
Chances are, Liberal MP’s Nicolle Flint’s speech announcing her departure from politics won’t be one for the ages, as was Julia Gillard’s “won’t be lectured” moment, or Julie Banks’ chamber-clearing moment.
Fighting back tears, the departing member for Boothby denounced the harassment and stalking she had been subject to, and being “screamed at” by Labor, GetUp etc supporters in the course of campaigning.
Flint accused the Labor Party leadership of inaction, and urged it to “get its own house in order” on matters of sexism, harassment etc. In purely political terms, the speech was a bit of welcome relief for the government in a tough week, turning the guns around if only for a moment.
Stirring stuff, though cynics might wonder if Flint’s decision not to contest the marginal seat of Boothby at the next election has more to do with the fact that she is virtually certain to lose it than with the rough life of politics.
Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial and get Crikey straight to your inbox
That predicament is due in part to the campaigning of GetUp and Extinction Rebellion that Flint has objected to — a campaign which reminded voters of the rapidly changing electorate that Flint was part of the Liberal Party’s right, a supporter of Peter Dutton and, if not a climate change denier, at least a minimiser.
GetUp and others determined that Boothby was a weak link in the political chain, a seat that could change hands if pressure was applied. Not the case, as it turned out, but it was worth a go.
Now Flint is using that vociferous campaign against her, as an MP, as an example of the same sort of sexism and misogyny being targeted in the wake of the Brittany Higgins and other allegations.
This line of attack is being supported almost entirely uncritically by much of the media with, for example, Fran Kelly and Phillip Coorey in this morning’s AM lumping in “left-wing protesters” with harassers in general.
That would surely be the point at which we start to part company with Flint et al. One of the signature events of the recent wave of protests on the gender front has been the way in which the movement appears to have marked a final detachment of such from anything recognisable as largely on the left (or having some form of left analysis at its base) — a moment symbolically represented by the heroic reception given to a former Liberal staffer in a white dress addressing a crowd marching against patriarchy — which in its contemporary form is a product of the policies the Liberals have been earnestly spruiking.
The fact that the imperative of that political difference has fallen away — that, in an earlier time, Higgins, whatever her travails, would not be allowed to become the face of such a movement — is a measure of the shift.
If a right-wing suburban Liberal like Flint can enrol in it and make GetUp and Extinction Rebellion the enemy, the shift has become comprehensive. Flint’s claims that the vigorous and confrontational street campaign she was subject to amounts to misogyny, is special pleading, nothing more or less.
The civil disobedience of obstruction and property damage, such as graffiting an office with anti-climate denial slogans, is simply part of the full spectrum of politics.
Such acts should be illegal. That’s the whole point of them. But they’re not immoral. If we’re occupying your office it’s because you’re trying to choke us to death with your policies and we’d like to impede the smooth running of that for a while. Not everyone’s going to agree with a graffiti attack, but it’s not exactly burning down the Reichstag, is it?
A robust political system should be able to handle, and should welcome, these forays into demonstrative politics. But that demands robust politicians too.
Flint’s special pleading is an expression of the elite entitlement that is creeping into parts of this movement: that having scored herself a sweet MP gig as part of her career she shouldn’t be faced with actual politics, actual contestation.
People are “screaming” at her in the street, i.e. shouting, and demonstrating against her. The horror! Women politicians have been demonstrated against for decades and had their offices occupied, and taken the contestation as part of entering into the full equality of being able to participate in public life.
What Flint is deploying is a neo-Victorianism, which part of this new movement has come full circle around to, which asks for a free pass from the full vigour of politics.
That is done by the deployment of the “safety” trope that has become the dominant expression about occupying public space in our time. With such language, any physical manifestation of politics can be declared “unsafe”.
A march? A sit-down protest? A picket line? This line needs to be pushed back against if protest politics is going to be possible at all. The right would love a situation in which any politics outside of institutional norms can be declared “unsafe” simply because a woman MP or CEO is the target of it.
As full equality of representation starts to get closer that would rule out the possibility of protest politics. This is of course complicated by the real and residual inequalities women face in public life and public space.
Turns out Flint has an actual nasty stalker as well, and vicious graffiti separate to the event. The somewhat cleaner lines between official and protest politics of days past has been blurred by the demi-world of the internet which, by separating voice and body, disinhibits to a degree that makes the worst possible.
This in turn has worn away the implicit trust that existed in social space — the reasonable expectation that an office occupation wouldn’t get violent, that pointed graffiti was as far as it went. That is now under a cloud, given the streams of violent filth directed at people in power. The unfairness is real. There’s stuff directed at women, Black people and others that has no equivalent for white men — there’s nothing can be said to us that lands the same blow. That is a reason to try and change internet culture.
