Poor bugger. Some Liberals might like to reconsider their tactics. When you bring someone down in a dirty, grubby manner, this is sometimes an unintended consequence.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
It’s our winner take all poliyical system in which ‘failure’ is synonomous with disgrace.
(Also, perhaps a dash of ” those who live by kicking heads…”)
Roll on minority governments or wide spectrum coalitions.
Not just the Liberals.
Poor Broggo. I hope he makes a full recovery, and my strongest sympathies go to his family.
I’m with Kate wholeheartedly…
…but I don’t think the issue should now be whitewashed in an orgy of ‘he’s such a good bloke’. I was happy with his resignation, but I think that should have been the end of the issue. You can’t have a leader on any level who says such things, in any context.
No it merely emphasises again that Australians do not accept apologies and love to kick a man when he is down
The breaking news on newspaper websites is that Farry O’Barrell has withdrawn from the leadership contest and that Peter Debnam, the preferred candidate of the happy-clappy Right (as in David Clarke, Alex Hawke, etc.), is now likely to be elected unopposed.
Coincidentally, this morning I re-read Michael Burleigh’s account (in The Third Reich: A New History) of the establishment of the Vichy regime in Nazi-occupied France. The Vichy regime was run, not by genuine fascists, but by the anti-democracy, anti-modernity Catholic Right. It is instructive to consider their program: harsh prohibitions on abortion and divorce; banning women from many professions and generally pressuring women to leave work and have large numbers of children; officially sanctioned homophobia; financial incentives and penalties to encourage large families and penalise bachelors; schemes to encourage to people to leave cities and set up farms (similar to what B. A. Santamaria advocated for Australian workers); purging schools of actual and suspected pacifist schoolteachers; dismissing public servants for personal deviance unrelated to their work performance; replacing “liberty, equality, fraternity” with “work, family, country” as the national slogan; and a general culture war against the alleged decline in the standards of French society (relfected in the declining birth rate) brought about by the generation which had come to adulthood in the period following World War One.
Is there anything in all of this which has not been sponsored in the Australian context in recent years by the religious Right and its allies in the Coalition parties and the commentariat?
Psychological trauma for Brogden
There’s been a pretty shocking development in the downfall of John Brogden. It seems the man is psychologically shattered after his fall from grace, and apparently engaged in self-harm last night: John Brogden was rushed to hospital last night after…
“Some Liberals might like to reconsider their tactics.” Mark, I assume you’re alluding here to the role of belatedly bringing the “mail-order bride” story to the front page, possibly played by far-Right Young Lib, Alex Hawke. On this, the jury appears to still be out.
Not so, however, for the plain and direct role that Daily Telegraph journalist (to use the word loosely) Luke McIlveen played in Brogden’s suicide attempt last night. (At the time of writing, the “Sordid past revealed” story, mentioned in the SMH without naming the journalist or newspaper concerned, was still online!).
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16439770-5001021,00.html McIlveen concludes his “exclusive” thus:
“A spokesman for Mr Brogden was last night still preparing a response to the latest revelations”.
Err, Luke (and your editor): I think that youÄôll find that Brogden indeed issued a “response”, in time for all but you earliest editions.
As far as Luke McIlveenÄôs form on such lurid (and here, pointless: the guy had *already* paid the maximum price, short of suicide) exposes go, he has plenty, making repeat appearances on “Media Watch”. In a bloggerÄôs stated opinion from a year ago:
“If there was a prize for gutteral muckraking, Luke McIlveen would be in the running”.
http://hackwatch.blogspot.com/2004/09/tax-secrecy-scare-and-cartoons.html
John Brogden’s suicide attempt
I woke up this morning to the news that former NSW Opposition Leader John Brogden had attempted suicide in his electorate office in Mona Vale. This is an absolute shock to everyone, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum. With regard to the …
I find it very sad that he felt everything was so bad that this would be the solution. It is not like he would have been unable to start a fresh in a different field within a few years.
I’m just wondering what role O’Farrell may have played for him to pull out so quickly
I blame the media.
And why is it such a crime for a man to express sexual interest in women, anyway? This is feminazi bullshit.
Especially a crime when they go around with their political bits hanging out like EP.
Oh you stupid little man.
Honestly, that just made me so cranky. I’m sorry I called you stupid EP but sexual harrassment is not a joke.
Propositioning women at a drunken party isn’t sexual harrassment.
Some female journalists need to grow up a bit and stop being so damn precious.
* pulls up chair, cracks a beer and puts the party pies in the oven *
Game on.
You blame the media EP? The journos concerned didnt spill the story. It was a factional hatchet job inside the Liberal party. That was the go ahead for an almighty crucifixion. The reasons stories like this dont happen all the time is that major media know they’ll pay in blood for pissing a major party off, in terms of leaks, stories, on-tour junkets, govt ads, media policy etc etc
The journos concerned didnt spill the story. It was a factional hatchet job inside the Liberal party. That was the go ahead for an almighty crucifixion.
And the media were the ones who hammered in the nails, day after day. Even after the factional dudes spoke out, they could easily have continued to ignore the issue, as they have done many times before.
These things can be hushed up, and it’s the media who decide whether to stay silent or go into a feeding frenzy. Witness the case of an Opposition Leader called Bob Hawke:
Further to the exchange between Kate and EP, whilst it would be inhuman not to have some feeling for Brogden in his current sad state, his reported and observed behaviour towards women falls on a spectrum with ungentlemanly presumptuousness at one end and indecent assault at the other. Angela Cuming’s account of one such incident is as follows:
‘He slipped one arm around the small of my back, leant down and said: “Enough of that. Are you available?”‘
Such an overture by a man, to a woman with whom he is at best an acquaintaince, could reasonably be expected to cause offence.
As a matter of personal experience, I have had crude and unwanted passes made at me in bars by people of both genders. Even though I’m big and blokey enough not to be intimidated by such behaviour, I found the incidents extremely unwelcome and annoying, and having the individuals in question hanging around in the same bar did not improve my mood. I should not have had to put up with it. And Angela Cuming and sveral other women should not have had to put up with the unwelcome approaches which they received, which were probably intimidating as well as unwelcome.
Fyodor, can I have a swig?
EP conveniently ignores Broggo’s comments about Helena Carr. I guess he was just showing his sexual attraction to her as well.
There’s a line, EP, regardless of whether you see it or not. If I go to a party and a man says, “hey, you’re cute, let’s go home and get horizontal” and I say, “no thanks” all is good and dandy. I think he’s a jerk and has no idea about subtlety, but you’re right — it’s not sexual harrasment. He’s just being a jerk.
When a man pinches my backside he crosses the line. When a man refuses to take no for an answer he’s crossing the line. When a man uses very lewd language he crosses a line.
Brogden crossed a line. If you can’t see that I feel sorry for you.
Good case study EP – the ALP didnt rat him out, and the story went nowhere. This is how it works. The media wont take a major party leader on without “bipartisan support” as it were….
Now, minor parties – different kettle of fish.
I saw that story in a tabloid at the time EP. Bullshit to it’s being hidden by the media, and it was, ”you cannot be doing that, that is the first prize”.
Anyway, that’s enough from me. I’ve already said what I needed to say about Brogden’s actions and about my views on the tragic turn of events. It is possible to feel badly about this situation without being an apologist for Brogden’s past actions. It is possible to feel he crossed a line without being an apologist for sensationalist media reports. I think he made the right decision in stepping down as leader.
I hope he can rebuild his life from now on.
I reiterate my original comment and I bow out of this thread now.
EP, that appalling joke of Hawke’s ( was there ever a worse teller of jokes in politics?) was made at aa function where EVERYONE was told well in advance it was OFF THE RECORD.
Back in those days they were off the record.
A friend told me Barry Cassidy confirmed this on ABC radio yesterday.
the best teller of a joke by a country mile in politics was John Kerin!
He’s married, EP. It’s not feminazi bullshit to expect him to honour his wedding vows.
Cheers
Absolutely, or would the lady like something stronger? In a heavy glass bottle, perhaps. Purely for “communication” purposes, natch.
Brogden crossed a line, but it was a very minor crossing in the context of the occasion. An apology was called for, but public vilification and forced resignation is way out of proportion to the offence.
Furthermore, there’s a clear double standard here. Bob Hawke was not called to account for his very public racist joke. It seems that some politicians are more accountable than others.
Re the Hawke joke, one would hope our standards and expectations have improved in the past 24 years.
Also, the idea that behaviour between men and women ought to be governed by norms of decency, respect, trust and honesty is not a recent invention of 2nd wave feminists.
I do feel sorry for Brogden. Detested him as a politician but I do feel sorry for him and hope that he has a full and speedy recovery.
I agree with Peter’s comment regarding the nature of politics. It seems that the a few are learning quite well from Karl Rove.
SMH asks is the media to blame?
.
Hawke made his joke in front of hundreds of witnesses, including journalists. I doubt that’s the only time he’s crossed the line, either — as a notorious boozer he would have committed more than one indiscretion.
If the media had wanted to, they could have made it front-page news for days on end, as they did with Brogden. Instead, they played it down — because most journalists favour the Labor Party.
There were no swarms of journalists waiting for Hawke at his home and office to interrogate him about the incident, as there were for Brogden.
The rule is that you can cross the line if you’re a Labor leader, but not if you’re a Liberal leader.
EP, as I stated before it was off the record and journos actually did that back in 1981.
This wouldn’t have been made public except for the liberal party ‘right wing types’ who have just heavied Peter into becoming leader.
Well said, Kate. There is some truth to Mark’s assertion that responsibility for this rests partly with those who engineered the revelation behind the scenes. While Brogden’s comments were offensive, the danger is we’ll institutionalise these sort of personal misdemeanor stories and end up imitating the Americans in their ridiculous obsession with past benders, broads and bust-ups.
I’m not looking to start an argument but yesterday many LP commenters defended – some passionately – the wearing of the hajib (a kind of gender-specific yellow star symbol). Today, Paul describes the philosophy of the Catholic Right in Vichy France and makes it sound a lot like mainstream Islamic culture throughout the world. It’s confusing. Is forcing thousands of girls and women to wear a symbol of their lowliness less abusive than asking ‘how about it’ at a party?
