Former federal Liberal MP Julia Banks makes shocking allegations about Coalition MP's in her book, 'Power Play', an extract of which was published in todays 'Good Weekend'. In one allegation Banks relates that she was touched inappropriately by a senior male colleague, a male minister, whose breath smelled of alcohol, he slid his hand up her thigh while she sat at a Coalition function. “This was a senior MP, a cabinet minister, in the prime minister’s wing,” Ms Banks writes of the unnamed minister. Banks goes on to say during her time in Parliament she was subjected to a culture within the Coalition that was "underpinned by sexism and misogyny". Banks said there was an occasion when Scott Morrison called her, in with what she calls a “bullying, short and swift and coldly calculating” tone. Morrison tried to offer her a trip overseas, which appeared to be an attempt to silence her over her revelations about sexism and misogyny within the government.

These and other allegations made by Banks detailed in her book are very serious and cannot simply be dismissed by Morrison as "I was not aware." Which seems to be Morrison's stock answer to sexual harassment allegations made against his MP's and Liberal staffers. Maybe the MP in the above can do a Porter and out himself, and then take Banks to court with a claim that "everyone knows its me".

Yep. These are certainly serious and troubling allegations. I'm sure they'll achieve their main purpose - getting more publicity for her book.

BTW Paul, I was surprised you didn't start a thread on David O'Byrne when sexual allegations were made against him.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-30/labor-investigates-sexual-harassment-claims-against-david-obyrne/100253560

After all, we all know how scrupulously unbiased you are :)

Whatismore Mr O'Byrne is a fellow-traveller, n'est pas?

http://thebfd.co.nz/2021/07/02/tas-labor-leader-praises-violent-communism/

"Celebrating “Good Communists” Should Be No More Acceptable Than Celebrating “Good Nazis”."

Mhaze,

"After all, we all know how scrupulously unbiased you are" No, I'm not unbiased, I'm a Progressive Socialist and that in itself makes me biased to some degree. Being unbiased is not a virtue, not that I've met anyone who is totally unbiased on everything. Now in your case, you are totally biased to the right on everything, but wont admit it.

I didn't know that much about this O'Byrne character in Tasmania, so I did a quick read up on him. Serious allegations have been made against him, and maybe he can join the National Party and become the next Deputy PM. As for being a fellow trawler of mine, more likly on of yours.

Oh dear Paul. Did you not realise I was being facetious when I said you were unbiased? Did you miss the smiley face at the end?

We all know that you are utterly biased to the left. What's funny is that every time an allegation is raised against your class enemies you start a new thread quicker than you can say "I love Uncle Joe". But when a much more substantial allegation is made against a fellow communist, you feign utter ignorance. Sure, Paul...we all believe that.(that facetious again!)

Dear Paul,

Thank You for this discussion.

I read the edited extract of Julia Banks' book in The
Sydney Morning Herald (3rd June 2021). She's had a
remarkable career in the corporate world and I was
impressed by her reasons for entering politics in her
early fifties and giving up a very successful career
where her financial security was sorted.

She tells us that she was genuinely curious to see
what it was like on the inside of politics. She explains:

"I'd always integrated advocacy, particularly regarding
adversity and gender equality, into my business life,
and now the Liberal Party was publicly calling for
more women."

She was approached to run for pre-selection for the
marginal seat of Chisholm in Melbourne's East. It was
regarded as unwinnable - held by Labor for close to
18 years.

Well the rest as they say is history. She won the seat
entered another world - which she describes as "one
stuck in time and so deficient in trust and rational
judgement."

What she experienced was dreadful. As she points out
"far worse has happened to millions of women in
terms of unwelcome attention or inappropriate touching."

But she asks a very valid question:

"This was a senior MP, a cabinet minister, in the
PM's wing. If he was prepared to do that to me -
a 50 something corporate lawyer MP - in that room.
What must he do to women he has real power over?"

Her book is available as of Wednesday - "Power Play:
Breaking Through Bias Barriers and Boys' Clubs."

Shocking revelations from Canberra - which need to have
the spotlight shone on what really goes on amongst our
highly paid elected officials. And how much longer will it
be allowed to be ignored, brushed aside, as the "rough
and tumble of politics?"

Having more women in politics may affect these boys' clubs
in a good way. Worth a try.

How serious is this?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-04/david-o-byrne-resigns-as-labor-leader/100266864

David O'Byrne has resigned as Tasmanian Labor leader over allegations he sexually harassed a junior union employee more than a decade ago.

Shadow Minister,

Do you really want to continue comparing which
party has the worst scandal-ridden members?
(Yours is worst than mine)?

How serious is this?

Obviously - very.

And action instead of words or finger-pointing needs
to be taken.

Perhaps quotas - to break down the so called "Boys'Clubs"
in Parliament is the way to go.

Not such a good idea Foxy. Just a quick look at the performance of girls club up here in Queensland should convince you that getting the girls out of parliament would lead to much improved government,. if you are honest.

Hasbeen, we won't have equality until there are as many incompetent women in parliament as there are incompetent men. And if our politicians are to be truly representative of the population, it is inevitable that a lot of them will inevitably be incompetent.

