Has our first female PM legitimised misogyny?

18 Jan

“We all recognise that if there’s one overarching issue for women it’s the way that religion can be manipulated to subjugate women.” Mary Robinson, first female President of Ireland, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Late in 2012 Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, made a stirring and globally applauded speech in the House of Representatives, on misogyny and sexism in the Parliament.

Ms Gillard declared “I will not be lectured on sexism and misogyny by the Leader of the Opposition.”

Ms Gillard asked: “What does misogyny look like to modern Australia?”

Ms Gillard deplored LOTO Tony Abbott’s double standards when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Ms Gillard demanded Tony Abbott apologise to the women of Australia for his misogyny and sexism.

Ms Gillard stated “I am always offended by sexism and statements that are anti women.”

Ms Gillard declared “Double standards should not rule this parliament” and “sexism is always unacceptable” and that “we are entitled to a better standard than this.”

Prime Minister Gillard was absolutely right on all counts, and the stand she took was long overdue.

The Gillard government has undertaken the consolidation of anti discrimination legislation. In the course of this it has decided to preserve existing exemptions that permit religious organisations to discriminate against , as David Marr puts it:  any or all gays and lesbians, single mothers, adulterers – yes, even adulterers! – bisexuals, transsexuals, the intersex and couples such as Julia Gillard and Tim Mathieson.

The practical outcomes for women of these exemptions  are starkly illustrated in this story of an unmarried teacher who became pregnant and was subsequently sacked from her job at a Christian kindergarten in Queensland.

Australian Christian Lobby CEO Jim Wallace claims Julia Gillard “reassured” religious organisations that they would retain their right to discriminate against women in this manner, as well as to discriminate against women who live in de facto relationships, women who commit “adultery,” women who are bisexual and lesbian, and the intersex.

It is unclear how much of this discrimination is directed against men, except in the case of gay men, who it seems are not regarded as “real” men by religious groups such as the ACL and Christians the ACL claims to represent. Women who transgress the ACL’s rigid criteria are demonised by the Lobby’s determination to exclude them from the right to employment, not because they are in any way unable to perform the work required, but because of their “lifestyle.” Whether or not the man who impregnates the single woman is similarly discriminated against remains unclear.

British philosopher AC Grayling in The Guardian:  I leave to you the not very congenial task of totting up the ways in which more enthusiastic forms of religion in general, not just Islam but Roman Catholicism, puritanical forms of Protestantism, and orthodox Judaism, have treated women: all the way from closeting them, covering the up, and silencing them, to sewing up their vaginas: it is a ghastly litany of repression, all the less excusable because discrimination against women which began in these ways persists in our society in modified forms: the fact that a woman earns about 70% of what an equally qualified and experienced man does is a residue in our own society of the attitude which in today’s sharia law states that a woman is worth half a man.

The ACL is anti-abortion, and against the use of the drug RU 486, licensed in Australia only for the termination of very early pregnancies. They strongly object to Australian aid being used to promote family planning in recipient countries. In other words the ACL is keenly interested in controlling and regulating women’s bodies, at home and abroad.

Former US President and Christian Jimmy Carter: The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views and set a new course that demands equal rights for women and men, girls and boys.

At their most repugnant, the belief that women are inferior human beings in the eyes of God gives excuses to the brutal husband who beats his wife, the soldier who rapes a woman, the employer who has a lower pay scale for women employees, or parents who decide to abort a female embryo. It also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair and equal access to education, health care, employment, and influence within their own communities.

Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has chosen to walk a path that is very different from that of Mary Robinson as far as women are concerned. Ms Gillard has, by pandering to the demands of religious bodies for exemptions to anti discrimination law, legitimised the religious misogyny that perpetuates the myth of female inferiority, to the degree that we are not considered capable or worthy enough to retain control over our own bodies. Ms Gillard has legitimised a misogyny that would deny her the right to employment because of her “lifestyle” as a single woman living with a man. Would her partner Mr Mathieson also be denied employment?

Ms Gillard has legitimised a religious misogyny that believes it is righteous to sack unmarried pregnant women, at a time when they and their unborn babies most need support. At the same time, they would if they could deny a single pregnant woman access to abortion, if that was her choice.

Ms Gillard has thrown her support behind a Christian cult with unsettling links to “dominionist organisations throughout the world, not least through its own board and staff.” (I strongly recommend reading Chrys Stevenson’s excellent piece to which I have linked, in which she unpacks the connections between dominionists and the ACL).

The National Alliance of Christian Leaders (NACL) with whom ACL is closely associated, stated their goals thus: “… unity in truth; recognition of Christ’s authority in the church, family, individual and government; … legislature to force Christian values; … the kingdom permeating the structures of society; biblical government.”

Ms Gillard, an atheist, has capitulated to the demands of organisations such as these and has enabled them to enact their stated goal of introducing “legislature to force Christian values” on our secular society.

Dear Ms Gillard

I will not be lectured on sexism and misogyny by you.

Dear Ms Gillard

What does misogyny look like in modern Australia?

Dear Ms Gillard

I deplore double standards when it comes to misogyny and sexism.

Dear Ms Gillard

I am always offended by sexism and statements that are anti women.

Dear Ms Gillard

I agree absolutely that “Double standards should not rule this parliament” and “sexism is always unacceptable” and that “we are entitled to a better standard than this.”

Dear Ms Gillard

What are you going to do about it?

Jennifer Wilson. Woman.

Advertisements

195 Responses to “Has our first female PM legitimised misogyny?”

  1. Noely (@YaThinkN) January 18, 2013 at 9:11 am #

    Excellent take on the hypocrisy issue – sad to say 😦

    Like

  2. MsPraxis January 18, 2013 at 9:21 am #

    One week gutsy enough to call a long-overdue Royal Commission into child abuse by the clergy and the next week, this incredible bullshit.

    It may be cognitive dissonance on my part but I really cannot believe that Julia Gillard actually supports this stuff. Pass the tinfoil but I think she did a backroom deal with the fundy conservatives in the ALP (?and maybe some minor parties as well) that she would do this. And if that’s true, then she is as gutless as every other politician we have.

    “offending religious sensibilities”. Has there been a more dog-whistling, weasel-worded phrase uttered in the public square recently? I’m sickened.

    Excellent post, Jennifer.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 18, 2013 at 9:28 am #

      I agree, I find it very difficult to believe Gillard shares ACL beliefs. Backroom deal to get her where she wants to be at the expense of Australian women

      Like

      • zerograv1 January 22, 2013 at 10:37 am #

        Much as I like dislike it our laws are couched in religious influences and they are quite dated but persist. Theres a long historical link to churches acting as advisors to royals and parliaments – England still persists in this for instance. The seperation of church and state hasnt yet occurred here or in America as we are relatively young democracies (well perhaps democracies?). Gillard early on stated she wasnt a supporter of feminism, this still surprises people who think she “must” be or “should” be, but she made this explicitly clear when first assuming the role of Prime Minister. That said, she is also a politician, still struggling in the polls and garnering chunks of votes from all and any quarter to maintain her grasp on the hope of re-election. To me she’s a more civilised version of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation who allowed almost anyone with a drum to beat to join. The ALP sadly is allowing itself the same sort of polluted thinking to maintain power. Sad but true, so I have to say Im not too surprised she has sold women out (lots of retoric to grab headlines – sexism! mysoginist! etc – but not backed up by changes to legislation is it? All a bit of theatrical soapbox for me). Since there are more blocks of votes available in maintaining the status quo and appeasing the fanatical and more moderate religious groups, its no surprise she has SOLD WOMEN OUT. Its also historical fact that labour has always had a christian block – pre-split DLP anyone?

        Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 18, 2013 at 10:15 pm #

      Yes cognitive dissonance is one word for what we can only hope is not an extreme case of a Jekyll and Hyde complex!

      Like

  3. doug quixote January 18, 2013 at 9:31 am #

    A fine rant, but where is the evidence that Gillard “has thrown her support” behind any such absurd collection of BACWA religionists?

    It is more of a neutral position, thus :

    ” I will not tread on your toes, nor will I take positive steps towards legalising same-sex marriage, nor altering laws relating to abortion or removing the chaplaincy program, for the life of the current parliament.”

    Politicians seek votes wherever they can get them and they can’t be blamed for trying to neutralise aggressive lobbying organisations.

    If you call that supporting them, there are few politicians in the World who are not guilty.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 10:41 am #

      You’re like a denier of man made climate change DQ.No amount of evidence will prise your paid up member lips from the arse of this ‘Juggernaut of Hypocrites’.She will go and it will be a period of reflection for Australians.Not too many on the faux Labor side actually deserve a second chance so I hope the hiatus is long enough for a rebuild.
      She’s a failure.A greedy power hungry ‘proxy’ female content on inflicting misery to feed the furnace of her ego.
      And all the crap about Abbott being worse is irrelevant.
      I don’t need to poke one eye with a stick to know poking the other one will have similar consequences.The campaign of scary Abbott is hypocritical too.Faux Labor supporters say there should be evidence of policy and yet produce nothing new to show proof of his megalomania.As I have said many times ‘this’ Labor is intent on installing Abbott and probably will.You better find something endearing about him.I don’t fear Abbott in anyway shape or form.If he does anything close to what faux Labor say he only gets a single term, and after this pathetic nightmare faux Labor gig, which has betrayed all their political partners and their grass roots, I say the sooner the better.They did not earn the right to remove Rudd, nor have they earned the right for a second term.
      Neither Labor or Liberal speak for me.My vote is taken.

      Like

      • conor January 26, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

        Completely agree, but I ‘d watch the lack of commas in your sentences. I would also think you meant “intent” not “content”. Yes?

        Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 18, 2013 at 10:59 am #

      The evidence is in the piece, DQ. Gillard has unconditionally supported religious exemption from our country’s law. Her position is anything but neutral, indeed she has sold out women’s interests in order to further her own, and did so at the time she replaced Rudd.
      I know we disagree on this topic.

      Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 18, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

      Sorry Doug, this time even I think you’re probably kidding yourself.

      I have questions… too many as it happens, because the alternative would indeed be horrendous. Voting Abbott in would mean these kinds of actions went unquestioned because knowing the character of the person Australians had voted for would all but signal a mandate for unparalleled propitiation to the forces of clotted religion.

      But I cannot fault Jennifer’s dismay at Gillard’s seeming hypocrisy.

      I ask again, how does one excommunicate a fellow atheist?

      A list of 101 ways might be excessive but if there are 50 ways to leave a lover at least one to out a closet religionist should be in order here.

      Like

    • Marilyn January 18, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

      I do believe you are a latent comedian DQ. You are clueless, a partisan hack of the lowest order and clearly not interested in women’s issues.

      Gillard is pandering to racists, bigots and bogans to win their racist, bigotted, bogan votes and nothing else.

      Like

  4. Kersebleptes January 18, 2013 at 10:06 am #

    Unfortunately, all of you have fallen for misinformation.

    This was always a simple legislative tidy-up: the merging of several federal and state acts into one. There was not to be any recasting of what was there, only the rationalisation of the existing legislation.

    So do not condemn the Govt for not doing something they had in no way said they would do.

    The exemptions in this combined legislation have been there for decades, and you have only found out about them now? That indicates your previous level of interest in the subject.

    Overly passionate, ignorant & incorrect tirades against the Govt and the PM in particular on this matter serve the interests of none but those you claim to decry.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 10:45 am #

      Phew! thank goodness,Now we can get back to 500 other betrayals of the faux Labor party.Good to know one of them was just a little bit of a misunderstanding.
      What a fkn Joke.

      Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 18, 2013 at 10:56 am #

      This was an opportunity to revoke misogynist anti discrimination legislation that has been in place for far too long and has remained unchallenged for far too long. The Gillard government failed to act on this opportunity, choosing instead to maintain misogynist legislation.

      I do condemn the government for not having said in the first place that it would revoke these exemptions.

      The government has added to the legislation, therefore it was not a “simple tidy up” or “rationalisation.”

      I have written on these exemptions on many occasions over the years. That you are unaware of that indicates your level of interest in my views.

      Your last sentence is rubbish.

      Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 18, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

      The idea that when we revisit and reinterpret existing legislation we can do nothing to improve it runs counter to every other aspect of human endeavour. It is an aberration and a shame.

      Like

    • Marilyn January 19, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

      Trouble is they are 1984 laws, who was PM in 1984 do you think?

      Like

  5. Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 10:20 am #

    Well she has done nothing FOR feminism.
    Having a swathe of females in the parliament means FA if all they do is implement the policies of WASP males.
    She’s a female John Howard, or worse.

    Like

    • Marilyn January 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

      Worse, the law keeping Ranjini and her baby is jail for life is Gillard. The Nauru and Manus crap is Gillard, the forced illegal refoulement of Sri Lankans is Gillard.

      She has extended the racist intervention to the extent that it now costs $250,000 to deliver family welfare payments and the family only get $30,000 of it and if caught with one can of beer can face an automatic 6 months in jail.

      The only woman Gillard cares about is the one she sees in her narcissistic mirror.

      Like

  6. Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    A succinct summary

    (Can someone embed the image?) (JW?)

    Like

    • redjos January 18, 2013 at 4:11 pm #
    • redjos January 18, 2013 at 4:26 pm #

      Gillard

      Like

      • redjos January 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

        Tried to embed twice, Jennifer, but unsuccessful! Apologies,
        Mannie

        Like

        • Jennifer Wilson January 18, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

          That’s OK. Embed what?

