Well done to Barnaby Joyce for outing that fat arse paparazzi prick on national television. Privacy is privacy *smile*.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
We are lucky to have such a quality person in the Senate:
https://www.watoday.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/is-this-what-motivated-david-leyonhjelm-to-insult-sarah-hanson-young-20180629-p4zoo2.html
By Kasey Edwards
29 June 2018 — 5:31pm
Is this what motivated David Leyonhjelm to insult Sarah Hanson-Young?
If you’ve ever wondered why libertarians are predominantly privileged white men, you need look no further than David Leyonhjelm’s recent “contribution” to Australian politics.
The Liberal Democrats Senator and free speech advocate thought an appropriate expression of his “free speech” was to engage in a sexually aggressive attack on Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Leyonhjelm reportedly yelled that Sarah Hanson-Young “should stop shagging men” and then told her to “f--- off” when she confronted him about it.
To make matters worse, the exchange came during a parliamentary debate about women and violence. And being a man of principle, Leyonhjelm is refusing to withdraw his comment or apologise.
In spite of this, Leyonhjelm claims on his website that he could never be a sexist, (or a racist, or homophobic) “because I refuse to define people collectively.”
But that’s not how sexism works. You don’t have to define people collectively to be sexist. A man who appears fixated on denigrating a particular woman who’s in power is just as sexist as one who denigrates them collectively.
And the accumulated weight of a culture of sexism, racism and homophobia isn’t simply erased because someone declares on their website that we’re all individuals and should be judged as such.
Other examples of Leyonhjelm’s great and lofty defence of Australia’s civil liberties show a similar pattern. Exhibit one, his defence of Wicked Campers’ right to paint offensive and sexist slogans on their vans, such as "A wife: an attachment you screw on the bed to get the housework done".
But he wasn’t so committed to The Chaser’s right to free speech when they confronted him about Wicked Campers, telling them to “f-ck off” and then later telling women's rights activist Melinda Tankard Reist to “Shut the f-ck up.”
Aside from banging on about the size of government, and in Leyonhjelm’s case, relaxing gun laws, libertarians spend their time championing personal freedom. They particularly like to lecture us all about the right to offend as the price of free expression.
But, as we saw in the Senate last week, what libertarians like Leyonhjelm are often fighting for is nothing more than their right to denigrate women (and minorities) as an assertion of their own privilege.
That’s why we didn’t see the likes of David Leyonhjelm going to the barricades to defend Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s freedom of speech when she was attacked for her Facebook post drawing a connection between the suffering of Anzacs and those in other wars.
While Abdel-Magied’s post clearly sparked a ton of offence, it actually had a serious intent. Whether you agree with it or not, Abdel-Magied’s post is the sort of clash of ideas that makes for a robust democracy.
But Leyonhjelm doesn’t seem to have a lot of conviction to defend free speech that doesn’t serve his own interest, or the interests of other white, privileged men. Instead, he uses the freedom he has to try to delegitimate a female political opponent with a sexual slur.
It’s not a coincidence that the few female high-profile libertarians who love to play the Free Speech Card are also white and extremely privileged. As we saw with conservative commentator Prue MacSween who claimed she was "tempted to run over" Yassmin Abdel-Magied in response to her Anzac post.
MacSween defended her threat of violence with, "I think it is sad that people cannot express their opinion in this country… for fear of upsetting the feral trolls.” She had rather less to say about how sad it is that people in this country can’t express an opinion that Prue disagrees with without Prue expressing her desire to kill them.
The libertarian worldview is underpinned by the central idea that everyone enjoys the same privileges of white, able-bodied, straight, middle-class and reasonably educated — or at least loudmouthed — men. Men like David Leyonhjelm, in other words.
It’s a worldview that assumes that there’s a level playing field when it comes to free expression. But that’s not the case. Male politicians are not routinely subjected to sexualised innuendo when they express legitimate views. Nor are their lives made a misery if they enter public debate. The costs — both personal and professional — for women and minorities expressing their views are often much greater than men like Leyonhjelm will ever know.
If Leyonhjelm was paying attention to the debate in the Senate about violence against women, rather than yelling about Senator Hanson-Young’s sexual history, he would know that the world is not an equal place. And his brand of libertarianism makes it even less so.
https://www.watoday.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/is-this-what-motivated-david-leyonhjelm-to-insult-sarah-hanson-young-20180629-p4zoo2.html
By Kasey Edwards
29 June 2018 — 5:31pm
Is this what motivated David Leyonhjelm to insult Sarah Hanson-Young?
If you’ve ever wondered why libertarians are predominantly privileged white men, you need look no further than David Leyonhjelm’s recent “contribution” to Australian politics.
The Liberal Democrats Senator and free speech advocate thought an appropriate expression of his “free speech” was to engage in a sexually aggressive attack on Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Leyonhjelm reportedly yelled that Sarah Hanson-Young “should stop shagging men” and then told her to “f--- off” when she confronted him about it.
To make matters worse, the exchange came during a parliamentary debate about women and violence. And being a man of principle, Leyonhjelm is refusing to withdraw his comment or apologise.
In spite of this, Leyonhjelm claims on his website that he could never be a sexist, (or a racist, or homophobic) “because I refuse to define people collectively.”
But that’s not how sexism works. You don’t have to define people collectively to be sexist. A man who appears fixated on denigrating a particular woman who’s in power is just as sexist as one who denigrates them collectively.
And the accumulated weight of a culture of sexism, racism and homophobia isn’t simply erased because someone declares on their website that we’re all individuals and should be judged as such.
Other examples of Leyonhjelm’s great and lofty defence of Australia’s civil liberties show a similar pattern. Exhibit one, his defence of Wicked Campers’ right to paint offensive and sexist slogans on their vans, such as "A wife: an attachment you screw on the bed to get the housework done".
But he wasn’t so committed to The Chaser’s right to free speech when they confronted him about Wicked Campers, telling them to “f-ck off” and then later telling women's rights activist Melinda Tankard Reist to “Shut the f-ck up.”
Aside from banging on about the size of government, and in Leyonhjelm’s case, relaxing gun laws, libertarians spend their time championing personal freedom. They particularly like to lecture us all about the right to offend as the price of free expression.
But, as we saw in the Senate last week, what libertarians like Leyonhjelm are often fighting for is nothing more than their right to denigrate women (and minorities) as an assertion of their own privilege.
That’s why we didn’t see the likes of David Leyonhjelm going to the barricades to defend Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s freedom of speech when she was attacked for her Facebook post drawing a connection between the suffering of Anzacs and those in other wars.
While Abdel-Magied’s post clearly sparked a ton of offence, it actually had a serious intent. Whether you agree with it or not, Abdel-Magied’s post is the sort of clash of ideas that makes for a robust democracy.
But Leyonhjelm doesn’t seem to have a lot of conviction to defend free speech that doesn’t serve his own interest, or the interests of other white, privileged men. Instead, he uses the freedom he has to try to delegitimate a female political opponent with a sexual slur.
It’s not a coincidence that the few female high-profile libertarians who love to play the Free Speech Card are also white and extremely privileged. As we saw with conservative commentator Prue MacSween who claimed she was "tempted to run over" Yassmin Abdel-Magied in response to her Anzac post.
MacSween defended her threat of violence with, "I think it is sad that people cannot express their opinion in this country… for fear of upsetting the feral trolls.” She had rather less to say about how sad it is that people in this country can’t express an opinion that Prue disagrees with without Prue expressing her desire to kill them.
The libertarian worldview is underpinned by the central idea that everyone enjoys the same privileges of white, able-bodied, straight, middle-class and reasonably educated — or at least loudmouthed — men. Men like David Leyonhjelm, in other words.
It’s a worldview that assumes that there’s a level playing field when it comes to free expression. But that’s not the case. Male politicians are not routinely subjected to sexualised innuendo when they express legitimate views. Nor are their lives made a misery if they enter public debate. The costs — both personal and professional — for women and minorities expressing their views are often much greater than men like Leyonhjelm will ever know.
If Leyonhjelm was paying attention to the debate in the Senate about violence against women, rather than yelling about Senator Hanson-Young’s sexual history, he would know that the world is not an equal place. And his brand of libertarianism makes it even less so.
Yeah he’s one of the few that are actually trying to help people (a lot of women included) to defend themselves. But let’s focus on mean words shall we.
Giardiasis said:
dont pretend he is interested in helping people protect themselves.
all he is trying to do is promote the 'libertarian' cause. when it suits.
and while i know you wont get it, it is not just 'mean words'. he is another old man in a suit telling a woman how she should behave. it is disgraceful anywhere, while he is in parliament, or acting as a senator, it is even worse.
Him and Malcolm Roberts are 2 of the biggest *smile* heads to have ever walked on this planet.
Baloo said:
nah we punch above our weight on the *smile* head front. Both easily in the world class category.
Don’t pretend? Cut the ideology out of it and look at what was being decided and who voted for what.Brodders17 said:
Eh no there’s a bit more to it than that brodders, and regardless so what? Cry me a river. Everyone tells everyone how to behave but it seems only certain people are allowed to do that. So much for equality.
Giardiasis said:
he voted to allow a concealable weapon to be imported. he has no interest in women protecting themselves, anymore than he does in assailants being able to arm themselves.
did you cry a river for Leyonhjelm when the Chaser was in his street abusing him and he threatened to call the cops, cos their words were upsetting?
Stop trying to play the ideology card or argue over motivation. What was the actual real outcome? The vote was to lift the ban on the importation of non lethal weapons. You know, the kind that would help people (and yes that would include a lot of women) defend themselves against attack. Leyonhjelm to his credit voted to lift the ban. But outcomes don’t matter to you, only feelings and intentions. I don’t care about his motivations, what did he actually work to achieve?Brodders17 said:
No I didn’t because I’m not cheerleading. Leyonhjelm doesn’t make the correct arguments about free speech, as there is no such thing. There is only private property rights, and the freedom to say what you want within the rules set by the property owner.
Giardiasis said:
he voted to allow anyone to carry a 'non-lethal' weapon, including men who want to attack women or people who want to rob others.
i know in your ideal world it is ok to point a gun at someones head, but im not sure more weapons is the best way to keep people safe.
The whole argument about how women should be able to carry a weapon to defend themselves is just victim blaming. Why should women be expected to carry a weapon, we should live in a society where that is not necessary. His comments are not said in a vaccum, they are said in the context of a society where men predominantly hold power.
Libertarians always, rather disingenously, argue as if everyone in the world has had the same opportunities, which is clearly rubbish.
Giardiasis is correct, there is no such thing as free speech, there is only freedom to say what you want within the rules set by the propoerty owner(s). And a jolly good argument against private property it is too.
DS
Libertarians always, rather disingenously, argue as if everyone in the world has had the same opportunities, which is clearly rubbish.
Giardiasis is correct, there is no such thing as free speech, there is only freedom to say what you want within the rules set by the propoerty owner(s). And a jolly good argument against private property it is too.
DS
E
easy_tiger
Guest
DavidSSS said:
well said 3S.
you dont need to have elite intuition to work out that Lionnut is a pretty nasty *smile*
The thing with violent people is that they don’t care about whether weapons are legal or not so making non legal self defence weapons legal won’t affect them except that they would face greater risk. Only law abiding citizens are disarmed by the government.Brodders17 said:
Nope it isn’t ok to point a gun at someone’s head (unless they are doing it to you), unlike your ideal world where it is fine for the government to point guns at people’s head as long as they are preventing behaviour (including behaviour that doesn’t hurt anyone) that you don’t approve of. Regardless of whether you think it will keep people safe or not, the answer to that is actually irrelevant. The government has no place preventing people from defending themselves with non lethal weapons.
So people shouldn’t lock their cars or their houses? Victim blaming if they get robbed? I get accused of utopia arguments here yet in what world do bad people not exist? No amount of childish wishing away bad people will change that. So you either face the reality of that and allow people to defend themselves, or you disarm them and put them at the mercy of bad people. Politicians hold power, SHY and DL are equals. Regardless your argument is basically women can throw mud at men but men can’t do it back.DavidSSS said:
Well that’s a straw man, what they argue is that everyone should be seen equally in the eyes of the law. Obviously there is vast differences in material wealth, skills, talents, etc. between people (and the opportunities they provide) but that doesn’t justify the sorts of abhorrent actions socialists call for.
It’s like 1+1 = 4 to you. It what possible way is that an argument against private property rights?
Giardiasis said:
Of course people with ill-intent are more likely to carry weapons if they are legal and readily accessible. of course some criminals will get hold of weapons whether they are legal or not, but many would be more likely to own them if they can legally buy them.
How is pointing a gun at someones head an infringement on property rights? unless the trigger is pulled no harm is done.
Yeah maybe, but the odds would tip in the defenders favour IMO. This is not an argument with an objective answer, hence why I mentioned before it is actually irrelevant. The relevant argument is that the government by making it illegal has infringed on the property rights of peaceful people. That’s ultimately why the ban should be lifted, but I certainly think the argument that it will help people defend themselves is compelling. We are talking about non lethal weapons here after all. I get that the argument for lethal weapons is not as strong in this regard.Brodders17 said:
It is an infringement because it is a clear and present danger. Just like someone coming at you with a knife. If someone purposely puts you in harm’s way then violence to prevent that harm is justified. To say that the harm has to be inflicted before a property rights violation occurs would be untenable for an effective defence in these situations.
Giardiasis said:
Gee I seem to have hit a nerve, causing the knee jerk reaction of using the dreaded "socialist" label, ooh scary :rofl .
Also, if you posit (as you did) that free speech is limited by rules set by private property owners, then it is an ideological choice to value private property more highly than free speech. That's fine, but it remains an opinion/judgement on your part. If you value free speech more highly than private property rights then you would clearly come to the opposite conclusion and see private property as a problem. Of course, without private property which needs a state and legal system (read: government) to enforce it, we could do away with the government you seem to so hate so much, but not so much you could do without it.
DS