More seriously, Julia Banks' experience suggests that competent women who enter parliament will be weeded out by the system. That would explain why women who make it to the top are not the best for the job, just the best at working within the system, in other words, they are just like the men who make it to the top. So getting the girls out would not change anything. PS I would have loved to see how Julie Bishop would have handled the top job as PM.

Mhaze. It's interesting that you bring up David O'Byrne. He admitted his past actions, said that realised his assumptions of consent were invalid, apologised in writing to the woman in question, and resigned. That was the honourable path. Just how many of other politicians (and celebrities etc) recently accused by women have done anything similar?

Yes, David O'Byrne should be used as an example - of how left-wingers can have higher moral standards than right-wingers, when it comes to owning up to their past bad behaviour, apologising for it and accepting the consequences.

SM trying furiously at deflection, don't look in my favourite cesspit, Morrisons Federal Cabinet, its too smelly and grubby. I've got some Labor dirt, its in Tasmania, and Labor are in opposition, but its the best I can do.

SM, who do you think is the latest reprobate in Morrisons mob, there are plenty to choose from. Could it be one of the existing low life's, they're well known, or maybe its a new one. Ah! Maybe its time to deflect to your favourite subject those nasty Pedogreens.

Anyway, the Australian public who employ these grubs have a right to know who they are.

Hi Foxy,

Did you watch 7.30 tonight, Julia Banks, what a brave woman to stand up to the bully boy Morrison. I believe Julia is telling the absolute truth. Its disappointing that a grub is getting away with what he has done, but I can the bigger picture, and Julia doesn't want it to be all about her but rather about the nature, culture and behaviour of those within her own party, our political leadership, Morrison included.

Foxy,

Julia Banks was one of those Labor light candidates that Turnbull brought in and only started complaining when Turnbull was ditched. Her efforts to win her seat as an independent won her a miserable 14% of the votes and she retired to whine and complain.

Her winge fest of a book only makes vague allegations and omits any real details so as to avoid being sued for defamation and has all the believability of Pascoes discredited dank emu.

She is not missed.

As we saw in the Pell case, the Porter case, the McLachlan case and the Rush case, provable facts no longer matter in these issues. A claim of sexual assault is believed by a sector of the population irrespective of how much or how little evidence there is to support that claim.

These claims from Banks are just claims that she hasn't and can't ever prove or even offer circumstantial proof for.

Still, it'll sell some books... so all's well that ends well.

Cossomby,

Yes David O'Byrne did "admitted his past actions, said that realised his assumptions of consent were invalid, apologised in writing to the woman in question, and resigned."

But his case is hardly comparable to this one. There was hard evidence of his 'wrong-doing' which in the #metoo world is a hangable offence. That's a million miles from some women saying some bloke who she won't identify did something once at some place at some time and offering no collaborating evidence.

In the #metoo world O'Byrne had little choice but to go and pay feality to the believe-all-women mantra.

Julia Banks is just a simple case of sour grapes !

Dear Paul and Cossomby,

Thank You for your posts.

What a shame that in this discussion there seems
to be a scramble for some people
to discredit and dismiss Julia Banks and her
competency by going with their
their own political allegiances.

What about addressing the real issues raised by
her book?

But Foxy, we are addressing the real issues: being that these days a bitter rejected woman can make unsupported and unsupportable allegations of sexual assault and expect that the more gullible half of the population will immediately and credulously accept them as true.

That is a real problem for our society and should be addressed. I hope you'll also do so one day.

Dear mhaze,

Well the extension of your insipid argument is that without evidence people shouldn't be making claims about incidences which happened to them.

What utter tripe.

Why did we bother having a Royal Commission into institutional child abuse then? Why should the Commissioners have bothered sitting through the testimonies of thousands of witnesses, the vast bulk of whom had no direct evidence to back up their claims?

I found Banks' account to be completely in keeping with the actions of Morrison. His focus on the management of issues rather than their solution and his faux empathy are obvious to most Australians, it is just some forgive him.

Banks gave an impressive interview and there was little there to raise an eyebrow over, evidence of course that getting out of politics does enable a more open and truthful response to questions

Julia Banks a bitter rejected woman?

Hardly. Julia Banks has been appointed a
special advisor in gender and politics at
Gender Equity Victoria. This appointment will
see her support the Board and Staff at Gender
Equity Victoria to develop policies and
programs to improve gender equity in local, state,
and federal politics.

Gender Equity Victoria is the peak body for
gender equity, women's health and the prevention of
violence against women.

Of course some people will continue to try to demean
her - simply proving that what she has to say hits a nerve.
In the meantime she'll continue her work.

Dear Paul,

Julia Banks was the only Liberal MP
to win a seat from Labor at the 2016 election
(her first term in politics after leaving a career
as a corporate lawyer.) She now runs a consultancy business, is a
keynote speaker and a return to politics is not off the table.

cont'd ...

