“In my time working in this area and particularly looking in workplaces over the [past] 30 years, I’ve never seen any moment like this,” said Kate Jenkins, Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner.
Ms Jenkins was describing the extraordinary moment Australian politics finds itself in after a succession of rape and sexual misconduct allegations in the past month.
This article contains language that some readers may find offensive
“I think our community is changing… we’re at a turning point,” she told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on Sunday.
Ms Jenkins has been appointed by Prime Minister Scott Morrison to oversee a review into parliament’s workplace culture following rape accusations that have primarily marred his own Liberal Party.
The allegations in the past few weeks – and how they’ve been handled – have hit a nerve with so many Australian women.
They have resurfaced long-standing grievances about how Canberra has historically treated women who work in the country’s corridors of power. And how – most of the time – power does not tilt in their favour.
Damaging allegations
Despite the brave faces the prime minister and other cabinet ministers have put on in recent weeks, this has been a very bruising time for the Morrison government.
The long-term effect of this fallout remains to be seen, but as it stands Mr Morrison has two senior ministers with crucial portfolios on sick leave.
Both in the shadow of the aftermath of separate and explosive rape allegations. Both facing mounting calls for them to step aside from their high-profile roles.
Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, who was admitted to hospital almost a fortnight ago for a pre-existing heart condition, will remain on leave for another month.
She’s faced sustained criticism for her handling of an allegation by Brittany Higgins, a former political adviser. Ms Higgins alleges she was raped by a male colleague in Senator Reynolds’ ministerial office in 2019 and said she did not get adequate support from the minister or her staff in the aftermath.
Getty Images/EPA
Ms Higgins – who made her allegation public in the media on 15 February – prompted several women to come forward with similar claims.
His accuser had gone to the police early last year, but then later took her own life. The allegation – which dates to 1988 – was made public last month after a letter was sent by the woman’s friends to the prime minister and two opposition senators.
Mr Porter said last week he would take a fortnight of leave for his mental health.
Mr Morrison said this was a matter for the police, who subsequently found there was “insufficient admissible evidence” to go ahead with an investigation. Prosecuting such cases is effectively impossible without an alleged victim’s testimony, legal experts say.
The government had hoped this and Mr Porter’s public – and at times emotional – denial would let them move on to talk about other subjects like the vaccine rollout or how the economy has fared better than expected this quarter despite the global pandemic.
But try as they may, those in power can’t seem to brush this issue aside. Neither the story nor the pressure have gone away. Scott Morrison still finds himself in hot water.
There’s sustained pressure for an independent investigation into the allegation against the attorney general. Mr Morrison has also faced questions about why he did not read the allegations when they were sent to him.
Mr Morrison’s defence of his two ministers and his adamant refusal to hold an independent investigation – arguing it would set the wrong precedent – seems to have inflamed the situation.
He argues that the case with Mr Porter has been dealt by the “rule of law” and that effectively it should be left at that.
There have been arguments that his statement dealt with a very narrow aspect of the rule of law and that, complicated as the case is, there should be other avenues to investigate if the police cannot.
‘Toxic’ culture
But for many, especially women, this is also about leadership. It’s about a head of government who seems unattuned to the political or public mood at this very crucial moment.
“It is very dangerous for a prime minister to cast himself as a sort of passive onlooker in very serious instances like this, because the message that sends to the women of Australia is: ‘I’m not listening – I’m not taking this seriously,'” said Guardian Australia political editor Katharine Murphy on the podcast Full Story.
Getty Images
Julie Bishop, a former foreign minister and Liberal Party deputy leader, has argued the environment in Canberra often forces women into silence.
“There’s a powerful culture within all political parties to ensure that no individual does anything that would damage the party’s prospects, the party’s image, or its reputation, particularly at election time,” she told the ABC this week.
“It can mean that a culture develops whereby those who are prone to inappropriate or unprofessional – or even illegal – behaviour get a sense of protection. It makes it a very unusual workplace in that regard. But also, we don’t have the structures in place to counter that.”
Despite being one of the most senior and formidable female figures in Australian politics before she quit in 2019, Ms Bishop has revealed that a group of male Liberal MPs who dubbed themselves the “big swinging dicks” tried unsuccessfully to logjam her career.
“My ambition was to be the foreign minister of Australia, and I served in that role for five years. And likewise, I was deputy leader of the party for 11 years.” Ms Bishop said. “If their ambition was to thwart my aspirations, then they failed.”
Political arenas are known for their viciousness across the world. There’s an expectation of the verbal jabs and jousts in parliament chambers.
But what’s unique about sexism in Australian politics is its overtness. Many women lawmakers have regularly reported a culture of gender bias and intimidation in parliament and slurs that are specifically targeted at them as women and not at their male colleagues.
In 2012, the then prime minister Julia Gillard made an impassioned speech against what she called sexism and misogyny by Tony Abbott – the opposition leader at the time. Much of it, she argued, happened inside the chamber.
This all adds to a growing chorus of calls for change in Australian politics – an environment that has been described as toxic for women.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said as much recently when pushed on the subject. “This after all is the Australian Parliament and the rest of Australia looks to our workplace, as an example, and the culture in this place does need to improve and improve fast,” he told the ABC.
The Canberra bubble doesn’t just include the movers and shakers of the country’s politics – the press corps which covers it is also very much a part of that picture too. The problem, of course, is that it can often be too close and at times too cosy.
This was starkly demonstrated when Peter van Onselen, Network Ten’s political editor, was asked to make a general observation about the implication of these stories coming out the way they have.
“At a macro level, I couldn’t be happier that there’s a shift that has occurred and women are coming forward,” he said on the local Insiders programme.
“But when it’s someone you know and if they claim to be innocent, boy that’s a difficult issue.”
A reckoning for Australia
Only a couple of hours before the attorney general spoke publicly and placed himself in the eye of an ever-growing political storm, another young woman made some scathing remarks.
Grace Tame – a sexual assault survivor, activist and this year’s Australian of the Year – was asked what she made of the prime minister’s handling of Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation.
Mr Morrison had said that he had to consult his wife, Jenny, before making a public response and that he was looking at this case as “a father”.
Ms Tame said: “It shouldn’t take having children to have a conscience… On top of that having children doesn’t guarantee a conscience.”
ABC
You could hear applause in the National Press Club hall in Canberra after her comments. She had sharply echoed a criticism raised by many Australian women of why it should take having daughters for a prime minister to take a rape allegation seriously.
It’s been described as Canberra’s “MeToo” moment. The framing of it almost doesn’t matter. It’s a moment of reckoning whichever way you look at it.
This is about women amplifying their voice to call out a powerful political system that seems to protect and defend only those in power.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
