The Left’s War On Women: It’s Not Ok

1532132_10152012329686853_2699105403218164199_aViolence against women is never acceptable, writes Anneliese Franklin in condemning the attacks on Julie Bishop and Sophie Mirabella:

Campus violence is, and has always been, unacceptable.  With the flourishing of campaigns such as the White Ribbon Pledge, opposition to violence against women, domestic violence and sexual violence is at a crescendo in our public arena. As a society we understand that to attack anyone is utterly repugnant behavior, and to attack women is an unacceptable perpetuation of hundreds of years of exploitation and harassment.  There is no excuse.  None.  This should cross all political allegiances and boundaries.

It was against this background that the “tolerant” Political Left, in this case the Socialist Alliance, the Education Action Group and Greens members, revealed their true hypocritical nature on Friday. Angered by the recent budget, they greeted Foreign Minister Julie Bishop with mobbing, violent shoves, and a heavy physical blockade at Sydney University.

Not satisfied with one ferocious assault, student socialists set their sights on Public Policy Fellow and former Liberal Party MP Sophie Mirabella on Monday, interrupting her lecture at Melbourne University with megaphones, shrieks and physical intimidation.  Staff were forced to suspend the seminar while police fought to safely escort Ms Mirabella out of the crush. Continue reading

All women are equal but some are more equal than others

By Perkin-Warbeck

I bet you didn’t know that there are WOMEN and then there are women.

I have this on the highest possible authority – Emily’s List, no less – which proclaims in the preamble on its website, “A woman candidate, to be satisfactory, must be a ‘feminist’ in the best sense of the word…she should believe absolutely in the equality of status, liberty and opportunity between a man and a woman. A woman candidate that is shaky on this matter, or not sufficiently imbued with its importance to be able to speak convincingly on the matter, will do the movement towards establishing women in Parliament far more harm than good.”

Emily’s List is the ALP affirmative action crowd, the official sisterhood, comprising Labor women who presumably pass the “satisfactory” test. Prime Minister Gillard is a proud member.

Given Gillard’s recent attempts to paint Tony Abbott as some sort of primitive throw-back and a gross misogynist, you might have imagined that Emily’s List would be in the front row of enthusiastic backers.

Yet, curiously, they have not issued one single statement praising their star member’s recent forays in her contrived gender war campaign. In fact, they haven’t issued any media statements since 30 January this year when they issued two – one paying tribute to dumped Northern Territory Senator Trish Crossin and one congratulating Nova Paris on being Gillard’s “captain’s pick” candidate for Crossin’s Senate spot.

Just why these “satisfactory” women have remained silent for five months as Julia and her government sink deeper and deeper into a morass of their own making is a mystery.

I’m not surprised they said nothing following the death of former British Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher because although she was the pre-eminent female politician of the 20th century, she obviously wasn’t “satisfactory”. 

The utterly desperate stage of this government’s decline could not be better illustrated by the fact that not only are they trying to control their message but are even trying to control the way it is presented.

Last Sunday, Gillard staged a tea party for parents and children at Kirribilli House in Sydney to sell the Gonski school funding policy. Photographers and camera crews were admitted to take happy snaps but reporters with difficult questions were banned. On Tuesday when the PM spoke at the Women for Gillard launch, reporters with notebooks and pens only were admitted and photographers and camera crew locked out. Julia’s own office released the footage which, no doubt, was carefully edited.

Only a day or so ago, Fairfax journalist Jacqueline Maley wrote about Julia’s recent tactics. It was an assessment that “satisfactory” women would find unpalatable.

She wrote, “For the first two years of her prime ministership, Gillard was reluctant to identify as a ‘female’ prime minister. She said on the record this was how she thought about herself. She wanted to govern for all Australia.”

Noting that Gillard had “been responsible for moving thousands of single mothers off the single parenting benefit and onto the lesser Newstart (the dole), Maley continued, “Gillard refused to back the female candidate for Batman, despite the affirmative action arguments of Jenny Macklin and Penny Wong. She promised to call out sexism in public life, but stayed silent when Labor MP Steve Gibbons called Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop a ‘bimbo’.”

Noting Gillard’s outrageous assertion last Tuesday about how abortion rights would be under threat if Abbott was elected, Maley wrote, “She had no evidence for making the claim…She needs to scaremonger about Abbott’s true attitudes to women and women’s rights. She needs to paint Abbott as dangerously retrograde. She needs to because she is politically desperate.” 

It should also be noted that Gillard’s famous “misogyny” speech in Parliament last October that gave her a temporary boost, was in support of a Speaker whose own position was under threat because of his own blatantly sexists text messages. That Speaker, Peter Slipper, didn’t get any criticism at the time from Gillard because she needed him to help prop up her tottering regime.

Emily’s List as what could be politely described as a curious attitude to democracy.

Last March, when Anna Bligh’s Queensland Labor Government suffered an overwhelming defeat winning only seven seats in a Parliament of eighty-nine, Labor’s “satisfactory” women issued a statement bemoaning that, “Saturday was a sad day for the Labor Party in Queensland, but what has gone unreported is just how sad a day is was also for Queensland women.”

It was a “sad” day for Queensland woman, they alleged, and we all know whose fault this was because Emily’s List told us, “These disturbing figures were further evidence of the contempt the Liberal National Party held for women.” The voters had nothing to do with it presumably.

Seventeen Liberal National women MPs were elected in Queensland in that State election but, of course, they aren’t “satisfactory”.


Indonesia Expands at Robust Pace and So Does Our Foreign Aid to Them

Indonesia is shining as one of Asia's strongest emerging markets given a healthy boost in GDP growth.


  

That’s excellent news for the people of Indonesia. But I want to know why the Australian government is still committed to giving Indonesia $1 billion in foreign aid by 2016.

Indonesia is a G20 country with an annual GDP of nearly $1 trillion USD. Things are so good for Indonesia they recently just purchased 6 brand new Russian Sukhoi Su-30MK2 jet fighters for a cool $470 million.

Given how generous we are with our aid dollars and how well Indonesia is now performing economically, I sought comment from both the Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd and shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop. I initially emailed Bishop on 12th Jan and Rudd 14th Jan. Ms. Bishop’s office acknowledged my first email but said Ms. Bishop was on leave. Fair enough – so I waited.

So on Friday February 3rd I decided to email both offices again for comment. At the time of submitting this post, neither the Minister nor the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs has responded.

Why is there reluctance on both the Labor and Coalition side of politics to reign in foreign aid, especially aid to Indonesia?

I can tell you why, it is just a gigantic vanity project designed to make politicians like Rudd and Bishop feel good about themselves, to permit them to strut on the international stage, posing as the saviours of the developing world.

I question the value of the aid as I’m worried that much of it is lost to corruption and bureaucracy. Bribery, kickbacks, and abuses are rife throughout Indonesian life, from the very top of the politics and commerce to the lowest levels of public administration.

And this endemic corruption has profound implications for the aid budget, because the truth is that so much of the money disappears without ever reaching the people for whom it is intended.

Aid has just ended up as a means of enriching the dishonest, while the poor continue to suffer.

I do not understand the Government's and opposition’s position on this and I don't think the Australian taxpaying public does either. 

I also happen to think it’s pretty ordinary when a taxpaying citizen (me) emails the relevant Minister and Shadow Minister with a valid concern and neither of them have the common decency and courtesy to respond.

Update 1:

Quote

Suzuki Motor Corp., the third-biggest carmaker in Indonesia, will spend 60 billion yen ($782 million) to increase capacity in the Southeast Asian nation, including setting up another factory to build engines, it said in January.

“Indonesia has good economic fundamentals,” said Davy Tuilan, a director at Suzuki’s Indonesia unit in Jakarta.

Yes Indonesia does have good economic fundamentals. No Carbon Tax. No Fair Work Australia. No ALP in government. No Green Politicians.

 

Follow Andy on twitter

Only Liberty Should be Mandatory

Andys RantThe problem with progressivism, it is infectious.

Today we have Deputy Liberal leader and shadow Foreign Affairs minister, Julie Bishop, declare that an Asian language should be mandatory for Australian schoolchildren.

Quote

"I believe that we should have a much greater focus on a second language," she told Sky News today.

"In fact my view is it should be mandatory.

"It should be an Asian language. I wouldn't necessarily say it has to be Mandarin. Japanese, Indonesian – there are a number of Asian languages that would be important."

It really sends a shiver up my spine when I hear anyone from the Liberal Party utter the word “Mandatory”. It’s a word normally exclusively used by progressives, namely the ALP and Greens.

Let me be clear I am not against anyone, particularly schoolchildren, learning a second language. In fact I say go for it if you want to learn a second language.

My issue is with the word “Mandatory”. Forcing people, let alone schoolchildren, is authoritarian and regressive.

We should have the freedom that includes the freedom not to learn a second language, or study music, or play sport.

From the Liberal Website – We Believe…

In the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.

In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.

Unless of course you happen to be a little “l” liberal like Julie Bishop who thinks learning an Asian language should be mandatory for Australian schoolchildren.

 

Follow Andy on twitter

A stronger society or stronger government?

Julie-Bishop The Hon Julie Bishop MP argues that government should not play a central role in society.

Analysts have read much into the recent stunning win for the Republicans for the Massachusetts Senate seat held by John and then Ted Kennedy for over half a century.

One thing is for sure, the result was a political earthquake.

It will not be lost on centre right political parties across the globe, from Washington to London to Canberra, that the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, ran on an unashamedly conservative agenda in a traditionally Democrat state.

Smaller government with less government interference and lower taxes were cornerstones of the Republican campaign.

Drawing parallels with current Australian politics is almost irresistible.

One of the more dangerous legacies of the Rudd Government will be that it has sought to be everything to everybody, offering a solution to every challenge facing our society.

Kevin Rudd is a proponent of Big Government. He has presided over the expansion of a mega-socialist-style-bureaucracy with its tentacles reaching into every corner of our lives.

There is no problem that Kevin Rudd says he cannot solve, no aspect of society that he thinks should be free from Labor’s intrusive agenda.

Many Australians will end up feeling powerless because Kevin Rudd claims that his government holds all the answers. There is less room for individual choice or personal responsibility.

However, for the vast majority of people, their choices and decisions regarding education, work, debt, saving and the like will be far more important at the personal level than the decisions of government.

This comes as no surprise to the Liberal Party, which was founded on a belief in the power of the individual, ensuring they have the freedom and choice to make those personal decisions that enable them to build better lives for themselves and their families.

The Liberal Party understands that government has a role to play in providing a generous safety net for those who need it. We believe that government should help create the economic and social environment that improves standards of living and quality of life, but, overwhelmingly, individuals have the greater power to improve their lives.

In contrast, Kevin Rudd believes that the government should be at the “centre” of economic activity, and that his government, through a rapidly expanding array of taxpayer funded programmes and new laws, has the solution to society’s ills.

While Mr Rudd’s promises to lower petrol and grocery prices and fix hospital waiting lists have been exposed as a cruel hoax on voters, he has continued his populist posturing.

Community concerns are understandably raised about alcohol consumption. The Prime Minister declares war on binge drinking and seeks to raise taxes on one form of alcoholic drink to influence behaviour. According to Mr Rudd’s agenda, it is the government that must tackle high levels of alcohol consumption rather than society and the individuals within it.

The Rudd Government thinks individuals cannot be trusted to access or monitor appropriate internet usage in their own homes so the Government rides to the rescue with a national internet filtering plan.

Wall Street bankers in the United States are targeted for excessive bonuses during the recent global financial downturn. Mr Rudd declares a war on bankers’ salaries in Australia and promises to regulate executives pay. The power of individual shareholders, the owners of companies, does not figure in his thinking.

A hallmark of Mr Rudd’s prime ministership will be his self portrayal as the equivalent of Australia’s Lone Ranger, riding to the rescue of all and sundry.

A few years back on a visit to regional NSW, I met with a group of locals concerned about the decline in their town, with the closure of shops and other services.

They asked, “What is the government going to do to keep our town alive? “

I asked where they had been shopping, doing their banking and having their cars serviced. Rather sheepishly, they admitted travelling through the town to a larger regional centre some 50 kilometres away for the “greater choice”.

This begs the question. If the locals are not prepared to invest in their local community, should taxpayers have to do so via government programmes?

Therein lies the weakness of Mr Rudd’s agenda with government playing the central role in society.

Individuals who feel or are told they are powerless are less likely to take action with regard to their personal challenges and the challenges of society.

There is less incentive to join volunteer groups and to donate time and energy to community projects when government not only takes all the responsibility but will actively intervene.

The truth is that while government fills an important function in society, it can never replace or supplant the efforts of motivated individuals.

We do not need more and bigger government.

A stronger society with empowered individuals is the key.

The Hon Julie Bishop MP is the Member for Curtin and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.