BTW: Banks wasn't the only woman in parliament to
speak out. Lucy Gichuhi, Linda Reynolds,
Kelly O'Dwyer and Julie Bishop each at one time
or another spoke out about bullying. Some of course
retracted their statements when pressure was
applied. Banks refused to be intimidated.

Can't help but wonder what kind of Prime Minister
would Julie Bishop have made?

Unfortunately we'll never know.

Unfortunately we'll never know.
Foxy,
You seem to be so impressed by people with a Degree even though the majority are of no value to our society.
Thank God Banks is out as is Bishop ! The Nation is better off not having such people in Govt.
Labor is even more packed with those types than the Coalition hence that Party being perpetual failures ! The Coalition is actually performing ok considering the amount of sabotage they have to deflect from the Left whilst running the Country !

Dear individual,

You opine: "The Coalition is actually performing ok considering the amount of sabotage they have to deflect from the Left whilst running the Country !"

What?

Are you serious?

Even their own ranks are calling out the cockup they have made of the vaccine roll out. Add that to Robodebt, Sports Rorts, looking after aged care, water corruption, a raft of sex scandals, the Deputy PM impregnating a staffer, relatively high unemployment compared to other G20 nations, our international ostracisation over our lack of ation on climate change, and stuff up after stuff up.

Yet you still defend them and say they are being picked on?

Struth you lot are snowflakes.

Banks is creditable, believable and in my opinion truthful. Morrison's and his stock reply that "I was not aware, no one in my office told me", is a nonsense.

calling out the cockup they have made
Steeleredux,
Sabotage, not cockups ! You show me one, just one health worker who is not Labor !

Hey individual,
"Thank God Banks is out as is Bishop ! The Nation is better off not having such people in Govt."

Don't you know Julie Bishop is now an Australian icon?
Don't you know she has her own Barbie?

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/it-sent-a-message-julie-bishop-just-got-her-own-barbie-doll-20210615-p5816v.html

"Toy giant Mattel is honouring Bishop, now chancellor of the Australian National University, as its 2021 Australian role model for being a 'true trailblazer' in politics and the roles she has occupied since, giving her a one-off doll that is, sadly, not for sale."

I think as Chancellor of the ANU, she's still got her fingers in a few pies...

SR wrote:"Well the extension of your insipid argument is that without evidence people shouldn't be making claims about incidences which happened to them."

Look, we all know that you struggle to follow the logic of an argument but that leap was Olympic class. Nowhere did I say, suggest or intimate that she shouldn't make her claims. As I've shown you elsewhere, I'm entirely in favour of people saying whatever they like, especially when it reveals their true selves such as in this case or in the case of ABC journos on twitter.

But what intrigues me is the way that all the usual suspects just immediately fall into line, believing a story that has precisely zero evidence to back it. Sure I can see people saying that on the balance of probabilities they think it more likely true than false. But saying it's absolutely true and demanding action based on precisely nothing is an entirely alien way of thinking to my mind.

Hilariously, people saying that she won a seat in parliament therefore she's telling the truth, or she's been given a sinecure in the People's Republic of Victoria therefore she must be believed is inane in the extreme.

The people who believe this are the same dills who believed the Pell fables, or the Rush stories or the McLachlin stories. They never learn and never want to.

But the Shorten story? Oh suddenly they develop all sorts of nuance and can suddenly tell the difference between accusation and fact. But don't ever say they just play sides because they think they're better than that. Hint: they're not

Good Morning Paul and Steelie,

We've all seen it so many times - in the business world,
in politics, and elsewhere, where women are called
liars, or they make it up, or they're doing it for
publicity or notoriety or promoting books, or they're
bitter and rejected, emotional or over emotional.

And the attempts to silence them and the various underhanded
techniques that are used to do so are simply ignored or
not mentioned. In Julia Banks's case it was an offer
to go to New York for a 3 month UN secondment.

Instead she quit the pParty in a bombshell speech to the
Parliament on 27th November.

Also she had not been silent in the months leading up to her
move - speaking out about the "bullying and intimidation"
that occurred during the leadership spill. But hey, she's
lying of course. As were other women like - Lucy Gichuhi,
Linda Reynolds, Kelly O'Dwyer, and Julie Bishop - following
the leadership spill. (Some later felt prey to the
bullying and softened their comments). Bishop left politics
followed closely by Gichuhi.

Gillian Triggs, Julia Gillard, all come to mind in moments
like these. Branding women is an occupational habit for
some and they glory in it. Hence we can see why the
Boy's Club in Canberra is nothing new.

And yet these women's achievements speak for themselves.
Independents like Dr Kerryn Phelps, Cathy McGowan,
Rebekha Sharkie formed an alliance with Banks helping to
push the Government into announcing a federal anti-
corruption commission. And it was Banks and the
crossbench's support for Dr Phelps'medical evacuation
bill which saw the last sitting of Parliament descent
into chaos, with the Government filibustering in the
Senate for hours to stop the bill from reaching the
House.

Julia Banks thought that joining the Liberal Party would
give her a broader platform from which to continue her
advocacy on important community and social issues including
gender and cultural equality - instead she found that
entering politics was like entering another world. One
stuck in time and so deficient in trust and rational
judgement.

cont'd ...

