Does Evil Have Another Political Party?
And is that party the South Australian ALP?In today's Advertiser was published the name of the 24y.o man involved in the Mark Brindal affair, as well as Brindal's speculation that this could have been a set-up.
What we know is that the Opposition leader, Rob Kerin, received a call last week from Paul Graham's foster father, Ralph, threatening to go public with Brindal's affair if the party did not disendorse him as the Liberal candidate for the seat of Adelaide at the next state election (and, in effect, ending Brindal's political career, as he was already committed to leaving his current seat of Unley even before this development).
The mission has been accomplished - Brindal is out of contention and now the Libs are having a shit of a time finding a high-profile candidate who could possibly defeat Tourism minister and former Lord Mayor, Jane Lomax-Smith.
Incredibly convenient, isn't it? Can anybody else join the dots here and come to a reasonable conclusion as to who may have got in contact with Graham?
Are there operators in the ALP so ruthless that they would jeopardise queer law reform - their own policy and legislation - just to bring one man down? Just to secure one seat in an election they're most likely going to win comfortably anyway?
There are several good people in the SA ALP who have fought long and hard to drag the state along by its heels and catch up with the rest of the nation. There are also a few who oppose queer rights and resent their party being responsible for queer law reform. Unfortunately, the Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, is one of the latter. You see:
Exhibit #1: Labor wins the election in 2002. Their promised Bill to (mostly) equalise same-sex couples with de facto couples is not introduced until nearly the end of 2004.
Exhibit #2: Atkinson introduces the Bill into the House of Assembly, and then inexplicably takes it from there and re-introduces it into the Legislative Council, where the Libs combine with conservative independents to unnecessarily palm the Bill off to yet more parliamentary inquiries and "community consultation", delaying the Bill's passage further.
Exhibit #3: Atkinson supposedly laments the viciously homophobic opposition to the Bill...Yet, in a diabolically ingenious move, lends credibility to this opposition by reading some of it into Hansard. The best way to pretend you don't agree with certain sentiments expressed, but SA's political record will now, thanks to Atkinson, forever be stained with filth like:
If a State enacts laws which accommodate the immoral, perverted and abnormal life-styles of misguided individuals ("same-sex" couples) then the State is encouraging (aiding and abetting) such life-styles to exist. God will not give his blessings to such a State and the State in due course will reap what it sows. the legitimisation of homosexuality and lesbianism as alternative life-styles will lead to a cultural Armageddon.
And
Let us talk openly: how can a life style which is the fruit of a bent element within society, nourished by child sex abuse and pornography, be seen on a par with marriage?
OK Mick, we get the message, move on. Nope - gotta make the point:
The shameful, unnatural, perverted homosexual lifestyle should not be rewarded through rights and privileges through legislation. This type of lifestyle undermines the fabric of our society and of nations and should not be encouraged. I am quite shocked that the Rann Government would even contemplate sanctioning this depravity and wickedness.
Mick, please...
This paper, for want of a better term, is no more than an introduction to the depth of depravity that is creeping into our society. at one time homosexuality was dealt with in the most direct manner, that of stoning to death This Bill would just be the continuation of a downward spiral into Sodom and Gomorrah.
Mick, if all this upsets you so much, why are you reproducing -
Why is it that you perverse pollies are forever changing things to improve the lot of criminals, wrongdoers and sickos such as homosexuals to the detriment of decent, law-abiding heterosexuals? You now want to further improve the lives of deviant, depraved, miscreant, filthy, disease-spreading homosexuals. You're all corrupt and disgusting people but rest assured the day is coming soon when you will have to pay for your sins.
And this is why I think a Labor-sanctioned set-up of Mark Brindal is not so far-fetched after all.
posted by Sam @ Thursday, August 11, 2005
13 Comments:
Michael Atkinson must make Don Dunstan spin in his grave. If only they'd get rid of Parliamentary Privelige...
So true Mikey - especially when you hear Media Mike Rann banging on about how he wants his to be a government that does justice to DD's memory. None of this lot could be Dunstan's toe nail.
Pig.
Err, me or Mick, S? :-)
why blame the ALP? The SA Liberal Party has been so fraught with factional hatred for most of the last two decades that surely it is not inconceivable Brindal (who is a good man, and I like him)was stabbed in the back by his own. They have been trying to unseat him from Unley for most of the last 5 years.
It's true he gave some of his own kind a lot of headaches, Stephen, but it was always in their interests to keep him employed. He steadily increased the margin he had in Unley and, had he won Adelaide, likely would have done the same thing there.
It's a bit like Graham Kennedy at Channel 9. Frank Packer was a bitter homophobe and hated Kennedy with a passion but had to keep him on because he brought in so much revenue for the station.
I just think ultimately the ALP had more to gain with Brindal gone than the Libs.
I take the point, but I am not entirely convinced... I think you have forgotten just how much the SA Libs hate each other.
Brindal's move to Adelaide, it seems to me, conveniently got him out of the way. The local (Unley)party was deeply divided, yet the Kerin's of this world realised that Brindal was held in high regard by the non-party general public, they couldn't be seen to dump someone who was even vaguely intelligent (Mark is more than that)
But the truth is he doesn't fit either of the Liberal factions and neither will support him.
So, they can't be seen to dump him and thus they moved him to the unwinnable seat...if by some chance he caught the imagination and won it then that was a bonus...but it was always going to be a stretch.
In truth, too, Labor has played Liberal off against itself on numerous occasions.
I guess we shall never know.
I think Mark B will tell all before all this is over....we shall look forward with anxious anticipation!
He probably read it out because its so side-splittingly hilarious. Some people just have no clue.
Not Atkinson Nic, he knew exactly what he was doing - classic dog-whistling that would make Howard proud.
And Stephen: the SA pollies will indeed need to watch their step. Mark would not hesitate to expose their dirty laundry if he's cornered. Like you, I say bring it on.
http://ireallyneedmoney.blogspot.com
Sam, I think you are drawing a very long bow indeed. There are a few things we know, and a great many we don't about the whole this situation. Some things to poder however, despite increasing the margin in Unley at every election sice he won the seat, the Liberal Party dcided to dump him. We have witnessed one of the most vicious pre selection battles for years. In SA, the Liberal Party is far more faction torn thatn other states. I think that suggesting the ALP put anyone up to getting rid of Brindal is not ridiculous, there just isn't any evidence to support the speculation.
I think that moralistic wowsers in the Liberal Party are more likely.
If, as Brinal has suggested, the whole thing was a set up, I expect you will find the greed of a foster father is more likely the cause of Mark's undoing.
The 'foster father' (a defunct title since Paul turned 18, seven years ago) seems a rather creepy figure in all this no matter how one look at it.
Homophobes from either party could be responsible for this, even if the Libs don't yet have a replacement candidate. However, one shouldn't forget the most vicious fights in politics usually happen *inside* the parties.
I certainly don't rule out the possibility of this being an internal coup, David and H-a-G-G; however, I still think the timing is crucial. Brindal's enemies have existed in the party as long as he's been a member (1993) - I question why they would wait so long and choose now of all times to hang him out to dry and effectively rule themselves out of a seat, especially when they will now be desperate to win or hold whatever seats they can.
I also agree that Ralph Graham is an incredibly dodgy bloke.
Post a Comment
<< Home