And Paul gets moody when propositioned by a bird? Don a hajib, Paul, and watch how the attitude of those preying, shooter-fuelled sexual monsters improves immediately!
Finally, has anyone contemplated the possibility that Brogden’s original offense was part of the same pathology that ended in yesterday’s suicide bid? Alcohol, risk-taking, hubris, self-recrimination. He really should be forgiven and Bob Carr – a stand-up bloke IMO – has encouraged him to do so.
Divorcee and self-confessed womaniser Mark Latham was far worse and he was a few years ago, Paul, not a quarter of a century ago. Despite calling a woman a whore and dredging up the poignant familial business of Tony Abbott, neither his deputy, Jenny Macklin, or supposedly plain-speaking Julia Gillard ever asked him to resign. A disgraceful double standard.
I have to agree with EP here. In the scheme of things what Brogden did was tasteless, not something I’d do myself, but I do not regard it as constituting legally prosecutable sexual harrasment. Clinton has done far worse by most reports (and I’m not saying two wrongs make a right here, just putting it in context). I don’t see what’s the major difference between asking ‘are you available?’ (i.e expressing possible sexual interest) and ‘are you single?’ (i.e. expressing possible romantic interest). It’s more the up front ness and brazenness of the expression rather than the intentions which some people express more subtly. What exactly is wrong with sex?
Let’s not forget that Chris Sheil abused John Howard’s wife beforre the election, by referring to her as “Madame LaFarge” — the Frenchwomen who sat knitting beneath the guillotines while heads rolled.
I hope all you self-righteous types will condemn Chris for his smearing of an politician’s wife, and demand his resignation from his academic post.
One thing about this which is curious.
He asks a femaal journo from the Sun Herald is she avaliable and she says nothing until he resigns.
Why didn’t she write something earlier as he did it at the marble bar.
(now there was a bar 25 years ago!)
There nothing off the record there and he din’t even know she wasa journo.
Give it up Evil. I’m not a leader of anything, let alone a politician. Moreover, the comment is neither sexist nor racist, but refers to our own Madam Defarge’s well known roll as the prime minister’s closest confidant.
Well Jason, I think he could have survived arse-pincher. But racist arse-pincher probably sealed the deal.
Again, I believe his party could have heavied in and saved him from the exposure. They chose not to. Indeed, elements of the party shopped him for it. Who’s to blame? feminazis? meeja?
No. The NSW Liberal Party. And there they go, tossing around US-style ‘family values’ agendas again. Just begging to be hoisted on their own petard. Swim with sharks, wake up with the fishes, as Ross Cameron knows full well. I feel sorry for Broggers personally after last night, and agree that some meeja went to town after it broke, but there’s no-one to blame but themselves for this sorry mess seeing light of day in the first place.
Hypocrisy, CS.
You condemn Brogden for slurring a politician’s spouse, but you slurred a politician’s spouse yourself.
And I don’t recall you ever rebuking Mark Latham for his public abuse of woman and the disabled.
It’s one standard for Liberals, and a completely different standard for Labor.
The mainstream media share the same double standard — going after Brogden while they let Latham and Hawke off the hook.
Wrong Evil. First, I haven’t condemned Brogden. He condemned himself, with assistance from his own Liberal Party. Second, Latham was not leader when he was playing bovver boy, just as Brogden is no longer leader himself. Brogden hasn’t resigned from parliament, merely the leadership, thus returning himself to the status from which Latham launched his salvos. Third, I don’t think women are necessarily immune from public criticism merely because they are women, only if they are not in public life and politics (this is the public interest protection against defamation action). If you are such a warrior for integrity, how about you show just a little yourself and use your real name.
I don’t want to step into this stoush. But it isn’t fair, cs, to say that people lack integrity for posting pseudonymously. Anonymity is one of the peculiar privileges of the internet, not to be given up lightly, and besides, everyone has a right to their own identity.
We’re all very different people when we step out from behind our keyboards.
CL wrote:
“Divorcee and self-confessed womaniser Mark Latham was far worse and he was a few years ago, Paul, not a quarter of a century ago. Despite calling a woman a whore and dredging up the poignant familial business of Tony Abbott, neither his deputy, Jenny Macklin, or supposedly plain-speaking Julia Gillard ever asked him to resign. A disgraceful double standard.”
You certainly have a point regarding Latham’s inexcusable remarks about Janet Albrechtsen, but it should also be remembered that Latham did not go unnoticed and he earned himself an Ernie Award from Labor and union women, and a spray from Marian Sawer in one of the Australian Election Studies (or it could have been a Labor Essay), for some of his statements and positions.
I agree liam, but nevertheless anonymous commentators are in a somewhat hypocritical position when they come to (falsly in this case) alleging that non-anonymous commentators lack integrity.
Identity has nothing to do with integrity. People have been using handles and noms de guerre long before the internet.
EP said you had double standards, he didn’t say you lacked integrity.