Julia Bank's book - "Power Play" should be available
from all good bookshops and local libraries. Interesting
reading for anyone interested in politics. Just like
Niki Savva's books - "Road to Ruin," and "Plots and
Prayers," were worth a read.

" No nation reaches its potential until it
fully embraces the skills and talents and
capabilities of the 50 per cent of its
population that's female. I think there is
some way to go in continuing to empower women
and girls."

(Julie Bishop).

Ms Bishop's own former political party -

"has its challenges" on that front," she said.

Unless she can go to the police with her claim, it is better she be quiet; as it merely gathers accusation and guilt which is not evidence based.

Reading up on the case it indicates to me she has developed a case in her own mind, based on circumstances.

Josephus,

And did Christian Porter, Cardinal Pell,
Craig MacLachlan, Geoffrey Rush, Harvey
Weinstein, Prince Andrew, Bill Cosby,
Donald Trump,
to name just a few - all made up their cases in
their own minds as well? While Brittany Higgins,
Julia Banks, et al, are all lying?

Makes sense.

"And did Christian Porter, Cardinal Pell,
Craig MacLachlan, Geoffrey Rush, Harvey
Weinstein, Prince Andrew, Bill Cosby,
Donald Trump,
to name just a few - all made up their cases in
their own minds as well?"

An interesting list there. Prince Andrew's there because of his Epstein connection. But Bill Clinton, with far greater Epstein questions outstanding doesn't make the list.

Also of course, missing from the list is Bill Shorten, credibly accused of rape but given a pass by the Victorian police.

So a list full of those the left hate and giving a pass to those of the left.

But don't dare suggest this has anything to do with politics. Nosiree, these people are highly moral and wouldn't think of using these unprovable accusation to further an agenda. </sarc>

Oh, I forgot to mention the most famous of all those that didn't make Foxy's list - 'the big guy'....

http://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html

Now I wonder why President asterisk didn't crack a mention? Only Foxy knows the answer to that conundrum

An interesting list indeed. But not a complete
list by any means. I did say after all that I was
"naming just a few." My apologies if someone's
favourites were left out. But they can be added
later as we've clearly seen.

Ah well you can't please everyone.

But lets try to do a little better to appease a person who's
clearly upset. Let see - I also did not mention
Edward Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Bob Hawke, Barnaby
Joyce (on the left-hand of hypocrisy for having
abandoned his family at the very time he was arguing for
traditional marriage). Then there's Ben Chifly, Harold
Holt, John Gorton, Billy McMahon (who wondered naked around
the male changing rooms at one of Canberra's most
favoured squash courts engaging anyone he saw in unusually
up-close conversations).

Then there's Jim Cairns, and even Malcolm Fraser lost his
pants overseas.

And there's more... But that will do for now.

In Australian politics defining
exactly what constitutes crossing a line is a moveable
feast. And the Boy's Club bubble in Canberra has been
around for a long time. It's not about to change any
time soon. The perks are too big.

LOL!

Foxy missed one thing in all the names, We do have their bames as offenders and we do have have police involved in most cases. To make vague accusations without going to the police only demeans the accuser, as a story and not a fact.

she's still got her fingers in a few pies...
Armchair Critic,
You just put me off Pies !

Sex scandals involving politicians and other
prominent figures have been a recurring feature
throughout history. Many people in positions of
power are convinced they are invulnerable.
They do what they do because they can - secure in
the belief they'll get away with it.

Most do.

Josephus and individual,

The following link may be of some interest:

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Australian_Parliament_House_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Here's the link again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Australian_Parliament_House_sexual_misconduct_allegations

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labor_sex_scandals_in_australia%27s_parliament&action=edit&redlink=1
Foxy,
How about that ? The Leftist Wikipedia has no page on Labor sex scandals !

Hi Foxy,

The best that can be hoped for from the recent allegations made against those within the Australian parliament is that a cultural change will take place. Its a lot to ask when you have high powered people with an equally high powered sense of entitlement. The lack of a real complaint mechanisms is not by accident, but related to that sense of entitlement that politicians and others in parliament have, the notion that they are special people and know best.

Morrison does not inspire me to believe he favours real cultural change, he has a very conservative attitude towards women and a driving ambition for himself. A dangerous combination for those not empowered to think that he would instigate independent change on their behalf. The last thing Morrison wants is some independent investigative mechanism that is beyond his control. Such a mechanism would be political dynamite. Imagine clandestine discussions taking place behind closed door, beyond the political control.

See. Foxy can be shamed into at least pretending to be even-handed on this. She's even named some of her heroes here. Wonders of wonder.

As I've pointed out before, the real misogynists in this area are those who want to use women to further their agenda. We have people like Paul and Foxy who look at an accusation and determine whether to believe it or not based on who is being accused.

If its someone or some group they dislike, then the accusation and the accuser are immediately and unconditionally believed. If the accused is someone or some group they like, then the accuser is dismissed or ignored.

Shorten accused of rape based on zero evidence and they politely look the other way. Porter accused of rape based on zero evidence and they trip over themselves in the rush to credulity.

