|
Post by angra on Dec 11, 2012 14:00:06 GMT 10
"Reader P. submitted the above well-founded complaint of race-based vilification, only to find the Australian Human Rights Commission isn’t interested in defending “whites”:"
Since when is "white" a race?
|
|
|
Post by jules on Dec 11, 2012 14:38:10 GMT 10
Andrew Bolt has a piece entitled: Greens attacking “old whites” is fine, witch-hunters declareFor a start the quotation marks are inaccurate and misleading. Milne isn't referring to all old whites, just men, and to a "group" of them not all of them. In the context that old white men, who used to be the dominant power group in Australia, exclusively, are now upset that they aren't the dominant power anymore. Well not as dominant anyway. The fact that Gillard cops it from a group that appears to be predominantly old and white and male is a seperate issue from the fact that a group of old(er) white males have a problem with women. This would explain the snide snickering between lindsay tanner and Chris pyne on Q and A the other month, while Pyne made derisive comments about "motherhood statements" and Kate Ellis, while talkign over Ellis and generally behaving like a childish Private School fuckwit. It does appear that successful women politicians, be they Ellis Gillard or even Mirabella do cop abuse thats not necessarily reasonable based on their gender. Mirabella on q and A was really no worse than anyone else on the panel or the host, yet people *(Me too? Honestly I don't remember but I probably did) focused on her while ignoring others. Anyway Milne is referring to a specific group of individuals within a demography, ie she actually said "some but not all" white men when she referred to a group of them. IE a group of old white men is made of some, but not all white men who are old. So the comment isn't referring to old white men in general. Unlike Fraser's comments which included the phrase: Experience practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems. Experience practically everywhere" isn't quite the same as saying "some but not all" if anything in the context of Fraser's comment it means: I would say everyone, but I know it isn't true so I'll say practically which means "technically cept for the exception that proves the rule" to give the impression that when black communities near you expand they will only cause problems and will definitely not bring anything positive to your part of the world. Which is basically the opposite of what Milne did. Senator Milne said there was a “group of older, white men in Australia” who did not like the idea that at last women were coming into their own.
“They’ve never accepted the legitimacy of a woman as a prime minister and they are kicking back in every which way they can,” she told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday. Not all older white men, just a group of them. So Milne specified that it was only some individuals in that group, not the whole demographic. Fraser denied that it would be individuals committing crimes and instead criminalised the whole group. Yet again Bolt is either ignorant enough to not know the difference or deliberately ignoring it to equate two different things.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 11, 2012 19:45:51 GMT 10
Exalt tee. You put it better than I could Jules!
|
|
|
Post by jules on Dec 11, 2012 21:32:57 GMT 10
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 12, 2012 6:23:58 GMT 10
His positions are set in stone. I can't imagine him backing off from AGW, religion or conservatism for any reason. He is just a Magnet for News to get a certain type of punter in the gate
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 12, 2012 7:44:13 GMT 10
There you go, Angra ... Goodbye
And that’s it. I’m off. Thanks so much for your kind support. With luck, back some time in January. That's about a month for you to take your eyes off bizarro-world, and re-engage with the reality-based community. Let's have a musical accompaniment to that thought (warning: this is LOUD - it scared my cat, which is probably what oingo boingo should do) I was actually just looking for the song. But that video's a hoot. If only it was for the 21st of this month instead. It still works.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 12, 2012 11:16:29 GMT 10
It’s interesting that the Bolter would decide to down tools for the year on a Wednesday. Was the call of Europe so strong that he couldn't bear to stay in Australia for another two days?
Probably not.
More likely is that he couldn't be bothered to contribute to LP and News Ltd efforts to fashion a positive, or at least neutral, narrative regarding Rares J’s judgment of Ashby vs Slipper. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-12/slipper-sexual-harassment-case-thrown-out/4423284) What a great team man!
Just when a whole host of LP figures like Mal Brough, Christopher Pyne, George Brandis and of course Tony Abbott, as well as News Ltd colleague Steve Lewis, need a shameless obfuscator like the Bolter to wrangle the Hansonites with his reassuring megaphone, he splits the scene. Truly a top bloke and not a prima donna at all.