Sorry to derail a perfectly good stoush.
Are you claiming that anonymopus commentators necessarily lack integrity, cs? That’s irrational.
Here is your comment on CL’s blog, with my emphasis added:
Since you denigrated John Howard’s wife, who is basically as innocent of political involvement as Bob Carr’s wife, it is hypocritical of you to hold Brogden to account for doing essentially the same thing.
With all due, allegations of hypocrisy and double-standards are direct attacks on anyone’s integrity, in this case also accompanied by naming (whereas I use my initials, in lower case) and citing my work (which I never do), and dragging me into a discussion that I had no part in, not to mention being incorrect on the matters of fact, and all done under the cover of anonymity. The hypocrisy reeks.
Still, I don’t want to make a big deal of it. It’s only ol’ Evil, after all.
I bet Liam Hogan isn’t even your real name.
Just by way of enstoushification: do sections of the Right open themselves up more to this sort of attack by trumpeting ‘family values’ then groping every butt within coo-ee? Does it make media inquiry more legitimate, than in the case of a politician who isnt running on these issues? Im not singling out Broggers, but think Ross Cameron. The sheer hypocrisy made it newsworthy. Personally, I think it makes a difference.
And its nit one way either: no-one blinks when LNP MPs send their rugrats to private schools, but it has made the papers when ALP MPs did the same. I think that’s legitmate enough. Are you practising what you preach?
Not the same at all EP. To call someone ‘Madame LeFarge’ is quite a different thing to calling someone a ‘mail order bride’ because she’s a woman with brown skin married to a powerful man.
I’m sure most politicians’ spouses could cope with a bit of criticism of their politics, whether involved or not. I’m quite sure that Helena Carr could. Racial sledging? A different story altogether.
Liam Hogan is my real name. I really do wear a beret, especially when it’s cold. Offline, I rarely ever stoush and dislike tedious political arguments.
Wrong Evil. Howard’s wife has a well documented roll as the prime miniter’s closest political confidant. And in any event, there is no comparison on multiple levels – most obviously I am not a political leader and can say whatever I like within the law. Moreover, that comment refers to distinctions between the cases of Latham and Brogden. It does not seek to “hold Brogden to account”.
There is more, but your arguments are tiresome. let me put it this way buddy: If I ever become the leader of a political party and seek high office, I promise I won’t say anything sexist and racist about the non-political wife of my opponent. How’s that?
Just by way of enstoushification: do sections of the Right open themselves up more to this sort of attack by trumpeting ‘family valuesÄô then groping every butt within coo-ee?
No more than sections of the Left who open themselves up to this sort of attack by trumpeting ‘non-sexism’ then groping every butt within coo-ee.
Except that the media tend to ignore the latter, and emphasise the former.
This isn’t about CS allegedly attacking John Howard’s wife. It’s about Jo-Bro grabbing a woman’s arse, asking for a root, then making an offensive racist slur against Helena Carr.
Right wing tactic #14322. When the argument is lost, move the goal posts and start arguing about something else.
EP, IÄôll also add that given your extreme right wing polemic, I find your anonymity a little cowardly.
Have you been drinking Evil?
cs, that’s a cop-out. We all expect everybody to try and refrain from making racist or sexist statements, whether they’re trying out for preselection or not.
You haven’t. Brogden did. Simple as that.
For a self-confessed-and-proud-of-it political hater, cs, you sure do have a thin skin.
a bit of hyperbole here.
David whom did he ask for sex?
when did mail-order bride become a racist remark particularly since there are more russian ones then philipino ones.
David Heidelberg, why is it cowardly to express political opinions pseudonymously?
I know a lot of people who are forced into pseudonymns because of very real threats to their employment. That’s not cowardly. That’s a fact of life. Take it up with the Department of Capitalism.
Those of us who comment under our ‘real’ names are usually in positions where nothing we could possibly say could affect our income.
How did this become about bloggers?
And personal flaming?
His insult was so low, so dirty and racist, comparisons with Latham insulting one of the most powerful media personalities in the country, herself an aggressive and attacking writer, are completely trite.
WHat’s happened is sad. Though I thought he had to resign for his racist mudsling, I don’t believe this sort of indiscretion should destroy careers for ever.
Perhaps what both sides could agree on is that when someone is big enough to apologise, while it may be right to make them sit in the sin bin and show penance, they should be able to move on eventually and not have past indiscretions (except in the most extreme cases) slung around their necks like an albatross.
True Liam, but the comparison is still barking mad, even if I had spoken similarly (which of course I haven’t). Political leaders are, quite rightly, held to higher standards of conduct than ordinary citizens, the higher standards being what in part actually qualifies them for leadership. Brogden disqualified himself.
Yeah Heidelberg, i’m crossing the fence to side with EP on that one.
There are some real psychos and dirty players out there, and you’re attacking many decent lefties and great writers at the same time.
See what happened to Ms Fits last year as an example.
“given your extreme right wing polemic, I find your anonymity a little cowardly”
A different rule for the left? I don’t think so.
Just for the record armaniac IS my real name :p
A wise retreat Evil.
What armaniac said.
Ministerial accountability has gone totally out of the window in the last ten years, at the State and Federal levels. Labor and Liberal.
Ministers and Leaders should be able to say ‘Look, I fucked up, there’s no excuse for what I did, I resign formally from my position and apologise’. It’s not the end of the world. It doesn’t have to be the end of a career.
It’s certainly no excuse for the ultimately selfish act of attempting suicide.
Which begs the question: did Bob Hawke disqualify himself?
I think that calling a woman a “smelly whore” is a pretty low and sexist act for a would-be political leader. And making fun of a man’s physical disability is low too.
Latham gets away with it, but Brogden doesn’t. The difference is media bias.
Liam, it’s cowardly because it’s the blog equivalent of making an obscene phone call. Bit of a giggle, but ultimately without any substance. We can agree to disagree.
Homer, Putting your hand on the small of a woman’s back and asking her if she’s available, is propositioning for sex by my understanding.
And I think that the term mail order bride is racist, especially when used to describe a woman from south East Asia. His inference was clear.
Oops, I meant: Did Latham disqualify himself?
David, you are mixing up the two women.
The two actions were seperate.
He said words to the effect bob could send he mail order bride back.
I think he was more talking about Bob.
The main point no–one here knows the inference because we were not there.
EP,
There are various definitions of skanky ho and I doubt very much whether Mark Latham even knew that a rapper had another one.
armaniac. You’re right, there are some nuts. Currently my details are appearing on a prominent nazi site, all because of my criticism of the Australian white nationalist movement. I know the risks.
Maybe because I’m such a small infrequent blogger, my opinion is a little different. Don’t know. But I accept your comments about lefty anon bloggers too. I may be being inconsistent, but I really like fyodor!
It’s a judgement call ab. There are many instances of politicians putting indiscretions behind them when they become leaders and the public accepting it. Note that Latham recognised the standards by pledging to clean-up his act when he became leader, as part of his bid to qualify as pm – but perhaps it wasn’t fully accepted and he did pay a price at the margin.
Everybody loves Fyodor!!!
Re cs’s : ”alleging that non-anonymous commentators lack integrity.”
That is rich coming from the anonymous. Why? Consider this:
If an anonomyous source is quoted in a newspaper which is legally defamatory or incites violence, the newspaper is held to account. If the author is named, both parties are liable.
So, by natural justice (and coming Statutory law as Howard moves in that direction), WHERE are the rights of anonymous bloggers to post a defamation or incitement just because its a blog.? If you accept that there is no such right, then it follows that even insults are problematic.
Blog Rule# 01: Posting under a real name creates a presumption of interity re the law. Posting anonymously means you must rebut a presumption of lack of integrity, and most who do post anon do not go out of their way to take advantage of their anonymity, so no problem.
BUT, as I have said before with some individuals, it can be a presumption of spinelessness: those who smear, defame, and incite anonymously.
In reverse, it is logically impossible to defame the anonymous.
Peter Kemp.
If a blog allows anonymous or pseudonymous commenters, the host takes on responsibility for their actions. It’s Mark’s site. He can delete or allow as he pleases.
Your ‘presumptions’ come from nowhere. Spinelessness is not a function of identity.
Turn it up.
Matter of fact, the more I disagree and get frustrated with EP’s arguments the more I respect him for sticking it out before an unsympathetic audience. You’ve got to give credit to stamina.
I wouldn’t last a fraction of the time on right-wing site.
Liam, I’m saying that spinelessness is a function of abuse of identity. And yes, the host is liable also. Moot point with new legislation, but ask yourself what motivates Howard ? Try anonymous ‘johnhowardlies’
I think that spinelessness is exemplified by those who try to attack people on the basis of their identity rather than the quality of their arguments.
I’ll just point to this Anonymous Comment Under Threat by Quiggin and his previous entry on the issue.
Well said Evil. Apology accepted.
Touche.
Sh*t… my “touche” was for EP’s comment:
I think that spinelessness is exemplified by those who try to attack people on the basis of their identity rather than the quality of their arguments.
Too slow, again. You people all drink better coffee than me, obviously.
A bit too subjective EP. Try telling that to a judge in a defamation/incitement suit.
”Its the quality of my argument you cantankerous old fool”
Peter, your point is, as usual, irrelevant.
As for your entire argument regarding anonymity, it is specious since you are anonymous yourself. We have no evidence that “Peter Kemp” is your real name — and, even if we accept that it is your name, it still doesn’t uniquely identify you since it is a common name shared by many people.
If you were a wise person, you wouldn’t be throwing stones from that house of yours.
My grandfathers grandfather became the military governor in Port Macquarie in 1838, Major William Kemp. That uniquely identifies me. I am responsible for what I say under law.
You, hiding behind an acronym purport NOT to be responsible for your smears/incitements/defamations. Says a lot about you doesn’t it?
To find you EP, somebody would have to subpoena your ISP, a fact in a civil suit which would not be in your favour.
Spineless indeed.
You claim that is your identity — but can you prove it?
I would suggest that the only practical way to prove your identity would be for a court to subpoena your ISP.
And, since you acknowledge that people can in fact be identified by this method, you also acknowledge that I am just as answerable for my comments as you are for yours.
Your entire argument is spurious.
What EP said. Proveable identities are for police, Centrelink and polling booth attendants.
I don’t have to prove it because I’m not smearing/inciting/defaming. Remember, its not possible to defame the anonymous.
You are ultimately answerable, and we all are ‘findable’ but try telling a court that hiding behind that acronym is honourable.
Peter surely has a point.
Anonymous commenters are immune from any (real) reputation effects of their commentary. As Liam points out, this is often the very good reason why they are anonymous, given that they may occupy sensitive positions and so on, but it still can have a bearing, particularly if they are unfairly criticising the integrity of others. This is not to say that anonymous commenters are necessarily dishonorable or unvalued or lacking in integrity, only that the playing field between them and the known comentator is not level, and sometimes this matters.
EP isn’t anonymous, he’s using a pseduonym. It’s an important difference and one that you’d be on top of if you knew anything about defamation law. As for honour, happily EP wouldn’t have to tell a court that it is honourable because a court wouldn’t be the slightest bit interested in whether it was or not.
I do know a little about defamation law, but was not discussing it.
Peter likes to raise spurious legal issues in order to cloud the debate and intimidate his opponents.
He does this whenever he’s losing an argument.
Sorry, my last post was intended for Peter. Your post was spot on as far as I’m concerned.
Cheers
ab, if EP defamed someone here or on his blog, consider a factual scenario that he actually did so not under his real name, but under ”EP”
Forget for one moment the sophistry in distinguishing anonymity and pseudonyms.
How would the court regard that the alleged act was done in that fashion forcing the plaintiff to expend money in finding out the real identity of the alleged defamer? (Assuming of course a strong, arguable but not frivolous case.)
Are you also implying that writs/statements of claim can be made out to pseudonyms?
And my last post was meant for cs. Is there some law to describe the tendency for another person to post something at precisely the time when it will come between your post and the post which you wanted to post under? If not, I want it to be called “ab’s Law”
I don’t know whether people want this thread to go on – it seems to have strayed a long way from Brogden. Opinions please.
Brogden’s demise hinged largely on him being a weak prick and judging by the way his peers fingered him, they ultimately thought so too. I’d toss him on the same pile of manure as Latham and Clinton. Our political system is a crucible with which to forge and temper the steel of leadership. Brogden didn’t cut it because he was fatally flawed in the blade. Noone wished suicidal depression on him over his demise, but ultimately that was his choice and reflects on his flawed character.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword and that applied to Brogden. He basically was caught out as a wife cheater with his groping and propositioning 2 women in semi-public. So much for his personal ethics and concern for his wife here and that attitude was present in his slur on another man’s wife. Racist slur be damned, Brogden was accusing Carr’s wife of being a gold-digger like Rose Porteus and as we discovered with his apology, he had no grounds whatsoever to do that. Around here, you’ll get your block knocked off for doing that and in another way that’s just what Brogden got and rightly so. It was entirely up to him how he handled that after picking himself up off the floor.
For all the liberal progressive drivel that’s trotted out as an excuse for infidelity, our societies still value honesty and integrity. Marriage, like partnerships in business, needs broad trust, honesty and fidelity. You’re a cheating lying bastard in marriage and you’re likely to be the same in business and politics. That’s why we largely elect the stable married types to high office. It takes a degree of opennes, honesty, grit and stickability to avoid temptation in marriage, just like business. There are no easy shortcuts. Cheat once on a partner and you’ve left them forever wondering when you’ll cheat on them again. Brogden and Clinton are in the same mould, with a lot of bridges to mend. I know how I judge Bush, Blair, Howard, Clinton, Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Latham on these grounds and so do a lot of voters, particularly women.
There is another aspect to this, which is a bit old-fashioned these days. Real blokes are mindful of picking on women, a la Skankyho Latham and Brogden here. There is some sense in which women who move into the political arena are fair game eg Maggie Thatcher, Janet Albrechtsen, Julia Gillard or Cindy Sheehan, but adhominem sexual attacks always need to be muted. That’s where we might cut Latham some slack for a skankyho statement about Albrechtsen, but not Brogden about Carr’s wife, nor cs about Howards.
As the cause of the redirection I most humbly apologise.
Apology accepted, of course, Liam. But if people want to continue the argument about anonymity I suggest they do so on the Saturday Salon thread, and confine this one to on topic comments.
Sorry also Mark, I plead acknowledgment of ‘exemplary’ damages to the thread.
Naomi,
No it doesn’t render him anonymous. His reputation can be attached to ‘EP’, just like Madonna’s is attached to ‘Madonna’. You’re not suggesting that it’s impossible to defame Madonna are you? Madonna.
Peter,
It’s not sophistry. It’s just that in English we have different words for different things.
‘Forcing’ the plaintiff to figure out the identity of possible defendants is not unusual – it happens routinely and there are entire chapters of civil procedure rules that describe how to get third parties to assist.
ab, please see the comment above. Further discussion of legal issues and anonymity is a long way from John Brogden. If you want to continue this, take it to the open thread.
