Gillard labels Abbott a misogynist

[Hallo Alfie]

???

Her speech is accurate in terms of transcribing what she said and what is recorded I presume.

It was an angry rant in response to the motion that Slipper be removed from his post. Context.

 

[MG1962]

???

Her speech is accurate in terms of transcribing what she said and what is recorded I presume.

It was an angry rant in response to the motion that Slipper be removed from his post. Context.

Ahh context - she didn't know the motion was coming, did she. But yes Slipper, if he is now Labor, why does he sit on the cross bench?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ahh context - she didn't know the motion was coming, did she.

If she didn't know (or at least suspect) the motion was to be presented, that would make her an idiot - and she is not an idiot. Generally speaking, that description is reserved for the Greens.

But yes Slipper, if he is now Labor, why does he sit on the cross bench?

Did I say he was Labor? I think I said he was her problem after she placed him in the role.

 

[lionking]

Could you please point out the errors in Hansard please

Of course there were no errors. If Gillard lied about Abbott's (recorded) comments in her speech, the Coalition (and the Murdoch press) would have been all over it. Abortion the easy way out? Not mysogeny??

 

[MG1962]

Did I say he was Labor? I think I said he was her problem after she placed him in the role.

You were saying earlier he is now one of Labors - If Abbott had any spine the guy would have not even been in a Parliamentary position to begin with.

Or have you along with Abbott suddenly forgot about Travel Rort?

 

[MG1962]

Of course there were no errors. If Gillard lied about Abbott's (recorded) comments in her speech, the Coalition (and the Murdoch press) would have been all over it. Abortion the easy way out? Not mysogeny??

Ah yes, so would that have made it a core promise or a non core promise. I get so confused about lies sometimes

 

[Magenta]

You have referred to a speech made under parliamentary privilege that was devoid of context.

It was an angry rant in response to the motion that Slipper be removed from his post. Context.

I notice you didn't address my reply to you in a previous post where I expressed the opinion that the motion was not, primarily, about removing an unfit speaker. If Abbott's only motive in bringing the motion was to have Slipper removed, he could have stopped after the first two paragraphs of his speech:

At the risk of detaining the House in a repetitive way, let me say that it is absolutely crystal clear that the Speaker is no longer a fit and proper person to uphold the dignity of this parliament and is no longer a fit and proper person to uphold and protect the standing orders of this House. I say that the Speaker is not disqualified by the mere fact of a legal action against him—that can befall any member of this House and of itself should not be a disqualification from high office. What must nevertheless be held against the Speaker of this parliament are the undenied, uncontradicted facts that have emerged, and that continue to emerge, in the course of the case currently on foot against him. At the risk of dismaying this chamber, at the risk of dismaying the public, I must allude—and I only allude—to the gross references to female genitalia which are contained in the uncontradicted, undenied evidence before the court about the conduct of this Speaker. I must allude to the vile anatomical references to which this Speaker appears to be addicted in his text messaging.

There is the clear bias in undenied, uncontradicted evidence before a court against a member of this House by someone who is charged to act without fear or favour, by someone who is charged to act impartially towards all members of this House, by someone who is charged with the upholding of the standing orders of this House without fear or favour, against or in favour of any single member. Be you the newest member, be you the father of the House, the Speaker is charged with upholding the standing orders impartially for and against all members of this parliament, and on the face of the uncontradicted, undenied evidence before a court this Speaker cannot do that. This Speaker has not done that. That is why this particular Speaker is no longer a fit and proper person to be the Speaker of this House.

Link

Instead, he segued into an attack on the Prime Minister:

But it is not just the Speaker who has failed the character test. It is indeed this Prime Minister who has failed the judgement test.

Link

The rest of Abbot's speech continues in that way and that is the context in which Gillard was responding and which you are ignoring.

In fact much oif it was an outright lies and unsupportable.

Could you please identify which parts are lies? Text of Gillard's speech here.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You were saying earlier he is now one of Labors - If Abbott had any spine the guy would have not even been in a Parliamentary position to begin with.

