Oh, that David Leyonhjelm! What a scamp he is!
As you probably know, he’s making a complaint to the Human Rights Commission under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, after Fairfax journalist Mark Kenny called him an “angry white man,”
I don’t think Leyonhjelm, a staunch opponent of 18C, is being hypocritical: he’s perfectly open about this being an opportunity to “test” the law, rather than a genuine case of offence inflicted or taken.
And it will be most interesting to watch the arguments for and against unfold: will Kenny’s comment fall into one of the many exemptions provided by 18D? Did Kenny intend to racially insult Leyonhjelm, or was he making a contextual point by mentioning the man’s colour? How can Leyonhjelm make a complaint at all, ethically speaking, if he’s not insulted or offended?
I remain astounded that white people continue to fight for the right to offend and insult people of colour. I understand that these white people believe they are fighting for free speech and of course they are, if you are of the belief that free speech equals unrestrained speech.
It’s inarguable that Section 18C curbs free speech. Of course it does. So do the laws that make it an offence to use foul language in public places, or to call police officers cunts when they’re attempting to restrain you or move you on. Why isn’t anybody complaining about these restrictions on free speech?
Insult and offence are subjective concepts, as Leyonhjelm repeatedly points out. However, Section 18C specifies that the insult and offence must relate to race, ethnicity and religion before it is considered insulting and offensive. Its ambit doesn’t cover insults such as you’re an arsehat dickwad, and offensive statements such as all your family are loser thieving pisspots and always will be so fuck off you sad cunt.
I’m still struggling to come up with a pejorative comment about someone’s race, religion and/or ethnicity that isn’t offensive or insulting. Can anyone help me? Please use asterisks.
There’s never been a better time to watch two white men duke it out in the racial discrimination ring. Popcorn.
No Place For Sheep 
I think 18C is dodgy law and should be removed. All it achieves is to make racists like Andrew Bolt into martyrs, screaming “it’s political correctness gone mad”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow! What a stunning response!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no problems with 18C, but I agree that it certainly brings out the loons who feel their rights are being trampled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trouble is that ‘all’ Australians should enjoy equal rights!
LikeLike
Hey Shaun,
Totally agree with that sentiment, but would you agree that where the playing field for those rights isn’t quite level, some Australians might be afforded slightly more rights till we get that inequality sorted? I’m thinking of Indigenous Australians when I say that…
LikeLike
So, let’s take notice about what Andrew Bolt says. Let’s worry about HIS feelings…
LikeLike
This gets down to the motives of the proponents for change.If you buy into ‘changing 18c’,now and under these circumstances, whether you like it or not, you are aligned with the motives of the proponents.So barrack away,if you dare.I say the changes are demanded from people whose motives are divisive and as far from altruistic as possible.
18c does not stop anyone saying ‘anything worth saying’.
IF ever there WAS a time to change it, now is not it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly, Hypo. What do they wish to achieve by changing 18c? Free speech, they cry whenever they’re asked.
LikeLike
The cry baby Lesion Horn [‘run to mummy nasty Chaser girls scared me’] , wants to incite hate and yet maintain the WASP power to lock up non WASP who do.
*White curmudgeon fuel violence, other? throw away key.*
The sinister display in a church by white supremacists a couple of days back is a taste of things to come.
So lets see the nuanced way (180 degree backflip ) that Brandis collectively ‘appeases’ his Brethren this time around.Let’s see if community cohesion and safety /security overrides the RWNJ code.I pity the goats at that meeting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serves them right, IMO
LikeLike
Truth is there is no need for word white.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You mean in Kenny’s comments? Or at all?
LikeLike
In any like comment. What has colour skin got to do with being angry. Would have no complaint if word left out. Senator by taking action is proving need for C18.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, yes, I agree there’s no need for skin colour to be used at all in those situations. Or religion. Or ethnicity.
LikeLike
The word white was necessary exactly because the comment was made to show how racist abuse relies on race. Hurling racist abuse at someone in a non-racist way would be inane.
My guess is that Kenny was exactly provoking the stupidity you see from Leyonhjelm, just as The Chaser did (although less successfully, in the sense that the Right Honourable Member has not sued them).