Hey Ab, we’re back on the thread now. I can but won’t respond except to say I don’t need a lecture on civil proceedure and evidence.
Peter, enough please.
Sorry ab – my mistake.
I think going overboard defending Latham would be a mistake, however 2 points stand out:
1) A private person vs a very public aggressive media player is not comparing like with like.
2) More subtle, but isn’t a more specific insult more hurtful than a generic one? If someone had a past as a prostitute, for example, and you called them a ho, that would be much more vicious than just throwing it generically. Ho DOES tie in with Albrechtson’s gender, and it IS offensive. But the mail-order thing ties in with her gender, race, and much more personal place as the ‘asian’ wife of a white man in a predominantly white country.
The wife bit is where it is most specific in my view, it’s deeply personal.
It’s true that Brogden’s insult was more specific than Latham’s.
On the other hand, Latham’s insult was delivered in public, under parliamentary privilege and was clearly intended to be heard by its target.
Brogden’s insult was delivered in the semi-private environment of a party, to a limited audience, and wasn’t intended to become public knowledge or to be jheard by its target.
I think this should be factored into the evaluation — context as well as content can be important.
Good point.
That Liberals have clearly been briefing against Brogden
in this instance doesn’t remove from the fact that all politicians – of all colours – indulge in the practice.
More interesting from my perspective is the press angle.
David Penberthy, editor of the Tele, has been all over the airwaves justifying his newspaper’s continued persecution of Brogden (despite having pulled the lurid first edition last night once his ghouls banging on the doors and windows of Brogden’s electorate office produced slit wrists and ambos). The so-called “story” it’s on the Tele website) is a complete non-event: two nameless women contact the Tele (presumably New Idea had lost the cheque book)to advise that he suggested having sex to them, whilst pissed, and a former secretary recalls how people wrongly assumed that she and Broggers were doing it. They weren’t, she confirms. Penberthy obviously felt that punters would buy up large if a bit of dirt was rubbed into political celebrity.
Penberthy is a total wanker. I trust that someone in News Ltd sees fit to fire his useless arse.
Misogyny and Young Libs seem to go together like whips, chains and leather.
Feminists and false accusations go together like coffee and cream.
How about sticking to the topic, Graham?
Can’t say I disagree much with Jeff Kennett on 7.30 report. ”Emotional depression and shame” says Jeff ”–not knowing levels of his tolerance”.
Its hard not to feel sympathetic with pollies such as Brogden, and I do, but as I said on my original post, the head kicking is a major part of the game.
Should we distinguish the give and take head kicking from an opposition leader at a state level, from say the government of John Howard with the culture wars and the real boots and all headkicking he has indulged in for a decade?
If John Howard fell in disgrace, many including myself would say good riddance to bad rubbish. If he suicided, some would say it was a crime (in the old sense) that could so easily be forgiven.
My point is that the higher the level of headkicking, the harder the fall, meaning that the saying ”those who live by the sword…” applies relatively with a proportionate, but savage decline in sympathy.
With that said, I do not think his treatment by the media post resignation was fair. It was, as in so many cases, designed to be sensational, and for profit. Try
‘moral panics’ over rape cases as a benchmark.
You’re just making yourself look silly, now, EP.
Barto has now posted on the Brogden story. Worth reading.
“BrogdenÄôs insult was delivered in the semi-private environment of a party, to a limited audience, and wasnÄôt intended to become public knowledge”
Yes, good point. I’ve heard and seen some hair-raising, eye-rolling, forehead-smacking and buttock-clenching things by boozy pollies and journos together afterhours. In fact just recently someone else who sometimes comments here and is a broadsheet journo, joined me, a very senior pollie and a couple of others in an utterly scabrous game of “Marry, Murder, Fight, Fuck” one night. Just a choice 30 seconds alone of what was said would have ended all our careers instantly if it was spruiked all over the media. But it wasn’t.
So I reckon:
“Your leaders wanted Broggo gone. This comments business – disgraceful though it was – was just an excuse.”
is the sound of a hammer hitting a nail on the head.
And while I feel sympathy for J-Bro’s bloody cry for attention (let’s face it, if you realy wanna kill yourself, you can), I hafta to wonder about the mindset of someone who feels that if you can’t be NSW Premier then flirting with death is better.
As Peter Kemp said much earlier here, it’s that “if your winner, you must be a loser” attitude taken to the max. Which is why John Gorton is always my favourite human being who became an Australian PM.
If he hasn’t done it already discreetly behind the scenes, then I reckon Jeff should set up a counselling service for crashed and burned pollies. With Nick Sherry as the cute receptionist.
should be
“if you’re not a winner…”
Bloody corkscrew.
Yeah Nabs, the guy who didn’t hang on in the face of rebellion by his colleagues and used his casting vote against himself. Giving us that useless McMahon. The Gort went on to make whisky ads, a far more honest profession with built in stress relief.
I never said Gorty was a good PM, just my favourite human being who ever held the job in Australia.
