GetUp ad puts Tony Abbott’s words into women’s mouths

for an organisation that talks about new politics and lifting the tmepo of the debate, these guys at GetUp are very grubby.

Nothing quite as grubby as a quote!

That is brilliant!
The tempo is perfect for the imminent disaster that will befall us should Abbott actually get in power.

Grubby? He said them.

Pretty reasonable sentiments, actually.

50/50 gender split in frontline troops (or even amongst engineers) ? Not likely

Good jobs in remote indigenous settlements? Non-existent.

Lots of rubbish in those communities? Ubiquitous, but unlikely to be picked up.

Abortion is easier than the life-sentence of reluctant parenthood? Unpleasant procedure, but definitely easier

On the strength of this wonderful ad, Abbott gets my vote.

Well done, Get Up. This stuff goes over well with the faithful, for whom perpetual victimhood is a given, but for those “Howard battlers” the Coalition needs to win back, this is gold.

PS: Abbott IS wrong about cervical cancer shots.

(Edited under Mumbrella’s content moderation policy)

edited under MUmbrella’s content moderation policy

That’s fucking disgusting. The rest of the comment is lame trolling, but this is just disgusting. I’m surprised it made it through moderation.

Dumb ad. Preaches to the choir, not potential converts.

Well, apparently most of these comments were taken from around 1979, during his Uni days – so yes, very grubby Get Up – you’ve just lost a lot of credibility pulling such a stunt. How many people still have the same thoughts and ideas as they did in Uni? I know my attitudes and thoughts have changed a lot due to life experience.

I thought it was Labor that was going to release a smear campaign against Tony Abbott – or have you become their puppets?? Very low.

Mia – Looks like one of them was from 1979. The rest are much more recent, right through to 2010.

From the getup homepage: “GetUp.org.au is an independent political movement to build a progressive Australia. GetUp! brings together like-minded people who want to bring participation back into our democracy.”

Independent? Hardly. Labor puppets.

The smearfest has started in earnest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s_KlzXLkGw

Will GetUp! please tell me what Coalition policies they do support?

The polls must be right! Abbott’s well out in front….

They should have also included Tony Abbott’s quote about about paid maternity leave “over my dead body” and the comments he made about virginity. All from the last few months.

Mia: Indeed the comments are from 1979, yet if you read the transcript of the 4Corners episode this is from you’ll notice that he refuses to say that what he said was wrong or that he has necessarily changed his mind.

Mia, Kristian, Get Down!: The first quote is from 1979, but asked about it on Q and A he stated : “i won’t repudiate that statement”. So even if he said it then, he believes it now. Also all the other quotes are from after 2004, so they are incredibly relevant to who he is today! In terms of just attacking abbott, get real, if you even bothered to follow GetUp! you would know that GetUp! has attacked julia gillard 4 times since she took power for her climate policy and internet censorship policies. Seriously, don’t just react to an ad, research what your saying so you don’t sound like an idiot who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

PS: this ad is great! I donated, politicians should either own or explain everything they say. The things he has said are so insufferably insensitive, he should never be prime minister. ever! disgusting!

Marion! I agree with you!

Regardless of what you think about the content of the ad, there’s a bigger issue here – specifically that it violates Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (CEA1918) s328, as it fails to display the required authorising statement at the end.

Any agency or creative behind election advertising still has to abide by the law in respect of election advertising output. This exists because Voters have a right, under law, to ensure that ads relating to elections or political positions are clearly identifiable as such.

This clear identification is codified in CEA1918, s328 (AEC fact sheet on political advertising at http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AE.....tising.pdf), and if agencies or advertisers fail to follow the laws and expected conventions, then they are doing the voters, and therefore the public a disservice in their right to know.

If an agency or similar is involved in this, by not knowing or implementing the of CEA1918, they are actually exposing their client to legal liabilities through fines, penalties and court proceedings. Imagine how many pitch meetings that’ll be cancelled when you potential customers find out that your ineptitude caused a client to be punished under a federal law…

I also have another issue with online video advertising, in that CEA1918 does not require an audible authorisation for online video in the same way as required for traditional broadcast media. As a consequence, a person having a disability or condition for which discrimination against is an offence under Disability Discrimination Act 1992 actually is not adequately catered for.

So not only would a person who is blind not be able to discern it was political or election advertising, they would not normally know who is producing the content without spending significant time listening to page content and researching.

As Advertising/marcomms practitioners, this is the kind of stuff we should be educating our customers on, and if an agency or similar was involved in producing this video they should be taken outside and shot for exposing clients to unnecessary risk – when all it takes is a little reading and common sense to get it right the first time.

I was a member of GetUp until I saw this latest ad and have tonight resigned, in disgust.

Well Ian Craft you may have resigned but i have just joined after seeing this ad. Obviously you have no concept of what it is like to be a woman and be so ill represented by such a public figure. GetUp! is the one organisation in australia that seems brave enough with enough to risk to put out such a potent ad that really speaks for us women who are so often misrepresented.

you have left, and i will your gap with much happiness because finally i have something to back in an election that has so honesty in it. go getup! 🙂

Claudia, I am not against women’s issues, quite the contrary, but I am against GetUP who portrayed themselves as ‘independent’ but turn out to be Labor in disguise.

There’s no such thing as independent! GetUp! Are a voice. Let them be heard. This is a powerful video. Tony Abbott is just a man, he has his own views, he makes mistakes and should be held accountable for them.

However, we do not live in a dictatorship.

As a minister people have certain freedoms that they must relinquish when/if they become PM and represent a party and a nation. We vote for our local members. Not a prime minister.

We should all spend more time holding our local members up to scrutiny.

I won’t be voting for Julia or Tony on 21st, and chances are, neither will you!

Let’s get back to an effective democracy! Well done though GetUp! Everyone’s voice should be heard.

I thought he’d said far worse! This makes me think he’s not as bad as I thought… not a good thing.

Ian…Labor in disguise, wake up to yourself.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442
http://www.getup.org.au/campai.....038;id=535
https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=684

I find it interesting that when an independent group says something you don’t agree with they somehow are no longer independent or worthy of your support. I find hard to believe you could support anything or anyone on those grounds.

This ad does what it should. Its an independent group speaking out about a certain subject. I think it would have been more potent to have it as white collar executive men, but that’s more media critique, then issue opinion.
However it seems by everyone’s comments we’ve missed the point of these groups. They are not rallying points to pin our social beliefs on and use them as a sole position of objection, bur rather are a small focus point for those leaders, highlighting a small section of policy which none of us should agree with (in their eyes).
This isnt saying Tony Abbott is a bad leader, but that a certain population dont agree with some of his stances.

The most ineffective part is something which GetUp! cant control. They are talking about womens issues towards a man whose opponent is a woman. Which to me feels sexist that there is an implied notion that JG opposes these issues because she is a woman. Even though there is no mention of that. Which since this is supposed to be independent, they should have addressed. Such are advertising problems hey

As a group that aims to drive a more progressive Australia, it is natural that Get Up will take issue with the very conservative leader of the more conservative of the two major parties. Contrary to Ian’s assertion above, this doesn’t make them “Labor in disguise”.

In a similar fashion, it is no surprise that family/conservative church groups are more closely aligned to the right than either Labor or The Greens. This doesn’t make them “Libs in disguise”, does it? Wowsers maybe….

For those who have bothered to do any research, you would see that Get Up is presently running a variety of campaigns about a wide range of issues. It is not just about Tony Abbott.

In fact, have a look at their website and it is clear most Get Up supporters would be voting for The Greens.

Lot of Get Up sock puppets out and about today.

Kristian and Marion, you two should get a room.

These comments represent the man’s views – how does this make it grubby?
There is actually one qoute in there from the 70’s and Big Tony has not distanced himself from any of them.

Dont think they’ll need a budget – its going viral

nothing like politics to get the party started!

Yeehaa!

This bitching is bitchin! Keep at it people, I love a good spat.

Mia, sounds like you watched the first 20 seconds and tuned out. Would have thought that all the anti-female sentiment and sexist comments would have at least put you slightly offside.

I think the point to take out of this is that there are two Tony Abbotts. The political one who will say whatever to get a vote, and the Tony Abbott behind closed doors, who is struggling with his own views and beliefs (sexist, conservative and big-business oriented), and not being able to express them.

I just can’t believe, that even when it’s put right in front of them, quotes COMING RIGHT FROM HIS MOUTH, that people still stick up for him. Who are you people? And how did you get so damned narrowminded?

I think this ad is brilliant and shows Abbott up for what he is – a homophobic, racist, sexist. If you want that type of person as leader then go for it. Wake up Australia!

I assume that with GetUp being an independant observer, we will also see an ad detailing quotes from Julia Gillard, both recent and from the past. The issues in this ad relate to all Australians regardless of gender. Why would an independant organization such as GetUp use only women to read these quotes when they cover topics as broad as climate change and aboriginal welfare? The answer is to provoke the exact debate we’re having on this forum, and to push an agenga that somehow Tony Abbott and women are enemies and can never get along.

From Get-Up’s website:
“GetUp is an independent, grass-roots community advocacy organisation giving everyday Australians opportunities to get involved and hold politicians accountable on important issues.”

Feedback to GetUp: I’m an everyday Australian and I’d like to see politicians held accountable. Your ad addresses statements made by politicians that not everyone agrees with – fair enough. But why only focus on Tony Abbott and why only use women in this ad?

I love GetUp.

This ad is powerful for many reasons – it shines a spotlight on Abbott – and all politicans – to think and what they say and apply it in context to a changing social world.

Regarding the election, if it’s broadcasted on TV in front of a main audience it will may educate voters who don’t take an active interest in news or poltics about what kind of character the next potential leader of the country is. So in that context, Ricardo, it’s not praching to the converted.

It will be more powerful if there is another execution for Julia Gillard to also make her accountable.

This election needs to be decided on policies rather than gender. Playing it out as a battle of the sexes is ridiculous. This ad just reinforces some perceptions that women portray a ‘poor me’ attitude.

Do these comments accurately portray the context in which they were said?

GetUp, if you have any credibility at all you’ll soon be PR’ing the Julia version on all her poor quotes, back-flipping on policies and general mistruths as a leader and deputy leader of the current government. Look forward to seeing this version soon.

I love the concept but, remember that these are his own views – if Abbott was to be elected, he would have a large number of experts and advisors that would help to ensure that he did/said the right thing in future.

It’s about time someone reminded us that Tony Abbott is still a douchebag.

Onya, GetUp!

If Get Up is objective we look forward to the Labor smear version – well before the conclusion of the campaign. If we don’t see it then Get Up and Get………

Yeah, where is the Labor smear version. Seems odd that DD says Tony Abbott is a racist when I know he raise money for charities and works in aboriginal communities in his own time – away from cameras – never saw that with the recently knifed Kevin and Julia…….or is that the Real Julia?

Mervin et al, you seem to be completely missing the point. As we are all aware, Australian politics is a two horse race. As a progressive group, it is natural that Get Up don’t want the more conservative of the two parties winning, particularly given the current leader of the opposition.

Being independent doesn’t mean that Get Up has to support (or disparage) each party equally.

I wouldn’t have thought that this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Yay! a voice of reason in the world of advertising, Anonymous.

@Anonymous – no, it just means that they need to stick to their objectives if they want people to support them, which by their own defintiion would be “giving everyday Australians opportunities to get involved and hold politicians accountable on important issues.”

Politicans is plural is my book, and you’ve correctly addressed that it is a two horse race. If GetUp claims to be independant they should provide balanced views. There are afterall a number of important issues beyond those mentioned in this ad.

First point: “women won’t dominate the workforce”…etc
Correct. Sometimes men & women decide to have babies. It is not possible for a man to have a baby, however it IS possible for women to do so. The woman then has to give birth & care for said babies. This means they frequently choose to leave the workforce in some capacity (sometimes for many years) meaning many women never pursue their careers as hard as men are as able to do. So men tend to dominate senior positions.

Second point: “my daughters will never get the cervical cancer vaccine”
A bit silly I’d have thought. Unsure how this affects me however.

Third point: “climate change is crap”
He doesn’t support an unproven (however popular) theory. Good on him for having an opinion & not launching into making policy decisions that will have massive repercussions based on shoddy “science”.

Fourth point: “abortion”
Disagree with him here.

Fifth point: “aboriginals need to find work, whatever it is”
Aboriginal unemployment is around 20%. They have some hurdles to get over, but at the same time there are many options available to them.

I really don’t see what the issue is with most of his quotes? Sure they may not fit in with everyone’s ideal, politically correct little comfort zones, but at least he has an opinion & isn’t afraid to share it. He’s not just another focus group monkey like the train-wreck Rudd was. I think it’s refreshing to see someone with values & a bit of backbone.

He’s got my vote. This ad actually reaffirmed it.

@The Flatstick – There is indeed a number of important issues that aren’t mentioned in the ad. If you go to Get Up’s website, you will see a variety of campaigns that they are currently running.

In fact, if you took the time to do a little research rather than basing your entire view on one anti-Abbott ad posted here, you might have seen the following to attacks on Labor/Gillard policies:

https://mumbrella.com.au/fnuky-joins-censorship-debate-7586
https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow&id=1227

But the basic fact remains that as an openly progressive organisation, with a clear agenda, they are not obliged to produce an equal measure of anti-liberal and anti-labor advertising. Given that we are in an election campaign, they have an interest in trying to ensure a very conservative opposition leader doesn’t end up as PM.

@Ian – ‘get up’ are more closely alligned to greens and socialists than Labour… we all forget theres more than two pov’s even if only two are in the race for votes

I totally agree with the Anonymous @ 2.30pm comment.

A moment of sanity in the midst of bias rant…

Great ad presenting Abbotts true views – something he has rarely done himself this campaign.

I think GetUp! have gone quite easy on him – he has definately said worse in the last 5 years, wait, he has said worse this year.

The point I took away from this video is not so much the gender issue but more the moving backwards issue.

GetUp simply and cleverly asked these women to repeat Abbott’s comments/ philosophy on women. I’m sure Abbott has some equally interesting views on men and these would be interesting to see also. He’s a conservative. It goes with the territory.

On not moving backwards, one of the major contributors in the US towards crime prevention was the legalisation of abortion. Research concluded that criminal behaviour is often hereditary and by allowing women to chose whether to abort a baby had a direct impact on crime level in some states.

