Came across it in research, and I think it's interesting. I won't post all of it, just the less tedious parts.
"Mister Acting Speaker, in making my first speech in this place, I congratulate you on your election and wish to say how proud I am to be here as the Independent member for Oxley. I come here not as a polished politician but as a woman who has had her fair share of life's knocks.
We now have a situation where a type of reverse racism is applied to mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctness and those who control the various taxpayer funded "industries" that flourish in our society servicing Aboriginals, multiculturalists and a host of other minority groups. In response to my call for equality for all Australians, the most noisy criticism came from the fat cats, bureaucrats and the do-gooders. They screamed the loudest because they stand to lose the most - their power, money and position, all funded by ordinary Australian taxpayers.
Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals. Along with millions of Australians, I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the government and paid for by the taxpayer under the assumption that Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia. I do not believe that the colour of one's skin determines whether you are disadvantaged.
This nation is being divided into black and white, and the present system encourages this. I am fed up with being told, "This is our land." Well, where the hell do I go? I was born here, and so were my parents and children. I will work beside anyone and they will be my equal but I draw the line when told I must pay and continue paying for something that happened over 200 years ago. Like most Australians, I worked for my land; no-one gave it to me.
Reconciliation is everyone recognising and treating each other as equals, and everyone must be responsible for their own actions. This is why I am calling for ATSIC to be abolished. It is a failed, hypocritical and discriminatory organisation that has failed dismally the people it was meant to serve. It will take more than Senator Herron's surgical skills to correct the terminal mess it is in. Anyone with a criminal record can, and does, hold a position with ATSIC. I cannot hold my position as a politician if I have a criminal record - once again, two sets of rules.
If politicians continue to promote separatism in Australia, they should not continue to hold their seats in this parliament. They are not truly representing all Australians, and I call on the people to throw them out. To survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag.
I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 % of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united. The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea. America and Great Britain are currently paying the price.
I call for the introduction of national service for a period of 12 months, compulsory for males and females upon finishing year 12 or reaching 18 years of age. This could be a civil service with a touch of military training, because I do not feel we can go on living in a dream world forever and a day believing that war will never touch our lives again.
Wake up, Australia, before it is too late. Australians need and want leaders who can inspire and give hope in difficult times. Now is the time for the Howard government to accept the challenge."
(This is really to make up for my inability to write any new material on account of the ridiculous amount of uni work I have)
Link: http://www.australian-news.com.au/maiden_speech.htm
xx
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Archive (3/5/2009): Behind every great woman...
...is an even greater man?
I am one of those self believing natural feminists who value not the idea of bra burning and radical revolution-like changes, but of the role women play in society, whether it be a 1950’s home maker or the successful deputy Prime Minister Julie Gillard. It is what they contribute to society which I value, classifying me as a feminist, but a more conservative one. But even I have to put my foot down when I see movies such as “The Women” and even “Sex and the City”, both of which are supposed to be about successful, independent women who don’t need the validation of men. But are they really?
Take for example, “The Women”. The film literally does not show a male until the closing scenes when a woman gives birth to a boy; there isn’t even a male extra in wide shots of the busy New York streets. The movie is supposed to be about women in power, not necessarily professionally, but in control of their lives, hence the reason no man was visible. But I could help but notice that the entire storyline revolved around men and how to get revenge, suck up to one at work or depend on one for the source of income for a young, flourishing family. No man was seen, but one was always present in their conversations, emotions, and all the basic motivation for the character’s actions. It showed women cut up over broken marriages, women desperately trying to cling to their youth as they run a cutting edge-fashion magazine under an idealistic male boss, women depending on the support of their husbands as they go through their fifth pregnancy in the hopes of finally being “blessed” with a boy. The same can be seen with Sex and the City; Powerful women who seek the presence of a man to complete them. It’s such bullshit.
I am a student who barely has time to see her friends, let alone have a boyfriend, so the time I dwell on men is very little, but I can’t help but wonder why it is most of my friends seek only that of a male companion. Is it so difficult to be satisfied with being narcissistic enough to actually be happy with whom you are without a man? We are surrounded by a culture, whether it be typical Australian or the culture Hollywood has instilled upon us (although these days the two have merged in the slow Americanisation of the world), that insists we not die alone and find someone to share our life with. Women who are 35 and single are seen as outcasts, looked down upon by society for being alone despite the fact they may have a blossoming career. I am 19, yet my own friends and family think I am the black sheep for not actually being interested in a relationship. Why should I? These are the best years of your life – I don’t want to have to live them with the lingering expectation of “something more” or “something completing”.