In the general sense that if you want to abuse or insult someone you don’t need to invoke race, sure.
LikeLike
What I’m finding deeply, disturbing, I have to say, is how many Lefties on Twitter are actually throwing Kenny’s words around as though they are a legitimate criticism and labelling of Leyonhjelm. It’s utterly mad.
Anyone who thinks “angry white man” isn’t both sexist and racist probably needs to rethink their perception of those things. The implication that a person holds a point of view or is making a certain argument because of their skin colour is the quintessence of racism. Yet, so many Twitter SJWs are tossing it around as something reasonable to say.
Nova Peris – hysterical black woman. There’s just no way to make that look ok.
LikeLike
OK, so what can I say to the dominant group of humans when fed up with their self-entitled sense of importance?
Lost for Words.
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know, you’d probably need to show that a self-entitled sense of importance was dominant in that dominant group. Or you could just be sexist about it. 😉
LikeLike
“you’d probably need to show that a self-entitled sense of importance was dominant in that dominant group”
No one has ever done that before…
LikeLike
Not without engaging in induction fallacy and being sexist, no, they in fact haven’t.
LikeLike
Perhaps an investigation into the self-entitled sense of importance of minorities could also be investigated – of course that would require ‘induction fallacy and sexism’ also.
Perhaps I really need to do a big rethink; Trump isn’t a bigoted sexist pig, he’s just a larger than life personality.
Corey Bernardi isn’t a religious zealot, just devout.
Leyonhjelm is genuinely offended and will suffer for the rest of his life.
Sam Newman is just a little over exuberant.
Deep down, Julie Bishop really is a feminist…
LikeLike
He is a privileged (insert descriptive adjective) nutjob, wasting time,resources and valuable media real estate.He has nothing indicating he has any altruistic or community cohesion tendencies in store for his tenure.
He has the audacity to use the word ‘stunt’ in his language when criticising others.
For something to cross his desk it needs to either amplify his ego/relevance/role.
I call
on Mr ‘Gungob’ Lesionhorn and this whole charade.
Has social media suddenly taken over the male working class smoko room, or front bar where all quality decisions are made on societies ills (democratically,of course)?
I’m afraid when a person in power is either dangerous or abusing their power a nutjob they need to be called out.
I’ll wear the ‘contribution disqualified’ tag with honour.
He is not be singled out for being white angry of different.Although he certainly is all that.
Trump ring any bells?
Susie O’Brien nailed it:
“In indulging in such a ridiculous stunt, he is undermining the serious work of the Human Rights Commission. Furthermore, it proves Kenny’s characterisation of him as entirely accurate.”
I think his motives are soon to be discovered.I smell wrecking ball.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NoPlaceForGoats?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two more for this.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/16/qa-brian-cox-brings-graphs-malcolm-roberts#comments
and
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/is-david-leyonhjelm-trivialising-discrimination/7736788
The full Drum is also up as well as well as this excerpt that comes up the entire segment.
The pedantic will accuse me of not being on topic by including Brian Cox demolishing the lying nutter Roberts, but I include it as a second example to further demonstrates the pathological nature of both Leyenhjolm and Roberts, amongst many (Kruger, Bolt etc) as paradigms for the crank Right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Listening to Roberts on Q&A last night made me worry about, once more, where is this country going.
On Media Watch: Pauline demonstrates the use of squat toilets….
Earlier on the Drum Nick Bryant and Rowan (?) , angry about inaccurate reporting from Nauru…they know better, and so does Dutton.
Where do they find these people…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Listening to Roberts on Q&A”
Crikey, you are one brave lady Helvi.
I would seriously dislocate my diaphragm with vomit overload.
The good thing is the more rope the media give this nutter……
Pretty soon he will venture forth with a conspiracy that Murdoch controls the govt agenda……LOL
LikeLike
Hypo, I was being polite, I did not really listen to him, I was waiting for him to stop, so I could hear what Brian Cox has to say…
LikeLike
It was another questionable decision by QANDA to risk humiliating Cox just for effect, IMHO.(Unless Cox asked to be tossed in?)
