Yesterday Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells addressed the National Press Club on conservatism in contemporary Australian society.
According to the Senator, she, and her views, represent the silent majority of Australians who she seems to believe are made up of elderly God-fearing people, many of whom can’t speak English.
“My views are those of the silent majority … I reflect contemporary Australia today.”
Ms Fierravanti-Wells informed us that the most important things to Australians are family, religion, family values and tradition.
She quoted census figures to show how many people came from non-English speaking backgrounds saying their conservative views must be considered in policy making.
But what the Senator chose to ignore is that 22% of all Australians stated they had no religion at the 2011 census – an increase of 6.8% over the previous decade. In 2011, almost a third of people aged 20 years and over with a postgraduate degree reported no religion (31%). Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory had the highest rates of people reporting no religion (both 29%), just ahead of South Australia (28%). New South Wales, the Senator’s home state, had by far the lowest rate (18%).
Predictably, Fierravanti-Wells is fervently against same-sex marriage and insists that she is representing the mainstream view in her strident opposition. She dismisses the polls showing overwhelming majority support for marriage equality because all those elderly non-English speaking constituents of hers don’t take part in the polls.
Speaking in Parliament in 2012 she said “This is not about equality; it is about the tearing down of our social fabric.”
“I reject the assertion that those who argue for the retention of the definition of marriage are somehow homophobic, bigoted or are opposing equal rights. It is about maintaining a tradition—a tradition that has been the bedrock of our communities, our society and the world as we know it.
The silent majority in this country does not support this change. Indeed, there are many people who are in gay relationships who themselves do not support gay marriage. Their views have also been drowned out by the vocal gay marriage minority.
Marriage is not only a civil union but has also always been traditionally a religious ceremony; whether in the Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or any other faith. It is a religious act that glorifies the significant union between a man and a woman. An important part of the marriage journey is the public vows that a man and a woman make to each other before their God which commits them to each other for the rest of their natural lives.
I doubt that most people who are pushing these amendments are overly religious or even intend on staying in a monogamous relationship, which begs the question: why do they want to get ‘married’? The chattering classes do not want to concede that, by amending the Marriage Act, they are in fact denying the rights of the silent majority who want to uphold the sanctity and true meaning of marriage and who want to keep some tradition going in a world that seems to be forever throwing out the old and bringing in the new.”
Connie, Connie, Connie – where to begin?
One in three marriages end in divorce with an average length of 10.7 years, not even long enough to raise the kids, so I don’t think we can attribute the stability of our society to marriage.
You quoted a Chinese proverb to defend your insistence that marriage must be between a man and a woman:
‘When there is love in a marriage, there is harmony in the home; when there is harmony in the home, there is contentment in the community; when there is contentment in the community, there is prosperity in the nation; when there is prosperity in the nation, there is peace in the world.’
You purport to defend diversity and promote inclusion yet you want to deny this love, harmony, contentment, prosperity and peace to the LGBTI community.
Public support to legalise same-sex marriage is continuing to rise, with latest polling showing that 68 per cent of voters support gay marriage with 25 per cent opposed.
The poll found that 57 per cent of Coalition voters support gay marriage compared with 74 per cent of Labor voters and 90 per cent of Greens voters.
Connie says her own research in marginal seats indicates that ethnic and religious communities will turn on the government if a conscience vote is allowed.
The poll finds 71 per cent of voters born in Australia support gay marriage while support is 60 per cent among those born overseas.
Women (74 per cent) are more supportive than men (63 per cent) while support also fades with age.
Could I suggest that, far from representing the majority, the Senator is trying to impose her minority view on the electorate. Perhaps if she expanded her circle beyond elderly male migrants she meets at church in marginal seats she may understand that the “chattering classes” include most of her constituents.
Also, it is factually incorrect to say that marriage has “always been traditionally a religious ceremony.”
With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.
As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther’s view that marriage was a “worldly thing”.
In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.