If they truly sought to support women they'd treat each case in the same manner. That they don't proves that they don't really care about the supposed victim, just how the supposed victim can be used to advance their agenda.

Foxy and Pauliar,

As you two are hard-wired to completely believe anything claimed by anyone that reflects badly against conservatives and disbelieve anything that reflects badly against left whingers your comments are like a broken record.

That Banks makes a whole series of allegations that are all vague and unsubstantiated should set off any rational person's bullsh1t detector.

Hi Paul,

I agree. Unfortunately I also can't really see things
changing in Canberra under the current government
where the Boy's Club is so deeply entrenched. I will
keep on hoping and fingers crossed though - that with
enough pressure - and possibly quotas - things just
may improve.

What is interesting (and bewildering) is the clear display
on this forum by some male posters. For example - no matter
what I may post, or how I may argue - attempts will be
made to try to "shame" me into "pretending" to be even-
handed while they are anything but even-handed themselves.

It's absurd that these same posters will always support
conservative males no matter what. They will take the words
of these men at face value. Men like Christian Porter,
Craig MacLachlan, et al. Of course Mr Shorten is on the
wrong team. Cardinal Pell isn't.

Yet take Julia Banks - and you get the description of her
as a "rejected and bitter woman." Go figure.

And of course the only man they'll keep dragging up
consistently is one they dislike. If these guys were
balanced and rational and really concerned about things they
would treat each case in the same manner. That they don't
proves that they do not really care about the supposed
victims (esp. female).

If Julia Gillard our former PM was to have walked on water -
these guys would declare - "See she can't swim!"

Perhaps it's a cultural thing or their upbringing. They
may have had very strong dominant mothers (or wives). Went to
private all boy schools (- without much female contact) -
hence their attitudes.

What they don't realize is that just because they choose
labels for women - doesn't mean that these women will
choose to wear them.

Sad really.

cont'd ...

Shadow Minister,

I still have high hopes for you.

Well Foxy, you have as usual got it very wrong. I have never taken sides in these unevidenced assertions of sexual assault.

Indeed in this forum I have stated that I fully support the way the Shorten allegations were handled. Fully support. That's because, unlike you, I don't approach these things based on political considerations. Shorten may have been guilty but there was no evidence sufficient to decide. Equally Porter may have been guilty but there was no evidence sufficient to decide. But people like you want the two cases to be handled entirely differently because of politics.

Similarly I think the O'Bryne example is a disgrace and that what he did shouldn't have raised a yawn let alone ended a career.

But taking these stances requires looking past politics. Clearly you are incapable of that.

__________________________________________________________________

Remember Michael Avenatti? He was the lawyer who represented Stormy Daniels in their attempts to destroy Trump. He also represented Julie Swetnick in their attempts to destroy Kavaugh. I seem to recall people on this forum were rather fond of Avenatti because he was fighting the right people. (No names mind you but the initials of one of these admires was Foxy).

Well Avenatti has been fighting charges of fraud and theft. Hilariously during the trial he opined that Stormy Daniels was a liar and not to be trusted - Trump proven right again.

Anyway, Avenatti has now been found guilty and will be spending the next decade or so in prison. Will the usual suspects learn from this....not a chance.

mhaze,

I appreciate your attempted explanation.
I really do. Unfortunately your posts
don't quite match up to what you're
saying.

Never mind. Nice try. And we shall see
how your future posts stand up. Just
remember - trying to bring others down
only means they're above you.

cont'd ...

I'd better not continue to vex you mhaze.

So have a nice day.

You don't vex me Foxy, I enjoy pointing out that the real Foxy is rather different to the Foxy she imagines herself to be.

Foxy,

At no time have I ever claimed to be unbiased, but a while ago you were trying to even though you are so one eyed you walk in circles. As for Juliar walking on water, as she couldn't even walk straight on concrete it is purely hyperthetical. As you with Pauliar are frequently banging on about the behaviour in the libs you can't deflect away when those such as Shorten have an even worse history.

Pauliar is continually making a fuss about every hint of misbehaviour in the coalition without acknowledging the awful criminal behaviour of those in the greens and labor.

mhaze,

You have no idea who the real Foxy is.
And I have no idea who the real mhaze is.
We only have our posts to go by. And that
is as it should be on a public forum.
It should not get personal. However, it
is best to remind ourselves that real
people aren't perfect and perfect people
aren't real.

"You have no idea who the real Foxy is......We only have our posts to go by. "

And from your posts I know that you fancy yourself a defender of women and a supporter of their cause. But from your posts I know that you decide your attitude to female accusers based upon the political leanings of the accused.

Oh, and that you don't understand the hypocrisy of those two positions.

shonkyminister,

Are you still making the ridiculous claim that 'Cry Baby' Porter will be collecting millions from the ABC, along with a grovelling apology, and 100 ABC employees will be sacked to pay for it all. That was as crazy as your claim that an arrest was "imminent" in the 'Beat Up' Bolt fiasco 5 years ago. If nothing else you are consistent, one eyed and wrong.

mhaze,

Thank you for proving my point.