The ABC should give Roberts a dedicated half hour show to make a show where he can prove his case.Just a one off show.Then let science review it.He is all for peer reviews, yet he just says stuff.Nutter stuff.
Leaky car exhaust perhaps?
LikeLike
“The ABC should give Roberts a dedicated half hour show to make a show where he can prove his case.”
No they shouldn’t. Letting a dickhead like Roberts spout anti-intellectual crap for 30 minutes without being opposed by someone who really knows about how science works would be counterproductive. It would give him a platform he doesn’t merit.
They should put him up against a real scientist in a 60 or 90-minute show, long enough for a real expert to destroy him.
Try this, for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk
Give him the exposure he craves, and use it to utterly expose him as the know-nothing he is.
Anything short of that enhances his ability to hoodwink people beyond his dimwit One-Nation following.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you think we (this intellectual giant of a non racist paradise) are STILL collectively & en masse easily able to be hoodwinked by the likes of Roberts without your 90 minute scenario, we are in deeper shit than I already thought.
Oh wait….
LikeLike
Well Hypo, I’m sure you realise I wasn’t including you, or most of those posting to this blog, in the likely-to-be-hoodwinked category “people beyond his dimwit One-Nation following”.
But that demographic is large. And yes, we are in deep shit, because of that. That’s precisely why we shouldn’t grant nongs like Roberts unopposed media exposure.
Every time this numpty wants to get on radio or TV, we should put him, face to face, up against a real scientist, to expose the man’s naivete and the simplistic nature of his arguments.
Bring him out. Encourage him to spout on whatever media time and space we can give him. But on every occasion, present the opposing view, preferably from a Nobel Laureate, but failing that, from anyone who really knows how science works.
LikeLike
I’ll try one last time.Challenge him to deliver 30 whole minutes of the best shit he has.
Issue popcorn.Follow up show is the Nobel Laureate (or toddler,same end result).
Should take 12 minutes.
The idiot discovered the internet and the thesaurus at the same time (note his parroting of the word empirical) as he broke a world breath holding record.
That is why he craves oxygen.
No-one should waste a bees breath on climate change denying shit stains.
But let’s do it one last time for comedic gratification.
: )
LikeLike
..additional.
We all know this bloke is going nowhere near Convinced-ville or down-town Reality , just because science proves him wrong, (ad infinitum) so let’s save the cash / air time.
LikeLike
Robert’s views were unimportant until 77 primary votes got him into the senate. Now he’s on the world stage and wasting the time of some fine scientists.
He’s not going to be muzzled & he is click bait for the media, so thanks Malcolm Turnbull, for the completely unnecessary DD that gave us Roberts and the rest of One Nation.
At this point, I don’t know if he should be ignores, or given all the oxygen he wants.
LikeLike
Best to ignore him; but the media love a controversial nutter.
LikeLike
What a pity QANDA felt the need to go there.I’d prefer the ABC researched his background to reveal the real ‘man’.
They should do the same for all of our politicians.Starting with the new ones and king makers first.
LikeLike
I feel the same way about this, as I do about blasphemy laws. I think this is an area where there should be social, but not legal sanction.
LikeLike
Why no emphasis on 18D, 18C’s sibling?
18D prevents a great deal of misuse of 18C – the type of misuse which self entitled privileged white men claim is being done. (Is “self entitled privileged white men” abuse?)
Being done, is what I hope happens to David Leyonhjelm. Surely he is aware of the second clause, unlike yours truly, who knows very little about the law (except for divorce and traffic accident) he cannot be so ignorant that he isn’t aware.
Of course not, Leyonhjelm, is simply involved in a campaign of obfuscation. How can a populace focus on, say, the (finally) brought to light evidence of abuse in Nauru or on Manus? Or even think about the evidence for climate change, or the punishment that is Newstart?
We are being played.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To escape the scary Chaser girls, of course.
Right now,he is playing the lowest card in the deck, and massaging the lowest denominator
The fact we ‘even’ have Hansons and Lesionhorns in power (yes power) does not signal a strong democracy, it signals a weak one.