In England and Wales, since 1837, civil marriages have been recognized as a legal alternative to church marriages under the Marriage Act 1836. In Germany, civil marriages were recognized in 1875.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells is offended when people label her homophobic. Why ever should they think that when she stereotypes supporters of marriage equality as godless sluts?
During her press club address, our Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs also suggested that Muslims have to “own the problem” of terrorism and the radicalisation of our kids and they have to “own the solution”. Your fault, you fix it? Nothing to do with us? Kids unable to get jobs and feeling victimised in their own society are not our concern?
Ms Fierravanti-Wells did a fair bit of trumpet blowing, reminding us that she has been “double-hatted” and “roundly applauded” for her frankness. She said she represents the “base” of the Liberal Party and feels it unfair when described as being from the hard right. She offers herself as proof of how successful a “wog” can be and speaks of the hurt she has endured when people can’t pronounce her name or make mafia jokes about her property in Umbria.
I wonder if she has ever considered the hurt felt by people who are told they are unnatural because of who they love or those who are ‘blamed’ for terrorism as their children are seduced, their homeland destroyed, and their families killed.
You seem very confident that your views are ‘mainstream’ and that you wield significant influence over policy but a word of warning Senator, it seems your party may have other ideas.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells is an ignorant, delusional, lying, dictatorial f-wit. Why are we paying her a salary?
Interesting. In her ‘maiden’ speech in parliament in 2005, she said the following:
“Australia is a tolerant and compassionate society founded on understanding and respecting social and religious differences.”
So much for respecting social and religious differences.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells memory of history begins and ends with John Howard helpfully changing the Marriage Act to suit his own ends (disgraceful prick that he was). Conveniently for her anything prior to that act does not exist. What an “ugly” mind the senator possesses. What a disturbed view of the world. Without putting too fine a point on it, might I suggest Fierravanti-Wells go root herself with as much gusto as she is trying to screw over the majority of Australians’ views on this subject.
“I’m not a bigot, I am a traditionalist” Well, that’s the image Senator Fierravanti-Wells has painted for me by her words.
We, must, therefore, bring back slavery, women and children as chattel, remove voting rights (and political careers) to women.
Which begs the question:
Do any right-wing conservative women EVER think through what they are saying when they claim that tradition trumps fair and equitable treatment of all people?
During her speech, CFW spoke of her dad in aged care who could only speak the dialect from his home town in Italy and how we must do something for our culturally and linguistically diverse community to cater for their needs better in aged care.
I have no idea how she intends solving the problem of no-one being able to communicate with her father but it seems to escape her entirely that, since the Howard government handed over a great proportion of aged care to religious organisations, homosexual people have been excluded from many church run facilities.
She bears all the hallmarks of a narcissistic, lying scam artist.
She may not know but until Hardwicke i think it was, it was legal for 14 year old boys and 12 year old girls to marry. In Scotland a child of this age could legally defy their guardian to marry.
“represent the silent majority of Australians” is Politico speak for “There is no evidence to support the garbage I am about to bellow”. Other non vocal defenders of the ‘silent majority’ would be the likes of Jones, Hadley, Bolt, etc. What was in her food or drink that caused such delusion? Given the venue and the ‘quality’ of the press gallery, who I presume shared the same bread and wine, there will be little comment other than ‘she stands up for ‘traditional’ values’.
“Ms Fierravanti-Wells informed us that the most important things to Australians are family, religion, family values and tradition.”
I doubt she referred to ‘Abyan’ or ‘Nazanin’. Women interred on an island, without charge. Indeed, they are universally recognised as having committed no crime. Whilst interred, they were raped. Their gaolers, the Australian government (of which this ‘person’ is a member) wishes to inflict as much physical, emotional and psychological pain and suffering on them as possible.
Family? These women have families and are part of wider families. In Nazanin’s case, her brother and mother are suicidal due to their separation. I guess she’s just for ‘some’ families.
Religion? As far as I have read, both of these women are Muslim, as are many in their communities. “Muslims have to “own the problem” of terrorism and the radicalisation of our kids and they have to “own the solution”. Did she ask the Catholic’s to own pedophilia? An equally preposterous suggestion. But, I guess, she’s just for ‘some’ religions.
