In his Spectator article, "Who would risk being a government advisor?" Douglas Murray has convinced himself that his hero, Tony Abbott, had been made the innocent victim of yet another media witch hunt. This time Murray's ire is aimed predominantly at Sky's Kay Burley.
"Poor Tony Abbott." Begins Murray, "It would seem being prime minister of Australia doesn't bring you to the attention of the British media. To come into its sights you must be put forward for a role as UK trade adviser. Then they will discover your existence and aim to destroy whatever reputation they didn't know you had with the usual modern British charge-sheet."
But has no-one until now heard of or written about Tony Abbott as Murray would have us believe?
"This time the charge was led by Kay Burley. The latest advertisements for her Sky television show boast that Burley is always 'formidable, rigorous, fair, honest and searching' among much else. Perhaps Burley hadn't seen the advert. Certainly she displayed no such qualities when she discovered the existence of Tony Abbott. She immediately asserted - didn't prove, just asserted - that Abbott is a homophobe, a misogynist, a climate change denier and wishes to kill the elderly." She then spent the next couple of days pursuing this line of attack (in a 'fair' and 'honest' manner obviously) until Abbott's appointment was confirmed late last Friday evening. By that stage the rest of the anti-Tory media had joined the game."
But is this true? Does Murray take the time and trouble prove that Tony Abbott isn't a homophobe, a misogynist, a climate change denier who wishes to kill the elderly - or just assert he isn't?
Did the British media never hear of or write about the former Australian prime minister? A quick bit of research shows this assertion of Murray's to be nonsense. There's Esther Bintliff's excellent article in the Financial Times - "Julia Gillard on modern misogyny in Australia" (October 10th 2012). She wrote, "The effectiveness of Gillard's speech lies in its reliance on fact: she has simply collated multiple examples of when Abbott was clearly sexist and takes the listener through them one by one, giving dates and context."
A reliance on fact.
Esther Bintliff was questioning Tony Abbott's, "reputation" 8 years ago. Perhaps Sky's Kay Burley had read that article too. It would seem, The Spectator's Douglass Murray hadn't. Or as a 'rigorous,' 'fair,' 'honest' and 'searching' journalist he'd have mentioned it. He wouldn't then have written that Abbott hadn't been brought to the attention of the British media. The fact is he had been - by Esther Bintliff. And by others. None of whom are mentioned by Murray in his article.
There was Zoe Holman's article for www.opedemocracy.net/en/5050/australia-prime-minister-redefined -misogyny. (14th November 2012) She wrote, "Impassioned but dignified, irate but irrefutable. You could almost see the, "Failure to Compute" lights flashing above the head of Liberal party opposition leader Tony Abbott as his face fell from its quasi-permanent poise of insolent glee with her pitch-perfect obloquy."
A reliance on fact.
Murray seems oblivious to the fact that 2012 came before 2020 and that perhaps Sky's Kay Burley had read that article too. And not as Murray would have us believe when asserting, "certainly she displayed no such qualities when she discovered the existence of Tony Abbott." How does Murray know when Kay Burley, "discovered the existence of Tony Abbott?" Especially as he seems unaware of the existence of both Esther Bintliff and Zoe Holman? He doesn't. And he doesn't care. Facts seem to be anathema to Murray.
Murray now switches his attack to the front page of, "one left-wing paper." He can't bring himself to say which one such is his self-righteous indignation. "Pressure on PM to drop 'misogynist' trade adviser ..... A day later - the appointment having been confirmed - the same paper ran the headline 'PM appoints 'misogynist' Abbott as trade adviser." If I were an averagely incurious young person, this is the sort of thing that would worry me. The UK government knowingly promotes woman-haters? Who are these monsters?"
Douglas Murray, an averagely incurious Spectator journalist, seems intent on using those claims of Tony Abbott's misogyny as a weapon with which to attack those that he - Murry - despises. More importantly - is The Spectator guilty of promoting a woman-hater? Had his journalistic instincts been set to roam and his bloodhound's nose been pressed firmly to the ground he might have done some rigorous searching into Tony Abbott's less-than-glittering career. But being so fixated on the anti-Tory media Murray marched straight past The Daily Mail headline that screamed: "Tony Abbott a misogynist who should not be allowed 'anywhere near government' says the UK's former immigration minister who claims hiring 'is an awful idea.'" Levi Parsons www.dailymail.co.uk/article-8687415. Levi Parsons wrote, "Caroline Nokes said the former Australian Prime Minister is a 'misogynist' who is not the sort of man that should be representing the British people."
Because the Conservative MP Caroline Nokes isn't a Sky reporter or left-wing newspaper reporter her accusations of Tony Abbott's misogyny are an embarrassing inconvenience to Murray. So, he totally ignores them. He has now become a spectator in his own story. Importantly, and to correct Murray - the UK government does knowingly promote women-haters. And according to Caroline Nokes one of those monsters is Tony Abbott.