Just one example of why we shouldn’t be moving backwards on any funamental right for man, woman or child.

Thank the heavens for free speech!

I understand this has been pointed out several times already, but alas I feel that certain posters (ahem, Flatstick) need to be mollycoddled. Independent does not mean impartial. Nor does it mean they are without an agenda (in this case an agenda of progressive social policy). It simply means they have no official ties to any of the major parties.

Okay? You sure? Yeah? Good.

To Ian and friends – you’re obviously not acquainted with GetUp – they don’t just skewer Abbot, they go after Jewels as well. As Mark C said, probably more aligned with Greens really. Just trying to show that there are options other than The Two L’s.

@Anonymous – to be honest before today, I’d never heard of GetUp. I did however check their website to find out about them and posted a quote directly from their website. I also viewed the climate change parody and have since clicked on the link in your most recent post RE: censorship.

Both of those ads are clearly parodies designed to poke fun at policy. The Abbott ad however is more personal and pointed, and uses the ‘women vs abbott’ tactic as the central theme, even when discussing climate change and aboriginal welfare.

Independant? No.

seems like lots of astroturfing from Young Libs or Lib staffers on this thread…

Typical dd comment. Go back to Parramatta!

@The Flatstick – You are beginning to look both ill informed and ignorant. If you still don’t understand the distinction between independent and impartial, I fear there is nothing else we can do to explain this to you.

Actually, maybe there is…

Assuming you aren’t a member of the Liberal Party or employed by them, you are “independent” from them.

However, given that you are clearly looking out for Tony Abbott’s best interests on this blog, despite having never heard of Get Up until today, you certainly aren’t “impartial”.

Thanks Tim, you are correct.
I’m just a bloke working in the ad industry that has an opinion like everyone else on this page. I’ve voted for both parties in the past and will continue to do so based on the policies put forward to tackle the big issues affecting Australia. If that makes me ignorant and ill-informed in some people’s views so be it.

I assume when Anonymous says ” If you still don’t understand the distinction between independent and impartial, I fear there is nothing else ‘we’ can do to explain this to you.” It seems there’s a fair bit if debate on this forum so I’m curious as to the “we” that anonymous refers to. I’m also curious as to how impartial and independent are poles apart given most thesaurus’ match the 2 words (along with unconnected, detatched, objective, individual and standalone.) In GetUp’s own words “GetUp does not back any particular party, but aims to build an accountable and progressive Parliament – a Parliament with economic fairness, social justice and environment at its core.” hmmm “does not back any party” and “fairness” – that seems both independent and impartial to me.

Apologies also for not hearing about GetUp until today. I must get out more!

I agree with The Flatstick. Why have women voice all these points if not to flame the gender vote for Julia? It actually doesn’t make sense.

For consistency it should be a face/voice representing each issue – climate change, indigenious issues etc. They leave themselves open for the attacks vs bias/independence and instead of preaching to the (un)converted – & run the risk of looking like Labour pawns – which tactically/logically doesn’t make sense.

* No one has the time to put this ad in context vs their other work – it’s value is purely the product of whether it works on its own.

As a liberal voter – but a pretty open minded one – it doesn’t work for me. I believe women also are smarter than the female campaign angle – just look at the latest US election. Palin was the conservative party’s attempt to sway female voters and low income earners by taking the simplistic line & underestimating the intelligence of voters. I think this line will actually work against independent thinking women who don’t want to be a treated as a ‘me too’ feminist.

Re:
Anonymous
4 Aug 10
1:44 pm

Anonymous says “This election needs to be decided on policies rather than gender.”

Oh ‘Anonymous’, the idea that this election will be decided on politics is crazy. Are you crazy? Have you been drinking? You can tell me. I understand your pain. I’m that kind of girl.

People choose politicians they way they choose any product. The decision making is all emotional. Then they post rationalize some intelligent sounding reason for their decision. We vote the way we buy deodorant.

We even use the same criteria. Think about it.

Look at the polls – we know Tony Abbot is a hysterical misogynistic racist homophobe. It’s not like it’s a secret or anything.

The point is, if you look at the polls, about 50% of the population doesn’t care. They like him anyway. They want a misogynistic racist homophobe as Prime Minister – Australian values are important to these people.

The politics of misogynistic racist homophobia – are these the policies you mean?

Here’s a quote for you, it’s from Hunter S Thompson, he said ‘in a democracy the people get the government they deserve’.

X

Lavinia

P.S
One more quote I found:

“Vote: the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” – Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

@ The Flatstick – I was using ‘we’ in reference to the people reading this thread who are wondering how you still can’t understand that Get Up is free to target whoever they like with their advertising, yet remain independent. I am not a member of the ALP, The Greens , The Liberal Party or any other party.

