I don't know enough about the issue to have an oppinion (am I right in thinking the unfortunately named Slipper guy she's defending is not a very palatable person, either?) but either way she's a good public speaker, very focused and kept her composure through all the interuption (I love how much like British Parliament this is, with the heckeling and aying and naying). I would have love to hear the rebuttle, though, to hear what the guy as to say for himself, this way it was a bit onesided from an outside perspective.
Thanks for posting, it's great to get a glimps into other countries back yard once in a while....
If you're really interested, the full transcript of the session is available via Hansard. I honestly don't think watching it out of context is one-sided, as she's responding to years and years worth of sexist crap.
Also, she's not actually defending Slipper (and yes, he's been harassing his PA, ugh; he resigned shortly after this speech, as he should have), just saying the decision to sack him should be made after the court case has ruled so that Parliament isn't liable for an unfair dismissal suit. She *is* adding some positive spin to the situation for her party, to some extent, by changing the focus of the debate to sexism. But as Slipper had been sending sexist text messages to his PA, it's not much of a stretch, and it was absolutely time for it to be said.
Glad you enjoyed a glimpse of our government in action. :)
I watched the whole thing twice yesterday, and it felt GREAT.
Regardless of how much of a political manoeuvre it is to protect Slipper, and how questionable her other decisions/positions are, this one is a masterpiece.
I actually don't think it was protecting Slipper at all; I think it was to some extent meant to spin the fallout for the party, because being associated with him does make them look terrible. But she hung Slipper out to dry. She didn't even say he shouldn't be sacked, just that the decision should wait until the court case finished. And given the unfair dismissal laws, that was a logical argument; although really, he should have resigned months ago.
I think it is being seen overseas as feminist/patriarchy whereas in Australia the commentary is all bogged down in Gillard/Abbott, Labor/Liberals, Slipper supporting, etc. I think those overseas have a clearer view of this *epic smackdown*.
Yes, I agree. I also think, though, that there's a deliberate element of trying to derail happening in the Aussie press too, because they know they are culpable for a big part of the toxic sexism.
Basically, Slipper was indefensible, and thus, Gillard was not protecting him, but doing a neat sleight of hand
"At no stage in her speech did Gillard defend Peter Slipper's conduct - actually, she said she was offended by the content of the messages. Nor did she argue that he should remain in the Speaker's position.
She used her speech to make the point that the parliament should not accept the Opposition's motion, because the government considered it hypocritical. She didn't want the Opposition to claim a moral victory - which is quite different from defending Slipper."
Fantastic performance, first time I was proud of her as I disagree with many of her policies.
Yep, the press coverage that says she was defending him makes me so angry. It was an awesome piece of politics though, and such a great speech about misogyny.
Comments 12
Thanks for posting, it's great to get a glimps into other countries back yard once in a while....
Reply
Also, she's not actually defending Slipper (and yes, he's been harassing his PA, ugh; he resigned shortly after this speech, as he should have), just saying the decision to sack him should be made after the court case has ruled so that Parliament isn't liable for an unfair dismissal suit. She *is* adding some positive spin to the situation for her party, to some extent, by changing the focus of the debate to sexism. But as Slipper had been sending sexist text messages to his PA, it's not much of a stretch, and it was absolutely time for it to be said.
Glad you enjoyed a glimpse of our government in action. :)
Reply
Did you see this:
http://www.destroythejoint.org
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Regardless of how much of a political manoeuvre it is to protect Slipper, and how questionable her other decisions/positions are, this one is a masterpiece.
Reply
And yes, I watched it twice too. :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Basically, Slipper was indefensible, and thus, Gillard was not protecting him, but doing a neat sleight of hand
"At no stage in her speech did Gillard defend Peter Slipper's conduct - actually, she said she was offended by the content of the messages. Nor did she argue that he should remain in the Speaker's position.
She used her speech to make the point that the parliament should not accept the Opposition's motion, because the government considered it hypocritical. She didn't want the Opposition to claim a moral victory - which is quite different from defending Slipper."
Fantastic performance, first time I was proud of her as I disagree with many of her policies.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment