Reaping what they did not sow

Both Finkelstein and Roxon's bill would have imposed major constraints on free speech in this nation.

One of the great things about Australia is our right to free speech, especially the right to criticise our political masters.

That right is still under threat. Gillard's 'blue tie' speech and her reaction to 'menu-gate' show an attitude to criticism which blurs the personal with the right to legitimately criticise the competence of political figures on the basis of their incompetence.

In her 'blue-tie' speech Gillard associated a false idea that Abbott would make abortion harder with a general complaint about misogyny. Abbott had previously made his position about abortion as being "safe, legal and rare" plain but that has not stopped supporters of Gillard running with the abortion hare.

Menu-gate by any reasonable interpretation was a beat-up and cynical distraction. The owner of the restaurant where Mal Brough had a fund-raiser has said the mock-menu was a private joke between him and his son; the menu was not shown at the function and Brough and Hockey have said they did not see it. The leaker of the menu has said he was not there on the night, did not know what happened or whether anyone saw it.

This has not stopped Gillard and members of her government accusing the Abbott opposition of being sexist. The implication here is that even if Abbott and his opposition do not themselves demonstrate sexism they are still responsible for examples of sexism in the community.

Interestingly the leaker had sent the menu to Gillard in March when the function occurred. Why hadn't the government released it or dealt with it before now?

Also why hasn't the government equally castigated the Age and its cartoonist Lenuing for his 'menu'?

The issue here is whether sexism is only an offence when it is directed towards women; and not all women but particular women. Gillard's selective playing of the misogyny card often, long and hard would suggest it is. There is an irony and substantial hypocrisy in this. Gillard was a signatory to a document which declared that some women, married women, were tantamount to prostitutes. In the past prominent conservative women were subject to similar questions and enquiries as Gillard was in the Sattler interview. And Gillard has referred to Christopher Pyne as a "mincing poodle", albeit not in the same sentence?

There is no consistency in Gillard's application of claims of misogyny.

John Howard was subject to outrageous sexual based comments endorsed by prominent ALP women such as Carmen Lawrence and Abbott is subject to crude insults by such ALP luminaries as Bob Ellis.

There is also no equality in Gillard's application of the complaint of misogyny, or as it should strictly be called, misandry.

A politician's sexuality and gender should not be a matter of evaluation unless that sexuality or gender affects their performance. That lack of distinction between the sexes is what should inform any resolution of the latest Army sex scandal.

That principle of equality should be a bedrock of Australian society. But if female politicians like Gillard invoke their gender as the reason why they and their policies are not being accepted by 'blue-tie' attitudes within Australian society they both restrict the right to comment in a fair and open manner in Australia and undermine the progress women have made in achieving equality and overcoming genuine misogyny in Australian society.

Australia is a lucky country; it will remain so in spite of the Gillard government.