The Bolter cutting and running like this is a bit of a shame really. It would have been fascinating to see how he would have interpreted the LP talking point script regarding Ashby v Slipper for the benefit of his sea monkeys.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 12, 2012 11:42:28 GMT 10
Wow. In a scathing judgment handed down on Wednesday, Justice Steve Rares found that the case was an "abuse of process" which had been carried out for the "purpose of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr Slipper". He dismissed the claim and ordered Mr Ashby to pay his former boss's legal costs. www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/slipper-case-thrown-out-20121212-2b8o9.htmlWow. I wonder who's picking up that tab.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 12, 2012 12:36:02 GMT 10
Has to be a Leftist judge to come up with that adjudication. Where is Bolt to ponder on all the questions that need to be answered without actually posing anything?
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 12, 2012 13:16:30 GMT 10
Wow. I wonder who's picking up that tab.
Dunno, but they must have deep pockets. Considering that Ashby and his legal team are considering an appeal, very deep pockets indeed.
This whole attempt at regime change is being funded by some extremely well resourced people. The same sort of folks that funded Abbott's Australians for Honest Politics Trust
Check out extracts from Margo Kingston's book as published by New Matilda to find out just how difficult it would be to reveal the indentities of the contributors (http://newmatilda.com/2012/12/12/what-did-aec-know-about-abbotts-slush-fund) to Ashby's legal, PR and personal costs.
This tweet from Latika Bourke is interesting:
Latika Bourke @latikambourkegeorge Brandis ‘Opposition is carefully studying the reasons given by Justice Rares this morning.’ #Ashby
Interesting because it would seem that Brandis is either going over the judgment to weigh up just how appellable it is, or has appointed himself as some kind of over-judge regarding Federal Court decisions. The former seems more likely. and it is also likely that operatives of the LP are at minimum coordinating the funding of Ashby's exorbitant costs.
By the probable vehicle of a slush fund.
Maybe it's only coincidental that the Bolter chose to end up today and not Friday...
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 12, 2012 13:27:11 GMT 10
What amazes me is how comprehensive the judgement is. The judge hasn't held back at all - basically validating everything that the ALP's been saying all along, right down to the purported motives and conspiracies. There's really nowhere left to hide.
As for who's paying ... that'll be an interesting one to see. At some point, somebody's going to have to write slipper or his lawyers a cheque ...
Here's wondering if it'll be from a registered association ....
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 12, 2012 15:56:44 GMT 10
Have a chuckle. Mal Brough the real victim of Peter Slipper judgment (google the title) *snort* That article asserts: Of course, the government does not come out of the judgment without its own questions to answer: the judge said there was evidence of sexual harassment but upheld Slipper's claims for an abuse of process, which the commonwealth spent $750,000 working on and then withdrawing after paying Ashby $50,000 in compensation. Erm ... I've had a bit of a look through that judgement, and I don't think the judge says anything that positive for the applicant's case at all. In fact, from www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca141137 I do not accept Mr Ashby’s commentary that he had feelings of distress and harassment concerning Mr Slipper’s actions. Ms Hubbard’s message quoted in [34] above suggests that at 4 February 2012 Mr Ashby was contemplating that Mr McArdle would use the text messages. The passages I have emphasised from the exchanges of text messages show that Mr Ashby’s discussion with Mr McArdle concerning his text message exchanges with Mr Slipper, particularly those of 1 and 2 February 2012, was to do with empowering Mr McArdle or someone else with the ability to use those messages against Mr Slipper. Mr Ashby’s references to “empowering others”, and “national decisions”, were concerned solely with the political consequences of what Mr Ashby was contemplating. Those consequences could affect the balance of power in the House of Representatives, depending on whether Mr Slipper could remain as Speaker if Mr Ashby used his “power” and what effect that use would have. That was because the Government did not have a majority in the House and was reliant on cross bench support, assisted by Mr Slipper having ceased to be a member of the Opposition and not being able to vote while Speaker, by reason of s 40 of the Constitution, unless the votes in the House were tied.