Undermining the legitimacy of public protest is the very opposite of that. Public life is public life. Humanising it is a good thing, but not for the purpose of leaving Michaelia Cash or Gina Rinehart uncontested.
If Flint left politics because of brutal misogyny, that’s bad. If she went because GetUp and Extinction Rebellion made the seat of a fossil-fuel partisan unwinnable, then Nicolle, please lean over my gin and tonic as you cry, because the taste of Liberal tears are sweet indeed.
Leave a comment
If this article with this dismissive tone had been written about a Labor or Greens female politician or candidate, Guy Rundle would be getting accused of trivialising or minimising her abuse.
I know a woman who ran for the LNP in Queensland and the abuse she suffered was horrendous – and that was without a specific campaign from GetUp targeting her.
Is that all part of the “cushy” job of an MP and part and parcel of the to and fro of politics, Guy? Because it shouldn’t be.
FreeMan, I think the article makes it clear that representative politics MUST involve a contest. If a politician expects to be spared from any public exposure whatsoever then they are not really a politician. You might say that a line has to be drawn, that some displays of contest are beyond the pale. Do you mean that the politician should never be exposed to any form of contest at any time over any issue? Hardly ‘representative’ eh?
I was talking about abuse, not “a contest” as I think was quite clear.
What you – and Guy – are doing is attempting to dismiss and diminish an individuals experiences because they’re on the other side of politics.
After all, women must be believed when they speak their truths, right?
I was at the polling booths handing out how to vote cards & I can tell you now the only intimidating actions I saw (& reported) where by minor extremist right wing parties who were giving their preferences to the LNP. I had to intervene when two of these big men started intimidating two young women. The Liberal party volunteers stood by & did nothing. Was there too when GetUp arrived & at no time did they shout at Nicole. Not once.
Thanks for sharing that, Penny.
I have no doubt that it happened as you describe.
Are you saying that Nicolle Flint is a liar when she talks about her own experiences?
Flint appears to think that she enjoy the privilege of the elite and so be free from any opposition.
FreeMan, it shouldn’t be too hard to understand why some people may become very passionate about the level of corruption in our current Federal Government, and the mess they have got this country into. If Nicole Flint can’t handle the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.
Yes, she is lying. Her emotional reaction may or may not be genuine, but her account of events is pure fabrication (see my lengthy rebuttal below).
And she knows it. Even in her Oscar-winning performance in the Parliament yesterday, she chose her words carefully (or possibly had them chosen carefully for her by the PM’s speech writer), and I quote:
‘They (the ALP) may not have held the spraycans to vandalise my office with sexist slurs. They may not have held the camera pointed at me by the stalker, or called me ‘evil’ in GetUp’s phone calls. But they did create the environment in which hate could flourish.’
And her supporters in the local Murdoch rag use the same linguistic trick, by claiming that the ALP, the CFMEU, the Greens, GetUp (the culprits keep changing) ‘implicitly encouraged’ the abuse – whatever that means. Presumably, no-one should ever campaign against Flint during an election campaign in case some sick individual writes a misogynistic slur (or three) on her campaign office and posters.
But they did create the environment in which hate could flourish… what freaking planet is that woman on?! We all know who has created the current environment of legitimising HATE!’
Yes, destroying the biosphere for my grandchildren wouldn’t exactly engender love and adoration, would it?
Thanks Penny good to get the facts from the ground.
Thank you Penny. I also manned the polling stations in Boothby on behalf of getup. I saw no misogynist attacks on Ms Flint, and the material that I was given to hand out was entirely directed at addressing global warming. Indeed I was happy to join the campaign because of her support for coal, indifference to global warming and membership of the IPA. Her sex had nothing to do with it. As for extinction rebellion, who objectives I support absolutely, I note that they used washable material on her office, and have not been prosecuted to vandalism. Finally, where is the evidence that the stalker was acting on behalf of either group, was sexually motivated? Again I note that he has not been prosecuted for his actions.
Sorry for the typos. I suspect that she is resigning because she was going nowhere near the LNP inner circle, like the former occupant of the seat.
Also had no chance of keeping the seat cos she’s a rwnj
He’s not saying it’s a “cushy” job, he’s suggesting Flint might like it to be.
This article is brilliant because identifying the line between combative politics and abuse in the internet age is vital. If a politician doesn’t seek the scrutiny of the public then they shouldn’t be there. Seems that Flint may have had the same realisation.
He isn’t minimalising her abuse, her abuse was minimal. And for some in the public, the abuse of the liberal party on the working class (robo debt/everything), on future generations (climate change), of women and so on, requires a combative response.
