Loudmouth,

"...the votes of a pervert and a thief..."

I must have missed the court proceedings....can you give me a link, for example, where it's been established that Craig Thomson has been found guilty of theft in a court of law or (dare I ask) has even been charged?

Hi Poirot,

Taking sides, I see :)

And how did I guess which side you would take ? Thomson's - well, I didn't quite expect such 'definition'. Do you want to support Slipper as well ? He hasn't been found guilty yet of any offence either. Don't let his misogyny worry you, after all, he's one of yours.

But we suspect what those two have done. And the government relies on their vote.

So Abbott has been in court and it has been proven that he is a misogynist ?

It's called 'opportunism', dear Poirot: ignore the issues, hold your nose, push your own creature or cause, no matter what. Smear whoever opposes your position.

So which side of that battle are you on: opportunism no-matter-what or integrity no-matter-what ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hee, hee, Loudmouth,

Does one have to appear in court to be declared a misogynist?

No...the thing that got me wondering was this.

I've heard you continuously banging on (usually to make a point) about Enlightenment values - you know, the values that set us apart from less "enlightened" members of the human community.

One would imagine that somewhere nestled under the umbrella of Enlightenment values would be abidance to due process under the law.

I also imagine that that would include not assuming someone's guilt resting on allegation and innuendo - when they haven't even been charged let alone found guilty.

So your "But we suspect what these two have done..." line just doesn't cut the mustard.

Or do these sorts of guiding principles only apply if those accused are on "your side"?

(Slipper's case is before the court - I'm not commenting)

Got me, Poirot ! :)

But aside from courts of law, what do you reckon, in your heart (apologies for such an un-Enlightened concept) ? Were the alleged text messages of Slipper's misogynist or not ?

Is it misogynist to use the word 'she' or not ?

Which is worse ?

And which is worse, to defend such a person, or to move a motion against his holding a key position ?

On the basis of his alleged offences, of course.

So who is the misogynist ? Gillard or Abbott ? Isn't that a bizarre question ?

Germaine Greer, Faux-Feminist Champion, out of the blue, talked on Q&A about the Prime Minister in explicitly physical terms (would she have done that with Howard, or Hawke, or Menzies ?)

Clearly, if a man - provided he was a Liberal politician - made such a description, it would be misogynist. But not if it's made by a non-man (I'm afraid to use the word 'woman', it might not be PC these days). I apologise inadvance for using it in the previous sentence. So confusing !

But I suppose now we know: it's OK for someone to use vile language if they are, in some way, supporting the government, and we shut our eyes and hold our nose t othat - but not to use the most innocuous language if they support the opposition. Like - pardon me, I'm quoting - 'she'.

Poirot, THAT'S called 'opportunism'. Look it up.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

The issue of proof in public debate is a tough one, I wonder how many of those keen on the the "found guilty in court" part have been as vocal in rejecting claims of corruption against Joh Bjelki-Peterson or Russ Hinze when they have heard them expressed. How many reject Labors changes to treatment of Domestic Violence in family law which enables accusations to be acted on without proof? Accusations made by someone who often stands to gain personally and financially from the outcome.

At the same time we don't want a situation where an accusation is equated with guilt. I pondered the reverse of those two situations and don't think it necessarily applies. Some conservative voters will make the point that Joh was not found guilty (might have done so myself) but I know few who would jump to Russ's defence on that basis.

Does anybody know who was paying for the phone account used to send the messages?

In my work place using work owned IT equipment to send sexually explicit material can get you sacked without any trial. Even emailing a link to your own private email account from a work account can be cause for dismissal.

Not sure of the rules for sexual activity between bosses and those who report to them but in most workplaces where the boss in question is not the owner I suspect that it could be cause for disciplinary action.

I'm undecided how much of what the Libs did was stunt and how much was for show. In the end that's a side issue, Labor should have dealt with this well before it got to a vote.

I think Julia hid behind her gender to make that attack on Abbott relying on the protection her gender gives her to avoid a response in kind. If so a particularly low form of bullying behaviour.

R0bert

RObert
'In my work place using work owned IT equipment to send sexually explicit material can get you sacked without any trial. Even emailing a link to your own private email account from a work account can be cause for dismissal.'

It is same for public servants, it seems politicians are not monitored in the same way as bureaucrats. A double standard.

However in reference to making judgements that are before a Court, it is okay for anyone over a social chit chat and cup of coffee to discuss who they think is telling porkies, but for a Minister to come out and describe a litigant against the government (or one of it's representatives) as 'vexatious' or 'as more rehearsed than a kabuki actor' is to abuse privilege of power.

While it is true that the outcome of a court case or an inquiry does not necessarily reflect truth or justice in some cases, the least an elected official can do is await the outcome before casting aspersions. If the government was interested in saving taxpayers money from long drawn out court cases why not in every case when a disagreement can be settled with a fiscally responsible payout. Why not just dispense with justice and jurisprudence altogether