You have no idea who the real Foxy is...

Foxy,

Just denying what we all can see by just reading your posts isn't a good look.

mhaze,

Perhaps what you're seeing is distorted by the prism
you're using. You may need eye surgery to get it fixed.

Foxy's concern for women is shallow as she supports women being free to accept male advances resulting in sex, resulting in pregnancies as millions of abortions are carried out on women and she supports abortion as a way of dealing with unwanted pregnancies. She has no social conscience regarding the violence or lust carried out on women - her only concern is - is it carried out by men on the political right.

Josephus,

Once again you are wrong.

I have made it quite clear on this forum many times
that I personally would not have an abortion however
I would not judge that decision made by someone
else because I am not in a position to be able to
judge their decision. That does not mean that I
am pro abortion. And your inferring things about me
is disgusting, unfair, and very unChristian.
It makes me wonder why you persist with falsehoods
about people whose views don't agree with yours.

Foxy, which is worse someone touch your thigh or some one extracate a formed baby from your womb. One done with no further contact or persuant, maybe without conscent: the other done without thought to the consequence or respect to the woman.

Pauliar,

Still a habitual liar I see. Porter stopped the suit after the ABC paid for mediation then made a grovelling apology. I see that you have a Nazi fetish. Do you dress up in latex and goose step around?

Are you still claiming that your green buddies weren't convicted of paedophilia?

shonkyminister

You claimed Porter was in for a $10 million payday, a grovelling apology from the ABC, and 100 ABC employees sacked to pay for it all. The $10 million is now the ABC paying for Porters "mediation", I read the ABC statement and it certainly wasn't grovelling, where are the 100 sacked employees? You are full of it.

Another Liberal woman, Kate Sullivan, who sat in the Australian parliament for 27 years says; "As a Coalition frontbencher in 1983 or 1984, (that) she was sexually assaulted by a male colleague in his office one night as the pair shared a glass of port while the Senate was in session."

Sullivan must be lying, Coalition men don't do that sort of thing.

Pauliar,

You are so full of bullsh1t that you have to keep on making up lies.

You are a true representative of the pedogreens.

Josephus,

Someone touching a woman inappropriately without
her consent is totally different from a doctor
performing an abortion with her consent. Therein lies
the difference. We know that you are against women
having a choice regarding their bodies but frankly that's
not your decision to make on their behalf.

Let quote shonkyminister, and then determine who is the liar.

<<the damages (to Porter) will likely reach several $m with costs > $10m. The ABC will need to make a grovelling apology and fire another 100 employees to pay for it.>>
Posted by shadowminister, Tuesday, 11 May 2021 11:30:10 AM

Oh dear shonky, you words not mine.

The emotional damage done to a woman by an unwanted pregnancy, and having it dismembered from her body is far more violent than just touching a woman to arouse a response. if it was a deliberate act.

I clearly hold to the principle that touching a woman should only happen in a conscentual marriage relationship, [1 Corinthians 7: 1] or for medical reasons [Mark 5: 23, Luke 8: 47].

Josephus,

You are in no position to be able to judge what any
woman is feeling at any given time. And certainly
not in times of crisis or by judging her from what's
written in some Holy Book in which you believe and
the woman might not. You are trying to
defend your position - no matter how ill-founded
or wrong that opinion might be.

So foxy, you are perfectly Ok with social violence against women as passion or lust by men if it is consentual. It is the nonconscentual advances in touch or even in speech that you believe are to be criminalised, then only if they are politial figures.

Prod Boy Jose'

You supported the Washington riots Jan 6th, where 5 people died. Why do you support rampant violence?

Paul, Where did you determine that falsehood? I am a passafist and as such was released from a Vietnam call up, unless they needed medics.

Hi Josephus,

I determined that from your posts at the time. Just as you have made determinations about Foxy and what you think she believes and doesn't believe. We don't always understand the inner thoughts of others, they can be surprising at times.

I'll buy into this discussion on abortion. You most likely think of me as a radical lefty, and therefore one who would agree with "abortion on demand", well I don't per se, and if 'runner' was about he could confirm that for you. Those who take the simplistic yes/no line on the subject are also wrong, abortion is not a simple decision for a woman/girl one way or the other. There needs to be education not just for females but males as well, too many believe unwanted pregnancies are simply an inconvenience, a problem for the female, no they are everyone's problem. Pre education and knowledge of what precautions are available to avoid unwanted pregnancies would go a long way in the right direction to eliminate the need for abortions, but that's not always the situation. Balanced post pregnancies counselling should be available so a rational decision can be made. I am 'pro choice', but I also want that choice made with eyes wide open. The decision to extinguish life is not an easy one and should not be trivialised. I don't think there are any of us who would have liked to be aborted before birth, although some think others should have been.

Three things

1. Many women prefer to work for a male boss than a female one.
2. Women think that in taking on different roles they will not be required to change the way they think. In a sense perhaps women believe they are perhaps better natural politicians than men as they always blame someone else.
3. Females have had the vote for more than one hundred years- if females thought they would do better with females they would have voted more in.