A bit of crap smeared on a toilet bowl should not upset her.
If the abuse was horrendous then it was most likely criminal behaviour, where it should have been dealt with by a) her political party b) the police. If it was not criminal and was horrendous because it was unrelenting and loud, and she “suffered” accordingly, then that’s politics, and as Guy suggests, “cry into my gin and tonic”.
And so the cycle of terrible behaviour and abuse continues in politics with more dismissive remarks such as “let me cry into my gin and tonic”.
It’s a pithy remark devoid of any empathy for someone who says they’ve suffered.
You used the words horrendous not terrible. You also misunderstood the gin and tonic quote. The full quote by Guy was “If Flint left politics because of brutal misogyny, that’s bad. If she went because GetUp and Extinction Rebellion made the seat of a fossil-fuel partisan unwinnable, then Nicolle, please lean over my gin and tonic as you cry, because the taste of Liberal tears are sweet indeed.”
She’s stated why she left.
It’s up to you whether you believe her or not, just as it’s up to the Prime Minister who he believes.
The difference is, you and Guy are refusing to believe Nicolle because she’s on the other side of politics to you and that’s sad.
The three examples of misogynistic graffiti scrawled on Flint’s campaign office and electoral office by some sick individual(s) were unacceptable. The strong campaign against her evil politics by her political opponents was perfectly acceptable.
Flint is conflating the two issues, either because she is a political snowflake who wants to continue a $200,000 pa job in politics without any political opposition, or because she’s a crafty political operator using a current topical (and very real) issue to smear her political opponents who can in no way be responsible for the actions of the sick individuals who wrote the misogynistic graffiti.
No it’s because like scomo she is simply not credible
And one other thing to note, Julia Gillard’s most vociferous haters also made the same argument. “It’s not because she’s a woman. It’s because of per politics and policies. Stop playing the woman card.”
I think Annabel Crab has said it best
“Women’s safety at work should be above politics. That’s a full stop, not a “comma but she said X or he said Y”. Only way things are gonna change is if people put down their partisan weapons on this stuff.”
FreeMan, the first half of your above comment say’s it all. Julia Gillards most vociferous haters were obviously from your preferred side of politics. Tony Abbot, Alan Jones, etc. In Nicole Flints case, it’s not because she’s a woman. It’s because of her politics. Stop playing the woman card.
I thought it was entirely fitting and I wish I’d thought of it! I look forward to using it in the future though!
I understand your response to what you think is hypocrisy and your concern with uncivil politics and where the line of civility is. However, I think you are missing the point here.
If there was misogynistic graffiti in her office, if she was stalked by a creep that is outrageous. In interviews and in her speech she conflated this with political protests and attacks from Get-up, Labor and the unions, apparently all run together and the same thing. This seems to be an assertion rather than anything with evidence behind it. The uneducated right does this a lot and rarely get called on it.
This morning on ABC radio she also indulged in Trumpian false equivalence, effectively conflating the extreme right that gave you the march on the Capitol with black lives matters protests.
The point Guy is making is that she was targeted by protesters and opponents for her politics, for the policies she supports and pursued. Flint was not targeted because she is a woman. She was not targeted for what she is and cannot help but be, rather for what she says and does. Being a woman (or black, or Jewish, or gay) is not some sort of pass from being held accountable for your actions or having people strongly disagree with you. And no self-respecting person would want it to be.
For Flint to connect protests against her policies to discrimination and misogyny directed against women for being women requires either, complete misunderstanding of what feminism and other movements for human rights, freedom and equality of respect are on about, or is just political opportunism. Scotty from marketing was clearly happy to take up the opportunity to imply “they are as bad as us”. Which of course they aren’t. The ratio of women Labor and Greens MPs alone makes this obvious. Even before you listen to what comes out of Liberal and National MP’s mouths.
The whole thing gets compounded when allusions to the trope of “how dare you treat a woman this way”, are brought in, invoking patriarchal presumptions of women as the weaker, delicate sex. The implication being that women deserve a type of special treatment that men, being manly, don’t. Many years ago, and perhaps still in Liberal circles, this was some sort of protection for some women in a patriarchy, at the same time as keeping them in place. Now it’s just a part of the problem.
I don’t think Flint will be any loss to the parliament or the women’s movement in any of its forms, the contrary.
Very well put.
As I said above, that’s exactly what those who continually slammed Gillard said – “Her being a woman has nothing to do with it. It’s her policies and her politics.”
If you’re happy with that view and to take the same stance, good for you.