One proliferated by greed, ignorance and apathy. The Westminster version may be better than some, but corrupted and misused it now is,in the hands of the RWNJ cretins,media parasites and preference molesters.
A strong democracy has strong leaders,who govern for all.Who bring people along with them with visions and plans we can all relate to on some level.
We have no leaders in govt,let alone strong ones.What we have is perpetual division.The 2 party system (as pointed out) fuels our own social demise..It seems the voters who enabled Handson, Knoberts and Lesionharm got what they paid for.A circus.
The best Australia can hope for is another 6 years of low key chaos,another election and even then, possibly worse again next time around.
Factions deliver again.
Malcolm must be almost praying for a big bang or S China sea conflict.That will shore up his mandates.
Welcome to the land of every man/woman for them self.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Right now,he is playing the lowest card in the deck, and massaging the lowest denominator”
If you are referring to Leyonhjelm, I get that, most everyone here does.
LikeLike
“We have no leaders in govt,let alone strong ones.What we have is perpetual division.The 2 party system (as pointed out) fuels our own social demise..It seems the voters who enabled Handson, Knoberts and Lesionharm got what they paid for.A circus”.
Well said, Hypo, perpetual division is not conducive to progress, it just creates more constant bickering, and blaming…That they ought to be working together for the good of the country is forgotten.
LikeLike
Point of order: “religion” is not an item in 18C.
“Race, colour or national or ethnic origin” are the terms.
As for Leyonhjelm, perhaps he seeks to point up the perceived absurdities in the Section by making an absurd claim. Just because he’s a nutter doesn’t mean he can’t make a valid point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point Leyonhjelm is trying to make is addressed by 18D
LikeLike
“Reasonably and in good faith” aren’t words associated with RWNJs.
LikeLike
I have explained why Leyonhjelm is making this claim.
It is not about being reasonable it is about creating obfuscation.
LikeLike
BTW, just took a closer look at the lead-in pic. You’d laugh loudly if it wasn’t so serious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It isn’t serious. There’s heaps of online evidence to suggest that the “white people stole my car”/”black people stole my car” alleged Google response was a malicious hoax, originating in 2009 and resulting in many punters clicking on links which delivered at best spam and at worst viruses.
Ignore it. It’s meaningless crap.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It ‘may’ be a google myth, but sadly, race based policing and community based stereotypes based on race flourish in Australia.
That’s the more malicious issue.
If you like; the picture up the top of this page, is a caricature of the lived experience of many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct, Hypo. But it was presented, by the author of this blog, without comment as to its origin, and no commenter called it out until I did.
Until I pointed out its false origins, it was likely to mislead. It no longer is, I hope. The picture is certainly a caricature of the lived experience of many, but it deserves to be replaced by a picture of the real experience of many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t have much knowledge of its origins till Bernard Keane filled me in, & then I decided to leave it there because it seems to express an angry irony, which I understand and which is a powerful way of commenting on situations.
When I use images of real experience I’m very careful because so many seem to exploit the experiencers and arouse a kind of pity in the viewer that I don’t think serves a lot of purpose.
LikeLike
Yes, Hypo, that’s exactly why I used it.
LikeLike
I chose it for the irony, PW. It apparently has a history I was unaware of, but I still find it uncomfortably true.
LikeLike
Just a small correction, en passant – I’ll make a proper contribution later after I’ve been bombarded by racist crap at the pub – 18C doesn’t have anything to do with religion. It’s purely about race, colour or national or ethnic origin. It’s also debatable as to whether the exemptions afforded by 18D actually properly cover offense and insult. it’s a somewhat ambiguous area. But that later.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am looking forward to your understanding of 18D – nothing is ever perfect.
But the more we understand about a topic the better we can communicate ourselves.
LikeLike
While another RWNJ dominates the media, Auntie is given more than a mere haircut:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/05/abc-source-dries-up-as-transcripts-of-news-and-current-affairs-shows-curtailed
or
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/15/manus-refugee-says-he-thought-he-would-die-after-being-attacked-by-locals
or
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/12/did-you-see-the-border-force-story-on-last-nights-news
😛
LikeLike
For those who want to revisit Bolt’s case this is an excellent summary by the Judge:
Bolt failed to escape under 18D because of:
“. . . the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.”
