Tony Abbott is not the gatekeeper of my values

Tony Abbott, we get that you’re embarrassed that you said you didn’t want jetlag and that you think it’s an admission of weakness. But you need to let it go because that’s one giant shovel you’ve got in your hand and no amount of digging is going to make you win this one.

Leaving aside the fact that the headline doesn’t represent the story: Soldiers thrown to wolves, says Abbott:

The Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, has attacked Tony Abbott for claiming the government was stabbing soldiers in the back by allowing three commandos to be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Mr Smith said neither the government nor the Opposition Leader had any business interfering in an independent military process which, he pointed out, was established in 2005 by the Howard government, in which Mr Abbott was a minister.

The clash came as Mr Abbott continued to claim that Julia Gillard had set him up by leaking that he had declined her offer to accompany him to Afghanistan.

This, he contended, had lulled him into making his infamous excuse that he rejected the offer because he did not want to arrive for a conference in London suffering jet lag.

We found out earlier that the leak did not come from Gillard’s office, so why are journos still letting him get away with this lie? Oh, that’s right, because apparently our job is now simply to report what someone says, rather than actually check the truth of the claims being made. We are just mouthpieces serving the news makers rather than our audience.

And Smith is right – politicians have no business interfering in military prosecutions. According to the SMH article, the three commandos have been charged with “manslaughter, dangerous conduct, failing to comply with a lawful general order and prejudicial conduct” after a “raid in February last year in Oruzgan province in which five Afghan children were killed”. Would Abbott prefer it if Australian soldiers were above the law? Woops, five kids were killed, oh well, doesn’t matter. Hell, why don’t we just shoot all the civilians – would save us the trouble of being in their country in the first place. We don’t know if the commandos are guilty or not. That’s why we have this independent military process.

Anyway, the bit I want to talk/rant about is this:

While Ms Gillard said yesterday she no longer intended to comment on the saga and thus fuel it, Mr Abbott said he needed to keep defending himself because he was the gatekeeper of the nation’s values.

”One of the things that so disappoints me about the election result is that I am the standard bearer for values and ideals which matter and which are important and … as the leader of the Coalition, millions and millions of people invest their hopes in me and it’s very important that I don’t let them down.

”When I am unfairly attacked, I’ve got to respond and I’ve got to respond in a tough way.”

Abbott and Pyne have accused Gillard of “low bastardry” and “back alley bitchiness” and he’s the one being unfairly attacked? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

And what’s this shit about being the gatekeeper of the nation’s values? I’m guessing that’s a self-appointed position. A man who believes women are inferior to men, that a woman’s virginity is a gift that she should give to someone special, that refugees should be demonised, that climate change is crap, certainly does not represent ANY of my values.

Oh, and Abbott, since you didn’t win the election, that means there are more people who didn’t invest their hopes in you than those who did. Deal with it, and stop your whining.

40 responses to “Tony Abbott is not the gatekeeper of my values

  1. Just to check my understanding on a relatively minor point, is it that you disagree with the notion that virginity is a gift, or just that it’s “the most precious gift” as Abbott said?

    I’ve always thought of it as being, well, not so much a gift, but when you share your first sexual experience with someone that’s pretty special.

    • Yes sex is special, but we women are more than just our hymens. We bring more than sex to a relationship. And for me at least (I can’t speak for all women) the sexual relationships I had after losing my virginity were far more special and noteworthy experiences. That’s not to say I regret the loss of my virginity, I don’t. It was what it was. But to say that it was more special than any other time I have had sex is just ridiculous.

      • I don’t agree that sex, by definition, is special.
        Sure, sometimes it is about connecting with another person, but sometimes it is just sex. I’m pretty ok with that.

      • To clarify, I think sex within a relationship is special. Because that kind of sex carries emotional investment. The sex itself is an expression of the feelings you have for each other which can range from romantic to throw me on the ground and fuck me like a pig three minute quickies..

        Sex in general is just sex. Which was the point in my head that I failed to make in my reply. It’s a relationship that gives sex its specialness, not the other way around.

        But as women, we are expected to only ever want the kind of sex that’s special. We’re not supposed to want lust filled pig sex with a man we hope we’ll never see again. That’s why we need intact hymens….cause that’s all that lies between us as pure and marriageable women and the immoral sluts we will inevitably become if we fail to see our hymens as the precious gifts that they are.

        I can’t believe I typed that last paragraph without vomiting.

        • Oh dear, I read that as ‘fuck me like a pig tree’ and tried to picture a pig tree – a tasty, tasty pig tree.

          • Pig tree! A plant that tastes like pig. It’s the answer to my prayers. I could totally go vegetarian with the help of a pig tree. Bacon bark, prosciutto leaves…. *disappears in a fog of ethical pig flavoured dreams*

            • I just scared the crap out of the cat laughing at this.

              NWN- I am now trying to both picture a pig tree and how one would actually attempt to fuck a pig tree.

              Ariane, I am in the same fog now.

              Fuck me like a pig tree….we are the women Tony Abbott was warning the world about. I propose “Fuck me like a pig tree” be the new “For fuck sake”.

    • yeah sorry Allan – you may be fighting a losing battle on this one. Personally I don’t see virginity as sacred and therefore a gift for a man or a woman. That is my view, it obviously isn’t yours and that is Ok. I and most of the women I know personally do not appreciate anyone dictating to them when and how they should lose their virginity. I think TA was wrong to use his daughters publicly like that. The main concern I have with this is that the whole sacredness and giftiness of virginity is frequently attributed as a woman’s issue and a way of quilting young girls and doing a spot of ‘slut shaming’. As Pirra nicely puts it – my hymen and vagina is not my greatest gift in life. Actually, I once bought my sister a black and white dress I wanted for myself…that was pretty awesome gift and I bought K some nice wine glasses that she really needed, but I digress.

      Back on topic. I find TA’s morals and viewpoints repugnant, they do NOT represent mine and (like TA) I think I have pretty good values and morals (not I don’t include political views in this as they are a different ball game and you can have a different political point of view and still have decent morality). To set himself up as a self appointed moral guardian is arrogance beyond belief and even a tad delusional. Surprised, no not really.

  2. On virginity, I understand Abbott’s use of the term was in direct reply to what he thought of his daughters virginity…. what I don’t agree with is his wider implication. That women should be virgins at marriage and that the value of a woman is related to the status of her hymen.

    Even if I saw my virginity as the most precious gift I could give (which is ludicrous because I think the greatest gifts I can give are my love, my intellect, my warmth, my humour, my time etc. all things not related to my vagina or the state of my hymen) the fact remains that it would be MY gift to give and MY right to determine where, when and whom I would chose to share that moment in my life. And Tony Abbott certainly doesn’t have the right to tell (or suggest) me or my daughter or any other woman what we can and can’t do with our bodies.

    • I don’t agree with Abbott discussing his daughters’ virginity with a journalist, full stop. He could easily have said ‘none of your business’, but instead, knowing that he was talking to a journalist, he took the opportunity to tell women (and not men) that their virginity is a gift. Abbott is a seasoned professional. To believe that he was making an innocent remark from a father’s perspective is naive.

      • Absolutely! He most certainly should not be talking about his daughters virginity. What I meant was, I understand his opinion in that context. Parents do think about their children’s evolving sexuality and how to approach it. Some people just can’t seem to help but tell others how to go about parenting, and whilst it was more than likely an opportunistic way for him to tell Australian women how they should behave (and Australian parents what they should be teaching their children), I do think their was a certain authenticity in that he was talking as a father.
        The problem (aside from discussing a very private and personal topic on a choice that is not his to make) is that he wasn’t ONLY talking as a father, and he didn’t have the balls to own it.

      • One more point…are the writers at womens weekly really journalists? I mean does that really count?

  3. Oh and on Smith and the interference of Government in Military Prosecutions…Here, here! It’s a very different kettle of fish to our Civilian justice system and I am not convinced that any politician really understands the Military and the wars they fight.
    It’s our military justice system that makes soldiers soldiers rather than brutal, mindless killing machines. As a military wife, I feel for the soldiers facing prosecution (and their families) but there are rules of engagement and the purpose of the court is to examine if they broke those rules and if so, to determine the circumstances under which the rules may have been broken and issue a correct and just punishment if that should be the case.

  4. if Tony Abbott is the gatekeeper, does that mean Julia Bishop is the Key Master?

    HOLY CRAP!!! we may have to cross the streams!!
    or perhaps thats exactly what Labor and the Greens have done!

    Hilarity aside, I dont appreciate anyone being the gatekeeper of my values except for.. well.. me! They are my values, sure, i may share some of these values with others, but i certainly dont hand over the keys to my values to anyone!

  5. Tony has to be the keeper of our values, because the country is being over run by atheists who pick and choose their own values and we all know where that will end! It will end in people Not Choosing Tony’s Morals. That’s unthinkable. So as you can see, he really had no choice.

    /irony

  6. Pingback: both kinds of politics

  7. I love how TA thinks that cos I don’t believe in a man in the sky or follow the dictates of an ex Hitler Youth old German who now lives in a posh house in Rome that I and the many millions of others like me are somehow morally vacuous and he is our guiding moral light. I would rather believe in the Force, may it be with me.

    • Notwithstanding your very valid point, I am afraid your reference to the ex Hitler Youth may be a tad misleading. Yes Joseph Ratzinger was in the hitler youth however so was every other non jewish male of his generation. They were either in the Hitler Youth or in a eulogy.

  8. He was talking in the context of the moral obligation to be honest and fair. I know because the quote was from an interiew with Alan Jones at about 10 to 6 in the morning. I will be so bold as to suggest I was the only regular contributor to this blog to have been listening at the time, so I know he was referring to the no carbon tax / yes carbon tax flip flop and allowing ‘Brigadier’ McDade enhance her chances of obtaining silk.
    On the whole prosecution of the three SF soldiers I have this to say;
    1. Most military legal personnel are oxygen thieves.
    2. A Brigadier should command a Brigade, no exceptions.
    3. Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Bob Brown et al beat their breasts over the plight of a confessed murderer and convicted terrorist/traitor in David Hicks. It seems military prosecutions are not OK for enemies of our nation, but fine for those who defend it.
    4. I challenge Mr Smith to sit in a mud brick house with the
    7.62 thumping through the walls and see if he peers around the corner to check for civilians. Same goes for Brig McDade.
    5. These three are being sold up the river to appease bleeding heart types who deep down inside really want soldiers seen as criminals, as it will justify their shameful lack of support for them (hey Mr Brown)
    6. Any military prosecution is patently unfair. The entire system of Courts Martial is stacked against the accused, which is why it was replaced by the AMC until that was ruled unconstitutional. Any system that can have a non legally qualified officer imprison someone for rolling their eyes at the ‘judges’ friend, without allowing for qualified legal representation (instead the case is prosecuted and defended by more friends of the judge) is patently fucked.

    • Hi kimsonof, I was hoping you’d arrive with your military knowledge.

      I don’t think soldiers are criminals. But if criminal behaviour occurs, I want them to face the legal process, just like in the civilian world.

    • Would they fare better in a civilian court?

      I don’t like the idea of them being charged in the first place. I think it would be pretty hard to prove one way or the other. A war zone is a very different place to say someone walking into a school with an M16 and opening fire.

      I’d agree with what you said. However I do think Mr Smith was right in saying that neither the PM nor the opposition leader should interfere in military judicial process. However I would extend that to ALL politicians. (Having said that, my knowledge on military judicial process is very minimal)

      When you say military legal personnel are oxygen thieves, who are you referring to? (as I only have a small knowledge of the military legal system, you piqued my curiosity there.)