If you are in any way involved in divisive partisan politics, people who disagree with you may throw an egg at you. Nicole Flint is such a person. Heat, kitchen.
Except in Gillard’s case they often couldn’t resist, indeed seemed to need, to keep bringing sexist stereotypes into their attacks on her and the senior Liberals were very happy to go along with it. Ditch the witch, barren and childless and so forth. There is an interesting honours thesis exploring this, though the focus is on the media framing, at https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/9554/Woodward%2C%20M_GCST_HonoursThesis_2013.pdf
And yet, a Liberal National Party fundraiser menu served up Julia Gillard quail with “small breasts, huge thighs and a big red box”!
The hypocrisy amongst conservatives is breathtaking.
Did she have the leader of the opposition standing in front of ‘ditch the witch’ signs, or a Labor backbencher say she was deliberately barren, or a radio broadcaster say that she should be put in a chaff bag and thrown out to sea, or so many other examples. No, and the worst of it was one stray actor not aligned to the Labor Party or GetUp.
Agree. In our seat Get Up targeted Tiny Abbott. Thank you Get Up.
‘Advance Australia’, a right-wing lobby group moved heavily into Warringah to shore up Abbott’s position and counter GetUp. They had white men and money, but no volunteers or grass roots support.
Oh yes whatever happened to those old blokes??
Yes, even in her Oscar-winning speech yesterday, Flint said GetUp targeted six other LNP sitting members, all men. Not sure how that proves her claim that GetUp targeted her because she’s a woman. But then, logic was never an LNP strong point.
10 out of 10, AP7. Give yourself a promotion.
Nuance isn’t a strong point on the right of politics, and conflating completely different ideas and events is a specialty.
Flint lost the luxury of accusing Grundle of hypocrisy when she blamed the Labor party for enabling her stalker. Not the system, note, but specifically Labor. She politicised the issue.
Don’t remember too many lnp women sticking up for Julia Gillard.
Funny how the lnp can organise an inquiry into a kitchen renovation but not one into an alleged rape.
You can’t remember any because there weren’t any, Shaun. Memory not faulty.
Those supporting Flint posit false equivalence by using anecdotal evidence, the incidents recalled differently (not reported at time?) and exaggerating the supposed ‘threats’.
If the MP was Labor and being subjected to critical attention by NGOs due to policies it’s then deemed to be conservatives practising ‘freedom of speech’?
Modus operandi of nativist libertarian conservatives is to provoke and/or play the victim as a political media cabaret act.
Regarding Getup, I wish Nicolle Flint would either put up (some undeniable evidence of harassment or misogyny) or shut up. With such evidence I would immediately quit my membership, but I’m yet to see any such behavior, just a bunch of smart, committed and compassionate retirees.
Agree wholeheartedly. Flint is using smear tactics. I have friends (over70 in age) who wanted her out but did not harass or abuse.
Agree 100%. I was at the booths handing out how to vote cards. The only intimidating behaviour I saw (& reported) was by minor parties who preference the LNP- two big men intimidating two young women- I went to their aid. Nicole is not being truthful here.
There isn’t any evidence (see my post below).
I don’t know if this is cruel but fair, or fair but cruel. But I know that I’d rather be a Liberal politician in Australia facing GetUp, than a Democrat in America facing a MAGA crowd.
How about a Labor PM (eg, but not only, Gillard) or premier – here- facing Murdoch’s “Dept; of Propaganda, Misinformation and Obfuscation”?
Or that Democrat in the US, faced with Murdoch’s FUX News?
These soft shelled conservatives can’t be allowed to get away with pointing the finger at GetUp! and Extinction Rebellion and their like : and ignore the m.o. of Murdoch’s political mincer – a few passable members to paper over the real raison d’etre for the existence of Limited News.
News Corpse the Stinking Rotten Propaganda Arm of the LNP
thank you guy
I’d like to know whether Scott Morrison followed through on his vow in August 2019 to take ‘action’ on GetUp whom he asserted was a front group for the ALP.
“GetUp works on the principle of ‘plausible deniability’,” Mr Morrison will say according to speech notes. “They deny they are Labor when we all know they are.” He also said
“In this term, we will revisit GetUp’s claim they are politically independent – because we need to shine a bright light on this shady group that operates in the shadows away from full disclosure”.
Aside from the laugh ability of Morrison accusing anyone else of operating via ‘plausible deniability’, did he actually do anything to support Ms Flint and to stop this kind of behaviour or did he just make a speech about it? Serious question.
Morrison’s ANTIFA
Why does Morrisin not denounce QANON?
We KNOW why.
So Morrison will also investigate bodies like the IPA. Business Council of Australia and other Liberal Fronts ?