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

            Maybe this earlier thingy I posted, further North ^ ?

            A succinct summary

            (Can someone embed the image?) (JW?)

            Like

          • redjos January 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

            embed hypo’s cartoon of the dead horse flogging, which he has now posted twice.

            Like

            • Jennifer Wilson January 18, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

              Oh,I can’t embed it either. It must be protected or something

              Like

  7. Graeme Hanigan January 18, 2013 at 11:54 am #

    By what sort of bizarre aberration of their own, self-proclaimed high moral and ethical standards, can religious groups legitimately discriminate?

    What is so special about these religious people, apart from a nodding relationship with reality?

    Like

    • conor January 26, 2013 at 12:45 pm #

      ” apart from a nodding relationship with reality?”
      That’s just offensive and equally discriminatory and non inclusive to say such things.
      I don’t believe in religion, but I accept that others do, and all I ask that neither group discriminate nor demean the other. Surely you believe that too, so why mock those who are religious?

      Like

  8. Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

    For those keen to act GetUp is running a campaign on this issue which you can sign up to, and of course share.

    Like

  9. redjos January 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    Gillard will go down in Australian political history as one of the worst prime ministers yet – and that is saying something after the Howard years!
    I notice that you have not listed Independent Australia in your blog list and if you have a look you will find many like-minded people to those who post to your blog.
    I am not alone in becoming totally disillusioned by the whole lot of those who “represent” us in the federal parliament – and in all other levels of representation – local government, state government and most other groups who purport to support our dissident views.
    Gillard has legitimised whatever she could lay her hands on to outdo Abbott – think asylum seekers – and she has succeeded – being even more misogynistic if possible!
    Oh the hypocrisy! How we will ever achieve equality for all is beyond my life-span and I know the fight will have to continue for generations to come.
    Racist, sexist, homophobic, apartheid loving, zionist toady, human rights abuser, elder abuser – words fail me!
    Oi vey!
    http://red-jos.blogspot.com.au/
    Mannie De Saxe

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

      Been saying the same things Mannie.
      Gillard (keeping in mind she is just a token female obeying factional orders and church commandments) is certainly not Labor.She is a disgrace, and as you said, far more red-neck in policy than Howard ever was.
      We were ripped off deceived and now ignored.
      Second latest Example:
      When the watered down ( I say this because it should obviously paid to due attention to a particular level of abuse, which was/has been in the public arena at full volume for some time) TOR for the RCom into church abuse was released, it was using terminology which made church abuse appear as the LEAST prevelant of institutionalised abuse.
      I believe the words church and religion may have been written less than 4 times on the whole document.
      I suspect that despite the goodwill of the panel and the desperate need for healing of the victims, the end result will be smothered in political obfuscation and avoidance.All the while the offenders and their support network will creep and crawl under rocks as far away as they can manage to run.By the time the serious questions get asked a plague of amnesia will sweep the globe.And all sorts of folk will manifest of mysterious Alan Bond like illnesses.
      WhyTF should the terminology in this RCom be so user friendly to what is (based on the evidence at hand) the greatest contributor of the (sex ) abuse in contemporary times, and decades before?
      WhyTF does a government of the people need to save the ‘political face’ of those (unelected) who willingly protected the generational abuse of innocents, then denied it,covered it up,hid it over and over again?

      And then we lurch to the next betrayal/church commandment.
      The ability to overtly discriminate.
      Further protection by way of law, amongst the tax payer funded rort that is ‘religion’.
      Oh well, one more of these Gillard policies and she will be sitting proudly next to Mary Mackillop.
      I don’t think the world has seen a more Christian atheist since the Last Supper.

      Like

      • redjos January 18, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

        Hypo:
        I was worried about the terms of reference and was sure the whole process would be watered down to suit the arch-clown in drag, and so it appears to be. I was somewhat consoled by the apparent acceptance to date by a family we know who is deeply involved with the RC because of what happened to their family and the consequences thereof.
        But I am not convinced – I think there are weasel words in the TOR and I suppose we need to wait and see, but for an atheist I believe the concessions to religions are probably just the tip of this iceberg, and the worst is yet to come.
        For a secular (sic) state we do very well, don’t you think?
        Mannie

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 4:04 pm #

          Mannie

          Given neither of us have sarcasm font, and by ‘we’ I take it you mean us mere atheist voters,perhaps your lst sentence needs to begin with,
          (i) which ‘to me’ suffices as an indicator that what follows is sarcasm or thereabouts.
          But if it’s an answer you want I’d say no,not really.
          Given where we were in time and place with Hawke, Keating and Howard, I believe we should be 20 years advanced socially by now than we are.
          We ‘should’ have evolved further to the left.That tells me that iceberg you mention has grown faster than the principles of our elected members.
          Now…
          If we were to play time machines and found another ‘tank scenario’, in Tiananmen Square, with Gillard at the realm, I’d reckon her and Tone would be shoulder to shoulder, at a Press conference, barracking for the Chinese army, and hastening her PA down to the Chinese embassy to wire through some fuel (by way of taxpayer ‘cash donations’), and take away pizzas for their occupants.
          Because God knows we need to keep the steel miss churning.
          And what of the students?
          “Meh, plenty more where they come from, and besides the Chinese ones don’t vote here.”

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

            EDIT
            ‘steel mills churning’

            Like

  10. Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 4:12 pm #

    Isn’t Wong going to present this legislation?

    If so should she not be condemned.And speaking of Wong and her history of abject failure on every front.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-18/pressure-still-on-labor-over-mining-tax-revenue/4471534

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-18/pressure-still-on-labor-over-mining-tax-revenue/4471534

    Like

    • Marilyn January 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm #

      Wong had nothing to do with the mining tax, she is merely the finance minister and the finance minister merely distrubutes the money collected.

      Swan was the negotiator along with the dork Gillard.

      Tanner would never have allowed this to happen.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 5:45 pm #

        I’m going to disagree.Based on her role as finance Minister and her defense of it’s design,(search the ABC, for starters) on repeated occasions.
        http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?form=simple&num_ranks=20&collection=abcall&query=wong+mining+tax

        Wong is less than useless.She is however no match for the principle free Gillard.Can you list what advances (advances which have moved form words to action which makes a measurable difference) Wong has made for women’s causes other for her and her partner?

        Like

        • conor January 26, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

          Exactly!
          A highly paid minister in an important high profile role has a partner is poorer paid and doing what may be implied is “woman’s work” in childcare. Partner has the baby and gives up fulltime work – poorer paid,less ” important work etc, whilst the highly paid high profile partner continues in their job.
          I’m not talking Abbott who was roundly condemned along with his wife for this, but Wong and her partner!
          She could have advanced lesbian relationships, IVF, and the old concept that a higher salary and higher profile makes your world more important, but no she applied sexism within a heterosexual relationship into a lesbian relationship model and should be ashamed of herself.

          Like

  11. Moira Clarke January 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm #

    Thanks, Jennifer, for your excellent article.

    Concerning your statement, ‘they would if they could deny a single pregnant woman access to abortion, if that was her choice’, this draft legislation DOES allow (or, rather, continues to allow) precisely that. Many public hospitals are run by the Catholic Church, including in rural areas where there is no other choice. Terminations of pregnancy, even on most medical grounds, are not available at such hospitals. If a rape victim presents at such a hospital, she will have no access to emergency contraception, nor will she be able to obtain a reference to an alternative provider.

    It gets worse, as some of your readers may or may not be aware. If a pharmacist ‘conscientiously objects’ to the sale of contraceptives, they are at liberty to refuse that sale, even if there is no other available pharmacist.

    Like you, I am fed up with this nonsense. If there is one thing this country is ready for, it’s secular government.

    Like

    • Moira Clarke January 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

      ‘referral’, not ‘reference’

      Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

      Please read the article below.
      {Substitute ‘abortions’ for ‘births’ in the early sentences.
      Then exchange ‘Scientology for ACL or the Roman Catholic chance.
      is the smell of hypocrisy of our elected members not nauseating?
      Is the current silence of the Xenophons et al not interesting?
      Could he have missed(be avoiding) a more legitimate target for a block of votes?
      How long are the religious tentacles?

      “These people rightly see themselves as victims of Scientology.”

      Senator Xenophon said their correspondence implicated the organisation in a range of crimes, including forced imprisonment, coerced abortions, embezzlement of church funds, physical violence, intimidation and blackmail.

      “I am deeply concerned about this organisation and the devastating impact it can have on its followers,” he said.

      Asked about the Senator’s claims, Mr Rudd described them as “grave allegations”.

      “Many people in Australia have real concerns about Scientology,” Mr Rudd said.

      “I share some of those concerns. Let us proceed carefully and look carefully at the material he has provided before we make a decision on further parliamentary action.”

      Asked about the Church of Scientology’s tax exempt status, Mr Rudd said he was advised the High Court had dealt with the matter back in the 1980s.

      “I am so advised, but I stand to be corrected,” he said.

      “Therefore the true question is the actual nature of the operations that involve Scientology now.

      “I don’t want to rush into any judgment on this, other than to say he’s (Senator Xenophon) raised concerns and made some serious allegations.”

      Senator Xenophon said the Church of Scientology had been convicted of fraud in France and was facing similar charges in Belgium.

      A number of the organisation’s former high-ranking executives in the US had also recently spoken out against its leader, David Miscavige, saying they had seen him assaulting staff and urging others to do the same, he said.

      “What we are seeing is a worldwide pattern of abuse and criminality,” Senator Xenophon said.

      “On the body of evidence, this is not happening by accident, it is happening by design.

      “Scientology is not a religious organisation, it is a criminal organisation that hides behind its so-called religious beliefs.”

      The Church of Scientology issued a statement to the media responding to Senator Xenophon’s comments.

      “This is an outrageous abuse of Parliamentary privilege from a Senator would not even meet with Church representatives several months ago to discuss his concerns,” the statement read.

      “Senator Xenophon’s attempt to marginalise Scientologists by saying that they should not be believed, is fascistic and violates freedom of speech and the right to religious beliefs.”

      “Scientology has fought for and upheld religious freedom around the world and is accepted as a religion throughout the world. In a few countries, the Church has been forced to litigate the issue of its religiosity, either affirmatively or in response to outrageous unfounded charges.

      “Inevitably, the Church has prevailed in these cases and its religious bona fides have been unequivocally recognised.”

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

        EDIT

        The cut/pasted article begins
        ““These people rightly….”

        The bit before that is mine.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

          EDIT (further Roman Catholic Church, not ‘chance’..

          Like

    • hudsongodfrey January 18, 2013 at 10:09 pm #

      Moira,

      I read you post earlier in that day and this situation which I am told is similar in the US deeply troubles me. I have written at length below, partly inspired by your post about how I as a humanist think religious institutions undermine the very basis of their own moral codes in acting as they do. I thank you for posting.

      I don’t even think this is about secular versus religious codes of morality any more, but about right an wrong as they are broadly understood to exist in the world. People have a right to make their own choices, they may be advised, cajoled a little, maybe even proselytised at, but unless it is to protect another actual person then they must never be forced. Forcing matters of belief upon people who don’t share your religious views is in my estimation a kind of religious persecution.

      Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 19, 2013 at 6:00 am #

      Yes, you’re right, thanks for adding that information.

      Like

  12. doug quixote January 18, 2013 at 6:57 pm #

    I considered replying as follows :

    “More in sorrow than in anger :

    You wimpy soft-left fools don’t know your arse from your elbow.

    Install Tony Fucking Abbott if you want!

    I hope you enjoy his misogyny, sexism, dry as dust economic bullshit, tightening the welfare screws until you scream, until you all cry out for Julia Gillard to come back and you all squeal about how good she really was!

    Out of the fucking frying pan and into the fucking fire you fucking fools!”

    But I thought it might be a little over the top. 🙂

    But true enough.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson January 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm #

      LOL. It sounds rather Shakespearian in its portent!
      I’ll still be voting for Janelle Saffin BTW

      Like

      • doug quixote January 18, 2013 at 9:11 pm #

        Well pity me, for my local member is Robert McClelland. About the only thing he is good for is making up the numbers. (sighs)

        Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

      “I hope you enjoy his misogyny, sexism, dry as dust economic bullshit, tightening the welfare screws until you scream, until you all cry out for Julia Gillard to come back and you all squeal about how good she really was!”

      It is to be expected (according to you) from him.So then you go on to defend the Red Dwarf shape shifter herself, for doing the same things via the back door.

      Here’s my next tip DQ.
      There will be no-one squealing for Gillard return.The only people who will miss her are the dried up rusted on Libs who will have to find another cause for plackard ideas.\\

      Gillard by her actions is the single most responsible person for Abbott’s victory if he gets one.

      The frypan combusted yonks ago and the conditions inside and out of it are equal.

      I am with Marilyn.You should specialise in a finite area of comedy.Wit is not your forte.
      Tragedy looks more suitable.

      BTW
      I think the picture at the link above would make a good a great uniform for the last surviving members of your faux Labor cheer squad.The good news is it won’t blow the budget either.I mean how much could 5 or 6 T Shirts cost?

      (insert *fuck* wherever needed)

      Like

      • doug quixote January 18, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

        I’ve recovered my equilibrium.

