Watching the Hanson/Latham mutual admiration society on “60 Minutes” last Sunday night…
Actually that’s not really true, I didn’t watch it. I happened to switch back to the channel accidentally and like most people, when you think you’re about the witness an accident, you find it hard to look away until that moment when you go: “Oh no, that’s just too horrible.” In the case of last night’s program, it only took about “60 Seconds” before I’d had enough and would have changed to almost anything had it not been for them flashing to shots of Pauline in her burqa.
Now, I know that Pauline’s point is that the burqa should be banned for security reasons. Of course, there is some truth to the argument that you don’t know who’s underneath the burqa and if it were a suicide bomber, you wouldn’t be able to get an accurate description so when you reached the Pearly Gates, St Peter would turn you away because you couldn’t describe your assassin…
Ok, maybe not.
Let’s be quite honest here. There’s no reason to specifically ban the burqa on those grounds. It would be one thing to make laws which insisted that faces couldn’t be uncovered in public; it’s quite another to be specific about a particular garment when there’s no evidence that anyone wearing a burqa in Australia has ever committed any atrocities, with the possible exception of Pauline and her destruction of the English language.
Now, I don’t really want to dwell on Latham and Hanson. I am aware of the difficulty of finding the balance between not allowing their nonsense to go unchallenged and ignoring people like that so that you don’t give them the oxygen they need. Of course, it’s hard to ignore them when “Sunrise” gives Pauline airtime on a regular basis and “60 Minutes” give them the “Married At First Sight” treatment. Of course, I’ll stick with Pauline, says Mark, as if I’d leave her party before the election!
Anyway, the segment reminded me about all those other arguments for banning the burqa that I’ve heard over the years. It does strike me as ironic that many of those I’ve heard arguing that wearing it oppresses women, are the same people who argue that feminism is just political correctness gone mad.
But when it comes to oppressive clothing, I couldn’t help but notice Mark Latham was wearing a necktie. I mean, why on earth was he doing such a thing?
Clearly the necktie is a symbol of male oppression. Men are forced to wear neckties which contricts the blood flow and that stops oxygen getting to the brain. If you think about it, most of the world’s problems have been caused by men wearing ties!
You only have to look at Latham’s statements about DNA testing of those claiming Aboriginal heritage. I mean nobody who had blood flowing freely to the brain could possibly be that stupid…
Ok, Pauline Hanson doesn’t wear ties but she’s an exception. It may be something to do with the chemicals she inhaled while working in the fish and chips shop, but if we could just ignore her for a moment… Actually, could we just ignore her forever.
Anyway, I don’t blame the men wearing the neckties. I mean it’s not really their fault. They were persuaded by people who didn’t want them to think for themselves and once they started wearing those ties, they couldn’t really see the damage that it was doing.
I think the best thing we can do is when we see a man wearing a tie and giving a speech, we should all shout: “Loosen the tie, there may still be hope. Quick, before the damage is permanent.”
But don’t do it to Latham. He may tighten his, just to show that he doesn’t need oxygen and that he can manage just fine on…
On second thought, do it to whoever you see wearing a tie.
How many days till that election? I don’t have hopes that Labor will solve all our problems, but I do feel that they may stop making them worse.
At least there’s a couple of Labor ministers who don’t have those blue ties stopping their capacity to think!
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!