Agreed ,— he was humane, with flaws. Better than some so called liberals we know.
Hey have we taken that Brogden fellow out and shot him yet.I mean fancy asking for a root.Its sounds like the modern party is getting just a tad dangerous.Lucky I dont get out much.
The point is Gorton had stared death in the dial more than once. After that, Canberra’s up-itself shenanigans didn’t really rate on his measure of what made life worth living.
Yes, Gorton was an appealing character.
Larado, it was the way he went about that enraged we nay-saying, inner-city leftoids.
“Are you available?” wuz too old skool, MOR cock- rock for us.
Something more transurban hip-hop, like “Yo, I’m da venue, you’re da menu” would have been dope.
John Gorton was a thoroughly decent guy unlike that craven, pompous, big white bwana, squattocratic toady, Fraser. And Gorton would never have hesitated for a moment in owning personal reponsibility for being trouserless in Memphis.
I preferred Jeff Kennett when he was an arrogant egomaniac. This strange amalgam of Eddie McGuire, Dame Edna and Mum Shirl that he’s currently channelling is
enough to make you reach for the SSRI’s.
Let’s face it, it’s still the same old song all over again.
Lefty E, have you been taking advantage of Nabs’ pick up line consultancy services?
It’s the pointy German helment Mark that turns the tide in men’s affairs.
Is this root off the record?
john Gorton and Keith Miller were very simialr except Nugget didn’t get as drunk as much.
Their war experiences were the reason for their attitude to life.
gorton was a hopeless PM because of it.
John Brogden
I believe the trouble isn’t so much getting the judgement wrong on whether something should be reported – there will never be a cut and dried answer about where the line is – it’s that people seem incapable of keeping things in pers…
I think the ‘hounding’ press thing is a smokescreen – an externalisation of the problem…
When the shit hit the fan initially Brogden said that the source of the leak (to the press) ‘had better take a long hard look at himself.’ Later when Brogden tried to top himself and failed (the classic cry for help I guess), his colleagues suggested that the ‘hounding’ press ‘better take a long hard look at themselves.’
Yeah whatever. Self criticism and the press? Great. But not for hounding Broggers…for letting us get into the war in Iraq maybe. For letting the Solon saga and other immigration fuck ups like it happen and continue unnoticed for so long. But for hounding Brogden? Give me a break – he’s a big boy.
Miranda Devine actually writes a not bad article defending the press’s handling of the situation today in the smh.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/first-stumble-from-the-next-in-line/2005/08/31/1125302626091.html
But my point remains this:
It is Brogden who should take a hard look at himself. And no, we haven’t heard enough on this.
Broggers needs to take stock and think hard about how he can change from being the sort of unreconstructed Anglo bigot that his tip-of-the-iceberg comment revealed him to be. Not to mention the dodgy sexual harrassment stuff as well…
The distasteful remark about Carr’s wife sent a strong message that many migrants would have certainly reacted to with a laconic shrug of the shoulders. Why? Because it confirms what they (Asians and Mid-Easterners especially) already know…that in the very top ranks of the political establishment in this country there are still prevailing, deep rooted, fixed ideas that belong to the white Australia era.
I’m not suggesting Adolf Hitleresque stuff – just an intransigent, unaware, un self conscious, illconsidered, lazy attitude that Australian identity is and always will be primarily and preferrably Anglosaxon (by this term I mean a murky blend of both essentialist ethnic notions and English language bias)…DESPITE THE YEARS OF MULTICULTURAL RHETORIC.
Maybe that rhetoric was a smokescreen anyway…how many ‘non-Anglos’ have effectively assimilate as they rise through the ranks of Australia’s cultural and political institutions?
How many others don’t even consider trying to get through the door?
Suicide 101.
Single car collides with large tree on secondary road. Wife gets Superannuation and insurance, little boy does not have to grow up with wrists story.
That this method was not applied, indicates selfishness and cowardice and shows the man does not have qualities required for decent leadership of anything.
oh for chrissake crystal ballroom, that’s heartless
firstly that’s a painful way to die and there’s no guarantee you would that way either. you might just end up paralysed and costing your family more.
secondly no one deserves to die for making a bigoted remark and being sleazy. my feeling was that the suicide was partly a cry for help and subconsciously may not have been intended to succeed.
Political stunt, anyone? Very political stunt. In his electorate office.
Then again, this man is going to go through the rest of his life looking like a complete idiot [more so after the parasuicide]. He has no credibility left. Almost enough to make one believe that it was genuine. Hard to believe, though, given that he is a politician. Can’t wait for his autobiography.
Oh and Jason – no-one said he deserves to die, no-one else tried to kill him. He allegedly tried to kill himself. It’d be difficult to find anyone who felt that his actions, pathetic as they were, were worth his life.
Maybe home would have meant certain death at the hands of his wife – for being such a prat.
Yes, he was obviously thinking a lot of the others around him, particularly his wife. “John, John, can you hear me – there ARE other people in the world apart from you. John, John…” And that’s pretty bloody heartless too, Jason, but what a selfish, egotistical wanker.