I said he was Labor's problem, not that he was Labor, which was the clear statement you made.
I agree it was a bad look that he was still in parliament - but the coalition was in the process of getting him out. It was Gillard who elevated him to one of the most powerful and priveleged positions in Australia in spite of him being on the nose.

Should the coalition have had him out already? Possibly/probably.
Should Gillard have promoted him to Speaker? In terms of political opportunism it might have seemed a good move. Was it clever and risky? Absolutely. I think most would agree it was not a good look. The moment she backed him into the speakers chair - he became her problem.
Should Gillard have defended him? Not if she has any principles.

I notice you didn't address my reply to you in a previous post where I expressed the opinion that the motion was not, primarily, about removing an unfit speaker. If Abbott's only motive in bringing the motion was to have Slipper removed, he could have stopped after the first two paragraphs of his speech:

What was the motion about then if "not, primarily, about removing an unfit speaker". What "primarily" was the motion?

And certainly he could have stopped two paragraphs in, but why should he? There are rules around conduct and content to which all sides must adhere. There was nothing unusual in that.

(btw, the 'dying of shame comment' Abbot made - accidental or not - was a very poor choice of words).

What was the primary motion exactly?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Could you please identify which parts are lies? Text of Gillard's speech

Her claims are in there - you get to support them (or not) with evidence. So far no one has done so (nor even attempted). Over to you.

 

[lionking]

Her claims are in there - you get to support them (or not) with evidence. So far no one has done so (nor even attempted). Over to you.

From his own website:

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Latest...F-ABORTION-HIGHLIGHTS-OUR-MORAL-FAILINGS.aspx

abortion is the easy way out.

Gillard quoted Abbott accurately in her speech. He is a troglodyte.

 

[lionking]

If anyone wants to check out more of Abbott's enlightened comments:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Which quotes? What makes them (and him) misogynistic exactly, do you think?

 

[Shiner]

Which quotes? What makes them (and him) misogynistic exactly, do you think?

All you are doing now, is proving you can't see anythin g wrong with anything Abbott does or says. No-one is surprised by this.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's not a matter of agreeing with him or otherwise - sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. What it is about is whether his statements are evidence of misogyny.

Are they? Which ones? Why?

Back to you

 

[lionking]

Which quotes? What makes them (and him) misogynistic exactly, do you think?

Telling a woman who would have most likely agonised about a decision to have an abortion that she has taken the easy way out displays contempt for that woman. That you disagree is hardly surprising.

What do you think about him telling Gillard that she should make an honest woman of herself?

Words are important, and Abbott's show his true colors. But keep on being his apologist. It's amusing.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Which quotes exactly and why do they make him (and them) misogynistic? Some context would be good too.

 

[lionking]

Which quotes exactly and why do they make him (and them) misogynistic? Some context would be good too.

Did you look at the link to his speech? His own words? What more context do you need?

Do you not think saying a decision to have an abortion is an easy way out displays contempt? If not, why not?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Sigh.. this is getting tedious. But I can be a broken record if I have to.

"Which quotes exactly and why do they make him (and them) misogynistic? Some context would be good too."

This might help those who struggle with English...

What exactly was his quote?
Was he asked a question or discussing a broader issue? In what context was it given?
Why do his comments qualify as misogynistic?

To your question LK: You are stating that anyone who is pro life is a misogynist (you used the word contempt - no one else has). Why is pro life misogynistic in your opinion?

 

[Akhenaten]

Sigh.. this is getting tedious. But I can be a broken record if I have to.

<snip>

Why do you have to?

This might help those who struggle with English...

<snip>

You should probably ditch the insults and give some consideration to the idea that they are but one of the reasons why people don't feel themselves to be under any obligation to answer your questions.

 

[Morrigan]

Which is exactly what I am saying.

Really? So you now agree that Gillard calling out Abbott on his hypocrisy is not inherently a defense of Slipper? Because that is what I am saying.

What for? All that is in there are some vague references to some things that someone might have said. Context please and evidence please..

Are you now saying that the quotes Gillard attributed to Abbott are false and made up? If so, why isn't Abbott saying, "hey, Gillard, you liar, I never said those things"?