The focus on equality is a red herring as Jordan Peterson has said society will always be unequal.

Marie Curie didn't consider herself a feminist as I understand.

http://sarahjeangosney.wordpress.com/2018/07/04/marie-curie-didnt-need-feminism-and-neither-do-i/

There has always been sex and "sexual misconduct" where there is power. This is true of the women as well as the men. Men tend not to use it to climb the ladder but rather to bring them down.

There are many gold diggers.

My concern is that western society and the things that both males and females value will be destroyed by the sub-culture of feminism.

To Josephus- In the past I may not have supported the Bibles view of sex and marriage but I've come to see it's wisdom that it developed over hundreds (if not thousands) of years.

Perhaps the young will always have an irrepressible sex drive- and this has complex implications for the wider community. In the past teenage pregnancy has meant the mother has claimed the baby after suitable travel.

Priests and vicars were the councilors of the village and mediated for thousands of years on these types of issues. Jordan Peterson describes Christianity as a form of cultural knowledge that has in a sense a deeper form truth than so called reality itself- because it's based on the cultural anthropological knowledge of millennia. The Chinese make similar claims about acupuncture.

The fact is Christianity teaches self denial of passions - the discipline of restraint. That sex is a sacred act sanctioned to be within marriage.

Hollywood has made it a street and office occupation, and now we are giving six year olds condoms in schools.. This is the sickness that western society has developed that sex is open to all providing the female concents.

Some of the early christian martyrs were women who objected to their non Christian husbands among Roman guards having sex with prostitutes.and were put to death for their objection.

The Banks BS didn't even last a week, the usual news cycle. The briefest promotion yet for a book nobody will read.

The sexual harassment trick is just a yawn these days since the accusers have been revealed as liars. Women like these should be prosecuted.

Thanks Josephus and ttbn and of course mhaze for your comments.

Occasionally Foxy slips up and we see behind the curtain the generally youthful being that is Foxy. Anybody can be anybody on the internet.

In a sense being from the left Foxy promotes discussion in good journalistic fashion by providing a counterpoint to opinion from the Traditionalist side, but sometimes I feel that this doesn't always provide the expected balance.

Josephus,

If marriage is so pleasing and sacrosanct to Christianity, why does it deny Christ's wife, Mary Magdalene. The notation that Christianity teaches "self denial of passions" is more to do with control than denial. There has never been denial of passion by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as evident by the rampant sexual abuse of children. We know that abuse has gone on for 50 years, more likely hundreds of years starting with the early church.
Surprisingly the Islamic faith would have more of its devotees practicing marital sex and abstinence from extramarital than others. I believe that is a control rather than some pious virtue.

That Christ had a wife is a fiction of the 20 century. Christ had many women followers during his ministry. However he knew his ministry would be short and that death was coming both because of his claims and his ultimate purpose. That he had no romantic interests is documented by writings attributed to his mother. Though the home of lazarus, Marthur and Mary he frequently visited and shared his ministry with them.

That the Roman Church has a record of supposed celibate vows individuals were not capable of honouring them. Western Society has put marriage to the back of carrers so it places sex outside marriage within the field of careers, rather than family.

What I mean by deny, is assume another thought position. However I believe marriages ought to happen in the early 20s, and have some family input.

Josephus, I don't get it, how you dig up some mouldy old text and "attributed" to this one or that one to satisfy your case. The truth is this, like the majority at the time, Christ's mother, God bless her soul, was illiterate. If you take the Biblical account to be true then Christ actually lived for about the average life expectancy for the times 30 to 35 years. If he didn't mess with the Romans he might have lived a bit longer. Wives were inconvenient for the narrative so they got left out. Back then if your brother died it was acceptable for you to take his wife, along with your existing wife, two wives, three or four if you were unlucky with brothers, this is most likely the case with Joseph taking Mary. The alternative is the "old man" Joseph being in his early 20's took the young Mary between 12 and 14 to be his wife. Mary had lot of pregnancies and many children, she lived to be a very old woman of about 50.

Pauliar,

You quote me and instantly show that you are a liar. I never said that Porter would have a $10m payday and you just proved it. I also said that the payment to Porter and court cost could exceed $10m if the ABC pursued the case which they didn't.

I said that to get out of a court case the ABC would have to release a grovelling apology which they did. The apology from the ABC essentially admitted that there was absolutely no substance in their article.

It looks like both you and Pascoe like to make up bullsh1t.

shonky, I'll repeat what you said;

<<the damages (to Porter) will likely reach several $m with costs > $10m. The ABC will need to make a grovelling apology and fire another 100 employees to pay for it.>>
Posted by shadowminister, Tuesday, 11 May 2021 11:30:10 AM

Now there is nothing in the above which states "payment to Porter and court costs could exceed $10m if the ABC pursued the case" You have added the bit about "if the ABC pursued the case". The case was brought by PORTER not the ABC, PORTER dropped the case not the ABC.As for how much PORTER was going to pocket, a big chunk of over $10 million. You were wrong on three points, no >$10m, no grovelling apology from the ABC, and no 100 ABC employees sacked.

shonky, you need to stop making out you are a high flying LEGAL EAGLE, when it comes to the law you really are a PLUCKED CHICKEN. After being so wrong in the 'Beat Up' Bolt case, you can now add the 'Cry Baby' Porter case to your long list of failures.