The fact remains that Get Up are not obliged to make equal measures of advertising targeting both leaders. And as Get Up member JG states above, six of their last 10 campaigns have targeted Gillard/Labor. Working by your rules, they should now go back and make six Abbott/Liberal versions of these ads to ensure they remain independent.

The use of all female talent in this particular execution for Tony Abbott dramatises the fact that he is seen by many Australians as misogynistic and sexist – his biggest weakness given that over 50% of the population are women.

@ Rob – The aside from gender, the similarities between the Palin and Gillard are virtually nil. Palin was an ultraconservative republican running against a liberal, half-black democrat, so any gender advantage was more than canceled out. In the current election, you have a liberal female running against an ultraconservative, fundamentalist male. The differences are pretty obvious.

It’s incredible to me that on a media and marketing website there is a need to explain the value of having Abbott’s words delivered by a selection of women. I suspect I know less about the Get Up! organisation than most on here, but it’s clear to me the ad was produced to be deliberately provocative. Such ignorant remarks (and they are) evoke a greater reaction out of the mouths of women – what this says about our society I don’t know, but it’s certainly true.

And Flatstick, for the love of all that is good and true, please PLEASE get the distinction right between independent and impartial. The two things are barely related. What would be the point of impartiality for any organisation lobbying for social policy change? It makes no sense. Of course they have an agenda… there wouldn’t be a Get Up! if they didn’t.

if being progressive is harking back to a quote from 1979, and inflaming a gender debate that barely exists in 2010 (rather than tackle key issues on their merits), then maybe GetUp needs to rephrase what they stand for on their website.

The comments section has been taken down because of the racist comments being posted towards women:(

The comments section was taken down because of the sexist & racist remarks towards the women:(

Ordinary…..one liners taken out of context over 30 years ago. Gees, I’ve changed since then – we all have. This is very poor and Getup should be careful putting this stuff up. I have no doubt we could create one of these on Julia, Kevin, and all politicians. I think the way every single comment that our pollies say is analysed and then used against them actually dissuades some of our best leaders taking up leadership positions in government departments – such a shame.

I’m a bit over the he said, she said stuff too. Think about all the things that are said every election that are just not properly actioned. It’s funny, I’m all for a National Broadband Network if it is good for business. But when a proper Cost Benefit analysis hasn’t been completed, then why would anyone in their right mind commit over $40 billion to it.

I’d love it if there was an ‘INTEGRITY PARTY’ – one that under-promises and over-delivers and never the other way around. Imagine that – a politician that told the truth, answered questions rather than avoided them and only made promises that were kept. Idealist I know, but it still would be brilliant.

The past is history – none of us can change that. We decide our future by the decisions we make today. Personally, I wish we had more choice for PM – these cannot be the best 2 we have in the country. The real issue is ‘how are we going to get our top leaders to be interested in leading Australia in the years ahead. I wish we had more choice – why is there only 2 political parties to choose between. Imagine if we had 4 strong parties to decide between. Anyway, something to think about.

JB

No not really – think the whole ad (with only women mentioning the quotes) is not right. Abbott is far from perfect and is always going to say some things that will cause a stir.

Yes, NBN is needed indeed – I just want to make sure that whatever system is chosen is not a repeat of the pink bats debacle. Positive intent is important – but you have to have strong planning around the intentions to minimise waste and produce results. I think some of the planning done by government departments over the past few years, both at a state and national level has been very ordinary. Hopefully, whichever party is elected at the next election gets the planning and action steps right. When billions of dollars are at stake, I often think about the amazing good it could do both here and abroad. It’s nice when intention leads to results via proper planning.

Thanks John – have a great day 🙂

JB

Well there you go GetUp, ask & you shall receive. Give your votes to the Libs, filter the internet even though you disabled comments to your own vid! Hypocrites! You seem to underestimate man’s inhumanity to another man.

And it tells voters what about the policies of the party this GetUp mob are extolling?? Have they done a similar video on all negative quotes made by the Ranga over her political career?? I would say not!

Free speech…Got to love and respect that people are allowed free speech and put forward their own opinion. That is of course, it seems unless you are Tony Abbott. It seems he is not allowed or shown due respect for his opinions. Everyone on this thread has their own opinion and many include character assasination rather than an opinion. Put forward an opinion rather than assasinating Abbott’s character because you disagree with him. And before anyone says he does a good job of assasinating his character on his own, it’s obvious that Get Up think he needs help with it by producing this ad otherwise just leave him be and let him do it himself. Maybe thats the concern…if he is left alone, more and more people will start agreeing with him. Anyway, have any of these quotes actually made it into Party policies? Remember the Labour Government was also founded on a ‘White Australia’ policy..”Thus at the first federal election 1901 Labor’s platform called for a White Australia” (Wikipedia. Australian Labour Party)

He re-affirmed the 1979 comment a few months ago in 4 Corners!

I’m with Claudia, I’m afraid. Puppet or not, these remarks – some of which are admittedly old, but not all of them – essentially mean that Abbott doesn’t consider the views of more than 50% of the population worthy of reasoned, political debate. He’s also made comments on the record that homosexuals make him “uncomfortable”…hardly the kind of neutral public stance for a government that will probably have to be debating same-sex marriage laws in the near future. Make no mistake, the change is coming, and I’m not happy having somebody with such racist, mysogynist, homophobic views in a position to drive policy! Certainly not without a challenge from the public and press. Preaching to the choir perhaps, but at least it gets these issues onto the agenda for discussion.

The principles of personal responsibility that the right seem to hold so dear only seem to apply if you’re a white, heterosexual, non-indigenous male, apparently. If you’re anybody else, you’re just whining about irrelevant issues, or not working hard enough, or taking the ‘easy’ option of abortion.

On this last issue of abortion, I challenge Mr Abbott and anyone who thinks the choice is an easy one to take responsibility for the child that would result from an unwanted pregnancy. Then, and only then, would they be in a position to make an assessment on the ‘easy’ options available to women.

Anything else is sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy.

Everyone wants Tony Abbott to take responsibility for his actions and words. I have to say if a pregnancy is unwanted…take responsibility for the actions that gets people into the situation in the first place. Take precautions so there is no pregnancy in the first instance. There are numerous contraceptives available. If a pregnancy occurs through rape, or should a pregnancy be life threatening to the woman involved then obviously this is an entirely different situation and should be the woman’s right to either end the pregnancy or continue to carry full term. And to this end, nobody at all, men, woman, left, right, white, yellow, black, red, mother, father are in the position to critique what is best except the individual concerned.

Thank you for making this add with Tony’s comments. I was finding it hard to decide who to vote for but have now firmly decided to VOTE for TONY ABBOTT and the Liberal Party.

I agree with every comment he made.

Climate change IS crap…30000 scientists can’t be wrong.

Abortion IS wrong. What about protecting the most vulnerable members of our society-the unborn-who is sticking up for their rights?

Unemployed people SHOULD take whatever job is available. I have had to do cleaning and it keeps you fit and pays the bills-no shame in it.

Women’s interest’s ARE different to men’s which means they may be represented differently. So what? Why would they want to share all the interest’s of men?

Thanks for the info and keep up the good work.

as previously mentioned any body who says that GetUp are labour puppets because of this ad need to do their research before making that statement.

GetUp!’s last campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5itCHEX5hdk –

Fantastic ad….well done Getup; there’s nothing like holding politicians accountable with their own words. People can now make a more informed decision as to whether they want a person with these views to be their PM.

To the people stating that all of the comments were from 1979…MEMO….the cervical cancer vaccine was not invented until 2007!! Check your facts!!

I cried when I watched this ad, because only a few weeks ago I faced the real prospect of staring down the face of an abortion because I had come back showing a very high risk of my baby being born with Trisomy 13. I had further testing done, in which they took cell samples from my placenta and amnio and grew a culture and did a full chromosome analysis. Turns out, fortunately, my results were all ok, and baby does not have a chromosome abnomality. For me, abortion is not an ‘EASY WAY OUT, A CONVENIENT EXIT FOR AN AWKWARD SITUATION’ as Abbott describes abortion. It would have been a gut wrenching decision, but less heartbreaking than the pain I would have experienced of having a baby with only a 80% chance of living a few weeks beyond birth and a 95% chance of dying in the first year.

Some of these comments might be old, but we do know Abbott’s views haven’t changed when it comes to women. Only very recently he made the no means no sick joke and stupid comments about women’s virginity. It was only a couple of years ago also when Abbott was health minister that he wanted to deny women the option to access RU486, a non surgical, less invasive option for abortion than a D&C.

Loved the clip, only criticism is that it didn’t include the “I feel threatened by gays” that he said a couple of months ago on 60 Minutes.

Abbot’s pandering to the anti-muslim, anti refugee vote is about as low as politics can go. “I’ll turn back the boats” he says. I wish someone had turned back the boat he came here from England on, back in the 1950s. He’s against the burqa but wouldn’t dare to criticise Hassidic Jewish women or Exclusive Brethren women, or tradtional Catholic nuns, for their attire. He feels threatened by gays but takes his cues from kiddie-fiddling priests. We are so used to seeing paternalistic men saying these kinds of ridiculous comments all the time that we barely even notice, hearing them from the mouths of women makes you realise how shockingly oppressive they are.
Pure genius.

YOU’RE A NAZI.

@Rod Wetheral: “I wish someone had turned back the boat he came here from England on, back in the 1950s.” Hardly compariable Rod. I would imagine that Abbotts family paid their way here. Big difference dont you think.
“He feels threatened by gays but takes his cues from kiddie-fiddling priests.” – I am quite offended by this statement Rod coming from a Catholic upbringing although not practising. This is still a very offensive and demeaning thing to say. Would you have the balls to denounce other religous orders and leaders like this? This is similar to saying all Muslim leaders are terrorists because of a handful of fanatics. Absolutely absurd that you would label all priests in this way.

@ Jason….there are far more kiddy-fiddling priests than Muslim terrorists…I am also Catholic (non-practicing)…

I am sorry that discussing the issue of widespread and prevalent pedophilia in the catholic clergy offends you…..it offends me; the pedophilia that is, not the discussion of it.

Susie???

Where are your facts/numbers to back up that incredibly pathetic argument that “there are far more kiddy-fiddling priests than Muslim terrorists”. Thats a totally ridiculous statement. Not to mention that my comment had nothing to do with how many there are compared to Muslim terrorists. Read my comment again Susie and this time try to understand my meaning. I am asking Rod for proof of Tony Abbott’s association with paedophilic priests as he quite clearly states that Tony Abbott “takes his cues from kiddie-fiddling priests.” This is quite a personal attack on Mr Abbott’s character and actually a damning statement that may have legal issues should Mr Abbott be made aware of it.

By the way Susie, I never once mention in my comment that pedophilia does not occur in the Catholic clergy. This is fact. There is no disputing it has occurred and not once in my comment did I mention this. Discussing it does not offend me. Its the allegation that all priests are pedophiles and the assumption that Tony Abbot takes takes advice from pedophiles that offends me.
It would be the same as saying that Julia Gillard takes her cues from all the athiest pedohphiles. Thats how ridiculous the statement is. Having a swipe at someone because of their beliefs is cowardice particularly when the subject of the offensive comment is unable to comment or defend themselves.

Cardinal Pell was accused of “fondling a 12 year old boy’s genitals” while a seminarian in the 1960s. Retired supreme court judge Alec Southwell QC found Pell’s accuser (now a man) to be an honest witness and accepted his evidence.

Dr Pell was NEVER exonerated, rather the complaint was not upheld for lack of corroborating evidence….Note that the boy’s testimony that Dr Pell “fondled his genitals” was accepted by the judge.

So perhaps instead of using emotive language like Susie, a factual way to express similar sentiment would be to say that “Tony Abbott takes his cues from senior clergy who have been implicated in the repeated fondling of a 12-year old boy’s genitals.

I’ve attached the link to the judge’s report

I clearly recall a TV interview in which Tony Abbott was asked if he’d met with Pell to discuss a controversial policy. Abbott lied and said he hadn’t visited Pell. The interviewer then told him that they had telephoned Pell’s office to check if Abbott had been there, and he had. Abbott just smirked and gave no excuse for why he’d lied about the visit. He lost my respect utterly.

I did not say all catholic priests are pedophiles (though enough of them are that no responsible parent would leave their child alone with one) but Pell is certainly a child abuse enabler if not a pedo himself, and Abbott has taken instructions from him.

Clearly a partisan add on so many levels – which I simply find tacky (I favour none of the big parties and consider myself a moderate – a dying breed.) The other adds of their I have seen are not very different.

And regarding many of the comments I have seen over the campaign, I think we have lost sight over the real role of Government – to legislate equitably and protect the rights of all citizens, to provide a level playing field for all to get ahead, rather than penalising some in favour of others, to keep the size of government, and its interference to a minimum. (Rule of thumb,direct government interference, with the economy in economy or social issues, regardless of intentions, tends to have unintended adverse income; e.g1: US legislation in the 80’s to force businesses to hire people with disabilities actually resulted in fewer disabled people finding work.)

And I believe a green revolution can be facilitated through legislation rather than tax grabs as it puts the onus on the most efficient organisations (it forces them to procure and implement the appropriate strategies and technologies without the money needing passing to/through government) and entrepreneurial classes to implement solutions that already have the know-how to develop. Tax grabs result in waste in government spending, allocations to areas it was not designed for, and more often than not, a distribution of windfall funds to strong lobby groups who don’t give a stuff about the big picture and their fellow Australians. Tax grabs almost never benefit the tax payers who had to foot the bill. What it does is set up the precedent for further tax grabs for the profit for the political class and their special interest groups. And we the tax payer end up further disenfranchised, with reduced chances of being given a fair go ourselves.

Tacky because it twists the facts . Perhaps a more appropriate word would be immoral?

Yes, the AMEC “whacked” add was also tacky – however the original point of the topic. The pre-election mining industry generated adds that I saw seam to be, surprisingly, rather accurate in their depictions of the implications. However, the mining tax issue is another topic The union based anti-mining add: a joke that a lot of people may unfortunately buy into.

FDR? ok I’ll bite. You and I would disagree on subtleties of the benefits of the Hoover / FDR bailout and infrastructure schemes their impact on the great depression. Long term it had benefits as a nation building infrastructure. In the medium term, these schemes prolonged the duration of the Great depression due to wholesale misallocation of resources. The markets in the US did not begin to genuinely recover until the onset of WWII. In fact there was a severe down turn around 1937/8 – feel free to check it out. There was severe depression USA in 1920-21 where the response of the government was to cut taxes, reduce the size of the bureaucracy (rather than increase it) and, importantly, let the bad businesses fail while those that could innovate would survive and prosper – that depression was over in 18 months. Life is not mean to be easy – but democratic governments are supposed to be here to make it fair.

But I certainly agree that long term infrastructure schemes are worth while recipients of concentrated funding. Your snowy mountain schemes, NBN etc. This country definitely needs to change its energy infrastructure and upgrade its rail infrastructure (but the trucking lobbies are standing in the way of that!) – and not just on the east coast. What I don’t agree with are unnecessary tax grabs (particularly those that provide concessions/exceptions to the worst offenders/polluters because they form a powerful lobby, the penalization of those who work the hardest to de facto fund often undeserving special interest groups (while those who truly need help never receive anything), or the perpetual over taxation and corresponding lack of infrastructure funding of some state’s for the benefits of others. This leads to a general disenfranchisement of the bulk of the population.

You and I would agree on one thing – getting things right! But I can’t see that happening anywhere at the moment. We don’t need to tax more – we need to manage better! And promote innovation! – not stifle it as the current system does. It would certainly be nice if people could see that facts for what they are rather than buy the rhetoric.

You asked many questions, John, except the most important ones, where is the equitability in our laws, where is the accountability for all the stuff ups, mismanagement and waste of my hard earned tax dollars, the incentive to work hard and the incentive to truly innovate?

PS. NBN certainly needed – the Coalition’s plan will not cut it – but the $40+ billion Labor plan is way too much. A government with a poor implementation track record would not deliver.

@Tony McGuire, Rod and Susie…apologies. It seems I have been proven wrong. It sounds like an open and shut case to me. Why is Pell not behind bars now? I agree he should be if this is all factual but cannot understand why he is not when it seems everyone even the judge agreed? Surely there is an opportunity for all concerned citizens and parents who believe he is to take it further and submit a class action or similar. Maybe this is something you may all like to look into and get the media behind it. Take the entire Catholic Church to task over it as they have admitted guilt through the apology made by Pope Benedict. Surely there is a case for Pell and Abbott (as a co conspirator) to answer so I suggest as extremely concerned citizens who don’t want these type of people on our streets at all, find a way to get them off the streets and put away. Don’t stand by and let them get away with it. Remember the great Edmund Burke quote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”….And as Gandhi also once said: “You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result”.

I’ve seen the ad. It is sick.It’s hard to believe that 100,00 responsible citizens have been so busy working, studying, caring,volunteering,exercising, viewing, travelling, twittering, tweeting, texting, drinking and drugging that they didn;t have time to get up and register to vote. There are some very competent individuals amongst them. I only hope they now have time to find out the names of the candidates and their platforms and to vote for the good of Australia and not merely for themselves.Judith.

I vote for Lavinia to run for PM – her comments are always gold!

I love you Claire

I would love the job as PM. I humbly accept.

I’d make you my Minister for Happy Hour.

Or happy endings – don’t worry, it’s a compliment.

You’d get a daiquiri and a good pension plan and foot rubs from the Minister of Pleasure.

Anonymous, yes, you with the banal disingenuous comments and latent ‘mother issues’, you would be forced to become my Minister for Compliant Submissive. You too would get daiquiris, a generous pension plan and a beating at every afternoon at 3.15 from John Grono, my new Minister for Hysteria.

Thank you John. You are my very favorite lunatic of the day.

Anonymous, you’d also get your own talk back radio program ‘the Hysteria Hour’. it would be on 2GB. Sponsorship would be provided by Unilever. Thank you Unilever for you Lynx advertising. It’s always handy to know who the enemy is.

Claire, where have you been when I’ve needed you?

Michael H would get the Ministry of doom. He’d have to provide a fresh new way of killing the fun every day or he too be demoted to the Ministry of Pleasure and have to work on my feet relentlessly – I get very stressed I find foot rubs relive tension.

There are other ways I relive it; but it will cost you $400 an hour to find out. Visit my website. I take bookings.

Ian Craft would be my Minister for Australia’s Got Talent. He has one. I won’t talk about it here, but you know what I’m getting at.

Flatstick – sorry, you won’t be Minister of anything. Instead you will be punished. But you will enjoy it. Women can watch. I will have it televised. ‘James I’, you will be next. Happy viewing.

Quirky, I have nothing to offer you in terms of a Ministry, but a diplomatic posting to San Francisco will be my way of saying ‘I love you’.

I can put things in your diplomatic pouch. ‘Dispatches’ I think they are called.

Oh Claire, thank you.

Australia needs a tranny as PM. It’s time. Vote me.

X

Lavinia

love it 🙂