To ANGE, first post.

Australia is a very abusive society, as you would well know.

And too Labor is an expert at it. Any attempts by Labor to try and ethicise government and societal behaviour will result in a dictatorship. And we all know what that does for womens so-called 'rights'.

A good example of totalitarian thinking towards people who think differently and worse those who think differently and are silly enough to speak out.

Doubtless many voters muttered similar thoughts, bad taste, senseless, vicious, yes to each but why sackable ?

Particularly calls to sack him for bad taste come from within part of society where privilige is claimed, surrounded by a society which aims for, or purports to favour, freedom of speech... Or is freedom of speech just a rhetorical exercise, not a principle.

Bill Heffernan is an idiot, to put it mildly, and clearly doesn't have the polish of most politicians.

That being said, I'm definitely not among those calling for his sacking, or even demanding he apologise.

What he said may have been stupid and offensive, but his apology clearly isn't heartfelt - all putting pressure on him in this manner does is make politicians less likely to express their true throughts. Better the devil you know than the one you don't - it's up to people in his electorate to boot him out at the next election, and that's easier when you know the true colours of each candidate, rather than the polished image they've been conditioned to present.

Heffernan is indeed a dill, but as mentioned, he's usually willing to wear the backlash, so why not then?

There are plenty of mud-slingers within the ALP (past and present members), so I don't see what the fuss is about.

As to what he said, I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, as mentioned, maybe it is better that a politician doesn't have a family so he or she can be singularly focussed. On the other hand, I'm deeply suspicious of anyone in society who chooses not to have children.

Likewise, on the one hand, I don't think it's anyone's business what Gillard does or doesn't do with the rest of her life. On the other hand, politicians are assessed very much on their character or other things not directly related to the outcomes of their jobs because such things are considered an influence on their politics. So why pick and choose which areas are off-limits in this respect? Some politicians want to present themselves as the average family person, so why not the opposite then? If we're going to accept someone because he or she has a spouse and kids, then why can't we not accept someone because of not having such things?

The whole thing smacks of a lot of political correctness to me.

The problem is Hefernan has form.

Censured by the Senate for saying Justice Kirby used a comcar to trawl for rough trade and infering he was a pedophile.

John Hewson said that "Howard has used Heffernan to distribute dirt and to run his agenda against individuals for almost as long as I have known him".

His fight with Fiona Nash at Canberra Airport.

His role in the John Brogden tradgedy where he is reported to have said "he was the Prime Minister's right hand man, and did his 'dirty work'.

Investigated by police for stealing Green how to vote cards and shouting "If you want to decriminalise drugs for your children, vote Green." at a polling booth.

Howard has always played the statesman and gets others do do his dirty work.

Hefernan should not resign he should stay and remind us all why the Liberal Party must be defeated at the next election.

It was Julia Gilligan Gillard who stated that very concept at the last Federal election; and it was applied and directed at ; Bugger, the Greek sir name ; Pam ………?

But Julia Gilligan Gillard should be made leader of the Labour Minnow ship wreck;

Skipper Dud Rudd and Giligan hay ,
International embarrassment and lower than a snakes bottom. Fairdinkum.
God have mercy on us.