Ok, some in the Liberal Party have suggested that Gillian Trigg’s should apologise for some of her comments over the past few months. Of course, she’s a busy woman and probably doesn’t have the time to write a formal apology and to simply rush one off may make her sound a little insincere, so I thought I’d write one on her behalf which she’s free to use so that the Liberals understand that she sees the error of her ways and won’ keep suggesting that it’s inappropriate for anyone being paid from taxpayer funds to find fault with anyone connected with the government. After all, this must have been the logic when Peta Credlin escaped her drink driving charge without so much as a stern warning from the judge let alone a fine or a conviction with the magistrate noting that she’d pleaded guilty so there was no need for a conviction to be recorded because she had a clean driving record having never had a conviction recorded. And thanks to the due process of the law, she still has a clean driving record, so should she front the court on another driving charge, she can stil plead guilty and ask for her previous lack of conviction to be taken into account when not recording a conviction.
But onto Ms Trigg’s apology.
Dear Prime Minister and Members of the Government,
As some of you are aware, I have recently been reported as saying one or two things that may have been considered to be critical of the actions that have been taken in relation to asylum seekers, and while it could be argued that theses criticisms could be levelled at both major parties, I realise that this is not what was meant when some suggested that I was adopting an unacceptable “partisan” position. It wasn’t that I was aligning myself with the Labor Party against you, it was that I was aligning myself with those foreigners in detentions centres. As such my actions were bordering on treason, and I’d like to thank the members of the public who were kind enough to alert me to this before I overstepped the mark and found ASIO breaking down my door at 3am to ask me if my papers were in order and whether I could recite all the words to the national anthem.
While I understand that you feel that my position is “untenable”, I should like to continue in my position at the Human Rights Commission. I do understand that this will be on the proviso that I never criticise any actions of the government but restrict myself to praising George Brandis’s choice of poetry, or telling the country that if there was ever a man that I’d trust to make a decision without having to resort to evidence, then Peter Dutton’s that man, because – as an ex-policeman – he surely knows how tricky things can get when you go to court and how many times simply charging someone with being in possession of indigenous features wasn’t enough to secure a conviction, and, of course, arguing that you simply had a gut feeling that this person was about to commit a crime allowed those defence lawyers to make those technical legal arguments about a “lack of evidence”.
If you allow me to continue, then I will do so under the proviso that all my statements will be checked by the Prime Minister’s office before being made public, because as some of your back-bench have pointed out: It’s the Human RIGHT’s Commission, not the Human LEFT Commission, and as such I should be pointing out such things as how unflattering Julia Gillard’s clothes were rather than concerning myself with what’s happening on overseas islands like Nauru and Manus.
And thanks to the explanations from some of your backbenchers, I now understand how allowing gay people to marry is a terrible breach of the rights of bigots.
So with these undertakings, I hope that we can move forward and put the past behind us with a spirit of cooperation. Just release Australia now that I’ve made these undertakings. You promised you wouldn’t harm her if I did. I love her and I want her back safely. Please, you promised…
Nah, now it’s just silly…
As if Gillian Triggs’d be gullible enough to believe anything these guys said.
- * *
P.S. I wrote about a book called “Spy The Lie” a while ago, and without going through the whole thing, one of the interesting bits was that people often avoid a direct denial but say something which sounds like they’re denying but isn’t actually a denial. For example, when asked if they stole the money, they’ll tell you that they’re a great bloke and stealing money is a crime. I mention this in relation to Christopher Pyne’s “denial” that he was the leaker:
“I don’t believe you should be in a cabinet if you are then going to go outside of the cabinet and leak about it. I think that is the worst thing you could possibly do.”
He then went on to say that one shouldn’t assume that it was one of the six named ministers.
But you may notice that there’s no actual “It wasn’t me!” statement in any of that. All he said was that if you leak you shouldn’t be in cabinet, and we all know that young Christopher shouldn’t be in cabinet, so that’s almost an honest statement.
Perhaps he said more somewhere else, but on the basis of that statement, I’d like to ask him point blank, “Were you the one who leaked?”
Although I suspect he’d merely say, “I’m a fixer”.
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!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969