This is the sort of thing that should worry The Spectator, its readers and Douglas Murray.
Douglas Murray continues: "But more exercising than the behaviour of parts of the media was the now traditional limpness of the Conservative ministers put up to defend their proposed appointment. First up was Matt Hancock, and even the NHS badge pinned to his lapel could not ward off the evil spell words that Burley threw at him about Abbott. While Burley did the full 'homophobic, misogynist, killer of polar bears and the elderly' schtick."
Is Douglas Murray now engaging in his own brand of misogyny? When stating that Matt Hancock (even with his NHS badge - a charm) was unable to ward off those, "evil spell words" she "threw at him," is he not in effect accusing Kay Burley of being a witch? A witch who casts evil spell words? When Andrew Neil, Murray's editor at The Spectator, locks and loads onto an interviewee does he "throw evil spell words" at the waiting victim? Or does Murray reserve such language just for those women he so dislikes?
This is a different sort of journalism. Is the "schtick" really schtick? What actually are Tony Abbott's views homophobia, climate change and covid-19 and the elderly? Douglas Murray has questioned Kay Burley's approach to - formidable, rigorous, fair, honest and searching reporting but does he read what he writes? By unfairly attacking the messenger he deliberately avoids the need to explain the message. He hasn't the intellectual courage or curiosity to quietly examine the claims made against Tony Abbott. Perhaps this is because he knows where it will lead him.
It would seem being prime minister of Australia didn't bring Julia Gillard to Douglas Murray's attention. This is convenient. It means that in his fawning attempt to ennoble Tony Abbott, whilst discrediting those who dared speak out against the latter's reprehensible behaviour, he is able again to duck the key issue - Tony Abbott's reputation and how he earnt it. The star witness is never called to the witness box. His failure to do so leads Douglas Murray to beat himself with his own schtick.
On 17th October 2012 Reuters released this statement: "A fiery speech against sexism by Australia's first woman prime minister has prompted the text book of Australian English to broaden the definition of 'misogyny' to better fit the heated debate raging downunder. The dictionary currently defines misogyny as 'hatred of women' but will now add a second definition to include, 'entrenched prejudice against women' suggesting Abbott discriminated against women with his sexist views." www.reuters.com/articles/us-australia-misogyny.
Julia GIllard's speech - totally ignored by Douglas Murray - had this to say about Tony Abbott:
"In an interview Abbott had stated, "If it's true, Stavros (the interviewer), that men have more power generally speaking than women is that a bad thing?" When another person present at this interview stated they wanted their daughter to have as much opportunity as their son, Abbott responded, "Yeah, I completely agree, but what if men are by physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or issue command?" Gillard also said that in March 2004, Abbott stated, "Abortion is the easy way out" and that he had stood next to a sign "ditch the witch" in reference to her political role." www.wikipedia Misogyny Speech Transcript of Julia Gillard's speech. The Sydney Morning Herald 9 October 2012.
It seems that Margaret Thatcher being prime minister of the UK doesn't bring you to the attention of Tony Abbott. She's just another weak woman not adapted to exercise authority or issue command. She was an, "Ironing lady" and not, "the Iron Lady" of popular myth and legend. A point also lost on Douglas Murray who's now gearing up to whinge about the "wet" Grant Shapps. "A day later the equally wet Grant Shapps had the same smear-sheet recited at him by Hurley. He too seemed incapable of finding any words to defend the former Australian prime minister."
A "smear-sheet?"
The sopping wet Douglas Murray - the spectator in his own work of fiction - having avoided all the evidence to the contrary still can't bring himself to say what we all want to hear: Tony Abbott, is not, never has been, and never will be a sexist, misogynistic, climate-change denying killer of the elderly. His Spectator article is one long smear-sheet. If he but knew it. Perhaps Matt Hancock and Grant Schapps were, "incapable of finding words to defend the former Australian prime minister" because like; honesty, fairness and rigour in a Murray rant they're incredibly hard to find.
He then fills up some Spectator space by saying, "Shapps then filled up some time talking about 'modern society,' 'conversations' and 'respect by which he did not of course mean respect for anyone who might still be a catholic."
What on earth is he talking about? How did Catholics suddenly transmogrify into Murray's story? Even he doesn't know.
More space is taken up with talk about who would or wouldn't share a chardonnay with the former Australian prime minister and once again The Spectator's regular contributor wouldn't commit himself on the subject. Would Douglas get arse-holed with Tony or not? Who cares? I don't although by now I could do with a drop of the strong stuff myself - only not with either of these two characters. Although it would be the craic to hear from Tony about the day he got head-butted by a complete stranger. Very strong stuff.
Having spent most of the article smearing Sky's Kay Burley with his imaginary smear-sheet Murray suddenly asks out of the blue wonder, "Why not give the Left some of the strong stuff and put Taki in charge of reforming the BBC?"
If this is joined-up thinking it's joined up in a funny way. Shouldn't Taki be giving Sky some of "the strong stuff" after all Kay Burley works for them - not the BCC? Formidable, rigorous, fair, honest and searching?
Objectivity? There's little or no sign of that either as Murray bemoans the present-day state of public life mistakenly believing (without any evidence) it to be packed to the gunnels with Abbott-hating, anti-Catholic Leftists. He moans on; "Anyone now put forward for such positions must be aware that however minor the role, it will entail being accused (without any evidence) of all the same sins of which Abbott was accused. And instead of being given a robust defence by your own side when the Left attacks, you will find Hancock, Shapps or James Brokenshire (if you are lucky) defending your whole life, work and character ....... all the time the desire of sane people of the right to enter public life diminishes even further."
Murray, having studiously ignored the evidence about his hero's sins, offers no evidence to support his claim that public life is off-limits to right-wing Tories. He goes on to say, "Personally, I find that these episodes bring out my vengeful streak, a streak which is otherwise carefully hidden. After watching the treatment of Tony Abbott. I started dreaming of scorched earth strategies. If the Left are so intent on hurling the same boring accusations and the right are going to remain so cowed, then why not give them some of the strong stuff and be done with it? Put Taki in charge of reforming the BBC, or make him the next head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Push him through, let them squeal, and everyone else afterwards might be treated with a shade more understanding."
"Understanding," for the vengeful Murray, a man struggling with his violent fantasies and clearly losing out to them, implies a world where women can expect to be called witches who once they've finished the ironing and being someone's bitch can expect to be ditched. Importantly, it will give Tony Abbott something to wink at and leer over. Abbott
"During his decades in Australian politics and a brief spell leading the country he gained an international reputation as a misogynist, homophobe and climate change denier. More recently, he became a critic of covid-19 lockdowns, suggesting this week that governments needed to ask 'uncomfortable questions' about letting elderly patients die.... he had referred to climate-change science as, 'absolute crap.' After being filmed smiling and winking during a radio interview when an impoverished and sick grandmother who said she was working on a sex hot line - his approval ratings plummeted to among the lowest in the world. ww.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/09/03 brexit-trade-britain-australia-abbott.
That the Spectator's very own James Murray should rally to this person's defence and in such a way is lamentable.
Murray now introduces another male hero of his Donald Trump, "As it happens, another ally of this country has answered part of the problem in a slightly more practical way. Last week President Trump announced that from now on all those divisive 'white privilege' training sessions for government will be stopped. They are, the administration correctly said, 'propaganda.'"
What could be more divisive than The Spectator promoting a world where it's a taken-for-granted privilege for white men to treat women as witches and bitches? Murray seems to see this abhorrent conservatism as some twisted form of liberation theology. For me it's sickening, unpleasant Spectator propaganda. As part of his vengeful, scorched earth strategy Murray wants to attack and destroy the, "entirely left-invented hoops" white, male, heterosexual have to jump through to prove their, "commitment to diversity." His loathing for those working for social justice is undisguised, "And so people boast about their commitment to left-wing causes and swear fealty to left-created ideas. By now this has had an effect."
Murray has his own smear-sheet and it isn't evidence based. But it's had a detrimental and diminishing effect on him. He's deluded himself into believing his hateful vengefulness is carefully hidden. It isn't. This becomes obvious and why he's able to finish his rant with a swipe at the "wokeness" of the BBC, the "left-wingery of the universities" and "the whole rest of the crock, divisive social justice agenda." Sinisterly,
"If the Conservatives cannot put up someone like Tony Abbott for a position without him being fired at in the manner in which he was, then it's time to change the game. The way to do so is not just to drop the whole falsely termed 'social justice agenda' but to strip it out of the heart of government, like the mental and moral asbestos that it is."
Poor Douglas Murray.
If the social justice agenda is falsely termed please explain carefully why it is "falsely termed." Douglas Murray, if you believe social justice is unnecessary please say why. Please explain just exactly why you believe the social justice agenda is, "mental and moral asbestos." Murray never ever says. He never offers a viable carefully reasoned, rigorous, fair, honest and searching alternative.
Poor on the evidence. Poor on his choice of men to hero-worship. Poor on his analysis of a twilight democracy. Poor on sexism and misogyny.
According to Huffington Post, Dmitry Grozoubinski, who was a former Australian trade negotiator and founder of specialist website Explain Trade shared a video of Matt Hancock, "claiming Abbott was an expert writing - 'In what universe?' He added, 'By his own admission his contribution to Australian FTAs was to tell negotiators not to sweat the technical details and just to 'get 'er dun.'"
Poor James Murray. Poor Spectator readers. But especially, poor Britain - 'er's just got dun. Agin.
Steve Gilbert 06/10/2020.