        The polls are correcting back towards the comfortable re-election; they are guaranteed to stay close, noting the Harold Wilson Syndrome where you don’t want to appear to be too far in front, lest the punters forget to vote or think they can afford a protest vote. Which is about all Hypo, Marilyn redjos, etc will ever be. LOL

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe January 18, 2013 at 10:25 pm #

          Eyes rolling,
          If I thought you had more (any) cred than you have comedic talent, I’d be phased.
          But a reminder that you got the ‘mere possibility’ of a Federal Royal Commission 100% wrong.
          (I believe that is your chosen topic,Mastermind?)
          So your street smarts are up to shit.Your too busy imagining to notice the important bits.(I believe we call that idealism?)
          As it is, my gullible, friend I hope that one day you will understand how our electoral system works, and better, how to maintain your dignity, through standing by the principle of a fair go, and voting accordingly for its preservation and expansion..
          I wish nothing bad on you, in any way.
          As for Gillard and what her backers have done, by lowering the bar to a place far below a prolapsed slug in the gutter, well that’s your moral burden.
          I personally hope someone,anyone kicks her Dorothy Mackellar (wide brown) arse.(Yep, misogynistic language)
          She’s the wrinkly, flaccid, waterlogged budgie in Abbott’s budgie smugglers, ASFAI am concerned.
          Going on EVERYTHING we know,have seen and lived,
          people have WAY more genuine reasons to fear Gillard than Abbott.
          She’s a sleaze bag.A traitor, an opportunistic embellisher of peoples hopes and aspirations.
          And every day the reality of where that fear and disillusionment and dishonesty is leading us, plays out.
          DQ/Macabre, as you know,you are free (in this free market) to keep snatching the spotlight and focussing it on Abbott, but every time you do Julia slips into the darkness and does a slippery deal with/for someone, thus betraying Labor’s most loyal supporters.Nothing you say/feel/think can remodel reality.

          BTW
          What’s the Membership number on your/ Macabre’s card?
          and in case you missed my tiny point, Gillard my naive (and soon to shattered ) friend is a politically dead red-capped parrot.She won’t even make a come back as a feather duster.

          XXX

          Like

          • doug quixote January 19, 2013 at 8:21 am #

            Regarding the Royal Commission, the States had to refer powers to the Commonwealth. No Federal Royal Commission was possible unless and until they did, There will still be Constitutional challenges, once they start getting close to the bone.

            As for Macabre, are you still banging on about her? She blogs elsewhere in other names and is living (in England, mainly) overseas more or less permanently and “couldn’t give a shit about [this] pimply collection of Greeny garbage” quote unquote.

            As for the rest, we shall see what we shall see.

            Gillard is a fine Prime Minister, potentially one of the best.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 19, 2013 at 10:07 am #

              Potential is a remarkable thing Doug!

              All I can say is that if she has potential then it might be more as a high wire act, balancing political exigencies, than as a conviction politician.

              This is a lacklustre effort to be added to a string of such failures when it come to standing up for social change the majority of Australians support, and that traditional left Labor in particular has already endorsed. Gay marriage for example was voted up by the party organisation, and down by the PM. That’s f**ked up in anyone’s language, and there’s no hiding it!

              I take the view that while different people want different specific outcomes from governments few want politics that avoid taking decisive action on matters of any import. What she’s doing at the moment is failing to lead in that regard and her apparent inability to pick a side and run with that against the wishes of any significant minority leaves her in a limbo whereby no significant majority finds themselves in the least enamoured of her.

              I know that you are her biggest fan but I have to say in the nicest possible way, you may be in the minority 😉

              None of which wouldn’t acknowledge that she’s done a passable job of keeping things on a more or less even keel and even pushing through the odd initiative. But when it comes to making people WANT to vote for the party of its leader then all she really has going for her is people’s abiding distrust of Abbott.

              Like

              • Jennifer Wilson January 19, 2013 at 11:50 am #

                I have to agree with all of this & I don’t feel good about that.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 19, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

                  Yes I know what you mean, but then I don’t feel good about any of this issue. I really tried hard to put it into words in my longer post that I think the fault lies in the way the battle lines are drawn around this whole issue to begin with.

                  I don’t imagine I’m in such a unique position when it comes to these issue as to be the only one who can recognise hypocrisy. But I think it becomes as hypocritical of secular people to offer people of faith our intolerance when we so hate their righteous attitudes towards us as it is of religious institutions whose faiths all preach tolerance to insist on a form of exceptionalism that guarantees their right to practice it.

                  So I guess what I’m trying to say is that, although Gillard disappoints in missing an opportunity to see what’s right here and act upon it, the greater disappointment for everybody occurs when we fail to be tolerant in the sense of the word that means taking a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.

                  If you squint your eyes real quick I think you can almost glimpse a sense of sectarianism building between Christian groups and secular society. And it disappoints me when we more or less allow this divisiveness to build and cement religious identity behind a wall of confected persecution that they defend with very sophisticated apologetics against the most obvious of hypocrisies….their willingness to become narrow minded, discriminatory and intolerant towards others.

                  In some sense’s Gillard’s just the poor sod stuck in the middle of an unnecessary bunfight that she didn’t start and doesn’t have a dog in. But on the other hand doling out taxpayers’ money to people who’re creating those kinds of divisions within society is something we can and should be critical of, but only if we’re not stoking the flames of division with out own agenda at the same time.

                  Like

                  • hudsongodfrey January 19, 2013 at 2:48 pm #

                    Second paragraph take “preach tolerance” and substitute the words “preach against intolerance” to correct the meaning of a sentence I’d have done well to completely reword.

                    Like

                  • Hypocritophobe January 19, 2013 at 3:28 pm #

                    HG,
                    I have to totally disagree based on the fact that this is likely to be a personal deal Gillard has done, against what the cabinet wishes,just like the equal marriage decision.It is part of a package of soul selling ego driven power hungry opportunism.
                    And for those who play the ‘dismissive’ card, I think we will have proof of it soon enough.

                    I admire your patience and temperament,but Gillard has earned the wrath of the populous because she acts on her own, with no consultation, or subsequent explanation.
                    That is not leadership.It is totally unacceptable.Even Howard laid his cards on the table whether we liked them or not.
                    Gillard is as close to those two ‘D’words, which we all know so well.
                    Defend the principles you aspire to HG, but make excuses for her at your own peril.

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 19, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

                      I’m not making excuses for her at all. Howard did act fairly dictatorially at times we all know, but most of the time when he did so he took the people into his confidence in backing his judgement. If Gillard wanted to be a leader in that sense of the word then I think she’s articulate enough to do so, but obviously and inexcusably she’s going against what the people want without carrying the weight of popular consensus. Whether she’s really acting alone or all those other Labour members we’re equally happy to vote against gay marriage is a matter for conjecture that we may never receive a straight answer to.

                      But what’s really frustrating me is that nobody seems in the least bit willing to take the point that I’m desperately trying to make here that this shouldn’t be turned into a sectarian battle of sorts.

                      Even if she did nothing this could all be settled with the churches changing their behaviour in ways that simply address the moral code that they ought to be adhering to. But it could not be helped by secular Australia trying to force them to do so.

                      Like

                  • Jennifer Wilson January 19, 2013 at 4:17 pm #

                    I’m unable to share your generous view of Gillard as the poor sod stuck in the middle, but apart from that I pretty much agree with you. Personally, I have nothing against the religious, & as I’ve probably written somewhere here on Sheep, feel a great deal of gratitude towards the nuns who rescued and cared for me as a child.

                    My anger with those religious who impose their intolerance on our laws, and the politicians who allow them to do this, remains unabated and profound. There will be sectarianism, I fear it’s inevitable given this situation. Gillard has, I feel certain, done a deal with the religious right of the ALP to accommodate their prejudices and she will bear responsibility for trouble that arises from this. The fact that she has done this to further her own personal ambitions sickens me. The fact that Gillard has achieved her prime ministerial goal through deals that see such discrimination legitimised leaves me very close to despising her.

                    Yes I know politicians must deal. But this particular deal, at the expense of women, and anyone who is not heteronormative, a deal that legitimises the trampling of human rights, a deal that makes a mockery of the very concept of anti discrimination, a deal made with the vile purveyors of ignorance and divisiveness, is not a deal with the religious but a deal with the devil. And, as is said, when supping with the devil it’s wise to use a very long spoon.

                    BTW this is Wixxyleaks take on the David Marr piece I’ve left a comment but it hasn’t been published yet. http://wixxyleaks.com/2013/01/16/freedom-of-choice/

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 19, 2013 at 4:37 pm #

                      See I just object strenuously to the sectarianism because it plays into their hands by allowing them to hide behind a persecution complex. I think I’d do the same things as most other people here would, but I lead by explaining them in a completely different way that made it clear where the moral high ground lies on these issues.

                      There’s SFA moral high ground in politics any more and you would’ve thought that when you could find it staring you in the face, a free gift as it were then you’d grab it with both hands. The Royal Commission was one such case. Here are two more, Gay marriage and Discrimination!

                      What’s wrong with these people are we all that stupid?!?!?

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 19, 2013 at 5:16 pm #

                      As to Wixxyleaks I’ve had a crack too 🙂

                      Like

                    • Jennifer Wilson January 19, 2013 at 9:50 pm #

                      It was a rubbish post, I thought!

                      Like

                    • Anonymous January 19, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

                      Wixxy is an ALP hack and as such doesn’t know his Arthur from his Martha when arguing about ALP failures.
                      He did some very sound investigation into the HSU/Thomson/Slipper/Ashby issues which the MSM/ABC wouldn’t touch and that is to his credit, but the better blog, to which he is also attached, is Independent Australia which has some very interesting articles on many of the topics addressed by JW.

                      Like

                    • Jennifer Wilson January 19, 2013 at 9:49 pm #

                      There’s a good one there today asking why Gillard doesn’t lead

                      Like

                    • Anonymous January 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

                      Anonymous is not meant to be anonymous – it is from Mannie De Saxe aka red-jos

                      Like

                    • Poirot January 19, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

                      Actually MSM/ABC did take up Wixxy’s Independent Australia piece on his investigation on Kathy Jackson at one stage: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-26/jacksons-at-centre-of-hsu-allegations/4093190

                      Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 19, 2013 at 10:38 am #

              Good luck with all that Sunshine.

              “Gillard is a fine Prime Minister, potentially one of the best.”
              Well if you mean ‘female’ PMs I’ll sign off on it.
              She will also make the list for shortest served,most unpopular in post WWII Australia, and most unpopular DURING her term with traditional Australian Labor Party supporters.
              To some her don’t stink, but they are the types who display public bigotry and denial when it comes to her and Howard’s DNA.
              Aka ‘we decide who comes here tec’
              Sound familiar?
              And yes, I will bang on about your pathetic use of another pseudo to attack posters, if and when I see fit, based on the same ‘we decide ‘ principle.
              You use ‘greeny’ as term, as though it is an insult or a term LESS worthy than other political nomenclature.
              Ha fucking ha.
              It is a principle party dweeb.One which has no fear of maturing when needed. and not driven by inhumane retrograde, sub-human, pro-business,dodgy back-room sleaze-bag NSW criminally infested narcissists.

              Gillard> going=going >…………

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 19, 2013 at 10:40 am #

                EDIT
                To some, her SHIT don’t stink

                Like

              • doug quixote January 19, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

                “Greeny” is her term, not mine. With Bob Brown in the driver’s seat the Greens have some credibility. My hope is that he will make a parachuted comeback to give them the electoral credibility sadly lacking in the likes of Milne, Hanson-Young and Rhiannon.

                Their vote has slid somewhat since Brown “retired”. Some policies are unworkable, but the Greens are a fixture in the Senate, with a balance of power position until at least 2015 or so. I don’t think Macabre understands any of that, and she doesn’t really want to; we certainly don’t see eye to eye on this issue.

                Your schoolboy insinuations are beginning to grate on my nerves; you do not want me as an enemy.

                A friendly warning, Hypo. (slight smile)

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 19, 2013 at 8:02 pm #

                  Oh dear a threat in the public market place of ideas.

                  You really are a troll.

                  Like

                  • doug quixote January 19, 2013 at 11:22 pm #

                    Did you manage to read the rest of it? In fact, you might consider reading all my posts more carefully Hypo. You might actually learn something. Your posts to me recently have been aggressive and unnecessarily argumentative “in the public marketplace of ideas” as you so quaintly put it.

                    Like

                    • Hypocritophobe January 20, 2013 at 12:03 am #

                      No worries, Richo.

                      Like

                  • conor January 28, 2013 at 12:16 am #

                    hypocritophobe.
                    Why are you such a pompous, hectoring, pedantic, self righteous bully at times?
                    Methinks you are becoming a troll yourself, as you seem only on here to critique the poster, and not the content.
                    A principle of playing the ball and not the person may get you further, and mark you as an adult and not a petulant teenager.
                    And yes the Greens have definitely collapsed without Bob. Christine is a disgrace and a ham at times, and appears hell bent on destroying Tasmanian industry

                    Like

                    • Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 10:14 am #

                      gee Conor(hahfknha)
                      for someone who just showed up you sue know a lot about the place.You also use the same language as the last time you trolled here and got put back in your felchers box.Getting called a troll by a cane toad like you is an honour.This must be the final blog for you to be thrown off.
                      I’m surprised it took Ellis so long long to tire of your pus.

                      Your an interesting ‘species’, but you need to stop letting your mummy dress you.

