Why Women Should Never Have Been Given The Vote And Sundry Other Matters…
Recently I heard about a suffragette who threw a brick through a window early last century. Because of this, we should have never given women the vote.
Ok, ok, I know that’s a ridiculous argument for two reasons:
Why should the violent actions of one person deprive others of their rights?
Women in Australia already had the vote when this happened. This was in the days when Australia thought that they could do things without waiting till everyone else did it.
So, while almost everyone can see how ridiculous the logic of voting “No” to women’s right to vote just because some of them grew a little bit uppity and did things like throw bricks or – even worse – behaved in an unladylike manner, it seems that some people are calling the assault on Tony Abbott a turning point in the marriage equality debate.
Ok, I know that it’s Tony Abbott. And I know that a lot of people will have no sympathy and crack jokes and talk about Karma, but that’s only to be expected from the front bench of the Liberal Party, it’s when people who don’t normally support violence join in that I become concerned.
We should condemn it because violence only leads to more violence. And it only gives the “No” campaign a chance to distract from the actual question being asked.
And we shouldn’t get caught up in conspiracy theories just because it’s Tony Abbott. He claims to have been assaulted and it’s not like the man isn’t trustworthy.
Granted, it was very convenient that it should happen at this time. And it was very convenient that the man was wearing a “Yes” badge so that there was no doubt that he was one of those awful people who wants to get rid of Christmas and not someone from the renewable energies lobby. So whatever your natural inclination toward a conspiracy, it’s worth noting that the police have a man in custody, so I expect that he’ll explain that why he did it and plead guilty. Or claim he didn’t do it and plead not guilty.
And, before all those people who reminded us about the presumption of innocence when George Pell was charged start pointing out that this guy too shouldn’t be judged without a trial, let’s now let the law take its course and not mention it again because the man should be given the opportunity of a fair trial.
Ok, I realise that doesn’t suit people who want to use this to argue that you have to vote “No” because this just shows you what sort of people want you to vote “Yes”, but if they stuck to their arguments that relied solely on why two gay people shouldn’t be able to marry each other, the whole debate would be over in two minutes.
“I’d like to say that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because I don’t like it.”
“Any other reason?”
“Yes, it inhibits my religious freedom.”
“But surely you don’t think that other people should have to live their lives according to your religion.”
“Why on earth not?”
“Ok, any other reason.”
“Um… it might lead to other things.”
“But that’s not what’s being asked.”
“Ok, well, let’s stick with God doesn’t like it because you can’t argue with that.”
“Stop bullying me! I demand religious freedom!”
Still, I do find a certain irony in the fact that the man who set up the plebiscite in 2015, and who assured us that there’d be no problems with having a debate, is the one who’s now telling us that we have to vote “No” because – according to him – the “Yes” campaign have turned nasty.
Ok, let’s stop letting the whole marriage equality thing dominate everything. And let’s insist that we don’t talk about Tony’s alleged assault while under investigation. Let’s look at what else has been happening this week.
Mm, I suppose we could consider what Malcolm Roberts is telling the High Court. He thought that he was an Australian citizen and had no citizenship anywhere else even though he became an Australian citizen at nineteen years of age. Why? Well, his sister said so. He didn’t ask her for empirical evidence. Why would you? I mean, lots of us have siblings and why would you ever doubt anything they said to you? Seems fair to me. And when he signed a form saying that he was British, he was young and didn’t read it. Seems like the sort of man you want deciding the country’s future. However, by the time he stood for the Senate, he realised that there was a chance that he might be a British citizen, so he sent off an email to ask if he was. Being unfamiliar with the internet, he didn’t realise that, while one can create a name for one’s own email, if one wants the email to get to another person, you have to find what their address is and not just make one up. Once he realised this, it only took him a few days to work out how to find the British people who could renounce his citizenship and with all the speed of the US processing of asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, he took steps to ensure that he only had allegiance to One Nation.
Or we could wonder how the party which so strongly argued that putting a voluntary cap on poker machine losses was a ridiculous “nanny state” idea, now wants to roll out the cashless welfare card to more electorates. Apparently, it’s not being a nanny state if they’re the ones doing it. I’m just wondering why the big NSW clubs haven’t mounted the same strong campaign against the welfare card that they did against the voluntary cap.
But maybe we’d be better off just not thinking. It seems to work for many of our politicians.
- Person charged with Abbott’s assault says that it was nothing to do with his position on marriage equality.
- Malcolm Roberts found to be UK citizen at time of nomination.
- NSW clubs still have no problem with nanny state when Liberals are the ones doing it.
395 total views, 2 views today
15 commentsLogin here Register here
The man arrested for allegedly assaulting Tony Abbott, Hobart DJ Astro ‘Funknukl’ Labe, explained he did not like Tony Abbott (whoda thunkit?), thought he’d never get another opportunity like this (allegedly decking Abbott) ever again. Also Labe,was well known around Hobart for being an anarchist.
If anyone has ever wondered what would happen when a for-real anarchist meets a politically appointed anarchist, now we know. All rather sad.
Especially for those in favour of equal rights for all.
What I want to know is why Tony Abbott was in Tasmania for a “private event” with NO campaigners. He isn’t a minister and he can’t claim electoral business – will he still charge us for it?
“Sometimes, to be the best and fairest, you have to throw the first punch”.
Former PM Abbott on the subject of king-hitting.
I was at that game cb. My husband played for Hornsby at the time. When he says he got best and fairest, he got one point. The guy that gave it to him was an ex-prop – they tend to like biffo. Tony was a very ordinary footballer so just resorted to hitting people. He also hit Joe Hockey when it was only training and they played for the same club.
Shades of Sarah Palin…..
Senator Pauline Hanson has spent a day at a Queensland shooting range, describing the “long-overdue” visit as the “best day in about 20 years”.
“I’m going to go and get my license. I’ve been promising myself for a long time.”
Pointing to bullet holes in her target, she warned her opponents not to “mess with me – just make my day if you want to have a go”.
2 days in Hobart. Flew to Brisbane today for I don’t know how many days.
And driver’s licences and credit cards…
Abbott is a proven liar: chronic, serial, congenital. There’s no end to it! Nothing he says has the slightest merit or credibility. And YOU, the taxpayers of Australia, are financing his destructive antics and his cushioned, privileged future retirement. Meanwhile… Guillotine Day cometh.
As it turns out it had nothing to do with his position on Marriage Equality, the guy just didn’t like Tony Abbott, and I can’t say I blame him. Not that he should have headbutted him, but he was a little drunk, which is a state with which Tony is well familiar. The whole affair is wrought with Abbott’s disingenuous claims that it had anything at all to do with the postal survey. My reaction to Mr Abbott’s sordid little affair about a drunk man who attempted a somewhat pathetic head bump, which was the cause of no more significant damage than Abbott might make in banging into stuff in his own drunk stupors, is summarised below:
” Oh dear Mr Abbott, you poor snowflake, did the “bad man” bump heads with you! Where is the blackened eye? What limbs were strained and damaged? What bruises were inflicted? Where did you crawl off to in blinding pain to retreat, to heal, and recover? …. What none of the above? Straight to the Media and later to the police. What, Tony hurt his lippy? I would have thought in your years as a boxer you would have incurred the odd fat lip without a murmur. Instead, you have now rushed to every media outlet to cry, “assault and battery” by a “YES” voter. As many of the thousands of domestically assaulted woman who you were once the minister for, would have advised you, a touch of lip gloss or makeup can cover the facial bruises (if you had any). (Though that might be construed by your mates as a bit “gay”, so perhaps not?)
That’s not an assault, that’s a snowflake being jostled. The fall from your stature of being a toughened former boxer must be so fraught for you, Tony! We weep in sympathy.
So this is politically motivated violence, was it Tony? Uummmm! The Gay community – on the other hand – has had the “proverbial” kicked out of them for years by real punches and real boots and real blunt objects. They have crawled on hands and knees to shelter in real bloodied pain or been admitted to hospitals in ambulances. Look what happened to Kevin Rudd’s godson, Sean, only recently. He had real facial damage inflicted while after attempting to stop a man removing banners supporting the “yes” vote. When you have been through the equivalent of a gay bashing or even bloodied like Sean, come back and tell us about your “assault”, Mr Abbott. For Christ sake, grow a pair, Abbott!
Although we all noticed how you apparently were pressing this head bump to your political, ideological advantage! But it turns out it had nothing to do with your anti-gay stance; he just didn’t like you. Wow, I wonder why anyone would not like you? What is the part of this farce the public is supposed to believe is not completely disingenuous? “
Whenever he spoke I felt quite sick
Did he think I was stupid?
Did he think I was thick?
He made false promises, told so many lies
kept making excuses and he’d blame other guys
So I stopped listening, over it all
The lies, the excuses, hypocrisy and gall
Then he started pleading, said he’d changed
I saw no difference, he must be deranged
Yet all of his mates were still right by his side
But they can’t be trusted, all of them lied
So whenever he spoke, I just turned off
I knew he’d be lying, enough is enough
He became more deluded, like Monty’s black knight
kept changing the story saying black, now is white
When called to account, he’d build lie upon lie
with a wink and a smirk and a bogus blue tie
So I moved on, tired of the lies
eagerly awaiting his certain demise
He says now he’s turned over a new leaf
But no apology for the pain and the grief
He wants forgiveness, but no mention of fault
It’s just a fig leaf for continued assault
He then pretends he’s the great protector
Saving us all from the terrorist spectre
There are no depths that he won’t go
Division and fear is all he knows
And long after he was shown the door
This lying moron continues to boor
Deluded, deceitful and still full of shit
Replaced by another duplicitous twit
This desperate Thug is at it again
Inflicting abuse, division and pain
More lies, more hurt with his offensive attacks
This destructive Thug must be stopped in his tracks
It’s time this prick was put in his place
A collective mid finger put right in his face
To massively fail has always been his fate
Saying YES to love will overcome hate
And poor old Tony has a Master’s Degree in Pugilstic Arts from Oxford University – it seems that he only attended the lessons on ATTACK and totally skipped the lessons on Defence. So, poor old Tony didn’t have the skills to dodge that headbutt. But he sure as hell knows how to ATTACK – got First Class Honors in that.
Most Australians have no issue with homosexuality, male or female and most believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights as partners.
Most Australians also believe that children should not be taught to experiment sexually, that heterosexuality is a choice and being homosexual is equally valid, that being a boy or a girl is a choice and one’s biological sex can be changes, that mothers and fathers do not matter and any loving substitute will do, or that two males or two females in union are no different to a male and a female.
There are human rights which can be addressed but rewriting biology and evolutionary reality will not be accepted by most people with a modicum of common sense.
Most people have no idea of what point you’re trying to make, rosross.
Please don’t assume that you know what “most Australians” believe. No-one I know thinks like you do. It is also painfully obvious that you have never had anything to do with the safe schools program and know nothing whatsoever about it.
Children don’t have to be taught to “experiment sexually”. What a silly notion. I suggest you read up on hormones.
How arrogant of you to decide that homosexuality is “invalid”. What do you even mean by that?
Actually, I find what you say very harmful rossross and I really hope that those that judge and hate are shown that the vast majority of Australians do not look on their fellow Australians with such ugliness in their hearts.
You don’t speak for me.
Women in purple, green and white won the vote and returned to lying back and thinking of england.
Is it time to use the vote??
rossross you got the first sentence nearly right and that is where you should stop.
The advantages of civil marriage should be open to all couples. Therefore ‘yes’!!!
I have seen no earthly arguments against that premise.