Lies, Damn Lies and really really Big Lies

With the carbon pricing legislation passing the House of Representatives, the complaints have got ever louder about Julia Gillard’s ‘lie’ on that matter just before the last election. Coming from the party whose former leader coined the phrase “non-core promise”, this might seem a bit rich. But as I was reminded tonight when I found a brief clip on YouTube, for a really world-class example of a monstrous lie forcefully repeated for political gain just before an election, it’s hard to go past this.

YouTube Preview Image

Peter Reith – “it’s as clear as day ….” “they’ve also got film … someone has looked at it, and it is an absolute fact – children were thrown into the water.”

Philip Ruddock – “more disturbingly a number of children have been thrown overboard”…. “clearly planned and pre-meditated”

John Howard – “There is something to me incompatible between somebody who claims to be a refugee and somebody who would throw their own child into the sea.  It offends the natural instinct of protection and  delivering security and safety to your children.”

I will refrain from detailing the record of Mr Howard’s government (or the current government) when it comes to how well they have acted on this “natural instinct of protection and delivering security and safety to children”.

Mr Howard also said “I don’t want people like that in Australia.” As it turned out, the vast majority of the refugees on the boat in question (known as SIEV 4) did settle in Australia (while Mr Howard was still Prime Minister). Not one of them has ever received an apology by any of the above people for being so publicly, repeatedly and grievously slurred by our nation’s leaders.

I know who I would rather be sharing my country with.

Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I have a view that if you say something publicly to or about a person that they have good reason to find offensive, you apologise – particularly if the basis of your comment turns out to be false.

There are so many words one could use to describe this continuing absence of apology – the very faintest criticism one could use would be describe it as ‘bad manners’. But even suggesting a simple apology is in order would probably still be attacked as ‘political correctness’ or an assault on ‘free speech’.

86 Comments

  1. Lorikeet,

    Although there are some good books on Emotional Intelligence, it is not learned from books. It stems from within and is called empathy. Deep understanding of others and their situations can only be obtained through empathy.

    Then there is intelligence based on good reasoning and facts, which Appy has just demonstrated.

    You are offering nothing of the first in any of your comments and very little of the second. Most of what you write is based on subjective opinion.

    Red Crab,

    Sorry, but I can’t understand what you are getting at. Most of your comment appears to be personal attack.

    I haven’t called anyone names. Can you point out where you think I have?

  2. Lorikeet: while it is true that I have never met Penny Wong, I can assure you that both Cousin J and Cousin S are well-known to me – and there was nothing much different in their upbringing than in mine. Could you please name your un-named experts on Nature/Nurture .. as far as I am aware, having typed up many, many papers for PhD students on this topic, the jury is still out, if you are looking for a ‘covers-all-cases’ answer. As with many things in biology, we have no real idea.

    The American Psychological Association said this: “studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual orientation” (APA, 2005).

    It’s possible that some other facts willc ome forward as there ae greater numbers of such children. I doubt it.

    Whether or not it is true taht some people deliberately decide whether to enter a homosexual relationship becuase of fear/distate for the hetersexual gender, I feel, has ntohign to do with the fact taht many people are simply born homosexual. If we know nothing else about humans, we know, surely, that they are not easily classificable into 2 groups, of identical characteristics.

    I am married and have no qualms about other people marryign, if they wish to. It does nto take away from my marriage whether yours is arrnaged or for love, for cynical, financial or other reasons, or whether you are gay and your partner is too. (Remember, there are many people who are guy, but who enter heterosexual marriages for reasons they often don’t confide in their partner.) There are many thigns to worry about in this world without worrying about the sex life of your neighbour.

  3. Those who know me well are aware that I have an IQ in the top 2% of the population, have a wide ranging life experience, and am a highly empathic person.

    Both Appy and Nifty Nut are very good at jumping to belittling conclusions about other people’s experience and knowledge base.

    I’m sure I could write at least a few chapters on all of the reasons that have been floated for people being gay.

    I trust you ladies will spend a couple more decades gaining some life experience before rudely unloading more of your inexperience and insults on other people.

  4. Red Crab,

    Your Oct 25 comment wasn’t up when I wrote. In my last comment I was referring to your Oct 24 commentary. What you have written most recently, I have no argument with – I do agree about the symbolic importance of marriage rights for homosexuals (Ken’s point) and said so earlier.

    Now can we move on?

    Lorikeet,

    There is no evidence that anything written in your first sentence (Oct 25) is true. There is much evidence to the contrary!

  5. I have both documentary evidence and a long history of supporting the starving and the destitute, in our own nation and abroad.

    I never worry about young whipper snappers of women who think they know everything, particularly when their zeal is not matched by their life experience.

  6. ok nifty lets move on
    i think we both agree on some points and will never agree on some others

    so how did we or who hijacked the subject of lies by polititions to the subject of gay marriage i for one didn’t see it happen.

    i think the the bill is being pushed by a certain greens leader and Labor environment minister who should have indicated there intentions before the last election and why .i suppose its not really lying its just not telling the whole story only the bits needed to gain an end result in the favour of the story teller .
    its like a lot of polititions they never lie just sometimes don’t tell the truth .

  7. Labor and Liberals reek of being hypocrites on many issues. Thats why the only party really is the Greens.

  8. Lorikeet – what belittling assumptions do you refer to? I’m afraid your claims to have passed an IQ test with a score that plaaces you in the top 2% tells us (if it is true) only about your ability to pass IQ tests, and about your potential, if we accept that IQ tests mean a thing.

    What you do with that potential is another thing entirely, and if you adopt a tone of lofty superiority in all your human interactions I can only wonder at your other statement about empathy as well.

    Your ability to write chapters again tells us nothing about the accuracy of your statements. You seem to confuse having a lot to say with having a lot of worth to offer.

    Red Crab : were you unaware before the last election of the Greens’ position on gay marriage? You clearly didn’t read their information then.

    Not sure what you mean about the Environment Minister – do you mean Tony Burke? I don’t think he has declared a position on this issue.

    If you were referring to Penny Wong, I’m pretty sure she is Assistant Treasurer … previously minister for Water, I believe. I don’t know that she has sponsored any bill on gay marriage, but you may be able to point me to facts saying otherwise.

    I am not sure who you say has been not telling the truth – you need to put forward some facts.

  9. Appy:

    There are Greens supporters on other blogs who are just as obnoxious as you. First they cast aspersions on a person’s intelligence, and then when the person responds, they accuse them of being a smart aleck. Trust me, I know the drill.

    Sometimes they complain about someone being off topic. Then they nag the person to death about something that is not on topic. Then when they give in to their nagging, they accuse them of being off topic again!

  10. opps

    got that a little wrong just as well you understand what i was trying to say. but thanks for correcting me
    i know that i do from time to time get confused
    but you know that i know you are far more intellegent than me
    but remember on thing
    its people like me that put govts in although democratic process was corrupted by the greens and independents last election there is no doubt that will be rectified in the next one no mater when it is .
    but i think i must represent in some way how the majority of Australians are thinking at the moment i think the govt and people like yourself know this and are hopeing it will all blow over before the next election just like the people punished the democrats for the gst the greens and independents will be disposed of the same way .

    THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING!!

    .I am not sure who you say has been not telling the truth – you need to put forward some facts

    let me think is julia gillard a good one mabe john howard to and i am Shaw that if i as well as you had a look back through australian political history we both would come up with a fairly substantial list without to much effort.
    .

  11. red crab – the current government was elected by the population. The fact that there have been different results from what sometimes happens (i.e. not a lanslide for one side or the other) is a result of how people voted. Therefore, it is not a corruption, because the system is still working. There have been times in the past when the government has depended on the votes of minor parties – cast your mind back to the DLP, if you are old enough, and the Country Party has been pivotal in keeping hte LIberals in, when it lived up to its name. Eventually it grew so far from the Country that it changed its name and that’s where people like Tony Windsor, Bob Katter for all I dislike him and Rob Oakshott came from.
    As for politicians changing their minds, it happens all the time, and why wouldn’t you change your mind if the circumstances change? I wuld not want a Prime Minister who refused to take into account new events, new facts or unforeseen consequences. Whether Gillard was unwise to say what is now being spun as a flat rejection of a carbon tax is up to the observer – I would no more call her a liar than Abbott, Howard, and all their predecessors.

    Please don’t waste electricity with that “you are more intelligent than I am ” bullshit – it is a silly old debating trick and makes you look dishonest. Lorikeet does the opposite, and it is also a waste of finger skin cells and the wear and tear on the keyboard.

  12. well you are correct once again except the part about i should have sead educated rather than intelligence .
    i referred to corruption a bit to hastily to maybe
    i should have sead that the present govt was put there buy the greens and independents not the population because they thought and correctly so that there agendas had a better than average chance with gillard .
    what new facts or unforeseen consequences have come to light that would have made the govt change there mind on the carbon tax! other than the threat to take support away from the the govt nothing

  13. red crab – If you think that Gillard foresaw or desired the current minority government, you must the the only one who thinks so. When she made whatever statement about a carbon tax she did, she clearly had in mind a government that she was going to lead having the balance of power in its own right. The situation that now prevails is one where she has to negotiate with the pivotal minority people – who were also elected, like it or not. Abbott would have had to do the same thing, except that I gather he was incapable of persuading them that he would do what they wanted. That is political life. In the 90s, Howard managed to eventually negotiate with a Senator from Tasmania, whose name I forget, that our overseas aid would be directed by the rules imposed by the Vatican, despite this country being supposedly a secular one. This was done to get his support in close votes in the Senate. Were you cross about that at the time? You should have been, if you were not.

  14. appy if i had known i would have been less than impressed
    i went and had a look at the greens policies nothing really stands out exept there obsession about gay rights .
    but what did catch my eye was what they did to the the Tasy govt i think the words used by the person involved was that he regretted ever having negotiated with bob brown to gain power and has lived to regret it .
    sounds familiar
    i think gillard will regret ever aligning with the greens .

    you think that im the only person who thinks that gillard knew what she was getting into
    give me some credit for a small amount of intelligence don’t you think that the advisers to the labor party didnt tell her who she was dealing with and the risk she was taking according to history
    but it would seem to me a case of power at any price and bugger the cost .
    , like it or not. Abbott would have had to do the same thing, except that I gather he was incapable of persuading them that he would do what they wanted.

    so negotiate with the weakest link the person or party that would do there bidding without question to stay in power .
    thats politics in 2010
    and it stinks

  15. There is a dispute between rival groups claiming to be the real DLP.
    In NSW the established branch of Michael O’Donohue enjoys the continued recognition of the NSW Electoral Commission. I support this branch.

    The opponents of Michael O’Donohue’s branch are colleagues of Tony Zegenhagen who is listed as the Federal Secretary through the AEC.

    JOhn Mulholland is challenging this and hopes to regain this position through his legal challenge at the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Zegenhagen was as opposing party to that case. The case has been heard and we all await the decision.

    Zegenhagen had a listed policy of opposition to the rent resources tax.

    Meanwhile myself and Michael O’Donohue support a 40% tax on super profits. There are other policies and approaches from a Langite and McKellite NSW ALP tradition that we have for the DLP which is in stark contrast to the approach of Zegenhagen and his colleagues.

  16. i wonder if western australia managed to secede from the commonwealth
    what would happen to Canberra,s money grab .
    i think it would be like pulling the plug out of the bath
    interesting how only 2.5 million people contribute 47% of the entire country’s wealth .

  17. Red Crab:

    If you have the mineral resources, plenty of money comes in. Who knows where the hell it goes from here in Queensland?!

    It certainly doesn’t go into infrastructure such as housing, hospitals and schools.

    Michael Webb:

    I’m not quite sure who you are, but I can tell you that Senator John Madigan, Tony Zegenhagen and the team are doing a mighty good job in Canberra and Ballarat.

  18. meanwhile myself and Michael O’Donohue support a 40% tax on super profits. There are other policies and approaches from a Langite and McKellite NSW ALP tradition that we have for the DLP which is in stark contrast to the approach of Zegenhagen and his colleagues.

    Mr Webb (The great admirer of the ALP) seems your own party doesn’t even support you. If your going to pretend to be someone your not then at least attempt to follow politics. The 40% was dumped by the ALP months ago. Renegotiations saved 5 billion in investment and saved thousands of jobs.
    Since you were expelled who are you with these days. CDP, ALP, its hard to keep up with Michael

  19. The best way and the fairest way to collect extra tax during a mining boom is at the Federal level. As Australians, it should not matter how much resources and minerals your individual State holds in the ground. The key focus should be upon all Australians, not just some- based on State boundaries, to benefit.

    The zero tax policy proposed by the DLP under Zegenhagen and colleagues would mean unfunded infrasturcurre, unfunded superannaution gaurantee levy for workers.

    Under Gilard the compromise of only 22.5% rent resources tax means only partial funding of the above.

    Under an O’Donohue/Webb DLP led leadership of the DLP a full 40% rent resources tax would mean a total ability to fund all of these goodies for national development and for workers’ retirement years.

  20. Under an O’Donohue/Webb DLP led leadership of the DLP a full 40% rent resources tax would mean a total ability to fund all of these goodies for national development and for workers’ retirement years.

    don’t you mean goody s for the states that want more than there fare share considering the amount that they actually contribute .

    i read that n.s.w is trying to grab more gst than what they are due

    don’t think that most people in w.a are well off they are not only a few are
    therefore w.a. should get back the same percentage of revenue that they actually taken by the commonwealth .
    now there’s an interesting concept
    the reason for gillards 22% is because Barnett threatened to wipe it all out with a state royalty’s increase

  21. Red Crab is right. Queensland and WA both have a huge mineral wealth. Where does it go? Certainly not into hospitals, schools and public housing here in Queensland.

  22. michael webb
    just where is this mining boom going on is it nsw no i don’t think s is it victoria no again maybe in canberra ops they only mine money there

    the only thing the fed govt dose for west australia and queensland is take
    and lie about the benefits they will give back to us but the truth is all they will ever do is take to prop up the other states .
    ops sorry we got to host chogam and pay for it as well
    as lorikeet suggests there are much more important things that we need first .

  23. Given how little of the actual investment capital in WA mining industry (the source of the current boom) actually originates in Perth, and therefore, as I understand the capitaist system, how little of the profits (about 20% I have read) would stay in WA if the western end secedes or not, what difference would it make? Oh, well, they’d have to fund their own defence, customs, collect their own income tax, run their own ports, regulate their own shipping, quarantine, trade negotiations, currency, etc etc.

    Fabulous idea. I see it as a net profit to the rest of the states, except that first we’d demand the money back for e.g. infrastructure and Grants Commission money sent over there since the last dummy spit in the 1930s.

    Would raise the Australian national IQ by a few points, too. ;-0

  24. Red Crab – you might want to check the constitution – WA cannot secede unless there is a referendum to change it – it is not possible now, and it wasn’t in the 1930s. What you actually want, if the mismanagement of money is the probelm, is to consider carving out a new state in the PIlbara, if it ever becomes possible to disintegrate the nation. That would ensure that the money stays where it is dug up, but there is the small matter again of where the capital comes from. Where are Twiggy’s shareholders, for example? And who will save you from China or Indonesia when things get tough?

  25. Only a little while ago our host was mourning the demise of the blogosphere. Yet here we are, a thread with nearly eighty comments in only a few days.
    I think the business about broken promises as to a necessary carbon amelioration policy just appears complete bunkum.
    Labor got elected in 2007 on a platform that included long overdue promises as to environment, including Murray Basin reform and climate change action.
    Altho Rudd was forced to back off substantial policy change on this by the big mining trans nationals, the denialists and the discredited Murdoch press, the problem was too serious to be ignored: the Greens knew it, the Independents knew it and Labor itself knew that Tony Abbotts la-la land denialism was not an adequate response to the science. Hence the revisit after Gillard won her election.

  26. Terjep says: All this talk of the DLP makes me want to point out that the DLP and the LDP are completely different parties. I’m a member of the LDP
    Thats right the LDP is extreme right economically and is morally bankrupt. In the 2007 Election the LDP ran a no fault policy that excluded chargers of incest etc.
    Nifty Nuts says: Thank you for your comments and for allowing Tony Zegenhagen’s ignorance to be exposed rather than deleted. Exposure helps us gain insight into the homophobic views of DLP members, which of course would be reflected in DLP policy.
    Its a strange website that refers to the norm as extreme and the extreme left as the norm

  27. thanks appy funny how those on the east coast get so defensive about any suggestion of w.a and its money leaving the commonwealth mabe you should find out what really happened when w.a had a referendum to leave the commonwealth they voted 63% for the yes vote the fed govt didn’t know what to do so it was put to a commit y made up of several insignificant British public servants to sort out .
    anyway it was just a question to get a reaction worked well wouldn’t you say.
    paul walter
    as always your comments are very good and correct
    the only thing i would say is that gillard knew that she was going to change her mind irrespective of any argument for or against because she had already made an agreement for the green vot and that was part of the deal same as gay marriage is now the people know this
    interesting how the relationship between the labor and greens is starting to show strain .
    i stand by my prediction that the greens as did the democrats are going to be left holding the bag in the next election .

    Where are Twiggy’s shareholders, for example? And who will save you from China or Indonesia when things get tough?

    appy thats not nice
    if there is any one to save us from any problems it wont be your mob they will do as they did in the second world war take the money and run .
    besides with all the money they get from here they cant even protect the borders here now . better to be building bigger processing centre s here
    Oh, well, they’d have to fund their own defence, customs, collect their own income tax, run their own ports, regulate their own shipping, quarantine, trade negotiations, currency, etc etc.
    with nearly half the nations wealth i dont think that would be a problem.

  28. Tony, there are no explusions,neither of myself or Michael O’Donohue.
    It is we who do not recognise you Tony.
    Our Branch is still recognised by the NSW Electoral Commission whereas your colleagues who have the other ‘branch’ do not enjoy recognition. This has been the way for one year now and despite all your letters and your friends’ letters to the NSW Electoral Commission it is my fellow branch member and Secretary in NSW Michael O’Donohue who continues on.

    Also the rank and file of the ALP want a 40% rent resoruces tax. They make up the ALP; not just officials who modified it to the 22.5% rate. But your policy is worse than everyone’s in that you rejected any rent resources tax. You are not ‘real Labor’ with a dud thoughtline like that, that you announced proudly on your old website.

  29. This Michael Webb sounds much more credible than the dreaded Tony, more interested in policy than fantasy.
    The thread topic was, I remember, more to do with carbon pricing than denialism.

  30. The publicised so-called DLP under the Rawson/Williams group in NSW appears to be a Slave Labor Party more so than the ALP because it has a policy on industrial relations that has a “neutral” stance towards trade unions; and says that workers and management can work towards wages and conditions being worked out by boss/worker committes with unions being kept out.

    Not even Senator Madigan would go along with them I suspect.

    They call themselves ‘pro worker’and ‘real Labor’ but really the ALP heritagey apply amateurish fantasies and misapplied Catholic social teaching through a narrow lens and its shows.
    Waht a real labor Party would have is supporters who are comfortable with fully functioning unions, not having poltical represeentatives with policies of ‘netral’ stances towards unions. This is not the pre 1955 ALP heritage; and this group are certainly not heirs to it.

  31. A few months ago, the Queensland Branch of the DLP fully ratified the union movement’s stated goals.

    As we know, the Labor government is very slow to listen to both unions and workers, and supports large corporate organisations in their quests to dud workers, service recipients and shareholders.

    Liberals are the same, but their policies are far more punitive of the poor.

    Unions were originally small groups of workers who did their own negotiations with bosses, withdrawing their labour to emphasise their needs, if an impasse was reached.

    To my knowledge, all political parties kick out people whom they consider unsuitable for membership.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *