Three soldiers in a ten-year war die by gunfire and it is like a ‘physical blow’ to a nation. Forty children hoping to join that nation die by drowning and there is no sorrow spoken by its Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. Just as there was no sorrow spoken by her after the drownings off Christmas Island, no names of the dead, no apology, no prayer for the bereaved.
Is the Prime Minister a racist? Well, she looks like one. She sounds like one. If a hundred brown-skinned corpses wrench no word of kindness from her and five white-skinned casualties of long stupid war she greets like an unbelievable calamity, these numbers, these numbers alone, suggest she looks like one, and sounds like one; looks, indeed, like that worst kind of racist, an unconscious one, the kind that thinks she is just being scientific, and ‘these people’ should go back to the village where their uncle was beheaded and seek work there and not risk big seas on their way to a civilised life in Melbourne or Sydney. Her phrase ‘a better sort of migrant’ (meaning me, JG, not Roquia Bakhtiyari) speaks volumes, as does her lack of an African or Aboriginal close friend in Melbourne or Adelaide, towns teeming with them, in forty-five years of making friends in Australia.
Is Julia Gillard a racist? She looks like one. Now it is clear her persistence with the Intervention lost Labor the Indigenous vote last Saturday, she looks like one. She looks like the female hotelier in The Sapphires disgusted by black girls who sing in competition with white girls, and says, ‘go back to the humpy.’
She may be otherwise, but she looks like one.
Discuss.
Name:
Just as well they had the Afghan deaths to hum over, other wise we would have had to squirm through the implications of yet another certain maritime incident.
It’s the culture that is racist, not any one individual.
No I’m sorry Bob, I cannot hack it, I’m voting Liberal, Gillard is the cheap Hamlet in suit of woe, she knows “seems” she is absolutely resolutely totally aware of “seems”.
Exactly, although I’m not sure I’d call the PM ‘racist’, for if she is so then almost all of the Parliament is, including the wise and decent Senator Carr and Ms Plibersek and all the others who support the PM and who shape the policies of the Government.
I hear your anger and frustration, but it is not just one woman alone who directs this government, there is a Cabinet and a caucus and they seem to be on the same page here.
What is the answer? Do we vote Green, the only party who advocates a humane refugee policy, freeing Julian and getting the hell out of Afghanistan?
From reading this – and I agree with everythign you write – Greens is the only obvious choice?
She is racist. I know from personal experience when she told a young homosexual Iranian man that he could go home because being stoned to death was not persecution.
While she makes racist deals to sell humans escaping from Afghanistan she leaves refugees from Afghanistan to drown.
Jesus. This better be true.
Of course it is true, I don’t make these things up. Senator Linda Kirk ended up getting him out of detention years later and one of Linda’s staff members father gave him a place to live.
I was at a meeting with the lovely Gabi Cotton who you probably met when she worked for Jeremy when Gabi asked the question of Gillard.
It may be true but of course you did not understand her point : that being stoned for homosexual acts or beheaded for some other crime – according to the sharia laws in force – does not legally qualify anyone for refugee status.
Oh Doug, trust you to support and defend the indefensible.
He is now a schizoid personality susbisting in Adelaide who will never work or live properly again.
But being stoned to death because he is homosexual where the punishment is death does satisfy his claim for refugee status as the high court found in other cases.
Under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, a refugee is defined (in Article 1.A.2) as a person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”
Sexuality or criminality does not come into it.
Being a homosexual in Iran who is being persecuted makes him a member of a particular social group.
Jesus Doug, you are ridiculous.
Behind DQ’s persona lies another, a lawyer’s, and fuelling the lawyer’s persona is a brain in which legalisms play a major role in the data churn. The lawyer persona is probably compelled to quote statutes, given that it would seem to be self-reinforcing vis-à-vis the ‘I’m a lawyer’ role. I might be wrong though.
Thanks for the analysis, Canguro; do you want me to analyse you in return?
It so happens that I reacted to Marilyn’s first “quote” above and cited the Refugee Convention to show that Gillard’s answer was not racist, sexist or whatever other pejorative term Marilyn might care to apply, and wants Bob Ellis to run with.
That is all.
Go for it, DQ. Analyse to your heart’s content. Be carefule what you say though, my solicitors, Pieing & Waterbomb, are only a string tug away.
Obviously not a criminal lawyer
That’s not racism Marilyn – bad policy maybe, but where does ‘race’ come into a policy that denies freedom to everyone – Hazara, gay Iraqi, Sri Lankan? It’s a crock of a policy, but not racism.