LikeLike
To whom it may concern:
If there is going to be another fight I’ll have to close comments for moderation.
Which is a pain in the arse for me,and frustrating for commenters because I’m not around much in the next few days so your conversations will be awaiting moderation for who knows how long.
A guide might be if we were all together taking coffee we would be civil even in our disagreement. Wouldn’t we?
And if we weren’t civil we wouldn’t take coffee together again, would we?
Lack of civility will lead to this barista closing down.
LikeLike
Paul Syvret of the Courier mail wrote an interesting piece today: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-racial-discrimination-act-clause-18-does-not-stop-free-speech/news-story/289a747e3919c0cc3934872856b90684?sv=4b407f2ce6d01db140d55b5f783a168a
The comment section is pretty much an irrefutable argument for the stupidity of the Australian public and how pathetic political debate is in this country. Very sad.
A few things – for me Mark Kenny’s statement was utterly gratuitous, a cheap shot and in breach of the spirit if not technical content of 18C. Was he being a deliberately provocative arsehole just for the sake of it? Probably. Is Leyonhjelm entitled to seek remedy under 18C? Probably. Did Kenny know that? Probably. Never underestimate the media’s ability to try and make themselves the story or create a story for the sake of copy.
For me the way this debate is unfolding is far more important than 18C itself. It reveals so much about us, and sadly, not much of it is positive, at least in the way we prosecute a point of view.
We don’t need to evoke the nonsense sexism and racism of “angry white male” to explain David Leyonhjelm’s actions or the motives behind them. To do that is really very lazy and ignorant. His staunchly Libertarian worldview is entirely sufficient to explain his point of view. It is also demonstrable and doesn’t involve making shit up. Like most Libertarians he’s bureaucracy phobic. But, as with most phobias, rationality doesn’t get much of a look-in. Ok, “phobic” is making shit up – damn, this being reasonable gig is hard …
I also find the “argument” that such people are seeking to protect their ability to say offensive things to be weak and self-serving. It might be true for some, but it’s a piss-poor way to argue. They would, quite rightly counter that by saying the point is not about what they might wish to say, but about the granting of power to others to characterise, as they wish, the nature of what they are saying as offensive and insulting.
Those are very, very different things and in the second sense, there’s a legitimate point.
Does 18D protect Mark Kenny from his claim, not mere imputation or implication, but claim, that Leyonhjelm’s racial type or colour has relevance to his position on this matter? No, it doesn’t. Not even slightly. There isn’t a single syllable of 18D that exempts Kenny’s statement. His reference to Leyonhjelm’s skin colour can hardly be shown to have any practical, conceptual or moral relevance beyond a racial slur and is therefore not a “held belief”. We know he’s white. It’s a racial slur to invoke it as causative of anything.
And good luck finding a meaningful definition of “fair” for the purposes of any Government Act, let alone the RDA, even though “fair comment” is an important qualifier for 18D purposes.
As I’ve said, I’m a strong believer in both the RDA and 18C, but I also think the language needs a clean up. Acts like this that pertain to matters of social liability are often more about their “spirit” than their technical content, but maybe we need to have those two things match up a little more. Then the whole thing can go away and the “spirit” matter once again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A white man calling a white man an angry white man is not fucking racial discrimination no matter how many words you use to pretend it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except that it is by dint of 18C. You might want to not just read it, Marilyn, but try and comprehend it and not just weave it into your own narrow political narrative. Or join the Liberal Democrats. Whatever,.
LikeLike
Well 18c says it is Marilyn, which is what makes the whole thing so ironic.
Or does to me, anyway.
LikeLike
I think Kenny was expressing his dislike of and anger towards Leyonhjelm, which may not equate to good journalism.
I understand his reference to skin colour: the descriptor angry white male, or ageing white male has become a signifier of a particular group who seem to be increasingly bewailing what they perceive as loss of entitlement and privilege in favour of perceived lesser groups. These perceived lesser groups are identified by skin colour, gender, sexuality, anything, in short, that makes us other than white male. I think this is where Kenny was coming from.
