Foxy, Celivia,

I read your earlier post, and I am aware that supposedly JG only was with CE after he split up. However, if you read my post, when JG was asked directly if she was involved in the break up, she refused to answer. Given that it is manifestly in her interest to put the record straight, the logical conclusion is that she cannot deny it as she risks being caught in a lie.

Given that extra marital affairs are generally clandestine events for obvious reasons, the full details are likely never to emerge. However, there ample reason to believe that the affair began before the split, and no comment from the PM to deny it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

What the PM actually said when asked
if Craig Emerson was still married
when their relationship began. Julia
Gillard replied,

"That's really a set of issues between
Craig and his wife that I really
wouldn't want to canvas... it's
not about me, it's about a set of
other people, so I don't think it's
appropriate to comment on it..."

In other words, she was NOT involved
and it's a private matter between
Craig Emerson and his wife.

Foxy,

The simple answer to the question would have been "No". However, she did not say that.

Your conclusion that she was "Not" involved is not stated at all.

I have heard enough weasel words from politicians to see what are saying, and what they are not.

For example:

The cabinet leaks on JG opposing the increase in pension and family leave benefits, JG said that she could not comment on cabinet discussions. However, on the the assertion that she said that pensioners did not vote for Labor anyway. She stated emphatically that she did not say that.

So when she can give an answer that shows her in a positive light, she is emphatic, other wise she does not comment.

See any parallels?

Runner “Ms Gillard's latest revelations of having an affair with a married man with kids really reveals a huge character flaw.”

Foxy “Don't you know that it's not their sex lives
that matter, but the way they run the countries”

Observation....

To have an affair with someone else is a generally a private matter
However there are two types of affair, one with another person who is ethically free to have an affair (not in another relationship) and
An affair with someone who is supposed to be in a permanent relationships

It goes to character

A lady once told me she would not enter any relationship with me until after I cleared up the matter of a then existing marriage, one of the best things anyone has ever said to me.

Obviously Ms Gissard’s does not have the depth of character of that lady, if she proceeded with a relationship with someone who had not resolved the matter of his existing marriage.

But some claim this affair is a private matter and should not reflect on her candidacy for relection

Well it has been said “Character is doing the right thing when no one is looking”

Making happy with a married person is not and never will be “doing the right thing”

So to character.. what is “leadership”, if not the outward display of character?

Who wants a leader of flawed character?

Does Tony Abbotts religious values (regardless whether we agree with them ) indicate a character?

Does Julia Gissard’s dalliances with people she should not have dalliances with indicate a lack of character?

I note John Howard is still happily married but Bob Hawke had a very public fling whilst married to Hazel.

As to Foxy “Look at the heritages of the Kennedy Family,
Bill Clinton, “

Yes, sad examples of the excesses of hedonis

secular humanism has certainly achieved its goal of allowing any behaviour to be justified especially if you like the person. For those who champion feminism it is impossible for Julia to do wrong. The same applies to Tony Abbot. Different standards obviously apply to those they dislike. No wonder the majority of posters are self contradictory. I noticed Henson his head up again. He again tries to justify photographing young girls as 'art'. How deceived can one be.

You are a funny ol' thing runner.

Please expalin how secularism condones any sort of behaviour. Have the laws changed to condone murder, torture and theft?

Secular humanism gives you the freedom to constantly sprout your anti-human rhetoric and others the freedom to disagree.

Secular humanism merely separates Church and State and allows freedom of religion unlike some countries where one can be killed for being different. If that is what you aspire to well good on you but thanfully your prejudices are not being forced into law. That is the beauty of secularism.