I see you're as adept as Chris Pyne at selectively displaying faux outrage.

Sometime leaders are so odious that it's difficult for the populace to maintain decorum.

Suse,
Nope, men aren't annoyed at women having "equal rights" because women have traditionally had more privileges than men and been protected from the kinds of things men have had to endure, we're all better off now that women are expected to shoulder some of the burden of running a civilisation.

SM,

"..... but booing someone at a funeral simply because they are of a different political stripe is beneath contempt..."

"So of course there would be booing, and cheering, and foot stamping, and joy, and outrage. This was Gough Whitlam’s memorial, a unique and resonant gathering of the political tribes, still writhing in a combat that can never be satisfactorily resolved.

This was pure politics. Not the crimped, meaningless formulations of contemporary protagonists who are so meek and afraid of mistakes and of failure that they can only communicate in the language of sound bites, in words without meaning.

The outburst of emotion outside the Sydney town hall on Wednesday morning was a powerful affirmation, proof positive that Australian politics has a beating heart....."

"....The fighters were there to farewell one of their greats. As they roiled, and contested, and asserted their right to be partisan and nostalgic and furious in perpetuity at the moment of the official parting, the little vigil on social media tut-tutted primly.

How could people show emotion in such a setting? How could they boo and hiss? How could they feel and go so far as to emit their intemperate feelings?

How could they not be beaten down and lobotomised and straight-laced and platitudinous and terribly, terribly proper? Are we now so obsessed with process and petty intrigues that we’ve forgotten politics actually rises to greatness when it connects, when it empathises, when it imagines there are ideas worth having, worth asserting, worth getting a blood nose for?

Resolving the conflict, and standing mute at the point of manufactured resolution, misses the point. Whitlam – for all his limitations and imperfections – believed enough to change a country. Conviction animates politics, and politics soars when it connects with people who actually, resolutely, implacably, believe."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/05/whitlam-believers-booed-and-cheered-and-politics-beating-heart-was-revealed?CMP=share_btn_tw

Poirot,

Sometimes people are so odious that they cannot maintain decorum at a funeral.

Foxy, paul1405 and Poirot,

"For example such groups might include the ALP, Greens, ABC, SBS, Fairfax, humanities academia, NGO’s, civil rights and refugee advocates. How can we possibly know this? We can evidence this by simply observing their reaction to their adopted “words”. Just mention any one of these words and the reaction will be the same from all groups, autonomous unities forming self referential networks."

Just catching up on your string "frightbat" comments. Many thanks, I rest my case

Dear Shadow Minister,

In your "odious" group you would also have to include
those who produce menus at Liberal fund-raisers depicting
our then Prime Minister in a very disgusting way.
You would also have to include the groups that turned
up with various derogatory signs (shown on TV cameras)
dipicting our then Prime Minister as "witch" "bitch"
and so on. And Mr Abbott had no qualms about posing in
front of these signs for the cameras.

Good for the goose ... But then perhaps the only thing
you find as "odious" is behaviour that disagrees with
your political views which you can then dismiss in a
flood of simplistic rhetoric, posturing, and crass
political point-scoring.

Nothing new there.