38 What is singular about all of the text message exchanges that Mr Ashby had with his friends and others in the period prior to the commencement of these proceedings is the lack of any complaint by him of feeling sexually harassed. And his friends’ texts had no words of comfort for Mr Ashby as a victim of some traumatic experience of that kind. The exchanges between Martin, Mr Nagle, Ms Hubbard and Mr Ashby on 3 and 4 February 2012 do not read like those concerning a man claiming to feel sexually harassed or emotionally distressed by such conduct. Rather they read as if the participants were discussing the political ramifications of Mr Ashby revealing material that was sexually and politically embarrassing and that would compromise Mr Slipper and his position as Speaker if it appeared in the public domain. At least initially, Mr Ashby was contemplating that Mr McArdle, an LNP politician, would use the text messages against Mr Slipper’s political interests – hence his text that this did not “empower me once the information is passed on ... Will I be rewarded or condemned?”. Read in its context with all his texts, I am satisfied that if Mr Ashby were the victim of sexual harassment he would not have speculated with his friend in this way about whether he would be rewarded by revealing it. Also: 46 I do not accept that Mr Ashby felt in any way inhibited in his dealings by a “power differential” between him and Mr Slipper. The text exchanges of 26 February 2012 demonstrate that no such imbalance was perceived by Mr Ashby. Those exchanges occurred well after most of the allegations of sexual harassment had taken place. The originating application asserted that in these exchanges Mr Slipper appeared to question Mr Ashby’s loyalty and was attempting to control his actions. A reasonable person in Mr Slipper’s position would be entitled to express such concerns having regard to Mr Ashby’s conduct. While Mr Slipper may have introduced that discussion using what I infer was a sexualised reference by a third person about Mr Ashby, both of them used sexualised and, on occasions, far more vulgar terminology in their communications. Sexual references in the texts must be considered having regard to the terms of a relationship in which both men used such means of communicating with one another in what they (or at least Mr Slipper) thought, at the time, were private communications that would never be publicly put forward in open court, as they have been. And there's more where that came from. It's an astonishing thing to read. Basically, the judge went and wrote down all the things I suspected from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 12, 2012 19:29:36 GMT 10
For the benefit of those who frequent this blog and are insufficiently nerdy to hunt up the Rares J judgment- or simply couldn’t be fucked- a few more choice cut and pastes (all emphasis is mine):
From para 197-
‘...I am satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. The originating application was used by Mr Ashby for the predominant purpose of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr Slipper. It contained the scandalous and irrelevant 2003 allegations and assertion that Mr Ashby intended to report to the police Cabcharge allegations. To allow these proceedings to remain in the Court would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people and would be manifestly unfair to Mr Slipper.’
From para 199-
‘Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough. Mr Ashby and Ms Doane set out to use the proceedings as part of their means to enhance or promote their prospects of advancement or preferment by the LNP, including by using Mr Brough to assist them in doing so.’
From para 200-
‘Mr Ashby’s claims of sexual harassment involved relatively minor incidents. Those claims were only ever likely to attract only a very modest award of damages or other compensation (such as a pecuniary penalty) if Mr Ashby were successful. It is likely that by engaging Mr McClellan at $550 per hour plus GST, on top of Mr Ashby’s irrecoverable solicitor and client costs, would have resulted in Mr Ashby receiving virtually no damages or other compensation in his own pocket even if he were “successful”. He now has the $50,000 paid by the Commonwealth.’
Fucking hell. $550 per hour plus GST for PR representation. The Ashby slush fund contributors have deeper pockets than the would be escapees from Stalagluft 3 of 'Great Escape' fame.
This regime change attempt has really been a disgrace. It has dominated the Parliamentary year and has sown the idea of political instability in the business community and the electorate. Without doubt this has negatively impacted upon Australia’s standard of living.
News Ltd continues to spruik for regime change and will do its best to continue to do so.
People like the Bolter aid and abet this vandalism and claim it is the ALP Government that is dividing society. At the risk of being repetitive, I say, once again, there is nothing funny about the Bolter and shills of his ilk.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 12, 2012 19:40:16 GMT 10
Thanks Richard.
Now, those who might not have heard about it ...
Do some googling about how an emissary from fox went to see david petraeus (before teh problemz) and made him an offer ... for "the big boss" (rupey) to bankroll him, should he decide to run for president, and for Ailes to manage the campaign, and for Fox to handle the marketing.
No, really. It's on tape. Mr Ailes is saying it was a "joke", but ... it really very obviously wasn't.
But I'm sure that, if the southbank socrates were around, he'd tell us that any questions about how something similar might happen here in the antipodes - say, hypothetically, a billionaire media magnate cutting a deal with a potential political leader - would be SILENCING!!1!, or LEFTISTS! or even (and this is my very personal favorite) ANTISEMITE!!1!.
Something to think about. But don't think too much ... it's out of our hands anyway.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 12, 2012 19:55:50 GMT 10
It provided a detailed analysis, arguing that there would be no reduction in Mr Ashby’s earning capacity once he no longer worked for the commonwealth.
Really? Who would employ him now?
|
|