The language that emerges from Gillard in public suggests something about the intellectual environment of the legal mind. Lacking in nuance, devoid of empathy and carefully parsed to deliver the most expedient message to the constituent audience, and somewhat soulless.
Is it just her, or is this what a lifetime within the legal system does to people’s ways of expressing themselves?
She’s not alone in this, I think many of the politicians who previously practiced suffer the same detached legalistic way of expressing their views.
I get bored shitless listening to that sheila drone on and on and on love.
But what gets me is she looks like an emu.
Just a note to your superiors – this person isn’t very effective. Australians don’t actually talk like that. Send us someone more accomplished, Langley, show us some respect. Send us Ted Lapkin in drag. He can do a bonza fake Aussie accent, fair dinkum.
Whats up your bum love?
Let’s get serious. The Prime Minister represents Australians formost. She is not the UN. That is not to say she doesn’t grieve for any loss of life weather it is refugees or our brave soldiers.
You are a loose cannon Ellis. We must see off Abbott before any other issue is even canvassed.
Attack Gillard at the peril of the Party and the Nation.
It gives comfort to the enemy.
Bob Ellis is only speaking the truth.
Doug, the war is lost.
Raise the white flag. It’s all over mate. Labor is Cancer.
Embrace your new leader – the man with the red budgie smugglers…
Exhibitionism refers to a desire or compulsion to expose parts of one’s body – specifically the genitals or buttocks of a man or woman, or the breasts of a woman – in a public or semi-public circumstance, in crowds or groups of friends or acquaintances, or to strangers.
Exhibitionism as a disorder was first described in a scientific journal in 1877 by a French physician and psychiatrist Charles Lasègue (1809–1883).
Exhibitionism can be considered a psychological disorder if it interferes with the quality of life or normal functioning capacity of the individual. Exhibitionism is referred to in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th Edition (class 302.4). Many psychiatric definitions of exhibitionism broadly define it as “sexual gratification, above and beyond the sexual act itself, that is achieved by risky public sexual activity and/or bodily exposure.” Beyond bodily exposure, it can also include “engaging in sex where one may possibly be seen in the act, or caught in the act.”
A research team asked a sample of 185 exhibitionists, “How would you have preferred a person to react if you were to expose your privates to him or her?” The most common response was “Would want to have sexual intercourse” (35.1%), followed by “No reaction necessary at all” (19.5%), “To show their privates also” (15.1%), “Admiration” (14.1%), and “Any reaction” (11.9%). Only very few exhibitionists chose “Anger and disgust” (3.8%) or “Fear” (0.5%).
- Wikipedia
So where other than the beach has Abbott worn his speedos?
How does wearing speedos as a volunteer lifesaver make him an exhibitionist? Should he wear a neck-to-knee and a straw boater?
You are standiing on a beach. You are not engaging in any sporting activity at that particular moment. You have arranged for a gathering of media and you are preparing to standing in front of the cameras to say some words that are intended to be broadcast to the nation. Even if you had been swimming a bare five minutes earlier, you put a towel on. Any sane person would put a towel on.
Women want him, men want to be him.
In the scheme of genital excellence, Abbott doesn’t even rate on the scale.
Thanks Reader for Exhibit one. Please continue
When I expose my genitals, I like to see the whites of their eyes.
Are you Greta Garbo ?
OK, don’t know why but OK.
Greta Garbo was more likely a “no reaction necessary at all”‘er. Brigitte Bardot I can see as a genital fear inflictor. Abbott is no doubt subconciously imploring us to show our privates also, but he would be the first to break down in the face of real, healthy competition.
Have a look at the 72 second silence footage and then imagine Tony, imagining himself with his tackle out during that non responsive interview because that is what he was doing and you will not convince me otherwise.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/last-rights-for-afghan-refugees/story-e6frg6so-1226462716983
This is the real reason we are now trying to shove away Afghan refugees, worst is that Bowen was at the meeting and said we would accept more Afghans – instead he started trying to send them home or to Malaysia or anywhere but here.
It’s truly depraved to see them now letting Afghans drown, jailing and torturing them in Indonesia and here knowing very well they have been kicked out of Afghanistan and Pakistan over and over again and in both countries the Hazara are targetted for genocide.
Even worse, or better, the Indonesian crews can no longer be realistically charged with anything and our courts are apologising for jailing them here for years without charges.
Maybe they shouldn’t go to Indonesia if they are going to be maltreated there. Problem solved. They can fly to Malaysia and wait there turn like everyone else.
Shad, there is no such thing as waiting a turn.
Go to Malaysia? Are you utterly deranged?
OUr own courts, human rights watch, amnesty and everyone else found that Malaysia canes refugees.
People are allowed to seek asylum without being further tortured and tormented you know.
They are human beings.
Accepting that everything that you say is true, let me ask a couple of questions. If we let in all Hazaris who want to migrate here or, if you prefer, who claim refugee status, how many do you estimate would come and over what period? What would be the effects of this on the Australian economy, the environment, our social fabric and the attitudes of the public towards migration generally.
Why do you bring it back to our selfish little lives?
Our rotten war on Afghanistan is what started the latest exodus of Hazara and the genocide in Pakistan where they are booting out 3 million of them without cause while we are still whining about a few thousand.
This might shock you, but there is no way to tell how many Hazara might claim asylum here but there is no way we can legally deny them that asylum.
It’s not about us, that is the worst kind of racism in the world.
Look Marilyn, for all I know, you and Bob and all the other advocates for letting refugees in may be right, but you cannot escape from looking at the realities by just casting off lines like ‘racism’ and ‘selfish little lives’.
According to you, there are 3 million Hazaris being booted out of Pakistan. One would imagine that these are people who you say are fleeing from the war we created in Afghanistan.
Presumably most of them would be more than happy to be accepted by Australia as refugees and settle here. Are you advocating that we take them all? If not, how many should we take and how do we decide which ones to take? Would it be 180,000 which is the figure Bob Carr puts on it or would it be more or less?
Once you have decided on a figure, and once you have worked out how to choose which ones, could you direct your mind to the questions that I asked previously. To repeat them, what would the effects be on the economy, culture, social structure of Australia and our readiness to accept immigration? These are real questions that need to be looked at away the warm inner self ambience of the cafe chat or the dinner table.
Or you could just call me a selfish racist.
Why ask such dumb questions? If 3 million were forced here by Pakistan what are you going to do about it?
Come on?
If we blow a place to bits and make it impossible for people to survive we own them.
If and when the coalition get in they will hopefully vote you a special pension.
You’re doing a remarkably fine job of sandbagging their position for them.
And what’s absolutely priceless is that you’re apparently completely unable to see it.
Why are the questions dumb? Surely, if somebody advocates increased migration to Australia, whether so called legal or so called illegal, they have an obligation to identify possible problem areas and posit solutions.
You clearly believe that there is potential to increase our intake of refugees yet you refuse to say how many, and refuse to look at potential problem areas, (where do we house them, how do we provide jobs and education, how do we fund this, how do we educate the Australian public to accept and fund increased numbers), let alone provide solutions.
All you do is insult and vilify people who question your opinions.
This is a real problem and there are honest and rational people on both sides of the debate who are trying to come to grips with it. You are not one of those people.
Why do you not just shut up and leave the argument to others?
At least if they are running for their lives they won’t die a horrible death just have to wait their turn. That is a big if. Maybe they just want to better their economic circumstances. If that is the case the line would be much longer than Malaysia
You won’t have to worry about Gillard for much longer, Bob. I can confirm to you now that within three weeks of this post (i.e. before the 21st of September, her birthday), the factional conspirators against her will move to topple her and return Rudd to the Prime Minister’s office.
It will be Deja Vu all over again. I believe the French have a name for it.
Like defending Paris, stable government by the ALP has never been tried (since Hawke).
It will be worth dumping Gillard for Rudd as things could not be much worse for this pack of nepotistic saboteurs, just as it was worth dumping Rudd for Gillard. Hilarité s’ensuit, and just as well as it was becoming depressing under her soviet yoke.
That Rudd is apparently their only viable option (and I do NOT for one minute doubt your inside information) – the guy they dumped in his first term – demonstrates the apparent depth of their idiocy, cluelessness, haplessness, and clear lack of direction and talent.
They seem to have forgotten that Rudd was so severely spooked by Abbott… Or don’t care, which frankly if it means humiliating Gillard more than she has herself (thanks Slater & Gordon for transcribing her exit interview), I’m all for welcoming that wimpy, greasy chameleon right back into the lodge, and seeing him as a celebrity intruder on Big Brother as soon as his redrafted press sec Lachie can weasel him in to the house. Got to be “down with my teentie-something homies demographic dontcha know”. It’ll be like his being banished to the back bench never happened.
Yes, that’s it… Deja Ru!
That would be quite absurd. The polls are slowly correcting in a difficult media environment.
Any return to Rudd would make them a laughing stock, split the Party and allow all that ammunition from February to be aired over what few months remain before annihilation, fewer than they think if members resign over the issue and independents jump ship.
In short, it won’t happen.
Based on facts or a gut feeling?
ONYA TRUE BELIEVER. NICE TO READ A BIT OF COMMON SENSE FOR A CHANGE.
And now Bob Carr is claiming we have to shove away a few refugees because we might be swamped with 180,000 people.
Jesus wept, what is it that will shut these cowards up.
Apparently we (Australia) are running ads in Sri Lanka to encourage tourists; they seem to be encouraging would-be immigrants instead, prepared to take the odds on a long boat journey into indefinite detention (doesn’t mention that in the ads), and likely repatriation.
Perhaps it should be “Stop the Ads” – a new slogan for Moe. Which reminds me . . .
The Moe Diaries (cont.)
Still can’t find those damn policies. Maybe they’re in the drawer under the speedos?
Whispers are about that ALP heavies want Rudd back. Christmas might come early for yours truly!
Must remember to tell the front benchers to take this seriously, at least until the deed is done. Then ‘ferocious’ won’t begin to describe it! Ha!
What did Kerry Packer say, ‘you only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime’ – well I might get two Kevin Rudds!
Nearly had the bastard last time, ’til Julia came in and spoiled the fun. And according to the polls he’s still popular with the coalition voters – as if any of them would actually vote for him!
The joke is that Labor can’t stand him – like Malcolm on this side.
Now I wonder if I should live at Kirribili House like Howard did, and not bother with the Lodge? Speaking of Howard, I’m sure I could recycle some of his policies, must be around here somewhere, dead buried and cremated, but still serviceable . . .
Brian Toohey’s report yesterday’s Insiders (ABC-TV for transcript) re:the former Aus military heads’ enjoined belief that antiquated mobilised actions of the ‘white colonialism’ ethic to ‘do the job’ and ‘not cut & run’, etc, is
only going to bring on more of the same…
As a staunch Gillard critic, as an anti-Americanist and as a humanist, the Afghanistan question is not an easy question.
Gillard and Abbott have delivered the two sides of the same silver dollar on each point that lives have been lost to IEDs, helicopter accidents or green on blue attacks. We are now bipartisan on Afghanistan and the ANZUS treaty and also on the refugee issue. Next, there will be drug tests for welfare recipients. This will be the policy that wins Abbott the next election. No one cares about education, denticare, banning tobacco, the failed war on drugs; no one really seems to discuss climate change in terms of consumerism and sustainability. How are we going to balance the budget? Remember Bush, Blair and Howard’s GFC. Remember that the budget forecast in 2008 was for nine percent unemployment.
Then recall that if the unemployment rate considered those who were once unemployed but are now disabled and unable to work, of working age, the figure would stand around seventeen percent. Erm, also, casualisation rates the last time I checked were only matched by Spain.
Soon people will be collecting the dole in meal tickets only valid when used with the self-serve at Coles or Woolies. Crime rates will soar. Queensland will pass handgun laws.
The Hanrahan plaint raises it’s problematic head yet again.
I see, btw, that the ABC has posted a story out of South Aust. that refers to the use of the Edinburgh airfield as a staging post for secret US drone flights, from 2001 to 2006. Most of that time would have been on Mike Rann’s watch. as premier of SA.
I suppose the argument will be that the airfield is Commonwealth property and so the local political jurisdictions have no authority to interfere, but it dents my sense of the man’s integrity to realise that he stayed mute while this bald manifestation of American hegemony and commitment to the misery of others was being operated under his nose and he chose to stay silent.Or am I wrong about these details. It’s being reported that authorities warned civilian observers to remain quiet about the presence of this piece of foreign military hardware freely using our airspace.
Just how hand in glove are our spineless politicians in the context of Aust-US relations? Fucking sock-puppets, or as Marilyn says, moral cowards.
Perhaps our alliance with the US could be likened to membership of a union.
Yeh, well, ought that membership be optional or compulsory? Why do we attract this sort of criticism of the closeness of our relations to the USA when, for example, NZ was able to take a principled stand against the presence of nuclear weapons when David Lange was in the driver’s seat?
In the long run, I think the principled stand has served to enhance NZ’s position as an ethically aware people. Why is this such a difficult stretch for the Australians?
Union membership should always be voluntary.