Senator Heffernan must resign
Senator Bill Heffernan has had a long history of making grossly misogynist, homophobic and racist remarks, but his remarks about Julia Gillard this week are a step too far.
Heffernan has had numerous opportunities to make amends over the years, but keeps making faux-apologies and then unabashedly reoffending. He should have been not just asked to resign, but expelled from parliament, in 2002, after falsely alleging that gay High Court Justice Michael Kirby was a pedophile, and then citing forged evidence in attempt to save his bacon. I cannot think of a parallel for that conduct in Australian political history. Yet, even after that, he remains not only a Senator, but the Prime Minister’s right-hand man within the party.
In light of his history, his comments about Gillard should, by all rights, be the final straw. In what universe is it acceptable to launch a deeply misogynist attack on the country’s leading female politician because she is, as he so charmingly put it, “barren”? (I’m not even going to touch on his oh-so-sexist comments about priests and sex - for that, I’ll just point to the always-amusing Ms Fits.) It has been nice to see a chorus of outrage this morning - perhaps the highlight of which was Marie Claire editor Jackie Frank’s attack on Heffernan on Sunrise - one of the most forthright attacks I’ve ever seen directed at a politician on television. I’m also relieved to see some senior Liberal women coming out against him - notably Helen Coonan. There’s also a nice and apt editorial in The Age calling for Heffernan to be “put out to pasture.”
Heffernan’s incredibly dismissive apology to Gillard yesterday should not be the end of this. There is no excuse for behaviour of this nature from a senior politician, and for the sake of his own credibility, John Howard must demand that Heffernan resign or expel him. To give him another slap on the wrist sends the message to those of his ilk that such misogyny is acceptable behaviour, and will allow him to pop up again, Don Imus-style, next year with another disgraceful and outlandish outburst.
We’ve already seen the political career of one of the Liberal Party’s worst MPs end this week, with Senator Ross Lightfoot losing a preselection challenge to the vastly less obnoxious Mathias Cormann. I hope we’ll soon be seeing Heffernan once again following in the footsteps of his dimwitted counterpart.
Stories the server thinks are related:
Posted: by Rebecca May 3rd, 2007 under Politics, Australia, Asshattery.
Comments: 36
Comments
Comment from Soozie
Time: May 3, 2007, 4:54 pm
Bill won’t go because he says what Howard thinks and dare not say. This is an unoriginal thought though - but I can’t remember where I stole it from.
Comment from Dana
Time: May 3, 2007, 6:52 pm
Heffernan should resign because he’s a blundering idiot, and continues to embarass the Government, let alone making homophobic and misogynist statements that he thinks are still acceptable in this day an age.
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 3, 2007, 7:00 pm
Who is the author of this piece?
Comment from Chris Flynn
Time: May 4, 2007, 12:39 pm
While Mr Howard is not sack Heffernan, a portal into what Mr Howard considers mate ship is exemplified.
If the comments do trouble Mr Howard what is he waiting for or is being morally strong required to be absent from his veneer?
Comment from Kate
Time: May 4, 2007, 1:26 pm
I think text ” Posted: by Rebecca at May 3rd, 2007 under Politics, Australia, Asshattery.” under the post on the front page clearly shows who posted the article.
I also think Heffernan should stay right where he is, snuggled up against Little Johnnie. When politicians like Bill Heffernan open their mouths, the veneer of respectability the Lib/Nats have worked hard to achieve, peels away and gives the public a glimpse of what the party in government actually stands for.
Yes, he is a mysoginist, homophocic, zenophobe. Long may he embarrass the government.
Comment from Kate
Time: May 4, 2007, 2:34 pm
I’m happy to entertain a different point of view, but I don’t like being spammed.
[ed: The comment that this was referring to has been spamminated.]
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 4, 2007, 5:34 pm
So If I had reiterated all of my argument you would have left my comment UP? where is your sense of adventure Kate?
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 4, 2007, 5:39 pm
Well kate here is a different point of view
The storm in a tea cup of yesterday has spilled over into the saucer today. Even after Bill Heffernan recanted the Labor hounds are predictably baying for blood.
Calls are mounting for Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan to be sacked over his comments about deputy Labor leader Julia Gillard.
Last night Senator Heffernan said sorry to Ms Gillard for saying she was “deliberately barren” and unfit for leadership.
“I apologise to all the people that’s offended, so there you go,” he said.
Referring to himself as Australia’s most disgraced senator, Senator Heffernan apologised after a torrent of condemnation.
Labor MP Annette Ellis says his apology is not good enough.
“I don’t believe that he understands or accepts the severity of what he’s done,” she said.
She says he no longer deserves to have a career in public office.
“He has not only insulted and attacked in the way he has Julia Gillard, but he has attacked all women, all women whether they’ve had children or not,” she said.
“It’s just an affront from this person in this responsible position in public life.”
Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett agrees, and says Senator Heffernan’s apology comes too late.
“Senator Heffernan’s ruled himself out of the game altogether by the way he’s behaved in the last couple of days,” he said.
Labor MPs want Prime Minister John Howard to sack Senator Heffernan, and there is also considerable anger within the Liberal Party.
Communications Minister Helen Coonan is not happy about what Senator Heffernan said.
“It’s probably better had the comment not been made,” she said (abc news website)
In a comment to my previous post on this little affair I opined that Heffernan’s position is quite defensible and I gave my reasons based on my own life experience. It is undeniable that having and nurturing children does change the way that you think and the way that you prioritise things in your life and I suspect that it was a potential lack of what the Italians call simpatico that Heffernan was alluding to with his rather crudely put comment.
But it is not just Gillard’s lack of children that has prompted this but her of repeated disavowal of ever having them that has made this an issue . As has been pointed out by my leftist commentators there are women in the coalition ranks, who like Gillard are childless, But none of them have made public statements saying that they WANT to be childless as Gillard has. So like most of the male politicians in our parliament the families that they have are a private matter.
Gillard has deliberately gone the women’s weekly route to political stardom and she has made the personal political. It should therefore be no surprise then that what she has made political should be open to question.
In my piece yesterday I made the point that Rudd’s call for Heffernan to be sanctioned for his comments was an example of totalitarian political correctness. Now that Heffernan has made a public apology (for political reasons rather than as a an example of a change of his opinion) we have the fine example of the PC storm troopers exemplified bin the quote from the ABC above. Oh they are all for freedom of speech as long as that speech is is within the acceptable flavour lexicon. Heffernan may have used a little too much chilli in the snack he offered but calls to kill the cook here are a gross over reaction.
Comment from Jennifer Cascadia
Time: May 4, 2007, 10:53 pm
Heffernan may have used a little too much chilli in the snack he offered but calls to kill the cook here are a gross over reaction.
It may taste like chilli to Iain Hall, but I backed away the second I knew it smelled like shit.
Comment from Mike B)
Time: May 5, 2007, 12:13 pm
Let’s see now. The Earth has six billion humans on its surface and we’re witnessing the environmental consequences of this dinosaur’s footprint on a daily basis. Methinks the fecundity of the human race has been overplayed. The ignoramuses on the right are in denial about this issue and many others. While Conservatives like Costello, urge mothers to have a child or two for the Fatherland, intelligent, perceptive women like Gillard refuse the fascist slogan: “Kinder, Kirche, Kueche”.
Refuse the Role, by Mike Ballard
What if you were given
power over others
Would you get your kicks
at their expense
or would you
refuse the role
refuse the role
You have the will
and there’s a way
Refuse the role
refuse the role
What if you were treated
to abuse and active scorn
Would you get your satisfaction
blowing master’s horn
loyal to humiliation
like a Pavlov’s dog
or would you
refuse the role
refuse the role
The roles we are
assigned to play
just keep us
in our
slave-like ways
refuse the roles
refuse the roles
Live free
Live wild
Associate as equal mates
in one big union free
and don’t let bosses
put you down
refuse to roll
refuse their roles
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 5, 2007, 2:44 pm
You don’t have a partner and children do you Mike? Or a clear understanding of the difference between the genders either from what you have written.
For no matter how a couple decide to allocate the child rearing duties (and I speak as a dad who is the primary carer for two small children)The in escapable fact is that women still have the equipment to carry and deliver the babies. No amount of feminist dogma will change that.
As I said the issue is not about Gillard’s right to chose as she has but whether that choice will mean that ordinary Aussies will believe her when she say’s that she knows what their lives are like. Which is what Heffernan was alluding to in his comment.
Another thing that seems to have eluded the PC storm troopers is that Heffernan first made this comment nearly a year ago and that Gillard is happy to accept the public apology made by Heffernan.
.
Comment from Dana
Time: May 5, 2007, 4:07 pm
Ian, that argument’s rubbish. Suppose Gillard had been medically unable to bear children. Does that mean she, or any other person incapable of having children, should not be in politics because there is some contingent of the Australian population that are able to bear children?