And yes, according to 18c it was a racial slur.
I doubt Leyonhjelm’s complaint will achieve anything other than publicity: a finding against Kenny isn’t going to result in a change to the RDA I wouldn’t think.
LikeLike
Jennifer,
I’m cynical enough about modern journalists to think Kenny was doing little more than weaving himself into the story. He does have form in this area and it’s not an unusual tactic from modern journos in the course of their efforts to create copy.
I agree Leyonhjelm’s (omg, my brain has finally learned how to spell his name!) action won’t have any practical effect. Indeed, it’s a shame that the debate exists at all. The RDA has been around for 40 years and been chugging along nicely, till Bolt. But the 18c can of worms has been opened and the little buggers are crawling around everywhere.
I think for the rest of us the plan has to be to not allow the Leyonhjelms, the Days and the Hansons to control or own that debate. Like Climate Change, we can’t afford to “leave it to them”. At least, I don’t think we can given what we know of public gullibility. Oh, did you know the word “gullibility” is not actually in the dictionary? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
We now know that white men are racist for calling other white men, white men.
Oh, FFS.
Dan, you are right we do have to become familiar with the fickle ways of Libertarianism – it was only a matter of time before such an ‘ism’ began to make its impact.
I used to think I was a libertarian – because I thought it was about accepting people regardless of race, colour, creed, sexual orientation or whatever. I am still, probably, very naive.
Apparently it’s more about “I’m alright, if you’re not, its not my problem”.
Or something to that effect.
Plus a good dose of “there’s no such thing as society”, just individuals competing.
Which begs the question as to why we have fire-fighters, ambos, nurses and other folk who see helping one another as a way forward for our (non-existent)society.
So Leyonhjelm, will have his public assisted rant, thanks to 18C. I doubt he will win, but then I didn’t think Trump would get as far as he did either.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or ironic about white men calling white men, white men, but to do it is, in fact, a racial slur (depending on context). As I said in another post, attributing skin colour or race or ethnicity as causative to opinions or behaviour is the epitome of racism.
It doesn’t matter if you’re the same colour or race or ethnicity of the person you’re doing it to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or ironic about white men calling white men, white men…”
I was being both.
LikeLike
Have you seen the New Matilda take on the Leyonhjelm complaint? https://newmatilda.com/2016/08/16/why-ridiculously-stupid-white-man-david-leyonhjelm-will-lose-his-18c-racial-discrimination-case/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
LikeLike
New Matilda have called a white man “ridiculously stupid (and white)” – is there no end to this foul language???
LikeLike
If a person’s skin colour cannot be shown to be actually relevant to anything, it constitutes a racial slur. This is pretty straight forward.
LikeLike
LikeLike
???
LikeLike
There was two imgs.
(Has one dropped away?)
Uncle Fester in both>
One, in his new political career.
: )
LikeLike
were?
LikeLike
I still say evidence timing and motive inform the necessity (or not) to reform 18c or not.
Have not seen anything at all disturbing and yet…?
Ppl are making this complex way too early.
This bloke Lesionhorn is privileged enough to be in parliament and this is his greatest priority? He has nothing.
Another public payroll shock jock (a la Story Bernardi/Gorgeous Christensen et al) bleeding taxpayer coffers dry.
It is all about him.No matter how many miles of fishing gear ppl swallow.
Have ppl lost the ability to detect bullshit suddenly?
The senate has become a parking area for narcissists.It makes facebook look like a morgue.Gawd we are so malleable.
LikeLike
It’s about Libertarian ideology, nothing less. We’re not so accustomed to it in this country, but we need to heed it because we just voted it into our Senate.
LikeLike
I predict our disconnect and wilful war with nature will impact a lot quicker on us than any band-aid construct ,be it libertarian or religion.
The guy is a nutjob.Albeit a persistent inconsistent one.The senate gets fuller of them every cycle.So does the HoR for that matter.
Guns and hate speech is destroying the American dream(?) .Those are pretty much the only two tools the good senator has in his kit bag.
LikeLike
As I’ve said before, I think dismissing someone as a “nutjob” isn’t a legitimate way to argue against them. Nor is calling them “angry” as Kenny, and now most of Twitter, is doing.
For me calling a man “angry” in a social debate is the equivalent of calling a woman “hysterical”. It’s a cheap, ad hominem way to discredit because the implication is that their views are coming from a place of emotion and not reason.
Leyonhjelm is most likely a man of actual principle. It’s just that the foundation for those principles – Libertarian philosophy – has a wafer thin intellectual foundation. And, admittedly, Leyonhjelm doesn’t seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
As I also noted in one of my blog pieces, Tea Party style politics hasn’t reached its apex of influence in this country. There’s more to come, sadly.
LikeLike
“Leyonhjelm doesn’t seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed.”
Close enough observation,Dan.Close enough.
LikeLike
Worth a read>
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/senator-david-leyonhjelms-racial-discrimination-act-stunt-trivialises-serious-issue/news-story/9e103f99fed68a9eea7d22ca2b96a989
LikeLike
There has never been a better time to be unelected religious swill.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-17/revamp-flagged-for-discrimination-act-ahead-of-gay-marriage-vote/7751322
You get to run policy at will.You can breach the constitution cos god/bullying/bigoted.
This move is a sign that the plebiscite is a waste of time.(Other states will follw suit) And it is looking more and more that ALL elections may be a total waste of time.When industry,religion and shock jocks drive policy, despite the so called separation of state , there is no role for voters.This interference applies to Labor as well, although not quite as badly.
What a feckin’ scam.
LikeLike
“News Corp are reporting the prime minister pledged changes to 18c when garnering support for his leadership challange in September of last year.
(Last line)
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/08/17/govt-has-no-plans-for-18c.html
LikeLike
Yes, I saw that in today’s hard copy Courier Mail. Unfortunately the story seems to have come from Simon Benson, who is a notorious News Corp scumbag, so I’m skeptical as to its veracity.
LikeLike
As for that last sentence Dan, I think you’re misdirecting your scepticism if you can’t see Mal selling his soul on 18c for the support of the RWNJ who own the Liberal party lock/stock and barrel.Maybe that’s why Abbott dropped that in the conversation last week? Timing is everything.
Is there a corner of Turbull’s personality NOT drenching with the effluent of the right, as he crawls his way ever downward towards the lofty heights of Liberal legend status?
LikeLike
NOTE>
“last sentence” means the > last line in that news article, I linked.
LikeLike
I didn’t say anything about whether the story could be true. It could easily be so. I’m merely saying I’m not prepared to trust Simon Benson as a source for anything.
LikeLike
I feel the same way about Murdoch’s pet politicians.
LikeLike
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/aliens/images/2/26/Uncle_martin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110425034349
LikeLike
Ooops ^
LikeLike
You reckpn he is another Mad Uncle living on another planet, do you?
Gee, I’m sharp today…
LikeLike
Very!
Just stringing together obvious appropriate Doppelgangers a la Micallef.
Feel free to chip in.
George Christensen,Abbott,Hanson etc.
You get the drift…
Cancel Pauline.
>http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-KE992_MUPPET_8S_20150908165152.jpg
Is it me or is Turnbull physically (other?) morphing into Bejelke Petersen?
LikeLike
None of Bjelke Petersen’s charm though.
LikeLike
aagh my goodness me,no,oh,yes, you mark my words,yes
LikeLike
He’s taken to waving his arms about like Robby the Robot.
LikeLike
Actually, that was just “Robot”. Robbie wasn’t much of an arm-waver that I can recall.
LikeLike
Your recollection differs from mine, in that case. Have we had a run-in in the past? I don’t get your negative replies to my posts, otherwise.
LikeLike
I wasn’t being negative and I don’t think I have been in the past re: your posts. The arm-waving robot (warning, warning, Dr Smith is irate!) was from Lost in Space and wasn’t called Robby. I assumed you were referencing that robot, who was merely called “Robot”.
Robby the Robot was from Forbidden Planet.
He did bob up in a few other things over the period. Maybe he arm-waved a lot to, but I don’t recall that.
LikeLike