SHY got Gillarded

[mothra]

David Leyonhjelm's comments to Sarah Hanson-Young continue parliament's history of sexist abuse

In one foul-mouthed phrase, Senator David Leyonhjelm has turned a debate about the safety of women into a sleazy political sideshow.

Claiming — without a shred of factual support — that he had interpreted Senator Sarah Hanson-Young as having said words to the effect of "all men are rapists", Senator Leyonhjelm called across the chamber that she should "stop shagging men". Confronted by her afterwards, he told her to "f*** off".

It is one more example of the debasement of political debate in Australia, aided and abetted by elements of the media, in this case Sky News. Its Outsiders panel of Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron gave Senator Leyonhjelm a platform on which he repeated his offensive remarks, and sat back obligingly while he did so.

Only when the network was deluged with complaints did Cameron apologise for the pair of them, and the network took its own action — suspending not Dean and Cameron but the nameless and faceless young female producer who put up a caption at the foot of the screen bearing Leyonhjelm's words.

Sexism ramped up with Gillard

Sexism and sexual innuendo are nothing new in politics. Cheryl Kernot, one-time leader of the Australian Democrats who had an affair with Labor foreign affairs minister Gareth Evans and defected to Labor in the late 1990s, was the butt of some crude slanging on the floor of the parliament.

But since June 24, 2010, when Julia Gillard deposed Kevin Rudd as Labor prime minister, these phenomena seem to have become palpably worse.

The reasons are necessarily speculative, but over the intervening eight years there have been a series of developments that might help to explain it.

One has been the explosive arrival of social media and its adoption as a tool of propaganda by all who want to make themselves heard, regardless of taste, harm or substance. Facebook, launched in 2004, went global in 2006, the same year Twitter was launched. YouTube appeared in 2005, Instagram in 2010 (acquired by Facebook in 2012) and Snapchat in 2011.

Whatever benefits they have brought — and there are many — they have also brought trolling.

It was gross in its extremism and vulgarity. Much of it was crude pornography. There was incitement to violence and unbridled misogyny.

Research by Anne Summers for her 2012 Human Rights and Social Justice Lecture at the University of Newcastle, revealed just how vile this online assault became.

The poison seeped out into the wider public discourse, where inevitably elements of the mainstream media magnified it.

Notable contributors to this were commercial radio talkback shlock jock Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and Chris Smith.

Their depictions of, and remarks about, Ms Gillard were disgustingly offensive. Not only were they sexist, extremist and malicious, but in Jones's case involved encouragement of the idea the prime minister should be dumped at sea.

And then, of course, there was the infamous question about the sexual orientation of the prime minister's partner.

Portrayals of Ms Gillard by other elements of the mainstream media, especially the newspapers, were generally less grotesque, but raised important ethical issues just the same.

The most common, and in some ways the most difficult to pin down, concerned the passively neutral way in which they covered the grossly disrespectful public attacks on her, just as Dean and Cameron did on Sunday.

An egregious example was the coverage of the rally outside Parliament House in 2011 when the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, gave legitimacy to sentiments such as "ditch the witch" and "bitch" by allowing himself to be photographed in front of placards bearing those words.

A #metoo backlash?

A more recent development, also made possible by the internet, has been the rise of the #metoo movement, in which women who previously felt powerless to speak out about sexual harassment are now doing so, bringing down some powerful men such as Harvey Weinstein in the process.

This has produced a backlash consisting of a complicated mix of male dubiety about the exact nature of sexual harassment and irritation by some feminists at what they see as an apparent weakening of women's agency.

The fact there is a backlash at all doubtless encourages those who wish to say that attention to sexual harassment is overdone, and we should get back to a bit of good old-fashioned slagging of the kind epitomised by Senator Leyonhjelm's remarks.

Media the new Wild West?

A further factor might be that the boundaries of privacy have shifted, so sexual references that would have been deemed off limits a decade ago are now shared on social media. Perhaps this is having a desensitising effect on standards of public taste.

Trends in public standards influence editorial decision-making. Stories are published that previously might not have been, or might have been toned down.

As professional mass media try to keep pace with developments in social media, editors may feel they will be left behind if they don't swiftly adapt to these changing mores and become more libertarian in their decision-making.

In these ways, boundaries in public taste and decency shift over time. However, Senator Leyonhjelm has clearly put himself beyond the pale. Sky News obviously recognised this and felt an apology was necessary, even if the independent senator himself does not.

The bigger picture of disrespect

Meanwhile, it is sobering to reflect on the worst consequences of disrespectful attitudes to women. The shocking rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon in Melbourne last month — which gave rise to the debate in which Senator Leyonhjelm made his disgraceful interjection — has rightly led to an outpouring of community outrage and grief.

The 2018 report of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, which draws on data from all the coroners' courts in Australia, stated that between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2014 there were 152 intimate partner homicides across Australia that followed an identifiable history of domestic violence.

Of these, 121, or 79.6 per cent, were women killed by men.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-04/david-leyonhjelm-sarah-hanson-young-sexist-abuse-parliament/9939584?smid=Page:%20ABC%20News-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf193122936=1

[HBS Guy]

SHY does not have anywhere near Gillard’s strengths or intellect.

[mothra]

SHY does not have anywhere near Gillard’s strengths or intellect.

Not meaning, of course, that she is any less susceptible to the blatant sexism inherent in the system.

[johnsmith]

Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot

[mothra]

Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot

Did you hear his outrageous conditions upon which he would apologise?

The man is pond slime.

[johnsmith]

Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot

Did you hear his outrageous conditions upon which he would apologise?

The man is pond slime.

he's digging in because he got a few 'atta boys' from people like bernardi and mutton

[pinkeye]

yes.. unfortunately, this shows that some men in power, be it political, or media, believe that they can say whatever they like, and refuse to rescind, or apologise. we hear their rubbish everyday.. (we , as in many Australians, because I don't listen to the cunts).. and it has seeped into the Australian psyche.
These shlock jock are symptoms of a much wider disease.

Imagine the furore if Senator HansenYoung had yelled out across the chamber to Leyonhelm.? something like..? ???? (…………….)

Add your own invective please.


A very big rift remains in Australian politics, and therefore, as a reflection, in Australian society generally.

[mothra]

yes.. unfortunately, this shows that some men in power, be it political, or media, believe that they can say whatever they like, and refuse to rescind, or apologise. we hear their rubbish everyday.. (we , as in many Australians, because I don't listen to the cunts).. and it has seeped into the Australian psyche.
These shlock jock are symptoms of a much wider disease.

Imagine the furore if Senator HansenYoung had yelled out across the chamber to Leyonhelm.? something like..? ???? (…………….)

Add your own invective please.


A very big rift remains in Australian politics, and therefore, as a reflection, in Australian society generally.

Well said.

[mothra]

Hanson-Young gives Leyonhjelm one week to pay compensation or face lawsuit

[MilesAway]

SHY does not have anywhere near Gillard’s strengths or intellect.

Not meaning, of course, that she is any less susceptible to the blatant sexism inherent in the system.

Fo witch!

[MilesAway]

Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot

So women can just blame all men for crimes they didn't commit: yay, go Victoria and the cesspit we left to the idiot pizza makers

[MilesAway]

Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot

Did you hear his outrageous conditions upon which he would apologise?

The man is pond slime.

You're just a stinky stench of slime

[MilesAway]

Leyonhjelm should be thrown out of parliament. If he was doing any other job and said that, he would have been sacked on the spot

Did you hear his outrageous conditions upon which he would apologise?

The man is pond slime.

he's digging in because he got a few 'atta boys' from people like bernardi and mutton

Lol, you're a putrid and disgusting joke of a pretend man bruther!

[MilesAway]

yes.. unfortunately, this shows that some men in power, be it political, or media, believe that they can say whatever they like, and refuse to rescind, or apologise. we hear their rubbish everyday.. (we , as in many Australians, because I don't listen to the cunts).. and it has seeped into the Australian psyche.
These shlock jock are symptoms of a much wider disease.

Imagine the furore if Senator HansenYoung had yelled out across the chamber to Leyonhelm.? something like..? ???? (…………….)

Add your own invective please.


A very big rift remains in Australian politics, and therefore, as a reflection, in Australian society generally.

lol, the metho drinker chimes in because

[MilesAway]

Hanson-Young gives Leyonhjelm one week to pay compensation or face lawsuit

lol , seriously

[johnsmith]

In an update. Score 1 to SHY

David Leyonhjelm ordered to pay Sarah Hanson-Young's legal costs

Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm has lost his bid to have Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young's defamation case against him thrown out.

Senator Hanson-Young launched legal proceedings against Senator Leyonhjelm in August, accusing him of attacking her character in a media statement he issued in June and during radio and television interviews in July.

She claims Senator Leyonhjelm suggested she was a misandrist and a hypocrite and that he repeatedly falsely accused her of claiming that all men are rapists.

Last month Senator Leyonhjelm's lawyer Kurt Stoyle called on the Federal Court to stay the proceedings, arguing that the case amounted to an abuse of process because his client could not mount a defence without breaching parliamentary privilege.

"The thrust and current starting point is that the court can't adjudicate on the claim presently before it without the parties inevitably being placed in breach of parliamentary privilege," Mr Stoyle told the court.

Senator Hanson-Young's lawyer, Sue Chrysanthou, told the court parliamentary privilege would not be contravened and there was no basis to the application.

She said her client never said all men were rapists and Senator Leyonhjelm had not produced any evidence to support that allegation.

"A person is not entitled to walk out of Parliament and fabricate an assertion as to what was said and attempt to defend a defamation claim under the guise of parliamentary privilege," Ms Chrysanthou said.

On Wednesday, Justice Richard White dismissed the application for the proceedings to be thrown out.

He also ordered Senator Leyonhjelm to cover the cost of Senator Hanson-Young's legal fees relating to the failed application.

Neither senator was present in the Adelaide courtroom for the decision and their lawyers appeared via videolink from Sydney and Brisbane.

Counsel for Senator Leyonhjelm flagged that his client may lodge an appeal against the decision.

The matter returns to court on December 18 for a case management hearing.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-07/sarah-hanson-young-david-leyonhjelm-defamation-case/10474360

[Auggie]

I find Leyonheljm’s comments abhorrent and completely unacceptable.

I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.

For example, if an MP called Peter Dutton a sociopath in Parliament, should he/she be sued for defamation?

[johnsmith]

I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.

I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.

[Auggie]

I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.

I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.

So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?

[DonDeeHippy]

Damm it to hell liitleshlong is my member ... what shame

[johnsmith]

I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.

I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.

So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?

no, if someone believes something to be true, then fine, Apply parliamentary privilege.

But if someone knowingly abuses parliamentary privilege to spread lies, then he should not only be sued, but thrown out of parliament. We don't need politicians like that

[Auggie]

I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.

I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.

So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?

no, if someone believes something to be true, then fine, Apply parliamentary privilege.

But if someone knowingly abuses parliamentary privilege to spread lies, then he should not only be sued, but thrown out of parliament. We don't need politicians like that

How do you know that David Leyonhjelm didn't believe what he was saying to be true?

[johnsmith]

I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.

I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.

So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?

no, if someone believes something to be true, then fine, Apply parliamentary privilege.

But if someone knowingly abuses parliamentary privilege to spread lies, then he should not only be sued, but thrown out of parliament. We don't need politicians like that

How do you know that David Leyonhjelm didn't believe what he was saying to be true?

because he's a lying dickhead

[Auggie]

I also think that he shouldn’t be taken to court over defamation. Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. It gives MP’s the power to say what they want without legal consequences. This can be used for both good and bad reasons.

I disagree. Just because they have parliemntary privilege, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse it by knowingly lying about other members. Leyonheljm deserves everything he gets.

So, if a member of Parliament abuses a member but isn't knowingly lying about it (i.e. they believe it to be true), should that person be subject to legal action, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege?

no, if someone believes something to be true, then fine, Apply parliamentary privilege.

But if someone knowingly abuses parliamentary privilege to spread lies, then he should not only be sued, but thrown out of parliament. We don't need politicians like that

How do you know that David Leyonhjelm didn't believe what he was saying to be true?

because he's a lying dickhead

That's what you believe. But you cannot prove that he was knowingly lying, ergo parliamentary privilege would apply according to your logic.

You don't get to pick and choose who gets to say what in Parliament. If Leyonhjelm should be kicked out, what about Fraser Anning for his speech, which was much more virulous than what Leyonhjelm said???

[johnsmith]

That's what you believe.

and I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Tell me auggie, did SHY claim all men are rapists? Do you have any reason at all to suspect she sleeps with any man other than her husband?

I'm no fan of Sara Hanson Young, but this sort of bullshit has to stop.