Should Howard be unfit for leadership because he is relatively wealthy and ordinary Australians who are struggling to stay above the poverty line, won’t believe Howard when he says he knows what their lives are like?
No one person is able to understand how every single Australian lives or knows their social condition intimately. What matters is that they are interested in fighting for the welfare of all Australians, child-bearing or otherwise.
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 5, 2007, 5:28 pm
Dana
I have not here nor in the pieces that I written at my own blog about this made the argument that Gillard is in any sense made incapable of office by her choice here.
So how about considering what I have actually said about this rather than condemning my position because of what you imagine my argument is.
.
Comment from Dana
Time: May 5, 2007, 6:01 pm
The argument is still rubbish, whether you may have made it (which you haven’t), or not! 
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 5, 2007, 6:50 pm
Is that the best you can do Dana?
Sadly your approach here is so emblematic of the PC storm troopers.
Any way I’ll take you comment as a concession that you were in fact in error in making your original accusation.
Cheers
Iain
Comment from Dana
Time: May 5, 2007, 10:57 pm
Has affirming the statement that anyone with a passion for ensuring the welfare of all Australians is fit for being in politics become merely “PC”? That’s disappointing.
One would have thought that such a statement would be more universal than mere political correctness…
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 6, 2007, 6:21 am
Has affirming the statement that anyone with a passion for ensuring the welfare of all Australians is fit for being in politics become merely “PC”? That’s disappointing.
This was not the argument that I was making either Dana
My point is that right or wrong in the argy bargy of politics Heffernan is entitled to make what ever statements he pleases. That is consistent with our concepts of free speech. Instead of saying, as Gillard herself has done that Bill has made a silly statement. The PC storm troopers have been baying for blood. Now if Heffernan had been a Muslim cleric the minions of the left would be championing his cause and his right to free speech …
I actually agree with you that passion for the job is a great advantage when it comes to politics but sadly it is not the only quality that one needs for elected office and passion does not guarantee competence.
Cheers
Iain
Comment from Dana
Time: May 6, 2007, 10:53 am
I think it would be a root requirement. Without it, a politician can’t really be representative.
It’s sheer idealism, I know, but one can dream.
Comment from Bruce
Time: May 6, 2007, 11:19 am
I have not here nor in the pieces that I written at my own blog about this made the argument that Gillard is in any sense made incapable of office by her choice here.
No, but Heffo did and you are jumping to his defence after all.
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 6, 2007, 1:04 pm
No, but Heffo did and you are jumping to his defence after all.
Err no he did not Bruce his argument was about how Gillard would be perceived by her constituents which you should appreciate is quite a different thing to her actual competence in any role that she may have now or into the future..
What I am defending is Heffernan’s right to express an opinion rather than the substance of this particular opinion. And the substance of the pieces that I have written about it has been far more about the rabid response (and the piece at yours falls in to that category by the way) than anything else.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 7, 2007, 3:36 pm
Slightly off topic, but all those interested in the role of women as the proper administrators of a leftist state should read “The Congresswomen” by Aristophanes, where the women take control and create a communist state. Bawdy in places, (even your private parts become public property) but the arguments have merit.
Combined with other works (e.g. Lysistrata), Aristophanes offers insight into why macho policy makers are out-of-touch with the true interests of the polis. (Lysistrata in particular shows a strategy for women to tame the dogs of war).
That these works are 2500 years old shows these issues are not new, and we have scarcely advanced.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 7, 2007, 5:20 pm
Those interested in politics and the role of women should check out “The Congresswomen” by Aristophanes, where the women attend the town meeting disguised in beards (a la “Life of Brian”), and vote to establish a communist state run by women.
Apart from bawdy aspects (even your private parts became public property), and together with other works (e.g. Lysistrata), Aristophanes puts some telling arguments, 2500 years old, that macho-dominated politics does not serve the polis well.
I am unaware of any literature that posits the suitability of dinosaurs like the Heff, even in satire.
Enjoy!
Comment from Bridgit Gread
Time: May 7, 2007, 10:14 pm
Iain Hall reckons Heffernan’s comments have some validity, i.e. you’d make a better politician if you have procreated (which, using Hall’s logic, would make any promiscuous bogan a better front-bencher than, say, Julie Bishop). That’s why he asks the author of the piece, and questions the parental status of commenters: to ascertain if there’s any possibility for him to declare “I have children so I know more than you”. All this from the same man who has previously declared that physically-abused women may well have invited their mistreatment. He’s nuttier than a cashew tree.
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 8, 2007, 6:33 am
So you still think that you can read minds eh Bridgit?
You are wrong on every point in your comment , now go back to reading Marx or is it Lenin this week?
Comment from Bridgit Gread
Time: May 8, 2007, 4:14 pm
That’s pretty damn original Iain. Maybe I’ll read a little Stalin and dream of killing peasant babies with pitchforks, cha cha cha.
I enjoy that Gillard is in the mix; her presence brings your latent sexism bubbling to the surface. Keep on protesting too much and you might yet get both feet in that gob of yours.
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 8, 2007, 4:35 pm
Iain seems to think that accusing anyone of reading Marx makes them the equivalent of Pol Pot, and thus ends the argument. Talk about strawmen. Unfortunately, with these Bolt-lite types, I’m not so sure that the sexism is ‘latent’.
Comment from Bridgit Gread
Time: May 8, 2007, 5:00 pm
You’re probably right, HR. Deep down Iain probably thinks women are inferior and are not fit for politics; gays are weird and not to be trusted; and blacks are uncivilised barbarians incapable of self-determination and self-management. He usually cloaks his ‘writing’ in a thin nightdress of liberalism, tolerance and moderation, but sometimes it rides up a little and you get to see what’s underneath.
Comment from Verity
Time: May 8, 2007, 5:01 pm
Or comment relevant. The man’s clearly never going to change his mind, the more you argue the more wacked out arguments you get. Why engage him at all, we could have proper discussions over his head with ease
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 8, 2007, 5:02 pm
Hap
Bridgit and I have been sparing for a very long time and her admiration of Marx has been admitted on many occasions. And frankly I do think that Neo coms like Bridgit are not that far removed from Pol Pot; they certainly have the same totalitarian tendencies.
Oh Bridgit
How wrong you are (as usual) I actually wrote about Gillard today and as scathing as I was I made no reference to her gender at all because I am an equal opportunity critic .Rudd and Gillard are certainly more interesting than the previous Labor leadership but the make the same kind of mistakes.
.
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 8, 2007, 5:15 pm
At the risk of ignoring Verity’s wise advice on Iain here, I wonder how paranoid or simple-minded the guy has to be to equate an ‘admiration of Marx’ with ‘totalitarian tendencies’.
Have you ever read Marx, Iain? Whatever you think of him, his work is intelligent and meticulously researched.
Even if you disagree with his theses, I can promise you that merely reading and understanding them won’t turn you into third-world tyrant, any more than merely reading the bible will turn you into Tony Abbott.
Comment from Bridgit Gread
Time: May 8, 2007, 5:41 pm
I have never professed an affection for Marx, that’s just one of Iain’s deceitful straw men. I have read Marx and while I found it thorough and systematically rigorous, as HR suggests, quite frankly it bored me. Still, I appreciate the theory and the ability to frame an argument, as I do when reading anyone intelligent (which obviously discounts Iain, who has probably never read anything more profound than Andrew Bolt or Ann Coulter).
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 8, 2007, 6:06 pm
There’s a hotbed of lefties here with an ultra-conservative education! I guess you are exactly the people to understand what I was trying to discuss.
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 10, 2007, 9:12 am
Bridgit Gread (Wednesday 9 May 2007, 5:32 pm)
Families are a capitalist construct - all obedience should be to leader and state, Fimsy. It is the only way forward to a classless Utopia!
Only an unreconstructed Marxist would make such a claim; are you still trying to deny your true faith?
Comment from John S.
Time: May 10, 2007, 11:11 am
Or someone taking the piss. I thought that was pretty funny myself.
Comment from Kieran
Time: May 10, 2007, 1:11 pm
It’s very simple, if you don’t like it, and it wont respond to reason, don’t feed it.
As any experienced net participant will tell you, it is immensely gratifying to recieved a responce, if no one responds or engages, then gratification ceases.
On the similar vein, why the hell is it that the posts I feel i put the least effort into generally get more responses than the posts I feel I put tons of effort into, and are indeed masterpieces?
Comment from Iain Hall
Time: May 10, 2007, 3:16 pm
On the similar vein, why the hell is it that the posts I feel I put the least effort into generally get more responses than the posts I feel I put tons of effort into, and are indeed masterpieces?
That Kieran is the biggest blogging question of all and there is no blogger alive who does not ask it on a regular basis.
Write a comment