I also wish to mention a comment in my Political Journalism class made last week by a girl who raised the issue of Sarah Palin’s feminist beliefs. Overall, Palin was unclear over her answers, giving different responses each time she was asked of her feminist ideas, and this girl found that puzzling – is she one or not? Now I can understand fully why Sarah Palin was so hesitant about giving an honest answer – feminism is still a taboo subject in such divided societies as America. On the one hand she would be criticised by conservative men (and even women) over the liberal idea that women are the “master gender” if she were to answer in the affirmative (because of course all feminists are radical feminists), but one the other, more liberal people would criticise her for being too “conservative” and not appreciating the genders equally if she was to answer in the negative. Feminism has such a stigma attached to it; most people see feminism only as the radical extremists who go around bashing men, having sex with women and burning their undergarments because history has not taught them any better. So if I was asked the same question by the press, I would be hesitant to answer also – wouldn’t you? Like the old saying goes “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If you label yourself a feminist these days, people will judge you for it.
I just think it’s time the judgement ends. We live in a society with freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs, yet a woman who freely speaks of her self-belief gets criticised. Modern Liberal democracies contradict themselves in many ways, but today, this one point just got to me.
I am one of those self believing natural feminists who value not the idea of bra burning and radical revolution-like changes, but of the role women play in society, whether it be a 1950’s home maker or the successful deputy Prime Minister Julie Gillard. It is what they contribute to society which I value, classifying me as a feminist, but a more conservative one. But even I have to put my foot down when I see movies such as “The Women” and even “Sex and the City”, both of which are supposed to be about successful, independent women who don’t need the validation of men. But are they really?
Take for example, “The Women”. The film literally does not show a male until the closing scenes when a woman gives birth to a boy; there isn’t even a male extra in wide shots of the busy New York streets. The movie is supposed to be about women in power, not necessarily professionally, but in control of their lives, hence the reason no man was visible. But I could help but notice that the entire storyline revolved around men and how to get revenge, suck up to one at work or depend on one for the source of income for a young, flourishing family. No man was seen, but one was always present in their conversations, emotions, and all the basic motivation for the character’s actions. It showed women cut up over broken marriages, women desperately trying to cling to their youth as they run a cutting edge-fashion magazine under an idealistic male boss, women depending on the support of their husbands as they go through their fifth pregnancy in the hopes of finally being “blessed” with a boy. The same can be seen with Sex and the City; Powerful women who seek the presence of a man to complete them. It’s such bullshit.
I am a student who barely has time to see her friends, let alone have a boyfriend, so the time I dwell on men is very little, but I can’t help but wonder why it is most of my friends seek only that of a male companion. Is it so difficult to be satisfied with being narcissistic enough to actually be happy with whom you are without a man? We are surrounded by a culture, whether it be typical Australian or the culture Hollywood has instilled upon us (although these days the two have merged in the slow Americanisation of the world), that insists we not die alone and find someone to share our life with. Women who are 35 and single are seen as outcasts, looked down upon by society for being alone despite the fact they may have a blossoming career. I am 19, yet my own friends and family think I am the black sheep for not actually being interested in a relationship. Why should I? These are the best years of your life – I don’t want to have to live them with the lingering expectation of “something more” or “something completing”.
I also wish to mention a comment in my Political Journalism class made last week by a girl who raised the issue of Sarah Palin’s feminist beliefs. Overall, Palin was unclear over her answers, giving different responses each time she was asked of her feminist ideas, and this girl found that puzzling – is she one or not? Now I can understand fully why Sarah Palin was so hesitant about giving an honest answer – feminism is still a taboo subject in such divided societies as America. On the one hand she would be criticised by conservative men (and even women) over the liberal idea that women are the “master gender” if she were to answer in the affirmative (because of course all feminists are radical feminists), but one the other, more liberal people would criticise her for being too “conservative” and not appreciating the genders equally if she was to answer in the negative. Feminism has such a stigma attached to it; most people see feminism only as the radical extremists who go around bashing men, having sex with women and burning their undergarments because history has not taught them any better. So if I was asked the same question by the press, I would be hesitant to answer also – wouldn’t you? Like the old saying goes “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If you label yourself a feminist these days, people will judge you for it.
