Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Julia Gillard abused by Curtin University protestors

One thing that's long fascinated me about the most zealous proponents of political correctness is how brazenly inconsistent they are when dishing out condemnation. Leftie-feminists, for example, will interpret any criticism of their leaders as the most vile misogyny, yet be completely deaf to the clear and overt women-hatred being hurled at their enemies. And quite often they will be the ones hurling it!

An example is the outrage directed at anyone who dares criticize, say, Sarah Hanson Young compared to the complete lack of condemnation of the gleeful sledging of women like Julie Bishop and Gine Rinehart.

Usually this double standard (wo)manifests in the attitude of leftie zealots to eeevil capitalists and conservative pollies. But now, it's even being applied to a woman on their own side of the political divide, Julia Gillard.

Take today's visit to Curtin University, for instance. Protestors forced her to enter the joint via a back entrance.

About 50 protesters, chanting slogans like "Racist, sexist, anti-queer, Gillard you're not welcome here" and "Shame Gillard, shame" blocked the entrance to a university building.

They even chanted that she was a "homophobic whore".

I'm amazed that this insult passed muster, considering who was doing the protesting.

The Left really is devouring itself. It's ugly, but also kinda fun to watch, isn't it?

UPDATE: Well, well, well. How very, very interesting. That "homophobic whore" quote has just been removed from the story I linked to.

Hell, maybe the journo was writing an outright lie to try and make the protestors look like total asshats. But I doubt that very much.

So why was it removed? You gotta wonder, don't you ...

Jeez I wish I'd taken a screen shot of that story when I first saw it.

UPDATE: Have just learned from helpful commenters that the word being chanted was "law" not "whore". So we can blame the media, in the form of the West Australian, for that little faux pas.

I'd like to thank those activists for setting me straight on this. Er, but I'm not sure if that terminology is still legal, considering the context 'n' all ... 

In any case, consider this post corrected -- both personally and politically. (Unlike Media Watch, I have some journalistic standards, you know. So I'm happy to admit to mistakes -- even if they're made by others. How noble is that!)

That said, I do not resile from my claim that the the Left is still chockas with super-hypocritical ultra-numpties. From what I know about the PC squitterati (and I know a helluva lot) they're every bit as misogynist as those whom they condemn, often more so.


  1. The chant goes 1234 smash the homophobic "law". The reporter just misheard.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I was there, proudly demonstrating for equality. Gillard will not listen to the people who want this, so we took our message to her. And, I can tell you, NO ONE was chanting "homophobic whore". The chant was "1, 2, 3, 4, smash the homophobic LAW". Yes, law. Not whore. We were misquoted, badly.

    Do you really think social activists are going to go around chanting "whore", a term widely used to denigrate women?

    I believe the article was corrected after I contacted the sub-editor and complained, and I probably wasn't the only one to do so. Just goes to show you shouldn't blindly believe everything you read from The West Australian.

    Although, judging from this sneering, non-sensical piece of try hard lefty bashing "opinion" ("(wo)manifests itself"? Really?), you should probably apply for a job there.

    1. Thanks Ben. You'll notice that I was a little surprised that such a term would be used and said as much in the post. But knowing how vicious lefties can be in their condemnation -- particularly when chanting mindlessly in a pack, which they so love doing -- I didn't think it was impossible.

      And the term was included in the original report. Not being there myself, I had to assume this was accurate.

      So it turned out not to be. Not the first time a journo got something wrong ...

      Speaking of journalistic accuracy and ethics: Totally agree that the West is not a shining example of this. (You'll notice that I published a correction. They didn't.)

      That's why I won't apply for a job there. Don't meet my ethical standards, see.

      Also, the West's editors are a bit literal-minded and tend not to pick up on little jokes and tongue-in-cheek bits -- not unlike your good self.

      So, thanks for the career suggestion but I'll keep blogging instead. It's just too much fun.

  4. I got to work just in time to hear Her Jooolyaness getting a very soft 'interview' from the breakfast people on 96FM. The reception at Curtin appears to have corrected the cosmic balance.
    Did she get away with both shoes this time?

    1. I'm sure she did. I hear tell she has two full-time attendants constantly monitoring her gait to make sure no more mishaps occur. They're her "foot soldiers", so to speak.

  5. What ever happened to checking the facts?

    1. Facts? FACTS?

      I thought facts don't actually exist. Aren't they all just propaganda created by white male heterosexuals to oppress women, gays and ethnic minorities?

  6. Easy guys, he retracted and explained the mistake.

    1. Thanks Mike. But the comments came after the first blog update. I wrote the second one (correction) after seeing the comments when I got in last night.