      • Hi Pirra,
        Most Military Lawyers are just like other officers, obsessed with advancing their careers. Just like most (I say most as there are some officers who I greatly admire and respect; MAGGEN Mark Kelly, BRIG Andrew Sims, LTGEN Peter Cosgrove (R)) officers they will screw anybody over if it means another step up the chain of command.
        A good example of this occured when our OC who was brilliant and well liked by his men, was sacked by the CO in the middle of pre-deployment training in order to allow the CO’s old mate to gain operational sub unit command experience. The original OC (who knew my mothers name before I even met him) had his career destroyed and his replacement is high ranking and still serving.
        Military lawyers are the same except they have a legal education and should know better.
        In answer to your first question, yes they would as they would get the right to a trial by jury (a court martial jury consists of yet more officers) This right is in s80 of the constitution: ‘ The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury’ An indictable offence has been held by the High Court to be one which carries a sentence of seven years or more, so I would assume their barrister will head down this path at some stage.
        NWN I am glad to be of assistance as the subject matter ‘expert’ re the military. You are 100% correct that if these blokes did commit a crime they should face the consequences. I just take issue with the whole idea of manslaughter in respect to firefights, the entire structure of the military justice system which is weighted against the accused and elements of the Army’s top brass continuing to treat the covering of arses as a higher priority than the safety and welfare of their subordinates.
        Have a kick arse weekend everyone.

        • Thank you Kimsonof. Well you can’t spell COCK without a CO. (I must admit I always get the OC and CO confused. The CO outranks the OC right?)
          My opinion of officers varies. But the vast majority do appear to have their heads completely up their own arses.
          Is there a way to make our military court more just?
          Even in a military court one would think that the “jury” should be made up of their peers. CO’s and NCO’s alike. I just can’t see a civilian jury being able to identify with what goes on in a war zone. (Or a lot of CO’s either for that matter.)

          • True but civilian juries often have to determine a viewpoint from complex legal arguments.
            The military justice system can be made more just in the following ways (in my opinion)
            1. COs (yes they are higher as they are a LTCOL commanding a battalion whereas an OC is a MAJ commanding a company within a battalion) should not be able to sentence any member to imprisonment.
            2. The charge of prejudicial conduct should be taken out of the DFDA as it is far too subjective. Pretty much any conduct could be deemed prejudicial to defence’s image.
            3. Insubordination should only include serious cases. For example rolling your eyes should never be an offence.
            4. Extra regimental punishments should be abolished.
            5. All offences which carry a potential term of imprisonment should be heard by a special magistrate. This magistrate should have no connection to Defence and should be chosen from amongst existing civilian magistrates. Sittings should be held every second Friday in capital cities and areas with a high Defence population such as Townsville.
            6. Above this mgistracy should be a Military Court established in line with the constitution. Again it should have appointed judges with no connection to defence. It should sit on an ad hoc basis and hear serious cases in the first instance as well as appeals.
            7. The office of DMP should be wound up and responsibilities for prosecuting serious offences should be transferred to the CDPP.
            8. All defendants should have a right to a lwayer. This should never be up to the discretion of the CO or anyone else.
            9. An officer who is found to bring a lot of charges without merit should be declared some sort of vexatious litigant and banned from bringing further charges.

  9. NWN
    On and off the subject ,I have spent the last 8 days without the screen and to get any [news]? It has been tv and hand out copies of tele & smh The papers are hard to read with all the junk reporting and where I was staying all free to air tv channels were watched for to-days news ,some repeated for days as headline news ,thankfully no current affairs but 730 report and lateline .
    A waste of time. Australian journalism sucks, the best you can hope for is a good laugh when they fuck up. The abc people get prickly if they are not treated with due respect.[obrien and foreign minister].
    Now on subject , back home , turn on screen and read all blogs missed . Interesting and thought provoking writing . Questions asked and answers sought for important topics .NWN seems to have had a good few days being disillusioned by MSM and the arm swinging sook TA. Thank christ for this kind of journalism. If these blogs were in print with a much wider audience we would be better served.
    Thanks for a bloody good read.

  10. Tony Abbott can suck my arse.
    I nearly pissed myself this morning when I read this ‘article’ in the paper. Partially because I could picture the apopleptic rage happening in your house.
    What a snipey, horrid little man.

  11. Why does this man still exist?

Go on, you know you have something to say...

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