Pauliar,

A quote from a previous post.

"Assuming the judge accepts these imputations, IF it wants to defend itself on the basis that the article was true, the ABC will need to prove that the rape actually occurred. They will also need to prove that it contributed to the woman’s suicide. The police cannot prove these things. The ABC cannot prove these things. Nobody can.

Or, as The Australian’s Chris Merritt gleefully put it: “Milligan and the ABC are in a dreadful position. Their best option is a long, grovelling apology accompanied by a very large cheque. They have been snookered.”

I would think that there are a lot of puckered anuses at the ABC.
Posted by shadowminister, Thursday, 18 March 2021 7:23:07 AM

shonky, like you the Murdoch acolyte Merritt was wrong. The lesson for you is don't listen to Murdoch's acolytes unless you want to be wrong.

Pauliar,

Who do you listen to as you are almost always wrong.

shonky, your repartee is mind blowing, that last post was a doozy. Like all of the Forums crusty old conservatives your wit is legendary. Have you ever given thought to being on the stage? .......Yep, the next stage out of town.

I assume by the timing of your last post that you are still in the land of the Long White Cloud, or you got up very early to post that pearler. Are you avoiding Gladys RED ZONE, thinking its only for communists.

BTW, you are now known as the boofhead who not only got it wrong about 'Beat Up' Bolt, but scored a double when you got it wrong about 'Cry Baby' Porter as well. Classic shonkyminister!

Pauliar,

Considering that your banter sounds like you are on meth, and you have failed wrt Bolt, Porter and the conga line of paedophilic greens members you are hardly one to talk.

Secondly, I usually get up at 4 am and am currently in New Zealand on a multi-year contract being paid a motza to develop new technologies while I guess that you are still self-employed working at Fok hall.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

For those that say, "I would not have a slave; but it is a personal choice." I would not murder my baby; but it is a personal choice.

Do we have a moral obligation to speak our conscience for the innocent?

Hi there shonky,

Glad to hear you're no longer working for peanuts, and are now getting the big bananas. I'm sure Kiwi's recognise your talents, and they would appreciate Coco the Clown and his Performing Monkey. BTW what's it like working with Coco? Being a big star and all, I suppose you have your own cage by now.

For the wife and I, we're self funded retirees these days, living well in Brisbane. Not like 3/4 of the conservative misfits on the forum living off aged welfare. If the circus ever passes this way I'll be sure and drop in and catch your act.

"How serious is this?"
"Former federal Liberal MP Julia Banks makes shocking allegations about Coalition MP's in her book, 'Power Play', an extract of which was published in todays 'Good Weekend'. In one allegation Banks relates that she was touched inappropriately by a senior male colleague, a male minister, whose breath smelled of alcohol, he slid his hand up her thigh while she sat at a Coalition function."

It would be comical if it wasn't so serious.

Firstly, it's an allegation about men, to garner sympathy from a feminist perspective and sell books, that's the comical part.

To make unfounded allegations about men in general.
Well I'm sick of this crap.

It wasn't serious enough to make a complaint at the time, but its good enough to bring up now and to sell books to all your hysterical cohorts.

I want her to put her money where he mouth is and NAME THEM.

Don't instead tarnish all men as guilty, NAME THE PERPETRATORS.
And let then innocent men be cleared of wrongdoing.
- And let those accused defend themselves, that is if you have any proof or evidence at all then show it or shut-up.

And if you can't prove it, then accept the lawsuit that's coming your way for defamation.

But this is the whole agenda isn't it?
- To push the idea that ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS.

Well name them or shut your mouth tarnishing all men.
It's a pathetic foundation to sell a book on.

The only positive thing here is that she's a former minister.
Thankfully she's not currently representing anyone.

Pauliar,

So you married your Kiwi wife because of her low expectations. Not surprised maybe she thinks you are a tame monkey. PS. Begging is not considered self-funded.

Probably Parliaments should be made up of men over 60 who have diverse experience in decision making, and their secretaries be young men. so that the environment is free of sex or gender issues. That debate be the national development; which includes people; product which includes outcomes, and supply ;which includes distribution; and security; which includes protection of all issues.

we're self funded retirees these days,
Paul1405,
Self funded means you've written off as much as you could i.e. pay no tax & have the Govt put our tax Dollars towards your Super. I call it commercial welfare !

Hi Indy,

If aged welfare was in fact an aged pension, based on previous tax payments by you, how would you live on 50c a week? What would you do in the second week when your pension would be cut to zero?

Don't you feel for me? My wife made me give the Indian girls, our unit tenants, about 3 months free rent, that's about $5,000 and they don't have to pay it back. My agent said we're mad, no kudos for me, absolutely down to the wife. The wife said if the agent is pissed off, he can take double commission for the next 3 months. Ahhhhhhh!

Pauliar,

Slumlord as well?