right with the person one has done wrong to. If that is not possible one can try not to repeat the wrong. No religious mumbojumbo need be involved.

Graham Y, "I'm sure that sexual indiscretions do not disqualify from being a good leader."

They certainly don't qualify either. What appears to be the case is that voters are reasonably forgiving of the sexual philandering of someone in a position of trust provided that there has been no attempt at a cover-up and also providing that there are no other indiscretions. Hawke was a flawed character, but there was never any doubt that he was a great man with a vision for Australia and that he was batting for all Australians, excepting the greedy. A Robin Hood might be given more rope.

The leader's performance and context do matter. In Julia Gillard's case the doubts are mounting without being balanced by any obvious pluses in her favour. Julia does not stand wreathed in glory from her performance as a minister; she doesn't appear so far to have a great vision or ideals that would mark her as a great leader - or even as an average one; and there are suspicions that she might not be batting for all Australians and especially the weak and vulnerable members of society, unless there is a quid pro quo in it for her.

It is time to move on from the demolished accusation at the opening to this thread and consider what minimum standards of conduct are expected of elected members and particularly ministers. Is the code of conduct to be set at the lowest possible bar, ie forget convention and accept that any abuse or indiscretion is fine unless the erring minister is held to account in a court of law and convicted of a serious offence? John Howard seemed to think that a minister shouldn't resign over principle, it would take serious conviction to do it and there was no way he would have any minister investigated with evidence that had already stood up in a court of law.

Is the expectation that there should be honest and moral leadership by those occupying the most senior positions of trust old fashioned and past its use-by date?

Runner, King David didn't lose his Kingship because of Absolom, and I've never heard your interpretation of the uprising of Absolom against his father before. Can you direct me to a verse for this?

I'm sure that some of the OLO community have been hurt by infidelity and had a bit to say about the participants. Yet everyone except Runner seems to feel a need to display a quite forgiving attitude about the possibility of adultery. I find this well intentioned but hypocritical. If any of us discovered that our partner had an affair, we would be anything but forgiving. Let's make some effort to empathise with Craig Emerson's wife and kids. It is up to them and not us to award forgiveness.

I don't argue that Julia is unfit for her high office, but lets not forget how hurtful this is the the people directly involved.

Dear benk,

That's the whole point though isn't it?
We don't know who was the "victim," in
this case - husband or wife. The fact
remains all we're doing is making
assumptions about a private matter about
which we know nothing and yet we're
judging people by it.

Bizarre, to say the least!

Dear runner,

There's nothing more I can really say to
you on this issue. I feel that it's
pointless making judgements as I stated
previously on hypotheticals when we don't
really know the facts involved.
Sleeping your way to the top?
I don't think in all fairness that this
applies to Julia Gillard. She certainly didn't
get where she is today by doing that, anymore
than Tony Abbott got where he is because of
the way he looks in his budgie smugglers.

benk, "Let's make some effort to empathise with Craig Emerson's wife and kids."

Yes and one can rest assured that the sensible, caring majority of voters are thinking that.

This is where Julia Gillard showed poor judgement, or to put it bluntly, she put her own lust and short-term benefit ahead of the good of others. Yes, for some it might not be an impediment for the highest job in the land but male or female there is no way I would hire anyone for a senior management role who was so damn stupid, egocentric and uncaring.

Looking at it from a business point of view, anyone who is that selfish and silly is a risk and poor publicity and loss of credibility can easily undo the credit gained from thousands of hours of exemplary service by staff. Can't these political parties do any better and what sort of example are they setting from the top down?

Is it political correctness that would chastise and demand the sacking of a sports jocks for raunch behaviour, while forgiving the immoral behaviour of leaders who regularly take decisions that could have momentous impact on our lives? Code of conduct for ministers, what's that?