There is an obvious double-standard at work in Australian politics, as demonstrated by Tony Abbott’s response to the Mal Brough menu disgrace. Bob Ellis comments (with illustrations by Gee).
So ... we have two candidates for the Federal seat of Fisher, in Queensland. One, it is said, defamed a shellfish, comparing it to a vagina, in a private communication to a friend; which, when it came to light in a court case, lost him his job, the second highest in the land, as Speaker of the House.
The other
defamed the vagina of the prime minister of the day, comparing it to that of a cooked quail, and her quail-like 'small breasts' and 'big bum' in the menu of a Liberal Party banquet ― a public occasion.
It was thought the first man should lose his seat for his private insult to bivalves, and the second should gain that seat despite his public insult to the genitals of the (female) prime minister.
There seems to be some hypocrisy here.
If
Mal Brough retains the pre-selection, it will go against much Liberal, LNP and Murdochist thought of recent times.
For saying: 'Do you know who I am', it was thought
Belinda Neal should lose her pre-selection. For
dressing down an air hostess and swearing in private, it was thought Kevin Rudd should lose his prime ministership. For calling, accurately, an old woman 'bigoted' in a private conversation, it was thought
Gordon Brown should be evicted from Number Ten — which he was, of course. For saying 'fucking fantastic' to some schoolchildren, it was thought
Stephen Conroy should lose his Ministry.
And yet comparing the Prime Minister's living body obscenely to something about to be eaten was okay with Tony Abbott ― who, it must be said, in his defence, eats Christ's living flesh every Sunday and thinks this is a good idea.
It would be better all round if Mal Brough had not been lately involved in the framing of
Peter Slipper with crimes of which he was innocent ― that of 'harassing' a thirty-four-year-old active homosexual male with text messages, a moral impossibility, I would have thought; and an act of treason, in wartime (which this is), against the second highest official in the land. It would be better if this dirty-minded manipulative man had not behaved, before this, in such a dastardly way against his opponent, denying he did so, denying it was to his advantage to do so, and avoiding all questions for five months.
What a pack of grubby crooks the Liberals now seem to be.
Abbott in particular, who seems to have defended several pederasts, and covered up, perhaps, the crimes of some of them ― the late
Christopher Pearson, co-author (I am told) of
Battlelines, one of them. I tediously ask
that page 68 of Latham and Abbott be explained by
Michael Duffy, its author, and the Attorney-General
Mark Dreyfus look into the possibility of Abbott having covered up for twenty-seven years some instances of male rape ‒ perhaps of minors ‒ by men sworn to celibacy in a Catholic college, St Barnabus', in Manly in the late 1980s.
Much amusement was derived from this menu, I have no doubt, but it may, in the context of this election year, have been unwise.
I write this before Leigh Sales, another brusque redhead, adverts to it, and I await
her reaction with interest.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