                      Like

                    • conor January 28, 2013 at 11:29 am #

                      Hypocritophobe
                      I’m not the one being aggressive, personally abusive and incredibly rude

                      Like

          • Marilyn January 21, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

            Well the opposition in New Guinea are protesting and challenging our right to occupy part of their country with trafficked humans in breach of all laws and human rights and the fucking spiv. morons here say it is politics.

            Not that it is anything but the politics of appeasing the racists in Western Sydney to break the law and dump innocent people in shit holes in the Pacific in the first place.

            I would lol but it is too ridiculous for even ironic laughter.

            When will Australia and our fucking worthless media get it through their thick skulls that we do not get to trade and traffic humans and we do not get to colonise other nations with illegal prisons to do it?

            Talk about fucking arrogance.

            Like

    • Marilyn January 19, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

      DQ, Gillard is precisely as awful as Abbott. Swearing at us for saying so does not change that fact.

      Like

      • doug quixote January 19, 2013 at 7:56 pm #

        Say so if you like, it is a free country. But I disagree 🙂

        Like

  13. hudsongodfrey January 18, 2013 at 9:27 pm #

    As I understand it Gillard was using a modern political context for the word misogyny suggesting that to stand in the way of women’s interests is to hate all women. Rather than do as others have done by quibbling over this new meaning of the word, let’s just say that the original meaning of misogyny referred to a bigoted and irrational kind of hatred, and nor does this new meaning refer to any genuine and rational disagreement about the nature of women’s interests. It just says something that is obviously true, that if you like and respect women then that will naturally extend to sharing their interests, and if you oppose women’s interests out of dislike or disrespect of them then you deserve to be called a misogynist. This has apparently been difficult for some to grasp, but I do think Ms Gillard gave it currency and credence when she gave her celebrated speech on the subject.

    I wrote that to be able to ask this:

    The wider question that I think this article raises is whether discrimination against women by religious institutions is in fact a form of misogyny? Whether the churches have a rationale or whether they discriminate against women because they intentionally disrespect and dislike them is a real implication of what I think Jennifer is saying here.

    By reason of utter disrespect for women most religious institutions have indeed served their interests very poorly either bordering on misogyny or crossing the line outright. Whether they genuinely do so with an additional dislike of women is not necessary to the definition of misogyny we’re working with, though in fairness I suspect it is rarer than disrespect.

    The nature of this discrimination that also affects gays (LGBTI if you will), affords consideration of the fact that for want of a better word Homophobia also takes on something of the redefined adaptation that misogyny has undergone. In terms of discrimination we would also say that religious institutions are homophobic in the sense that they show complete disrespect for gay people. The difference is that gays are also openly disliked by many religions.

    And when we start to include dislike of de Facto relationships and a regard for divorce that equates it with adultery then we stop finding words to describe the nature of that discrimination and begin to look more seriously at the degree to which these institutions are disconnected from the people who make up the bulk of society, including in many cases their own congregations. Excuse me for asking but are a good many religious people not women? Some (apart from just the priests and nuns) may even be gay.

    Do all of these religious people actually disrespect themselves, or are we just trying too officiously to tell them what their real interests are? A good many of the most strident anti-abortionists are in fact women after all. So do their opinions count?

    Well of course they do, but they simply don’t necessarily count more than the lived experience of those who they’re discriminating against when it comes to asking who is affected and therefore has a stake in wanting to either end or perpetuate discrimination which is both misogynistic and homophobic. And unlike some of the things that religious people bemoan for reasons that are dubious because the harm in them is far from evident, here we have a case where the harms from being discriminated against are abundantly evident. We can thus say that these forms of discrimination are wrong, and not just wrong in a way that secular advocates who are against religion will identify, but also in ways that religious people themselves ought to heed if by and large they take the teachings of any major religion we know of seriously. Above all else religions teach variations on the Golden Rule “do unto others…” in one popular version. So going boldly where no atheist may have dared go before, I’m just going to stick my neck right out here and say that Women and Gays don’t want or expect to be treated like they’re inferior either by a church that they may or may not believe in or by an institution where they’re seeking employment.

    So finally in my own view this is not really about a view of the separation of church and state that intends to replace the church with the secular state in the least. We are, or should all be free to believe what we will whether that involves a deity or not. But we should also realise that certain things are generally regarded as wrong across a very broad religious and secular swathe of society, and that racism, sexism and the kinds of discrimination we’ve come to refer to as homophobia and misogyny can and rightly should be included in that.

    Like

    • goku January 19, 2013 at 10:38 pm #

      Well written hudsongodfrey,
      As you wrote in closing, there are many beliefs in society though I don’t believe the line is as clear as you put it when it comes to discrimination. I see a very fine one actually, that could tilt towards imposing on freedom of religion, as written in a discussion paper by The Alliance Defense Fund on this issue,
      ‘In countries that have that have introduced extensive anti-discrimination laws, a reduction in religious freedom has clearly followed. For example, in countries such as the UK and Canada, employees have been unable to act on their conscience in the workplace without being dismissed, religious organizations and religious business owners have been successfully sued and religious welfare organizations such as adoption agencies have been closed.’

      http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti-discriminationlaws/Consolidation%20-%20Discussion%20Paper%20-%20108%20-%20Alliance%20Defense%20Fund%20-%2029%20Jan%202012.PDF

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey January 19, 2013 at 11:39 pm #

        Goku,

        Discrimination against people by employers is wrong when their ability to earn a living is curtailed according to their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. And it really shouldn’t matter who that employer is or what they believe.

        Also

        Threatening to close down an institution that serves the community because you’re no longer allowed to practice that kind of discrimination. Well that’s also wrong. Quite apart from being a petulant and mean spirited act, people who need those services suffer as a result of those decisions.

        So I hope what are you saying here isn’t that two wrongs make a right?

        Critically also I don’t think that moving to broaden the discrimination laws as they apply to everyone else in any way affects freedom of religion as a right to be exercised by individuals or institutions within our society. A person’s rights are guaranteed only so far as they don’t transgress upon the rights of anyone else. So as I already said, the principle of reciprocity, often referred to as the Golden Rule, applies in most things. Some things you can base on religion or on philosophy and still get the right answer.

        Moreover I simply can’t see why you’d stop believing whatever it is your do, or be restricted from practising your religion because of the mere presence of somebody who doesn’t share your faith being on one side of the fence as opposed to the other. Surely if the sole purpose of exceptionalism is to prevent people from having their faith tested then its function is to mollycoddle and weaken rather than bolster peoples convictions?

        As for freedom of religion, it really means freedom of belief. So I think we can say we all have a right to believe and should do so with genuine authenticity. To take that away is I think to underestimate the true nature of what discrimination does to hurt people in a way that you would not yourself be willing to overlook.

        Like

        • Jennifer Wilson January 20, 2013 at 7:30 am #

          My last comment was rather intemperate HG! I caught DQ’s fever. I own the sentiments, I could have put them better.

          I do hope DQ & Hypo aren’t having a serious falling out.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey January 20, 2013 at 9:13 am #

            Don’t sweat it, as one who as long struggled to express myself better the solipsist in me suspects that when things are read between the lines, (and when are they not), then what we fill the gaps with isn’t necessarily the fault of the writer.

            If I have any perspective to bring to these discussions they’re the insights of one who was raised religious and for better or worse has a sense for the shape of that kind of reasoning. To hate would be to hate a former version of myself as opposed to simply having come to realise that I’d come to understand something else about the very idea of belief that completely blew away the cobwebs of clotted religion. And thinking about that led me to become a sceptic and to learn at a later age the skills of sceptical reasoning. Primarily to question most the things that you want to believe because I know too well that desire can lead to rationalising something that is in effect the pretence of certainty without evidence.

            I happened across Penn Jillette’s latest contribution to the YouTube channel Bigthink a couple of days ago, which made me mindful of this but also of the idea that we should understand the difference between things that we think about and things we feel about. To paraphrase he talked about how we shouldn’t say we’ve a feeling about the speed of light or evolution, any more than we should have to think about love. “You should feel I love you, you should think about reality.” To do otherwise would be to cheapen either the our sense of reason or the emotion.

            I think that was what lead me to say that we can rightly and must logically base part of the case against discrimination on sound arguments that align with moral force to assemble some kind of legislative codification, but not perhaps be closed to the idea that the harm we seek to prevent has as its consequences real injury to people’s feelings.

            Like

          • Poirot January 20, 2013 at 9:18 am #

            Jennifer, I believe this about Part XXII of their “serious falling out” …..but somehow I think they kinda like the joust 🙂

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 20, 2013 at 9:28 am #

              If it weren’t for ‘the use by date’ being so far gone, I could eat ‘im for breakfast.

              (I bet that killed your appetite.)

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey January 20, 2013 at 9:45 am #

                You guys are beginning to look like one of those old married couples, who’ll go at it hammer and tongs, only to round on anyone with united ferocity who tries to intervene in their perfectly splendid argument 🙂

                Like

              • doug quixote January 20, 2013 at 10:37 am #

                Unless you are female, I don’t want you to ‘eat ‘any part of me. Rocinante may be available, if you are that way inclined. 🙂

                Like

                • Hypocritophobe January 20, 2013 at 11:25 am #

                  LOL
                  I’ll bet you say that to ALL the boys,
                  😉

                  With fava-beans and nice little Chianti.
                  Fpl-fpl-fpl-fpl…..

                  Like

          • doug quixote January 20, 2013 at 10:41 am #

            Probably not, Jennifer, but at times we do get on each other’s wick. I just wish he/she could get it through his/her head that Macabre has moved on and there’s no point in being jealous. LOL

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe January 20, 2013 at 11:29 am #

              The squadron of flying pigs has obviously blackened the sky over yonder in Quixoteville.
              Dig/dig/dig
              echo/echo/echo

              Like

          • Ron Savage January 20, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

            Hi Jennifer

            I did not read all the comments over the last few articles and days, so forgive me if this aspect has been covered.

            Consider the case of a pregnant, single, Catholic woman who dies.

            If the church allows her to be buried in a Catholic cemetery – i.e. does not discriminate against her when she’s dead, but discriminates against her while she’s alive, then it can be argued they discriminate because she’s alive, since being dead is the only difference.

            Can someone tell me how the fuck that can be fair?

            Ron

            PS
            Just in case you’re wondering, the answer is yes, I /do/ regard politics as a symptom of psychopathology :-).

            Like

            • Jennifer Wilson January 21, 2013 at 6:58 am #

              Hi Ron, Nobody can tell you how that can be fair because it isn’t. I wonder if religion could also be a symptom of pathology? 🙂

              Like

              • Ron Savage January 21, 2013 at 2:23 pm #

                Absolutely.

                Ask yourself: Under what circumstances do people exhibit religion without them having been subjected to Pavlovian conditioning since they were babies.

                Hint: The correct answer is that there can be no such circumstances. ‘Nuff said.

                Then, at an unconscious level the victims are pathologically angry. So, how can they express (release) this anger. Well, because it’s unconscious, they driven to exhibit angry (sadistic) behaviour, but can’t understand it, i.e. can’t determine the source.

                Now that they are terrified of their parents (unconsciously, after what their parents did to them), they are afraid of revealing that anger (towards their parents, except in rare ‘surprising’, ‘unexpected’, etc, outbursts), so it must be sublimated.

                One outlet (safety valve) is in visiting the anger on their own children. I would call this a classic case of Freudian Denial, in that they’ve inverted to target from the previous generation to the next, in order to be able to deny the source, since in admitting the source would lead to admitting their potentially murderous anger towards their parents.

                Hence we say religion is a self-perpetuating perversion. It’s a ghastly cycle.

                Like

                • Ron Savage January 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm #

                  Typo alert! “inverted to target” should of course be “inverted the target”.

                  Also, forgot to mention the other classic outlet: The Middle-East War.

                  Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 21, 2013 at 6:14 pm #

                  Disagree Ron,

                  Not with the sentiments but just on the facts. There are as you may be aware plenty of Born Again Christians about the place, who weren’t indoctrinated as children so much as drawn in by what I can only surmise to be the pleasant illusion of certainty and the social embrace of those churches which evangelise that particular brand of faith.

                  I’ll leave the psychology to the practitioners of that particular discipline when it gets to the level where you’re talking about anger and Freudian Denial. All I know is that if you mix up your Freudian and your behaviouralism then it’s supposed to mean you like sex with electric shocks…..kidding 🙂

                  Try this… I think it has broader appeal to a range of social needs and insecurities that people have perfectly naturally evolved the religious meme to explain the world we found ourselves in when the ancient texts were being penned. It has but one abiding flaw insofar as I can tell. That of adhesion to its myths well after others have moved on in recognition of the discovery of new and different knowledge.

                  Like

                  • Ron Savage January 22, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

                    (1) Born Again Christians: Not sure I can differentiate between them and any other religious person. Same issue, in that it (that behaviour) has to be based on some pre-existing state of mind.

                    (2) behaviouralism: Which means what, exactly? I assume I can speak for both of us (hahahaha) in saying it’s content-free.

                    If you have a problem with what I say, please be explicit and specific.

                    Or, if throwing jargon around is the best you can come up with, I’ll assume my arguments are ok.

                    (3) one abiding flaw: No, the worst flaw is what’s done so mercilessly to babies and children in the name of the cult.

