Last month in the Townsville Bulletin, Betty McLellan wrote a piece likening some of the unpleasant public discourse around Julia Gillard to domestic violence, an analogy that may also have some merit in examining the PM’s own actions and words.
Gillard’s dominance and control was evident in her orchestrating the unprecedented ousting of a first term elected prime minister, executed in a clinically cold manner following repeated denial of intent.
Subsequently acknowledging Labor’s failings as “losing their way” she then coerced and proffered false promises just as a serial abuser does to entice the electorate to accept her back.
In the parliament Gillard regularly practices verbal abuse and uses repeated derogatory taunts directed at the opposition. This behavior is of course reciprocal and practiced on both sides of the house, just as there is gender symmetry in perpetration of partner violence.
No one would believe that only LNP or only Labor politicians, behave badly in parliament or in general, nor should we believe that only men perpetrate intimate partner violence, when there are more than 200 well-designed peer reviewed studies confirming gender symmetry.
Gillard’s forte however is the counterpart to financial abuse in the home sphere. Promising no carbon tax but instituting a carbon tax, reckless wasteful spending, record debt and deficits, yet still increasing the countries “credit card limit.” Financial mismanagement that sees many Australians struggle to meet their basic needs.
Gillard’s association with the misuse of public funds predates her election to parliament, dating back to the scandal of the early 1990’s when she set up banks accounts for her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson, an Australian Workers Union state secretary accused of ripping off union money. More recently she has shielded Craig Thompson from proper scrutiny for his alleged offences, even more bewildering because of the association with prostitution, something an EMILY’s List feminist PM by definition should contest.
Yet Julia remains in denial about her abuse of the electorate, embarrassingly self-promoting on the world stage at the G20 whilst arrogantly demeaning other countries.
Unfortunately this is where the analogy ends, in the domestic sphere being fearful of her behavior and its impact on our “Australian family” we could take out a restraining order, force her to desist and have the relationship adjudicated in court. This would happen purely on the basis of our alleged fears whether or not such fears held any merit. The 70% of Australians who don’t want her as PM however have no choice but to remain in the bad relationship, whilst she continues her destructive course.