I just think it’s time the judgement ends. We live in a society with freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs, yet a woman who freely speaks of her self-belief gets criticised. Modern Liberal democracies contradict themselves in many ways, but today, this one point just got to me.
Archive (26/2/2009): Compassion in the political spectrum
Those who know me well enough (and those, I suppose who have only just met me), would know that I am a narcissistic semi know-it-all who can rarely keep silent when it comes to expressing my beliefs and certain views I hold of various people. I actually learned today that Narcissism can be a Personality Disorder, in which the more severe forms were axiomatic in both Hitler and Stalin...just a little fun fact. The point of this entry, however, is to address compassion and self-censorship when it comes to proverbially disembowelling (nice image for you) others publically, humiliating the target, and in most cases, the shooter.
My example this week is Dr. Peter Van Onselen, who is fast coming to be my professional idol. He is an Political scientist, who has received both his Masters and PhD in Political science. He is the example of one of the few people who have made something of themselves with only their single BA – don’t kid yourself and expect anything the same if you’re graduating your Arts degree and seek a decent job. It won’t happen. You wasted your money. Arts degrees mean shit these days unless they are attached to a 2nd BA like Law/Education/Business/Psychology etc, or followed up with honours and Masters. Back to my point; Dr. Van Onselen has become a well received political commentator and analyst, writing Op.Eds for Australia’s largest papers, as well as having released three books on Howard and the Liberal Party. Overall, a household name when it comes to Politics. Well, at least he has become lately.
His latest offering, Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead, is a manifesto, if you will, of the Liberals and their plans for the future and eventual re-election. As a standard, Onselen requested Julie Bishop (The deputy leader of the opposition) to write an essay entry for the text. However, what he received was written not by her but by her Chief of staff, Murray Hanson, with chunks of it lifted right out of a speech by New Zealand Businessman Rodger Kerr made in 1999 without any sort of acknowledgement (all students know what a crime this is; referencing’s a bitch). I mean, if it was me, I would be psycho about it too. If I was releasing a book which was to be received by the public as the future of the opposition, I would be pretty pissed off the deputy leader couldn’t be assed writing it herself, let alone proof reading. Now, Hansen took full responsibility, but it makes little difference. This event occurred only a month after Bishop was in a plagiarising scandal with a speech she had made ripping off an entry in the Wall Street Journal. Bishop’s a lazy knob-head, and I say that knowing that no one else will read this, because I know I could probably count on one hand the losers who actually read my crappy notes, but Van Onselen went one step further. He doesn’t write a crappy blog for Facebook, he writes for the Sunday Times.
His reaction was a little extreme; “Julie Bishop has the stench of political death about her” and so forth. Wow. Harsh much? Now I initially applauded him for having the guts to speak out about something which until then had been mostly confined to jokes in Parliament house, but then I thought again. His entire article had absolutely no compassion whatsoever. Most people who know politics know she is not all up to the job of deputy, but confronted with her, we would not tell her; because it is our humanity which would give her a second (or third..or fifth) chance. I mean, there are ways, and there are ways. His response from the public was just that; ”Peter van Onselen, we are all sick of your self-promoting, ubiquitous presence”. People can sense an asshole, they’re not all stupid. Bishop herself addressed Van Onselen directly, labeling him a “Political stalker” with an “unhealthy obsession”. To be honest I agree with her.
His first lecture last week revolved around his criticisms of the political spectrum and its visibility in today’s media. Again and again he reverted back to Bishop, and at first I did not know why. I had already known she was a bit of a discredited outcast (can you guess the interest rate today folks?), but hardly worthy of repeated mention in a room full of soon-to-be academics. I did my research and found out about Van Onselen’s personal involvement and then understood his side, but not the underlying venom in the words he spat. He then went on to appear on Lateline which I also watched, crediting her as deputy shadow minister “In name only”. She’s a smart woman, perhaps not deputy worthy, but not virulent bitching either. Enough is enough. I think Van Onselen should go on hiatus for a while so people stop resenting him and his omniscient presence in today’s media. As it is now, he is too overexposed; if you read the paper carefully, or have been for years, his name will at least ring a bell. He is supposed to be a Liberal, but here he is criticising one of their prominant leaders. He is not acting as a political analyst, but as a political aggravator; however all he seems to be aggravating are the people he is supposed to be informing. Time to hang up the pencil and hide under a rock I'd say.
Ash OUT!
xx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)