                    Their possibility of escaping religion is denied them.

                    Better to let all grow up to say, 25, and then introduce religious material. See what they choose.

                    You can image how rapidly the adherence to religions would fall without the pavlovian conditioning of the children.

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

                      Okay Ron at a few days distance I can see I’ll have to recap slightly….

                      The thing about Born Again Christianity was as an example of one kind of Christianity that does not necessarily relate to indoctrination at a very young age. The post I responded to made a generalisation about “Pavlovian conditioning since they were babies” that I thought could immediately be seized upon by any Born Again who wished to discredit you…. Not that there are heaps of them ’round these parts. 😉

                      The thing about Behaviorism was a joke which I may have ruined a little by misspelling it…. Never mind! if you do like sex with electric shock have that seen to by somebody.

                      You actual arguments from Freudian Anger I think are asserting a great deal that I’m not convinced can be assumed. I rather think it’s just a case of tradition in motion that religion passes largely unquestioned from one generation to the next in many societies.

                      On teaching all religions and letting the students at a later age make an informed choice I tend to agree. Daniel Dennett makes the same argument, although he thinks it can be done in schools as long as the pupils are over the age of reason when it is presented to them.

                      Lastly I agree, And the notion of a Catholic Child or a Muslim Child is cringe-worthy to me, but I have also commented that I don’t think the discrimination issue provides the platform for changing that particular aspect of religious institutional practice regardless of whether we agree it seems objectionable to us or not.

                      Like

              • zerograv1 January 23, 2013 at 6:46 am #

                Not sure its any kind of pathology, I just think people work out truths and falsehoods at different rates. Those with a tertiary education posting here might have seen through religion but remember you are a very small minortiy of the general populace. By the way have you ever read James Michener’s “The Source”. It’s a fictionalised account of an archealogical dig that attempts to explain the historical formation and development of Christianity, Judaism and the influence of Mohammed. Interesting read if you are into that kind of thing but the thing that struck me was the original worship of the unknown as a god force – Sun workship, rock worship etc….Modern (cough cough) religion is far removed from that kind of concept (except for perhaps Gaia devotees) and is all about social rules and the differing versions of morality, very little to do with anything that benefits people and in fact quite damaging – the christian exhortation to turn the other cheek being just one example.

                Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 20, 2013 at 12:08 am #

        Hi goku,
        do you, as the person using this pseudonym, (goku) have any connection to the Catholic church?
        Or any other Christian church/org?

        (Just to level the playing field,I’ll fess up first with an emphatic NO!)

        Like

      • Hypocritophobe January 20, 2013 at 12:26 am #

        Surprise surfucking surprise

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom

        “Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an American conservative Christian nonprofit organization with the stated goal of “defending the right to hear and speak the*Truth* through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.”

        The *truth* my shiny metal arse.

        Like

        • goku January 20, 2013 at 11:29 am #

          Hypo,
          I am not catholic, I do attend a a christian church, but did not intend to cite something specifically christian. I had some idea that it was a christian organisation but would just as comfortably cite something from an atheist organisation if it seemed to put forward a good argument, I try to take arguments from both sides based on their facts and ability to inform.
          I can only hope the prime minister has done the same in this instance and not as Jennifer has stated, simply sided with a christian party for her own political survival. If that is the case, although it seems to fit the mold when comes to most politicians, it would be a disappointment.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 20, 2013 at 11:35 am #

            Our resident Gillard Mastermind has confirmed emphatically that Gillard did indeed pander to the ACL’s specific demands.For votes.
            Case closed IMHO.

            Just as I don’t want paedophiles to be left in charge of the children, I don’t want a ‘christian by stealth atheist’, making christian policies without a mandate.
            Especially when they use some bullshit about tidying up the loose edges.If the ‘edge’ of “bias to discriminate”, were any looser, its guts would fall out its arse.

            Like

          • Poirot January 20, 2013 at 12:00 pm #

            goku,

            I think you’ll find that the Prime Minister “has” simply sided with a Christian party for her own political survival….she’s a savvy politician – and that’s what “savvy politicians” do…..sell out to save their own hide.

            She and Labor “are” a disappointment.

            Like

      • doug quixote January 20, 2013 at 10:33 am #

        “Religious welfare organisations such as adoption agencies have been closed”

        Probably long overdue and for good cause; proselytsing and bringing kiddies into “Good Christian Homes” would be high on their priorities list.

        Like

  14. 730reportland January 18, 2013 at 10:01 pm #

    So Jennifer,
    after Joolya`s famous misogyny speech, when she then united with Mr-Rabbit to clip single mothers welfare (on same day)

    This was not misogyny huh, just hypocrisy and bastardry?

    (more of my links and ranting on this)
    http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/rostrum-6/

    Like

  15. Mannie De Saxe January 19, 2013 at 6:37 pm #

    There is a post above about Wixxy which says anonymous but is actually from me, Mannie De Saxe (aka red-jos) which somehow did not appear. Apologies. I don’t do anonymous – i disapprove!

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 19, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

      Mannie,
      I don’t know that much about Wixxi,but agree with you,that his work on the Thomson et al, thing was pretty thorough and should rec’v kudos.
      However I disagree with him on the take of David Marr’s view on the ‘open slather license for churches to discriminate’.
      Marr is correct.
      And on that topic, those who think the status quo is OK must think us punters all came down in the last shower.
      It is a draconian bigot enabler.
      And quite frankly I doubt anyone but the ACL, and RC church would abuse the thing in the first place.I have no such fears of more tolerant religions,including mainstream Islamic ones.
      That is precisely why it exists, and precisely why it must go.Because those who abuse the system benefit most and get to keep their narrow prejudices going even longer.In short to ‘leave it as is’, is a clear signal from Gillard that she supports several forms of prejudice and ‘Apartheid like’ tenets and has no legitimate basis, or support, to do it.
      She should name every single Labor person who supports this 100%, so the whole lot can face their electoral makers.
      Otherwise Mr Wixxi should use his expertise to find out who is behind this,what deals were done and why.That would prove once and for all he is not a Labor hack.My gut feeling tells me he won’t ask a question he does not like the answer to.There is a lot of that around,these days.Even here.
      It is obvious the conservative MSM parazzi and scandal chasers would never even bother to ask.Their heads are so far up the back alley of religion, they are sh*t scared it might impact on their bottle of Bells at Chrissie.
      The coalition name the policy and Julia sets it in train.It’s going swimmingly.

      Like

      • redjos January 20, 2013 at 12:35 am #

        Hypo,
        David Marr is right, Wixxy is wrong.
        When all these organisations start to pay the same taxes other organisations pay, they will have the same rights as every one else.
        As a gay geriatric, if I were to have to go into an aged care facility, most are run by religious based groups and they discriminate against the gay elderly, against the gay people they may or may not employ and homophobia is rampant. With the so-called new legislation, aged care facilities are supposed to lose their status, but this is not going to happen, and discrimination will continue. It is so easy to make excuses not to comply, and how does one prove who is telling the truth? Is some doddering old dementia-suspected person going to be listened to? Same old, same old!
        I don’t believe and I don’t trust.
        Find me an atheist organisation – well there probably isn’t such a thing. So what to do?
        By the way I read the whole wixxy thing you linked to and die-hard dyed-in-the-wool glued on ALP supporters are unable to see the errors of their ways – and of course the Greens are to blame for everything!
        Some of the posts there also take him to task – including Marilyn. Good for all of them!
        Mannie

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey January 20, 2013 at 9:42 am #

          Hello Mannie,

          I hear you and I think you’re right about who and where people are most affected by different kinds of discrimination within the community. I don’t know however that ending workplace discrimination will change the entrenched attitudes of those religious employees of institutions who ill conceal their disdain for something their faith has afforded them some kind of permission to regard as inferior in others. What you may mean is that if a few are pushed out by an influx of employees who have more diverse backgrounds and better attitudes it would be a good thing.

          On the funding argument I’m not do hardened in my set against religion as to abandon the hope that there’s some altruistic virtue in what they do. And I think it may be worth considering that maintaining some of those funding arrangements also affords us a stake in what is allowed happen in some of those institutions.

          Most importantly your post brings us to the point of being able to touch on specifics so as to have a look at what change to the anti discrimination legislation might look like. What I’ve wanted to say is that it may well be argued that Catholic Schools for example need to provide a faith based education which teachers who aren’t of the faith could struggle to provide especially in primary schools. What it can’t be argued in the same way about an employee’s capacity to carry out a given role is that discrimination should similarly be allowed at all levels in aged care facilities and other medical service providers that are church run.

          Whereas the example I would give of someone religious trying to practice surgery who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions is entirely appropriate. So is the idea that care extends to all aspects of people’s well being not excluding their emotional state, given that being gay in an unsympathetically religious run care facility might well become a form of mental torture.

          I am on the other hand stating something a little controversial here for others to digest in that, much as I would love to see the practice of indoctrination of small children also regarded as a harmful one I don’t think workplace discrimination specifically gives us the right to interfere with it just yet. And never being one who prefers to see people forced to change what they ought to choose to improve upon I nevertheless regard ending exceptionalism in discrimination as the real matter of import in terms of the ability to make laws that aspire to fairness being applicable across the board on an egalitarian basis first and foremost, and putting the ideological battles a little to one side.

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe January 20, 2013 at 10:08 am #

            The churches profits should have a tax component,be not allowed to go offshore to Vatican(and other) vaults, and tax payers funds should come with the express terms that they are to be used in a secular way (to represent the whole community) and not be allowed to pick and choose the morals of the end recipient of the original funding direction.
            No church has the right to monopolise health for the broader community by way of discriminating against potential employees.
            Those who have to use a health care service must be availed the best, not the godliest.
            I’ll say it again.If the ‘god botherers’ cannot practise what THEY preach about tolerance they can fuck right off, and leave the job to someone else.Otherwise in my view they are stealing.

            BTW,
            My level of tolerance is not in question, because I am not the one claiming to have it as my foundation.

            BTW 2
            Labor’s keen on making sure none of their own have, to suffer the pittance and indignity of Newstart.
            Hypocritical w*nkers.(Under Gillards watch)

            http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/government-a-home-for-lost-labor-and-dumped-premiers/story-e6freuy9-1226557304070

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey January 20, 2013 at 11:27 am #

              Okay so I’m making the broad assumption that no religious institutions that receive funding from the government are 100% taxpayer funded. Correct me if I’m wrong because that would obviously make them state institutions.

              I think some of what you’d like to require is probably too difficult to regulate if you seriously intended to police it, But voluntarily and in principle I think its the right and responsible thing to do.

              I’m really against the kind of thing that is accused of church run medical centres in the US and which Moira posts may also be happening here. I think that people have the right to choose and I’m willing to stand up and defend that right. You chose pseudonym does not serve you ill when it comes to identifying and weeding out hypocrisy.

              I do however think that one can’t claim the right to say others should be tolerant because having read their books that interpretation is available even while simultaneously announcing that those who don’t follow those books are entitled to their intolerance. Having argued that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander with respect to discrimination laws I think we’re obliged to reciprocate when it comes to tolerance.

              I think we’ll leave the side issue about Gillard’s apparent hypocrisy in other matters to one side, taking your point, but continuing to urge her to reconsider on this one based on the sound reasoning and sincere convictions we’ve already expressed in these pages.

              Like

              • doug quixote January 22, 2013 at 12:02 am #

                I think we’ve had this discussion about a dozen times over similar issues, HG. Please note my usual comments and I’ll note your usual comments. 🙂

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 8:48 am #

                  Like

              • Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 11:13 am #

                Just a wee point HG,
                There is no religion or government formed around a pseudonym. I chose it simply to highlight the hypocrisy of Christian mouthpieces (the ones who dare question their motives, as ‘Christophobes’.A suitable juxtaposition I believe.
                I am claiming to be Christian and behaving in a manner which is totally disconnected from their claimed belief structure.When I start changing laws,can discriminate politically and suck taxpayers dry, you can boil me in my own hypocrisy.
                Until then, there is plenty of ‘Christian Stock’ you can access if you choose an earlier cook off.
                My pseudo is not Tolerance-ophile.

                As for DQ shooting soggy split peas from the sidelines, from behind your legs.

                Oo-ouch-flinch.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 11:47 am #

                  Hypo,

                  I’ll leave DQ to one side since the train wreck probably says all that I wanted to say about his interjection.

                  When it comes to disputing the issue that you’re taking up however, looking back it seems that I may have been trying to construct a kind of syllogism that you may disagree with. Syllogisms being mostly fallacious may nevertheless serve to get to the point of what the fallacy is by highlighting the weakest link/s in a way of thinking.

                  I’ll respond to the issue about Christians here although I’ve previously tried to tailor my comments about religion to a wider spectrum. I think what works for Christians probably works for Muslims and Jews most of the time. So I’m sure readers from those faiths who saw this would self identify.

                  – Christians are supposed to be tolerant.
                  – Unfortunately Christians also want to support exceptionalism.
                  – Exceptionalism as a form of discrimination is intolerant.
                  – Christians are therefore being intolerant.
                  Saying one thing and doing another is called hypocrisy.
                  – Christians who are supposed to be tolerant but are actually being intolerant are being hypocritical.

                  How am I going so far.

                  Now I want to flip it.

                  – Critics of discrimination are criticising intolerance
                  (they may also be targeting other harms, but intolerance is part of it in all cases?)
                  – If you criticise intolerance then you mean to support tolerance.
                  – If you don’t mean to support tolerance then criticising intolerance in others would also be hypocritical because it would involve the same kind of double standard.

                  That was my case…

                  Any aside about your pseudonym was meant to be friendly and completely devoid of any attempt to deliver any kind of cunning barb….

                  The criticism I make if indeed it fits is the clear stated one that we’re not entitled to criticise the intolerance of others unless we’re prepared to offer them tolerance.

                  Like

                  • Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 1:55 pm #

                    Then we agree (of sorts) that , those whose paid vocation (industry) is preaching tolerance are bound to practise it.
                    I’d say as taxpayers we have a right to withdraw our contributions (tax breaks or any other money/rebate from the public purse) to any organisation who falls at the first hurdle.

                    Any other scenario is surely one where such orgs are stealing/embezzling or trading under a veil of false pretence.
                    Perhaps someone from the church or the tax office can publish the constitution of those who receive our taxes.That way we can read the bit where they say they actively uphold/promote practise tolerance.If it isn’t there should they get the cash?

                    Or they can simply pay us back.There are more important things to do with our cash than sponsor gay bashing.

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

                      I mostly agree…

                      Except that what they’re actually doing is running institutions that do good things as long as you agree with a few non-negotiable ideologically driven practices like a degree of discrimination that you wouldn’t have to put up with elsewhere.

                      For 90% of the aged community religious aged care is either chosen and provided on a faith appropriate basis and doesn’t overly impact their enjoyment of life. If you’re gay and happen to have a partner though, then you’re shit of luck! Mannie pointed out how hard it is to find a place for people in his situation and I have no reason not to believe him.

                      As long as you don’t need to exercise any control over your reproductive rights then there’s little to worry about in terms of the standard of care you’ll receive in a Catholic run hospital. That may also represent 90% of the hospital’s function. Moira pointed out what happens if you’re at all keen on exercising your right to be part of the other 10%.

                      Most churches have schools and to the extent that they only cater to kids of religious parents whose intention to indoctrinate would seem unavoidable I don’t know that other aspects of their literacy and numeracy are neglected in the least. I’m hoping that upwards of 90% of the public school curriculum would also be taught in private religious schools.

                      So my view is that we’ve made a deal with these institutions in recognition of the fact that where they to close then we’d have to fund more of those services out of taxpayer’s pockets. And that since the deal involves less than 90% funding then perhaps we’re well served by it economically speaking.

                      I’ve used 90% throughout to illustrate the point that some higher proportion of the requirement than is represented by the funding is being met, that being the bargain that these institutions have been willing to strike…..

                      I do however take the point that if the price that they extract is this exceptionalism then we need to renegotiate to protect the interests of the percentage as a minority of very real people who are slipping through the cracks as it were when religious based service providers discriminate against them. It isn’t permissible in any other field of professional conduct to discriminate as such, and if that level of professionalism can’t be accommodated successfully within the faith based institutions as would be my first choice for change, then regretfully though unapologetically I think we’d have to make alternative arrangements. That could mean more clinics and competing institutions that will cater for all the community’s needs without fear or favour, or if the churches are really unwilling to play ball then it may mean cutting their funding.

                      Does that not seem fair?

                      Like

                  • doug quixote January 22, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

                    Sorry, did I interrupt a private conversation?

                    I think my views on religion should be well known to you both, as should my antagonism to the use of public funding to support proselytisers and their so-called charitable institutions.

                    “Double Standards R Us” would be a good title for the religious franchises.

                    To HG : There are many trains which ought to be blown off their tracks; this particular one will defy our efforts beyond the end of time, regrettably.

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

                      No hard feelings but although it was a just a joke there’s always room to stretch the metaphor so as to say that in the case of a real train you probably want to check whether it is carrying friend or foe before you blow the bridge!

                      Like

  16. Hypocritophobe January 22, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    Well Gillard may be broadening her ‘legitimising’ horizons, now.Whilst I accept we need more women,and indigenous women especially, in our Parliament it cannot EVER be a case of tokenism.
    Gillard approaching Nova Peris appears to be just that.
    If Nova Peris had joined a party first, I would see this is a worthy effort.What I see and smell is not something I would call meritorious, nor non-discriminatory.
    Surely this should have been Nova Peris’s approach.Her desire to make a political difference.Her choice.Her yelling pick me.
    I claim she is being used.Used to quell the outrage over her cosy deal with the ACL.

    And if Nova Peris fails?

    Like

  17. hudsongodfrey January 22, 2013 at 7:13 pm #

    Here’s a video we may be interested in, or at least that I was in connection with topics where we touch on atheism and feminism repeatedly. I discovered this woman on YouTube recently responding to something that ZOMGitsChriss had posted (or vice versa) and on seeing this one earlier today thought it might be of some interest.

    I don’t know how it will slot in as I’ve tried to pick it up at the 18 minute mark where she stops talking about feminism and finally moves onto atheism. About he views on feminism I’ll just say that I assume she has sons, hoping that’s not taken to be wrong or too presumptive of me. I think her views are both controversial and thought provoking. And I hope Jennifer doesn’t mind my taking the liberty of posting this here. She’s welcome to delete it if she does.

    Like

  18. conor January 26, 2013 at 9:02 am #

    What I find very disturbing is that in all the debate almost no discussion is ever raised about the “plight” of the single heterosexual male. Under this legislation will a church seek to refuse or discontinue employment if they desire only married men to work with them, an unmarried man living with his female partner, an avowed atheist, etc.
    Too much of this discussion is centred only on females, and gay/lesbian/transexuals, and I feel we need to be completely inclusive in our condemnation of this attempt to thwart freedom of lifestyle.
    The single older straight male is already heavily marginalised in so many workplaces we don’t need to see more discrimination occurring.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe January 26, 2013 at 10:38 am #

      Condemn away.Don’t let fear hold you back.

      Like

      • conor January 26, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

        OH I will! I will!

        Like

  19. Hypocritophobe January 28, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    “@conor January 28, 2013 at 11:29 am #

    Hypocritophobe
    I’m not the one being aggressive, personally abusive and incredibly rude”

    Dear Troll dick,
    You came here and on your first post you deliberately agitated.(You do it every time) You do it every time.You got your reaction.Your site is as boring as bat shit.You are even more dull, and your ego is like a hot air balloon jammed under a bridge.You are also as predictable as the permanent smudge on you over stretched Y-Fronts.
    No more bird seed from me.Be gone little man.

    FOYJBDCF

    Like

    • conor February 4, 2013 at 11:24 pm #

      what website? Do what every time?
      I have no idea what your issue is?

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe February 5, 2013 at 12:45 am #

        “@conor January 28, 2013 at 11:29 am #

        Hypocritophobe
        I’m not the one being aggressive, personally abusive and incredibly rude”

        Dear Troll dick,
        You came here and on your first post you deliberately agitated.(You do it every time) You do it every time.You got your reaction.Your site is as boring as bat shit.You are even more dull, and your ego is like a hot air balloon jammed under a bridge.You are also as predictable as the permanent smudge on you over stretched Y-Fronts.
        No more bird seed from me.Be gone little man.

        FOYJBDCF

        Like

  20. Hypocritophobe February 4, 2013 at 10:21 pm #

    This photo says it all.Great work from the photographer.Kudos.
    An image that has recorded and will continue to reflect this time/place.

    Like

  21. Hypocritophobe February 4, 2013 at 10:48 pm #

    Leigh Sales 7.03 2nite nailed it when she asked Roxon whether the Labor caucus would prefer Abbott in govt over Rudd as leader.Roxon did not answer.Avoided it completely.
    Game over.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe February 5, 2013 at 12:42 am #

      EDIT, not 7.03, try 7.30

      Like

    • doug quixote February 5, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

      Does that need an answer? Rudd is a Labor member, and obviously preferable to Abbott. End of.

      Why do you even bother repeating Sales’ facetious question?

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe February 5, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

        The fact you too never answered it and defended Roxon proves how close Rudd is.If a Labor govt is important to you, DQ, you will accept reality, but I see you as a Gillard apologist long before a ‘loyalty to values’ man.Youre NSW right all the way.
        As was Roxon,obviously, which is why she snatched it while the going was good.
        The media got Gillard in and she will probably go the same way as whispers with no substance turn into bullshit at 100 decibels.C’est la vie.
        There are 3 possibilities Gillard gets re-elected,25%, Abbott 25% or Rudd 50%.
        If Labor reject Rudd they install Abbott.They have 3 or 4 weeks to wake up.

        When the going get’s tough the weak dessert the ship.The will be more desserters served up real soon,if Labor tries to tough this out.
        And WTF would Simon Crean know, FFS?The man is a professional loser.
        A male version of Julie Bishop.

        Like

        • doug quixote February 5, 2013 at 11:57 pm #

          Did you read my post? 26 words, all of them clear.

          If you think I am NSW Labor right you are sadly lacking in comprehension.

          Like

        • zerograv1 February 6, 2013 at 4:03 am #

          I cant agree with your percentages, I make it Abbott 55%, Gillard 20% Rudd 25%. Abbott is 68% v Gillard 32%, Abbott is 55% v Rudd 45%. I dont see Rudd challenging, for one there are some in the ALP caucus that wont have Kev back under any circumstances and his supporters have a better read on the numbers this time around, I don’t think he has them. Secondly the type of responses Rudd is giving on challenge questioning by the media is completely different this time. Last time there was a quiet merriment and twinkle in the eye of his denials (He of course went on to challenge and lose) This time he is annoyed, dismissive and I believe has done a deal to cement his involvement in the party on his terms with a guarantee of its continuance in exchange for loyalty to Gillard. His emotional state is completely different and I also think he perceives that the electoral tide is against Labor unlike when he defeated Howard. No-one willingly drinks from a poisoned chalice.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey February 6, 2013 at 9:09 am #

            You’re closer to the mark using something resembling poll figures to predict a result. Hypo made the mistake in my view of trying to make them add up to 100%, whereas you didn’t quite do two party preferred either.

            What you’d have to do is avoid comparing leaders of the same party with one another, and instead run the permutations of Abbott or Turnbull versus either Gillard or Rudd.

            So if the Gillard-Abbott tussle sits at 48-52% 2PP, then Gillard-Turnbull is probably 44-56%, Rudd Abbott maybe 52-48%, and Rudd-Turnbull may be back at 48-52%.

            I am not by the way positing those figures to be accurate, just illustrative of the fact that if either side changes leaders and is the only party that do so then it may well be an effective strategy. But if both sides likewise change leaders then the situation may not change. At which point a bit of game theory and political savvy wouldn’t go astray.

            Governments should never change leaders midstream and preferably even in opposition only at the last moment before an election campaign starts in earnest. And when you do so they have to actually have broad enough support within the party as to prevent internal back biting. So while I suspect that either Rudd or Turnbull might be able to pick up a few points in the polls, neither has convinced me that they’d unite their parties behind them.

            On that basis I suspect that if things continue to languish with Labor then they stand a better chance of ditching Gillard than the Liberals do of dumping Abbott. The only question is why Rudd who has the same problem as Turnbull does in that he lacks strong enough party-room support.

            The best case scenario in my estimation is that in early June Gillard graciously steps down in favour if somebody like Bob Carr who then goes ahead and moves the election forward a couple of weeks to appease the Jewish community and sports fans, going on just marginally unsettle Abbott enough to pip him at the post.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe February 6, 2013 at 10:37 am #

              There is no mistake in ‘the principle logic’ in my % take that at this moment of Gillard/Abbott or Rudd in the seat at election time, they are the likely outcomes in a two horse race.
              The runner up due to disillusionment may very well be a shared prize.
              My main point is that Labor are boosting Abbott’s chances with this silly dance.
              The fact that they cannot admit the failure of Gillard, and therefore caucuses choice, comes down to stubborn pride.If they refuse to renege they die.Simple.Numbers not required.Polling not needed.

              Like

              • hudsongodfrey February 6, 2013 at 10:45 am #

                It may be a point well but too emphatically made then. The maths would readily lead anyone to assume the same misleading thing that I did, simply because you can’t make 75% add up to a 2PP poll.

                Like

        • hudsongodfrey February 6, 2013 at 8:31 am #

          Simon Crean may have lacked the charisma to capture the public’s imagination as a leader, but the professional loser tag you’ve given him is quite unfair. Has he sulked off and disappeared because his personal ambitions didn’t reach the heights that he hoped? Or has he been a better team player than most?

          Contrasting that with your love of Rudd or Doug’s of Gillard I think neither of you are seeing things for what they are. And nor might I add are the politicians themselves. Canberra seems to be so rife with bitchiness that you could cut the air with a knife. And a year long election campaign isn’t likely to help matters.

          We elected these people to govern, not spend their entire terms bickering among the ranks like school children.

          Like

          • Anonymous February 6, 2013 at 10:31 am #

            HG-My criticism of Crean is based on his achievements,vision,leadership qualities,and loyalty.(Lack thereof)
            He’s still employed despite having a visible deficit in all departments.
            Their are great union icons and there are seat warming lapdogs.
            See if you can guess we he falls under, in my categorising system?
            He has the credibility of a gnat.His loyalty to Gillard would last only until her successor was installed, and his caucus vote has obviously done that many times.

            Charisma is a non event.This is not At The Movies.
            Youre going to have to accept that Australias longest election campaign id Gillards doing,but even a decade long one won’t save her bacon.

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe February 6, 2013 at 10:33 am #

              EDIT

              Me above,
              February 6, 2013 at 10:31 am #

              posted an empty email/name box.

              Like

            • hudsongodfrey February 6, 2013 at 10:47 am #

              I assume Hypo this is you.

              Again I think you’re being unfair, and doing so perhaps in the main because his loyalties aren’t aligned with your own.

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe February 6, 2013 at 11:15 am #

                My point being that his loyalty is so obviously left till the very last minute.

                Apparently he supports the leader,whoever that may be, and yet leaderships change.

                I know it’s just politics HG, but seriously, it is so obvious that the word ‘loyalty’ is wasted on a lot of them.

                Can you imagine how many of them said
                It’s OK mate, (insert leaders name here) you have my support 100%, we are all behind you.
                All this discussion we are bouncing around is my mind mind relatively fruitless.
                I agree with what you said about leadership spills etc Leadership changes should be about what is good for the electorate.
                We are at that point now.
                And if you use the faceless men’s system,plummeting polls, we are also at that point.
                In a less hostile environment waiting till later (June?) might work.But I feel by then Labor would look like a puppy slaughtering party.And by then if the polls kept diving there would be ten more resignations.

                I say the window is not that big.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey February 6, 2013 at 11:27 am #

                  And to the Party? No Loyalty?

                  Like

                  • Hypocritophobe February 6, 2013 at 11:42 am #

                    That’s not so simple any more.I’d say, outwardly yes.But as you know this is faux Labor we are talking about now.

                    So any individual may be loyal to this one version, but this version is not really Labor, if their generational core values are taken into account.He may as well be loyal to the coalition, given what this mob have done to Labor.

                    There is going to need to be massive,massive changes at Labor.

                    I would say in Crean’s case, he is more loyal his warm/fuzzy recollection of the ‘union’ movement of days gone by.(Faction)
                    He is just biding his time till retirement, and trying to keep the surf flat until then.

                    Like

                    • hudsongodfrey February 6, 2013 at 11:53 am #

                      I simply disagree with your premise. This may not be the Labor party you want it to be but nor is it an impostor usurping the real Labor party that is locked behind some iron mask in a dungeon.

                      There is only one, and it has changed, mostly for the worst, but not so much perhaps as to make the old enemy preferable. That’s my point, and its really the only one I can make, because unlike some ideologues and dreamers I don’t live in a world of alternate realities.

                      So either we support reasonable steps to fix the Labor party that we have, or we switch allegiances to the next best thing that comes along. Sadly I don’t see much on offer though. The Greens are long on ideals but really short on pragmatism, and the Liberals either support or want to go further with all the current policies I most despise.

                      Like

                    • doug quixote February 6, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

                      HG, You are the epitome of good sense.

                      Like

  22. Hypocritophobe February 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm #

    For a while there I thought you considered voting Green was an option, but I see all roads lead back to Gillard.

    Because in the end, that’s all Labor has.Gillard and a dissolving caucus.
    Don’t believe me,it’s what they (Labor) are saying as we speak.So I’ll stick with my unchanging view.Labor is gone for all money, and they only have limited time to change that.

    I’m not selling Abbott so let’s agree to fuck that idea off,if you and DQ can mange to do that.
    Labor(faux) themselves are creating a vacuum into which many Abbott votes will rapidly flow.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey February 6, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

      Seeing everything through the prism of hating Gillard seems to be clouding your judgement to the point where I think you’re misrepresenting a lot of what I’m trying to tell you quite badly.

      Sure voting Green may be an option. A better one than voting for the opposition IMHO. But I don’t really think it is a game changer right at the moment. I think that is consistent with what I’ve said in the past.

      In the context in which I was writing earlier the question I tried to answer was how to fix our political system. I see two ways; either one shapes the major party that they supported in the past into one they’d be willing to support in the future, or start they with a minor party and embark on the far bigger task of building it up to the point where it might be more influential and preferably actually take government.

      However! My feeling is that by the time the Greens become mainstream enough to gather a large slice of the vote then they’ll probably look very little like the party of the left that they have been. They might even become something that I would truly define as a faux version of Labor.

      Labor on the other hand are traditionally a party on the centre left with a strong Union connection. Just on the face of it I’m not so sure that having a major party that associates itself with workers’ interests isn’t somewhat appropriate as a foil to voices on the right of conservative politics. So agreed as we may be that the current Labor isn’t what we’d hoped it might have been, the choice to try and fix it seems like the more pragmatic and attractive one to me.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe February 6, 2013 at 10:08 pm #

        I hate what Gillard has done, and the machinations and mechanisms and players who enabled the wholesale devaluing of Labor values.
        I wish no ill to her, above political oblivion.She deserves it.In a wholesale way.
        What remnants of Labor are left after that impending inevitability is the challenge, in regards to re-birthing real Labor.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey February 6, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

          I think we all know this by now, and agree on the facts at least.

          Like

      • Hypocritophobe February 6, 2013 at 10:31 pm #

        And I forgot to add that fixing is certainly an option, but it’s hard to fix a party who is deaf,dumb and arrogant, and who believes they have the settings perfectly balanced when clearly,they haven’t, and yet they deny it.
        We will see no change in Labor, while background FWits call the shots, and foreground narcissists deny that they even exist.
        The only remaining mechanism for real change, before Labor is unrecognisable, is at the ballot box, and I don’t think you see the flaw in that option.
        They’re not interested let alone listening.
        D E N I A L.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey February 7, 2013 at 12:22 am #

          I suppose that the Labor membership imagine that it is always easier, or at least usually better, to try and fix things from a position of power than from one of powerlessness. Clearly they want to stay in office….

          So good luck trying to tell today’s politicians to govern as if there is no tomorrow, stick to your ideology and consequences be damned! Go down in a blaze of legendary adulation like Whitlam if at all possible, but whatever you do don’t compromise…

          Do you not think that if only they could get a clear majority that maybe they could and would govern more in character with traditional Labor values?

          As a minority government they’re quite definitely forced into a position of compromise from where it has become difficult to tell whether it is them, the polls or their balance of power partners who’re in the driving seat.

          What I think we may agree upon then is that the numbers that are driving their decision making have a fair bit to do with where the marginal seats are, and that in turn is informing appeasement of the right despite antagonising the left. The theory being that if voters on the left vote Green then one way or the other the Greens will either preference Labor or work with them in coalition.

          It’s as desperate and ideologically unsound as it is Machiavellian, but clearly it is what they think will work.

          And yes it sucks, but at some point we have to stop just throwing up our hands and saying how much it offends our ideological sensibilities, because the truth is that ideology is of very little use to members on the opposition benches.

          Like

        • zerograv1 February 7, 2013 at 1:35 am #

          This is just part of the political cycle that occurs in both major parties, Hubris inevitably leads to nemesis – It happened to Howard, Kennett, Whitlam – The ALP has commenced believing its own publicity, stopped measuring the pulse of the electorate and fanbase and it proves inevitably fatal in election campaigns and Hollywood and the results and fall are often hard and painful

          Like

  23. Anonymous February 10, 2013 at 10:48 am #

    She has certainly legitimised pork barrelling and class elitism.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-10/gillard-flags-workplace-reform-for-working-parents/4510414
    Unemployed single parents are a lower life form, and those without children an even lower life form.Well we all know how low refugees are.

    There will a lot more of this and most announcements will try to paint Abbott as a misogynist.Most people won’t give a toss about the word.
    And most people outside Labor can see how desperate Labor has become.Their recent disgraceful Tarkine decision will win a few thousand votes in Tassie, and lose a few hundred thousand where it counts, on the mainland.

    Pork meet barrel.I urge readers to keep track of the handouts and add them up(and onto the growing deficit)

    Astute readers will also have noticed Rudds shrewd move to expose the person/s who stole/released the footage which damaged him, by approaching the Fed police again.Is it a shot over the bow?.The Libs could use pressure behind the scenes as well, and that could have two effects.One scenario would benefit Rudd, the other would benefit Abbott.Watch this space.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 11:08 am #

      The above post is me.(no email inserted etc.)
      The link within, is obviously wrong.
      It should be, as below..

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-10/gillard-flags-workplace-reform-for-working-parents/4510414

      Hopefully JW will edit the post accordingly.

      Like

    • doug quixote February 10, 2013 at 12:40 pm #

      It had to be you; no-one else could be wrong so often and still hope to retain any credibility.

      Are you devil’s advocate, do you actually try to be wrong on every count, or is it a gift?

      “Some are born wrong, some acquire wrongness, and others have wrongness thrust upon them.”

      (apologies to the Bard) 🙂

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

        Being condemned by you my fine young cannibal is totes AOK.
        It’s a badge of honour to cop a basting from a bloke who reckons Howards bigoted anti refugee speech is a highlight in the cause for humanitarian principle.

        Although the outcome will be abysmally wretched and induce nationwide vomiting and diarrhoea,I will eventually be telling you,(or the exoskeleton thereof) “I told you so”, when after turning deaf and arrogant,you and faux Labor are exposed, by the unanimous exit polls and the hate for democracy comes back to bite the NSW right,via the electoral landslide they wilfully created.

        From what I can see just looking at this site, only 45/50% (at most) of traditional votes would consider voting for a Gillard led Labor party.
        Good luck turning around people who put principle before party.
        Thank the cosmos most of the electors are becoming more savvy to both Tea Party spin machines.

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

          * 45/50% of traditional Labor voters. etc.(In total)

          Like

    • paul walter February 10, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

      “She has certainly legitimised pork barrelling and class elitism”.
      No, that became virtuous during the long years of the Howard coalition government, when it became not only the norm, but legendary.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 3:00 pm #

        Howard, Gillard, no diff.

        Like

        • helvityni February 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm #

          “Howard, Gillard, no diff.”

          Abbott less/worse than Howard, and I was no fan of Johhny.

          Like

  24. paul walter February 10, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

    I understand the annoyance at the worst of Labor’s flaws and share it, yet remain absolutely unconvinced that a meaningful alternative is available…yes, I’d prefer the Greens also, but it won’t happen, there it is!!
    If the only alternative is an Abbott government, I’d suggest that the people working so assiduously to eliminate Labor, are actually myopically sewing the seeds for their own later misery.
    ………

    For me, the crux of this conversation is back to hudsongodfrey’s remark to Hypocritophobe, re “hate”.
    If it is true that the ALP is flawed, fine.
    Identify where and what the flaw or flaws are and expose them, but to become so resentful that sense of proportion vanishes given the context in which the government must operate, is wilful blindness and ultimately self defeating, we cant afford the self- indulgence of self righteousness to t he extent that other, arguably worse, threats are ignored.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

      “Identify where and what the flaw or flaws are and expose them”
      To who and how often?
      Are you deaf and blind?
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-09/labor-reform-faces-internal-resistance/4509782

      How many senior Labor politicians will it take till you/faux Labor believe the reality?
      Labor is not listening,the supporters(rusted ons) still accept the faux Labor as a Labor morph.I don’t ,and now millions or others don’t.
      For the last time, this faux Labor are their own worst enemies.The barrackers are just in denial.
      Honestly Paul,the NSW who destroyed Rudd/installed Gillard run the show.They are up to their guts in corruption and in case you weren’t on earth yesterday they came out and openly admitted the faction of most evil intent and most power refuse to relinquish power or let the grass roots have their say.
      So I appreciate you call for futility, but frankly anyone championing the current govt is delusional if they think that they are either Labor or capable of change under Gillard.

      FAUX LABOR IS SELF DESTRUCTING.

      FAUX LABOR WILL BE THE SOLE/ONLY/SINGLE/DOMINANT REASON, IF ABBOTT GETS IN.

      Don’t blame the victims of Labor’s betrayals for the inevitable outcomes.It’s ugly.

      Like

      • paul walter February 10, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

        Do I have to ask again?
        WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE!!?

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

          For the last time.
          Labor ‘real’ led by anyone other than Gillard or any other NSW right lackey.

          This outbreak of dichotomy, may also be diluted by a wholesale swing to the Greens, who are far more friendly to workers,unless of course you include the workers in the industry of “current addiction to reducing wildernesses to big black silica encrusted landscape.

          Sell me the pitch that ‘any Labor’ is better than no Labor one more time and I will need a new keyboard.This one will either drown in spew or wear out, reminding you how vile this faux Labor scam is.

          Like

          • paul walter February 10, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

            No you don’t…
            I said even current Labor is a better choice when the only realistic possibility otherwise is Abbott, not any Labor is better than no Labor.
            I said above, in an ideal world we get a Greens government , but where we are is, unfortunately, lodged intractably within reality.

            I never argued the toss with your criticisms of Labor because they are the sort that bother me intensely.
            In the end, if the only difference between Labor and Abbott is a shot of anaesthetic on the way to the wall and the firing squad, I’m still better off with the imperfect ALP.
            Do you SERIOUSLY entertain the thought of an Abbott government in preference to Gillard Labor?

            Don’t answer that, I don’t think I could take the shock…

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

              FMD

              Last time.

              It’s not just me.
              Faux-Labor will install Abbott.
              If the millions of swinging voters switch to Abbott who can blame them when you look at the reality.

              I’m not voting for Abbott.
              No endorsing him.
              Stop twisting reality.

              Don’t replay this boring as batshit crap game.
              I know you “get it”, you just want to indulge in ‘referred pain’.
              The pain will be shared by the entire community if that makes you feel any better.You can thank Gillard and the NSW right for what we have and what we’ll get.And whether you accept it or not, a lot of that is pseudo Howard.
              The thing is there is a very likely chance Abbott will win -and guess what,it will not hinge on the epic brain struggle we have here.
              If you don’t like that why don’t YOU raise the fucking roof.

              Honestly the most illogical and pathetic defence of any political debate is ‘vote for her because she’s not him’. The reason Rudd is preferred is because he spoke AGAINST the shit that haunts faux-Labor now.Whether he was a control freak or not is infantile.And ‘of’ he arse-holes who publicly accused him of this ‘control freak’ BS?
              Guess who they are?
              The very same dweebs who it turns out are now, are fully fledged NSW factioners and compliant Obeid ball lickers.
              A vote for Gillard is vote for the values of a handful of destroyers.

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 4:03 pm #

                EDIT
                And ‘of’ the arse-holes…..

                Like

    • helvityni February 10, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

      I can live with the flawed Labor as on all accounts it still is a much better choice than the Liberals…watching The Insiders this morning the most unpleasant Nicki Savva made me reach for the OFF button..

      If Abbott gets in, my “OFF button” will be “leaving the country”, it’s not just that I can’t stand Abbott, but besides Turnbull there is no talent to talk about.Howard years were too depressing and I personally find Abbott even worse.

      Like

      • paul walter February 10, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

        “Revolting” I would have said- too crude- but I think Helvi, your description of Savva as “unpleasant”, is perfect for the occasion.

        Like

      • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

        Savva is not my cup of tea either, but she did not embellish or bullshit about reality once.Almost all other panellists (Barry included)saw the Labor scenario similarly.
        Unless until the severely compromised all forgiving faux Labor posse turn the party around,post election there will be a polarised community anyway.
        A huge slab of voters will have rejected Gillard wholesale.
        I doubt they will give a toss about the dozen or so opinions here.It is the base load of policies/back-flips/betrayals which will count.And whether those of us to the left care or not.many voters swing, and will look back at the Howard years and think,’I survived,how bad can it be under Abbott.
        No-one here at NPFS has to convince/convert anyone else.The real world says different.
        Abbott has been almost neutral in his comments for a fortnight and his popularity is climbing, whereas Gillard who tried to BS her way into limiting the parameters of the “campaign real”, till August has been campaigning ever since and pork barrelling freely.
        It’s your vote Helvi. I hope it saves us all.Gawd knows faux Labor can’t.

        Like

  25. Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

    Mr Bean trying to *tell* the scumbots

    + TELL = (asking, Pretty please,if it’s Ok by you, at some time,perhaps,maybe,if it’s not too much trouble.Oh,oops sorry I imposed.Just forget I said a thing.You just carry on as usual.Is there anything I can do to make them silly members shut up?)

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe February 10, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

      Here’s the picture that goes with the Mr Bean post

      Like

  26. Hypocritophobe February 11, 2013 at 3:58 pm #

    This is how the WA Labor Party self destructs, its share.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-11/tough-fight-expected-for-labor-senate-positions/4512532?section=wa

    Abbott must be throbbing with joy.

    Like

    • helvityni February 11, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

      What about you, Hypo?

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe February 11, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

        Nope.
        I know you keep swallowing the same hook/line and sinker as all the other pro Gillard fans Helvi, and I have been over the ground a million times.
        Gillard is as Liberal as Abbott.
        So for the 8 millionth time I don’t support Abbott.I just happen to to support the party who existed up until the very minute they abandoned what was once the blood that flowed through their veins.
        All I do is sit back and hope things will change for the better,but several times a day faux Labor throws a few more thousand votes away.
        Today is no exception.

        How do you think Gillard should respond to cleaning up the unions?
        Abbott is spot on, except his motive is to destroy unions, completely.
        So you see Helvi,if you see this as a two horse race, it’s a race to see who destroys Labor first.Abbott or Gillard.

        My money is on Gillard.

        Like

        • helvityni February 11, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

          I do not care if Labor has Julia, Rudd or anyone else at the helm, all I see that Abbott led country is not for me, I could tolerate Turnbull, Brendan Nelson even…but Australia under Abbott is not conceivable for me,

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe February 11, 2013 at 7:14 pm #

            As the Church (the band( said Helvi, i’m almost with you.
            If Gillard gets back in she will take Labor and us to a place we will all regret, and from which there is no return.(Same as Abbott)
            Pray she gets ditched sooner rather than later.
            Remember also that all of the things which have ruined labor are the things Abbott’s campaign will focus on.
            The location (rock and hard place) faux-Labor finds themselves in is not our doing,if that’s any consolation.
            I want what you want and more.Only Gillard as you know all too well as not welcome in that aspiration.
            Like I keep saying my view is more universal than many think.A hell of a lot of senior Labor faithful are seething about Rudd’s demise.I’m more pissed off with the Tea Party-ism of Labor.
            This election will be the last time we get to air any ‘fairness’ we hold dear.If Gillard or Abbott are successful, we enable and authorise their actions so far, and those going forward.The future ones will be way worse.The outcomes will be so far right we’ll think we are living in Texas.
            Believe me Gillard will not swerve back to the left— now or ever.

            Like

            • paul walter February 11, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

              Hypo, you keep failing to grasp that most of us accept that the ALP is a flawed entity, perhaps terminally.
              We have nothing left but hope, also.
              I think Labor has proved to be better in government for most people than would have been the case under Howard/Costello/Abbott.
              I agree with you that Labor seems to have failed in the crucial and grey area of Civil Liberties, “security” and the like, but I think this is as much to the now embedded influence of foreign powers and huge financial formations within the major parties; the consequent changes in legislation, involving such things as near-arbitrary detention and the like will eventually be recognised as some thing pushed, behind the scenes, by people elsewhere with no concern for democracy in their countries or anywhere else..
              In short it’s globalisation of the wrong sort rather than exclusively the ALP’s fault, that our democracy seems in decline. Government was already in a weakened condition after Howard’s predations, when Labor inherited the system in 2007.
              And I believe Abbott would speed that up worse even than Gillard.

              Like

              • Hypocritophobe February 11, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

                I will guarantee that under Gillard Labor has zero chance of getting anywhere near enough votes to form even a minority government.
                I know that those of you who think otherwise, think I am manic on this, and frankly I am.Simply because I want Australia to have areal Labor party.A real choice.
                If Gillard holds the leadership, September is not the time traditional Labor voters who faint at the sight of blood will want to be accessing any Aussie media.

                Switch a few words around in this oldy Paul.

                “Look What They’ve Done To My *Song” (*Labor Party) :
                Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song
                Well it’s the only thing I could do half right
                And it’s turning out all wrong, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                Look what they’ve done to my brain, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my brain
                Well they picked it like a chicken bone
                And I think I’m half insane, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                I wish I could find a good book to live in
                Wish I could find a good book
                Well, if I could find a real good book
                I’d never have to come out and look at
                What they’ve done to my song

                La la la…
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                But maybe it’ll all be all right, Ma
                Maybe it’ll all be OK
                Well, if the people are buying tears
                I’ll be rich some day, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                Ils ont changé ma chanson, Ma
                Ils ont changé ma chanson
                C’est la seule chose que je peux faire
                Et á§e n’est pas bon, Ma
                Ils ont changé ma chanson

                Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song
                Well they tied it up in a plastic bag
                And turned it upside down
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                Ils ont changé ma chanson, Ma…

                Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song
                Well it’s the only thing I could do all right
                And they turned it upside down
                Look what they’ve done to my song
                Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song
                Well it’s the only thing I could do half right
                And it’s turning out all wrong, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                Look what they’ve done to my brain, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my brain
                Well they picked it like a chicken bone
                And I think I’m half insane, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                I wish I could find a good book to live in
                Wish I could find a good book
                Well, if I could find a real good book
                I’d never have to come out and look at
                What they’ve done to my song

                La la la…
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                But maybe it’ll all be all right, Ma
                Maybe it’ll all be OK
                Well, if the people are buying tears
                I’ll be rich some day, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                Ils ont changé ma chanson, Ma
                Ils ont changé ma chanson
                C’est la seule chose que je peux faire
                Et á§e n’est pas bon, Ma
                Ils ont changé ma chanson

                Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song
                Well they tied it up in a plastic bag
                And turned it upside down
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                Ils ont changé ma chanson, Ma…

                Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma
                Look what they’ve done to my song
                Well it’s the only thing I could do all right
                And they turned it upside down
                Look what they’ve done to my song

                ********************

                Like

                • doug quixote February 12, 2013 at 12:55 am #

                  Not manic, just deranged and deluded.

                  Like

                  • Hypocritophobe February 12, 2013 at 1:30 am #

                    Another badge of honour.
                    You’re too generous.

                    Like

                    • doug quixote February 13, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

                      Stupid is as stupid does, to quote Forrest Gump (the original) 🙂

                      Like

  27. Hypocritophobe February 13, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

    Gillard supporters accelerate their demise-by showing how shit scared they are

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-13/labor-mps-circulate-anti-rudd-email/4516616?section=justin

    And if they think we are buying into their faux-concern about Indigenous people, at the last minute, they are dreaming.Gillard has never been remotely concerned for the First Australians.
    Another day, another 5000 votes down the gurgler.

    Like

  28. Hypocritophobe February 22, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

    Agh here she goes.Back on her favourite hobby horse.It’s legs have worn down to the knees.Edge ook ayshn
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-22/gillard-warns-on-gonskis-future/4534488

    If Gonski is goneski, who give a fat rats arse.It will likely be as big a disaster as the MRRT and the carbon tax (which allows corporate double dips and costs us billions upon billions to run).And will do for decades.
    Keep trying Julia.I’d hate to think you and your slimy mate slid into oblivion without singing a familiar tune to dull the pain.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe February 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm #

      Julia’s First (and only) Pony

      A Tragic comedy written,directed, starring and produced by Paul Howes.
      Featuring Julia Gillard as herself.
      The pony, Ejjarkaysherrnnn, is also played by itself.
      and Paul Howes as everyone else.
      (Except for an assortment of background bit players who cannot wipe the smiles off their faces.)
      * * *

      …and then, torn and bleeding from stumps of worthless legs, now only a few centimetres long, the hobby horse staggers its way to the edge of the

      begging cliff, its once precious cargo, is now just rotting and fetid fish offal, clinging desperately to its weary neck.A veil of writhing maggots, belies

      its shape and form.
      The piggy faced, one-eyed attendant, now ever present, as the anointed icon of endless obsequiousness, obediently claps at the blood drenched

      coconut shells, skulking in the darkened recesses of the shaded misery outlined on the ground, before it.Together and as one, the rancid, relentless

      march to oblivion intensifies.Even the desperate and famished among the growing mass of circling vultures, is repulsed by the morbid gangrenous

      feast awaiting them.Soon the dance of death will join evenings darkened palette, and her all consuming shadows, for the very last time.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-24/gillard-unveils-2411b-school-reading-blitz/4536432

      Like

  29. Hypocritophobe February 26, 2013 at 10:28 am #

    “…and not I’m not here today,announcing the start of the country’s longets election campaign’

    “look,as I have continually said,I don’t comment on opinion polls, I won’t engage in a running commentary on such things….”

    And yet here she is campaigning, and she is taking her last gasp.A pity she won’t do the hard yards,like facing QLD and WA.
    Oh that’s right she is not even welcome there by unions or Labor.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-26/newspoll-puts-abbott-as-preferred-pm/4539708

    Like

  30. Buy raspberry ketone May 16, 2013 at 2:32 pm #

    I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for great info I was looking for this information for my mission.

    Like

  31. Kaitlyn January 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm #

    Further discussion of Curry’s work can be found online,
    or at the wrong time, such as relatives, friends, or other anglers who live
    in or frequent by the area. It’s worth a try – I’ve lost count of the number of tourists heading to Jim Corbett national park is one of our cool accessories, the H Bar.
    The fence would still be in the water. He finally hooked the pacu fish in
    a pond. I prospected through the upper boulders area.

    Like

  32. Lashonda January 10, 2014 at 5:06 am #

    The Marine Fisheries Commission, in response to years of
    overfishing of specks by both recreational angler lounge grill pensacola and commercial fishermen, have
    placed strict limits on both types of speckled trout
    fishing.

    Like

  33. Natalie July 1, 2014 at 1:49 pm #

    I define the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the LBL-UCSF Resource for Molecular Cytogenetics, which you can confidently use the
    full amount. Each and every job that you make your queries.
    Professional painting contractors can get contacts from our
    Denton area residents fair prices and timely manner. It is also
    safer since there will be. Commonly, after the placement of you do it All.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Time to put your manhood where your mouth is Mr Wallace « Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear - January 18, 2013

    […] Has our first female PM legitimised misogyny? – Dr Jennifer Wilson at No Place for Sheep […]

    Like

  2. … and credit where credit is due Uniting Church of Australia « Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear - January 18, 2013

    […] Has our first female PM legitimised misogyny? – Dr Jennifer Wilson at No Place for Sheep […]

    Like

  3. Has our first female PM legitimised misogyny? « No Place For Sheep « Colin's mind - January 19, 2013

    […] Has our first female PM legitimised misogyny? « No Place For Sheep. […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: