Yet again, the Prime Minister has been ensnared by the Left’s web of deceit and fallen prey to the most pernicious aspects of identity politics. For fear of offending one protected identity group, he goes grovelling to a different well-established identity group and in the process smears a third. This is what happens when truth, logic and rational thought are hurled out the window and replaced with ‘feelings’, political spin and contrite self-flagellation.
Last week, we pointed out how the current maelstrom swirling around the Prime Minister presented neither concrete problems nor concrete solutions, other than absurd suggestions, such as iConsent apps or 6 p.m. curfews. This week, the pattern became even more pronounced. The latest ‘problem’ is not even accurately identified and indeed the reality of what occurred is deliberately couched in evasive language, presumably so as not to offend the particular identity group involved. Meanwhile, the solution again has no logical connection to solving the problem.
Let’s recap: our Prime Minister is demanding, in light of recent events, that the men of Australia change their ways, that the businesses of Australia are responsible for an unacceptable masculine ‘culture’ and that the Liberal party abandon its long-held (and laudable) opposition to female quotas.
Yet there is not a single one of the current problems grabbing the attention of the media that would have been any different if female quotas were in place in the Liberal party. And just the same, not one is, in anything other than the broadest possible sense, due to the so-called male Australian culture.
Let’s take them one by one.
On Channel Ten and in the Australian this week a series of repulsive allegations were reported which identified without naming any of them a group of men alleged to have performed within the parliamentary building consensual sexual acts alone and upon each other. There is a technical term for this perfectly legal but clearly inappropriate behaviour in that place, and that word is ‘homosexual’. The reports also mentioned ‘rent-boys’ being brought into parliament. Again, this expression is largely used to describe male prostitutes whose clients are also male; and again, the term ‘homosexual’ would be the accurate one to use to describe such perfectly legal but, in that building, inappropriate encounters. There were also reports of a prayer room being used for consensual sexual activities and of ‘a former minister’ being involved in some of the aforementioned activities. Some of the activity was filmed on mobile phones and shared within the group. Since then one of the individuals involved has apparently been sacked. On the basis of probabilities, it seems likely that if true then these lurid and lewd activities involved illicit drug use. Yet in all the commentary by the Prime Minister, and by most MPs, the words ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ were scrupulously avoided, and somehow, the blame for these activities was placed at the feet of some vaguely defined heterosexual masculine Australian ‘culture’.
There is no logical route by which you can solve the problem of drug-fuelled gay orgies among political staffers by increasing the number of female Liberal MPs.
This latest revolting tale came on the heels of three other unrelated events: the allegation by a now dead woman that (soon to be ex-) Attorney-General Christian Porter raped her in 1988; the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins inside the (soon to be ex-) Defence Minister Linda Reynolds’ office and the decision by (soon to be ex-) MP Nicolle Flint to quit parliament due to unrelenting harassment by leftwing activists. As regards the Porter allegation, there is no logical route by which you can solve the problem of a decades-old rape case by increasing the number of female Liberal MPs. The Brittany Higgins case is another tawdry tale of an alcohol-fuelled misadventure that resulted in a sexual encounter and an alleged rape. But, as Peta Credlin has pointed out, the Higgins case was handled entirely by female Liberal MPs. Unsatisfactorily and incompetently, clearly. There is no logical route by which any aspect of that case could have been handled better by increasing the number of female Liberal MPs. Nor was it the result, other than in the broadest sense, of an Australian male ‘culture’,
Finally, in the case of Ms Flint, the harassment of this talented MP came entirely from hardcore leftist elements connected, however loosely, to GetUp!, the Greens and Labor. Again, there is no logical route by which you can solve the problem of violent left-wing intimidation of female Liberal party candidates by increasing the number of female Liberal MPs. In a nutshell, the Prime Minister is flagging Labor’s flawed quotas for women in parliament policy as the solution to four events which a quota would never have prevented. The damage this will do is immense. Female quotas would self-evidently see less talented Liberal candidates, of the sort that populate the Labor party and the Greens.
Worse, the constant accusation that these recent events are the result of a flawed masculine culture is a disgraceful smear on all the well-meaning, decent and hard-working men who are the majority of Australian males both in parliament and in communities and businesses across the nation.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10