SHY actively supported her mate who beat his wife:

"Federal Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young wrote a reference attesting to the "good character" of a long-time friend and lobbyist who slapped his wife and avoided a conviction in a Canberra court this week.

The man was charged with common assault in December last year after an incident at his home with his wife."

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sarah-hanson-young-wrote-court-reference-for-friend-charged-after-he-slapped-wife-20200305-p5479n.html

This is a classic case of do what I say, not what I do.. What hypocrisy.

The Greens/regressives have always had no standard for themselves and another for conservatives. They went on for weeks about how Tony Abbott was supposed to have punched the air in anger at university about 50 years ago. Notice how many of the virtue signallers fly around the globe telling others not to.

Is SHY a fit and proper person?
Most definitely not in my perception ! I'd like to see her succeed in business before I change my mind about her ! Anyone can make it by hanging off the Public apron.

Shadow,

She looks pretty fit to me.

There's quite a difference between a slap and a beating - and indeed between a couple having a fight (who've subsequently reconciled) and ongoing domestic abuse. Of course that doesn't justify the former.

What do you think she should have done or said?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
AIUI what Tony Abbott was criticised for was punching the wall inches away from someone's head, which was seen as intimidation. I hope you agree that (whether or not it was his intention at the time) intimidation is unacceptable behaviour.

Come on Aiden. From what we see of lefties being prepared to tell any lie to further their cause, what is to say that Abbott ever punched a wall.

I can't stand the woman, but all sorts of really bad people do supply courts with references from an acquaintance, friend or colleague, vouching for their 'good character' prior to an offence. Nothing new or unusual. These references are pretty vague, and are of a as-he-was-known-to-me nature.

If you are asking if this puts SHY in a bad light, I have to say no. Despite her being one of the most irritating and stupid people in politics, she is human, and she would have found it very hard to refuse to provide a reference for a friend.

Note that alcohol had been consumed by both parties in the dispute; and perhaps SHY knows something about the wife they we and the court do not.

The real villain in this affair is the the Sydney Morning Herald, doing a bit of virtue signalling on the domestic violence front. They've thrown one of their own under a bus to do so.

Personally I doubt anyone with any decent morals would be accepted by the Greens.

so Aiden no comment on Sarah's Hanson's mate who slapped his wife. It could well be a cultural issue eh? Given the getup clowns and anitfa are as violent as bikies I suspect you quietly approve of regressives using violence. The court often give them a slap over the wrist for their putried behaviour. Nothing to see.

Is Sarah a fit an proper person? Mmmm, let me think.

"The former prime minister John Howard has described Cardinal George Pell as “a person of both high intelligence and exemplary character” and says that his conviction on child sexual abuse charges doesn’t “alter my opinion of the Cardinal” in a character reference."

Is John Howard a fit and proper person to be supporting someone convicted of showing his genitals in the faces of two young boys? That will probably give you your answer.

'Is John Howard a fit and proper person to be supporting someone convicted of showing his genitals in the faces of two young boys? That will probably give you your answer.'

surprised a Greens supporter would see anything wrong with that behaviour. Oh that's right they don't unless its a conservative. Steelie has just shown that.

Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 6 March 2020 10:11:36 PM

" ... Is John Howard a fit and proper person to be supporting someone convicted of showing his genitals in the faces of two young boys? That will probably give you your answer. ... "

howard is a filthy little rodent child abuser, guilty of locking up children with out charge or trial, indefinitely, and incarcerating them in circumstances known to produce adverse medical outcomes, the likes of which have caused more than one australian hospital to refuse to discharge their patients.

As soon as you say, oh but this is an australian child and that one is other - an illegal immigrant - you have gone terribly wrong. If you did this to an ozzie kid you'd go in the bin for a very long time assuming the relies didn't gut you first. Why do some of you tolerate this kind of behaviour?

As for SHY. I always found her to be a fat, whining, pig and could never understand why the Greens put her up. Not that I disagreed with everything she had to say but anyway ...

runner,
>so Aiden no comment on Sarah's Hanson's mate who slapped his wife.
Do you think there's a need to say more? Everyone (including himself) acknowledges his behaviour was unacceptable.

>It could well be a cultural issue eh?
Before we go any further, I think I'd better state the obvious: cultural issues do not justify violence.

As for whether it's a cultural issue, I didn't consider that earlier. But ttbn has mentioned they had both consumed alcohol, and Australia does have a culture of heavy drinking. So it's certainly a possibility.

>Given the getup clowns and anitfa are as violent as bikies
A very dubious presumption. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of GetUp using violence at all. Antifa will only use violence defensively, though they're rather too eager to find a situation where they'd have to. Too provocative for my liking, but still preferable to bikies.

But you're all fine with the arndt woman defending a vile murderer.
pot kettle etc etc.

Loyalty to a friend, a character reference for a friend on a charge like in this case. Well, a nice thing to do, but for a politician not a wise thing to do. The friend, being a true friend, should not have asked for a reference in the first place, if that's indeed what they did. The outcome was always going to be the same reference or no reference.

As for Little Johnny Howard giving a leg up in court for a fellow traveler and mate, convicted rock spider Archy Pell. Well Archy gave fellow traveler and mate the convicted rock spider Gerald Ridsdale a leg up in court. Mates look after mates.

SM nice to see you mimic me with this thread title very flattering.

Runner, how about you sacrifice another goat on that altar of yours, it will make you feel better. How are things with that religious cult of yours?

Whilst I don't paddle a canoe for SHY or any Greens (SHY is also known as 'Sea Patrol Sarah'), I think that this is a beat-up; as for John Howard, the 'Father of the Australian Gun Lobby', he is not known as 'The Lying Rodent' for nothing.

There's nothing particularly surprising about this.

We all know that it is idiotic for any politician, particularly one wedded to the all-men-are-bastards meme, to give a such a reference. But then we all know that the Green senator for Sea Patrol is as thick as two short planks.

We all know that there are different rules for those on the left as opposed to those on the right. Which is why the DV is being minimised and why he got off scot-free.

And we all know that if the perpetrator had been of the right and a Lib pollie wrote the reference, the ABC et al wouldn't be talking nuance but only discussing where to build the gallows.

They totally support all women - except when it interferes with the politics.

Bridget McKenzie must be thankful for the "loyality" shown by ScumO' Morrison to her over the Sports Rorts affair, both were up to their eyeballs in it. Not thinking of himself ScumO' walked Bridget all the way to the bus stop, there being selfless as he is, ScumO' proceeded to throw poor Bridget under a double decker! With a "tis tis dear Bridget, someone has to protect my arse". Maybe ScumO' will give dear Bridget a reference for her next job.

What John Howard - a hasbeen no longer in parliament - did or did not do in the year dot, has nothing whatsoever to do with a question on a currently serving MP. I defended Hanson-Young, even though I loath her and her politics. Alas, some people can't put aside their political bigotry and judge people on their beliefs, not not their humanity.

Sorry for the late response, I have been travelling.

Given the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the greens on the issue of Bertina Arndt, SHY being one of those, the rank hyprocrisy of SHY's support for a admitted wife beater goes further than BA ever did and stinks to high heaven.

As for the feeble attempts at deflection such as the fabricated claim that TA hit a wall near a left whinge student activist in a crowded student union building (for which there were zero witnesses) is pathetic.

As for Howard, his character reference was in respect to his dealings with Pell.

Paul's feeble bleatings in defense of SypHY is a joke.

In typical SM fashion, the big lie is wheeled out once more. I said it was a bad political decision on SHY part. As for Little Johnny Howard's sympathy for the convicted paedophile Pell, understandable given they are such good mates. Isn't The Mad Monk a mate as well? Maybe ScumO' is a mate also, is it a Liberal PM thing?
Should choose your mates carefully!

Paul,

Glad that you agree that SHY is like Bertina Arndt and that you think that she is not a fit and proper person as well as being a complete moron.

Similarly, using your logic the greens are great mates with wife beaters.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Welcome back, you have been missed.

Now what on earth did this little snippet mean?

"As for Howard, his character reference was in respect to his dealings with Pell."

SR,

Work it out, if you are struggling I can point you in the direction of a high school english student.

Paul,

If only someone could dig up evidence against that bastard Pell. Meanwhile, any assertion will do.

I'm roughly the same age as the children of the Rosenbergs, executed in the US for supposedly passing on nuclear secrets to the Russians in the early fifties; my communist parents were roughly the ages of their parents. They were electrocuted on the word of (I think?) Ethel's brother. So I'm a bit touchy about assertions being sufficient to kill someone.

If any evidence could be found against Pell, I would welcome it to get him put away. But not in this particular case: yes, it might have been possible for him to slip away from the steps of the Cathedral, sneak around to the sacristy in his Cardinal's gear and without his sacristan, hoping that nobody was there but two boys and that he had time to get some of his gear off, muck around with them to his satisfaction, get dressed again, and slip back to the steps without his absence being noticed. Yeah, that's all possible. And there's somebody to claim that that's how it happened.

It's possible, but possible is not necessarily actual. What CAN happen doesn't necessarily happen. Possible is not necessarily plausible which is not necessarily what might have happened. What strengthens an argument or a case like this is evidence. The bloke didn't really remember one crucial piece of evidence - i.e. that the clothing cupboard had been later replaced when he 'remembered' a mini-kitchen suite in its place, which had been put in its place after 2005.

How many times have we all been over this ? This idiotic argument about evidence versus belief ? Evidence versus passion ? Hard-hearted demands for some sorts of back-up versus virtuous and kind-hearted support for any and all assertions which support our suspicions ?

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

Oh I know full well what you mean, you want to imply some sort of delineation between the reference give by Hanson-Young and that offered by Howard, that Howard's was somehow superior. All more of your usual rot of course.

Hanson-Young has said what prompted her to agree was because of the full admission of guilt and the wishes of both parties to heal their relationship. There was no such admission of guilt nor contrition from convicted paedophile Pell yet Howard spoke glowingly of his impeccable character.

How's that for an assessment.

Dear loudmouth2,

What is it with your side of politics? Embellishment is a given due to the porosity of your arguments? When does moving his vestments aside suddenly become getting his gear off and having to dress again? It doesn't. Flogging a very deceased equine now old chap. Give it a rest.

As to your burden of proof are you saying there is nothing a victim could say to you about a historical sex crime in their youth where they were raped by a priest alone and were too afraid to report it at the time?

In other words as long as a priest plans an assault carefully loudmouth2, were he on a jury deciding the case, would not vote to convict under any circumstances even if he were convinced of the guilt of the perpetrator?

Wow.

SR,

As Pell has been exonerated by the high court's 7-0 unanimous decision, it would appear that John Howard's judgement was spot on.

Dear Shadow,

Ultimately in this case the evidence against Pell was not strong enough, nothing to do with the judgement of Little Johnny Howard. Pell was right about one thing, his case was not a referendum on the wrongs done by the (Australian) Catholic Church against children, and they are many, but a case against him personalty, on that score we must respect the decision of the High Court. This particular matter brought against Pell may now be closed, but there are many more things that await a legal outcome. An interesting read will be what is contained in the Royal Commission report concerning Pell when the redactions are removed.

Paul,

Your admission that "the evidence against Pell was not strong enough" is a considerable understatement if you read the high court judgement.

While during the original trial I felt that the evidence was not sufficient, my opinion was predisposed to assuming some guilt on his behalf. The high court judgment has shown that the evidence was flimsy at best and should never have been taken to court as with Shorten.

It would appear that the original judgement was to some extent a referendum on the Catholic church and not on the facts of the case.