Family values? Her political family is espousing values I cannot comprehend. What family would sit idly by as members of their family are abused, defiled (and vilified by second rate alleged journalists). I guess she’s just for ‘some’ family values.
Tradition? Not sure which of the many cultures introduced to this country since ‘white settlement’ has the best ‘tradition’. I doubt she referred to the first people’s traditions, which ‘white settlement’ has trashed. I guess she’s just for ‘some’ traditions.
‘she represents the “base” of the Liberal Party”. She is the epitome of the liberal party/family, at it’s basest.
As for marriage equality, the lunatic rantings on todays ABC suggest to me that some parts of the liberal family are trying to force other parts of the family to squeeze muddled Malcolm.
Thank you, Ms Lee. I wouldn’t normally read anything about this ‘person’. My apologies for the rant (sort of). Take care
Ms Fierravanti-Wells is certaintlty entitled to her opinion of course but i dont agree with anything she or her right wing raving religious mates have to say about anything,their whole mindset is medi evil and this country will never progress through the 21st Century while these 15th Century thinking ideologues are in power.””
I am nearly 80 and was born in the UK so, although born ‘overseas’ I do have English as my first language. Thus I am elderly but do not qualify as being god-fearing or speaking a non-English first language and no doubt would not be on Ms Fierravanti-Wells’ visiting list.
As part of a late career change, I studied law, being admitted at the age of 72.
One of my electives was a unit called ‘Gender & Sexuality’ and, despite thinking myself already well-educated, it was an eye-opener.
Being older does not make me more conservative. On the contrary, brought up as a Christian I am now an agnostic and if I still had any lingering doubts abut the desirability of having any religious beliefs, people like Ms Fierravanti-Wells would confirm my certainty that religion is a crutch for those who cannot take responsibility for their own lives.
No-one sought a plebiscite when John Howard changed the Marriage Act and any further changes are entirely under the control of the Commonwealth government, under the Australian Constitution.
For centuries, countries which adhered to a religious regime, whether it be, for example, Christianity or Islam, did not recognise homosexuality as anything other than a perversion, to be punished.
We now KNOW that the human foetus can develop into a wide range of sexual beings. Those who are predominantly male or female may form the majority of the population but there is an almost bewildering range of other options represented in our ranks, all of whom are entitled to be recognised for what they accept themselves to be.
Those countries which have truly separated state and religion regard marriage as a state function and any religious ceremony is an option.
I personally think we should remove from churches and other religious organisations the right to confer the legal status of marriage on any couple.
The only legally recognised union should be performed by a registry office or legally recognised marriage celebrant and those couples whose religion allows them to have that union recognised can seek religious blessing on top of legal union.
This legal union should be offered to all couples seeking it, regardless of any gender issues.
We have already legally accepted the right of gay couples to share with ‘straight’ couples the inheritance rights relating to property, superannuation, etc. So what is the problem other than prejudice based on a lack of up to date knowledge about human sexuality?
Maybe Fierravanti-Wells really represents a majority. But those who share her warped views are hardly ever silent.
Great post, Kyran.
Keep up the ranting. You do wonder where the liberal party finds these sorts of people.
CFW also spoke about the resurrection of changes to Section 18c of the RDA. She wants to offer a ‘compromise’ that she calls the “ordinary person test” to decide if the offending, insulting or humiliating is ok…because that worked so well in the case of Dyson Heydon who decided that we ordinary people couldn’t possibly think he was on a Liberal Party taxpayer funded witch hunt.
What a crafty harridan the Senator is, playing on the plight of the poor old folk whose lives tumble down about them for what a few gay people might be up to behind the wood-shed.
Were she that attuned to sensibilities, would she not be concerned instead at the brutality in the detention centres, the suffering of aboriginal people, domestic violence involving women and children unable to escape unhappy traditional marriages and the emergence of the De Maistrean security state intended to roll back civilised ways of doing things to feudalism?
From that, what of the infinite amount of tax dodging and corruption within her venal class, that ensures so much misery for Australlians, particularly future generations, as her government strips away social infrastructure to pay for the tax dodging?
I think the dry as bones old political opportunist protesteth too much.
I’ve never understood the term “God-fearing” (OK there’s a lot of things I don’t understand but that’s a story for another day). If God is so benevolent, so wonderful etc, why should one fear him?
And longwhitekid, please, enough of the profanities. Save them for my own state’s Senator Bernardi (sorry, rest of Australia), who most certainly is everything you describe and more.
If you’re Muslim, you must fit in or piss off. If you’re an Italian and Catholic, who has been here for 60+ years and still can’t even speak basic English, that’s ok and we all have to abide by your wishes. The problem is, the Italians who emigrated here in the 1950s are still living in 1950s Italy. Italy has moved on, they haven’t.
I think god fearing means humble. Do you find so such folk within the current government, or the opposite?
“We, must, therefore, bring back slavery, women and children as chattel, remove voting rights (and political careers) to women.”
Yep. Senator Fierravanti-Wells should get back to the kitchen where she belongs and STFU. It has never been traditional for women to be lawyers. Bloody ridiculous hypocrite!
Senator Bernardi was a beaming member of the audience for Connie’s NPC address. They, along with others like Senator Zed Seselja from the ACT and Eric Abetz, have decided that we Australians will have their version of society and morality thrust upon us whether we like it or not.
Good posts Kyran & RosemaryJ36. I concur with having marriage as a legal union for everyone, performed by a registry office and a religious ceremony should be an optional extra.
Great article again Kaye Lee!
Yes “Connie” has never impressed me as being possessed of a brain let alone having a broad mind.
Her speech again ignores the fact of the changes Howard made to the marriage act to forbid same sex marriage and make it a pact “entered into for life”! Very convenient how all the conservatives assume the present state of the marriage act is “traditional”! I am equally offended at her pronouncements that delegitamise my own marriage, which was performed by a Civil Celebrant before family and friends none of whom were invisible and demanded faith in them!!!
A narrow minded bigot with no capacity to see another’s perspective!
It is long overdue time the people of her electorate kicked her to the kerb and elected someone who represents their views not her own!
Oh! And my elderly “silent” parents would be equally disgusted with “Connie’s” views!
Connie also said how unfairly conservatives are treated….
“If you oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage, that’s one cross. If you oppose changing our constitution, that’s another cross. And if you say that CO2 is plant food, well that’s two crosses.”
Let me explain Connie.
It is your job to make laws that ensure no-one is discriminated against, not to impose your personal archaic sense of religiously inspired morality on everyone else.
Australians want an identity and political system of their own. You may, of course, continue to worship whoever you please but you should not dictate that our head of state should be the queen of another country.
And your ignorance about the catastrophic effects of climate change and your deliberate inaction should see you nailed to a cross (metaphorically speaking).
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …. ”
I believe this statement to be the first tenet of Liberal philosophy and that of our newest Assistant Minister.
The second is competition, competition between equals.
The third is Darwinism: survival of the strongest during the inevitable, natural competition between equals.
Combine these three tenets with a quality inherent in Liberalism: logic.
It is logical that there are going to be more losers than winners when the strongest defeats the many (now) unequal and logically, the said unequal are now destitute, which was their own fault, let’s be honest.
By now, dear reader, you should know that Liberalism will have a unique solution for these destitute losers; these defeated leaners;
Compassion & incentivization. Compassion for …….
…. well, anyhow we’re more compassionate than Labor.
Another ranting delusional throw-back! What rocks do the Liarbrils find these specimens under?
My maternal grandfather was born 1888. His French born father died a decade later. I suspect he never really learnt English. His mother was Irish. I never knew her, as she died before I was born.
Was surprised, during the last few years of his life, used to talk to himself in French during quiet moments. Even my mother and siblings never her him utter word French before this,
Seems French was his first language, which he only used for short time in his life.
By the way, he was very alert man, no sign dementia when he died of 2nd stroke at 78.
excellent article thank you Kaye Lee. what an embarrassment
The speech of senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells aptly demonstrates the hubristic assumptions that so often accompany devout religious belief, which forms one the main reasons I am so strongly in favor of secular conduct in governance.
She claims that her views are those of the ‘silent majority’. Arrogant piffle. She was elected to her parliamentary position upon a minority percentage of votes in one state, and that is who she represents, no more, no less.
If I strongly believe in something as a value that should be enshrined into convention or law, I certainly do not stay silent on the subject, but instead rationally assemble the components to advance the proposition (I make the case).
The majority silence of the ‘mute multitudes’ is more likely a reflection of their main indifference on issues like same-sex marriage.
Nor can she claim claim any credible right to be able to narrowly define our collective traits and priority values as nation.
Community, society, honesty, decency, wisdom, justice, general health. These are, to me, collective aspirational concerns, traits and values. Few would argue against their principled inclusion in our general societal constructs (laws etc), and our normal interactive conduct as Australian public citizens
Family (and it’s values), tradition and, especially, religion? To me these are much more narrow and exclusive concerns, with more factional interpretive dissonance. People should be very hesitant before attempting to force others to adhere to their family values (eg ‘we don’t talk to cops’), cultural traditions (genital mutilation, anyone?) or, especially, religious beliefs (‘God hates…’).
I am a proud Australian, through both birth and allegiance, and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells certainly does not speak for me.
I guess one of the major problems in Australia is that we don’t actually have a cohesive society. The Liar-belles like Concetta make sure of that – a divided nation is better than one which allows for freedoms for its people, because it’s easier to control. So it doesn’t really matter what her actual words were, the agenda was already set in stone.
We do a lot of self-delusion in Oz. But I am surprised that a lawyer isn’t able to create a logical argument based on fact – oh, sorry, I forgot – facts have never been a pre-requisite for legal decision-making, particularly if it involves the legislators.
Have you noticed that the very religious politicians are also the climate change sceptics?
Yes, quite anti-science too. Can’t have anyone threatening their belief in a mythical sky daddy. Everything else they believe hinges upon that one premise. They can’t afford to lose it.
That the fundamentally religious are often also fervently anti-scientific has not escaped my notice.
Yes, Kaye, it is noticeable that those right wing , religious “representatives” in politics live by the adage ” ( the white Christian) God is in (his) heaven, all’s right (wing) with the world. ”
That’s why its ok to allow a fundamentalist, anti Islamic party to form, in order to add credibility to the myth of Australia being a Christian country.
That’s why its ok to treat everyone with different beliefs with contempt and cruelty.
There can be no such thing as climate change in the creationist belief that the big daddy holds us in the palm of (his) hand.
I recently sent an email to Ms C F-W regarding the new laws that keep tax avoiders safe and their tax evasions secret. I guess that email hit the trash bin before it was opened.
I haven’t had, or expect to get, a reply anytime soon.
I guess she doesn’t want to represent me.
Tim Minchin says it all in his song Thank You God.
it appears in contrast to the Senators claims, she represents a small and dwindling minority of Australians.
Biblical lessons from Genesis
1; God looks like a human with a penis. He often gets cranky.
2; God says that learning stuff is really, really bad.
2: God likes to be offered meat, much more so than vegetables (He is particularity fond of lambs and foreskins).
4: If you hear God tell you to kill your child, you should be prepared to do it.
Religeons have exercised power of who can and can not marry for as long as they have felt they are the groups with the power to marry people. I would think religeons would be smarter than to remind people of their dark and controlling past but they are not.
Remember the outcry of the popular Harry potter books when the catholic church spoke out about witchcraft and witches.
Innocent people murdered on behalf of the church many because they offered medicene some of which actually worked.
The churches view on sickness for a long time was sin and lack of strength of faith was the source of illness and your only hope was the church.
religeon has long been the abuser of the people and to cite historical sources of power the church exercised is a slap in the face.
Children were shunned, were outcasts if they were illegitimate, which was an extraordinary form of abuse that lasted a persons lifetime.
Family Values.
If a couple separate some conservatives would have us think the children will become criminals, welfare junkies who has time for such outdated rubbish.
The world of generations past was one where women couldnt own property, if the man died the family had no rights to the house they lived in, women could earn money but it had to be paid to the husband, Women were not treated by the state or the church as equals.
Even today while people jump up and down in rage over Moslems Jehovahs witnesses see a womans role as subservient, they have a punishment they call shunning they inflict upon members for perceived breaches of their rules which also cover who they can marry, who they can be friends with and if the poor suffering adherent has children, if they buy them a present for easter, birthday or christmas.
Religeon is far less abusive than its past but to remind us of religeons abusive controlling past and try to wrap it in some perverted moral code that should be reflected by policy is a step too far.
Another senator proudly waving a flag of falsehood on behalf the ‘faithful’ this week was senate ‘leader’ Eric Abetz.
Whilst decrying the supposed ‘public persecution’ of Tony Abbott for his adherence to his faith, the Tasmanian senator also claimed that there was an undeniably ‘Judeo-Christian’ heritage behind all of our modern Australian institutions, including our representative democracy, and the studies of science and philosophy.
Reportedly, Solon shuddered, Socrates sighed, and the ghost of Galileo angrily invoked the spirit of Aristotle.
I know this sounds ignorant but I think I missed a bullet when I missed this particular National Press Club presentation by Senator Fierravanti-Wells.
Reading Kaye’s article and all of your comments, I know I would be fuming at Senator Fierravanti-Wells because of: her stubborn ignorance (despite her alleged educated intelligence as a lawyer); her denial of mutual respect for other demographic groups; and her selective acceptance of anti-social corporate and elitist behaviours even when those behaviours such as tax avoidance and corruption deny benefits for the community.
Lawrence,
I presume you were referring to me in your measured response?
So, you refuse to recognise the five unique tenets of Liberal philosophy: equality, competition, survival, logic and compassion? If you have any Liberal friends, ask them if it is a fair reflection of their philosophy.
I hope they do.
(Space & time did not permit me to add “individualism” and “personal responsibility”: I wish I could restrict my rants to one line too.)
Please examine my first premise.
Do you agree that it is self evident that we are all created equal?
Of course not.
What follows is therefore bullshit, comrade.
I wonder how many avid bible thumpers would remain hooked on the faith… if they considered what HISTORICAL Jesus would probably have looked like?
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTk6U7fFjlJrmOsSfYHwFR072yKXZkK657_kth79OrmhH-pKeK_tQ
@mars08
Part of maintaining the ‘faith’ is the denial of the bleeding obvious. All seriously religious must master such mind-tricks – how else to justify their faith?
I come from a non english speaking background and I feel or believe non of what she preaches. Me thinks she is one of those poor individuals who suffer from Julius Marlow syndrome and only open her mouth to change feet.
Geoff Andrews,
I believe that the comment made by lawrencewinder at 10;06, 22/10 was entirely referring to senator Firravanti-Wells, not yourself.
I think your comment just happened to be the one directly proceeding.
I could be wrong.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the (silent) majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
~Mark Twain
corvus boreus
A distinct possibility
Having trained and worked as a teacher I have drawn the conclusion that some people gain their qualifications through having a natural interest and affinity for their particular area of endeavour! Others simply do whatever it takes to get the letters behind their name! Senator FW, like most right wing conservatives fit the last category. They have no sincere interest in the law as the law is portrayed to benefit and protect all. Their interest lies in having a degree to boast their achievements. How they got it is irrelevant. It is all about the kudos. Hence so many law degrees.
Another Phyllis Schlafly type of totally brainwashed Right wing, male-identified woman. Dworkin theorised that at the heart of the views of Right wing women is not much more than a deep (and highly valid) fear of male violence and aggression. That the chaos and violence of the male dominated world is inevitable and unstoppable and women should just trust the Right to provide a haven from this via ‘tradition’.
Women we will exploit you either way but at least we on the Right will offer some protection while we do it. It’s heartbreaking to see even educated women still falling for this shit. But too many women have internalised this male hegemony over many generations.
One wonders Geoff if the Liberals are outnumbered by neo conservatives in their party if they are a liberal party?
Malcolm the man who likes trains is still wanting to cut welfare so he will obviously have much more room to sit down and enjoy his trains.
If this keeps up a future Joe Hockey type will tell us poor people dont drive, dont take public transport and cant afford bicycles.
Interesting insight, Deanna Jones.
I wonder if the same can be said about Michaelia Cash.
Maybe not created equally whatever that means. What is an inconvenient fact for many, men are not created superior to women,
Some may believe that women come from Adam’s rib. http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gen%202.18%E2%80%9324
Not true, as someone reminded us on Twitter, man comes from a woman’s vagina.
Doesn’t that make us superior.
The good senator, along with 18 or 19 others joined a luncheon with the former PM. Yes, there is a suggestion Tony will rule again.
Why the great man has taken himself onto the world stage, where he has contracted to give speeches, lecturing the world on what a great PM he was, and can I suggest will be again.
Well that is what Tony believes, and it seems a great number, in what is now the Turnbull government. The good senator seems to have reminded the PM he is still on trial.
“Not true, as someone reminded us on Twitter, man comes from a woman’s vagina.”
And women can reproduce without men, but men can’t reproduce without women.
“Why the great man has taken himself onto the world stage, where he has contracted to give speeches, lecturing the world on what a great PM he was, and can I suggest will be again.”
I really cannot begin to imagine who would be bothered a) paying to listen to him, and b) actually listening to him.
Yes Lee, so true.
Lee, the man his launching his comeback from that stage. onder who is pulling the strings? I don’t believe that Abbott has ever done anything in his life without a motive. Always a selfish one.
Re Deanna’s insight, I wouldn’t feel the need to “go” that either.
Are lawyers educated or merely trained for a job ? If lawyers in govt. are typical they are NOT educated !
“Are lawyers educated or merely trained for a job ? If lawyers in govt. are typical they are NOT educated !”
They’re not typical. They’re the ones who can’t make it as lawyers. They would be laughed out of court if they put up the same pathetic arguments that they use in politics. Also look at their utterly ridiculous or offensive remarks when unscripted. Successful trial lawyers can think on their feet.
Lee said in response to win jeavons and the nonsense she/he wrote:
Hilarious! Employed a few ‘legal’ types over the years including a few ‘barristers’ (no, not the ones who brew coffee) and they would be rightly insulted by the claim that they can’t make it as lawyers when they already had. In many instances, they’d been there, done that and then with chosen ‘family responsibilities’ decided more regular hours as a public servant was a better lifestyle option even though the remuneration was significantly less.
Lee, as a piece of friendly advice, engage brain before hitting the keyboard.
Out of your PJ’s, Kaye Lee, and into Parliament. Please.
The waste of time and money would drive me crackers.
“Hilarious! Employed a few ‘legal’ types over the years including a few ‘barristers’ (no, not the ones who brew coffee) and they would be rightly insulted by the claim that they can’t make it as lawyers when they already had. In many instances, they’d been there, done that and then with chosen ‘family responsibilities’ decided more regular hours as a public servant was a better lifestyle option even though the remuneration was significantly less.
Lee engage brain before hitting the keyboard.”
I did. Check out how long some of them are employed as lawyers. Have known a few in my lifetime who don’t seem to stay employed for long in law firms, including one with a PhD in law, nutty as all hell and can’t even get a job outside of a university.
BTW, ministers don’t have 9-5 jobs. They’re required to be away from their families a lot, get up in the middle of the night to talk to ministers overseas, etc. They’re not choosing that job for more family time.
There are many politicians whose goal to live off the public teat dictated their choices from a very early age. Private school doing debating and rugby, student politics while doing an appropriate degree, a few years of work, staffer to an incumbent, followed by the gift of preselection for a safe seat. Unfortunately, politics is not a meritocracy.
Well said, Lee
🙂
Kaye Lee, way too accurate..
They seem tolerant at times of those with different religion. This is never applied to those with none.