Former Danish official: Trump’s Greenland bid is ‘insulting’


Netanyahu faces tough political battle in competitive Israeli election

JUDY WOODRUFF: One leader who welcomed today’s
announcement by the U.S. was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel and Iran are longtime foes, and Netanyahu
tweeted to President Trump in Hebrew: “Thank you for responding to another important request
of mine which serves the interests of our countries and countries of the region.” As it happens, Israel holds hotly contested
elections tomorrow that will decide whether Netanyahu wins another term as prime minister. We sent John Yang to find out what’s at stake
for the nation of Israel and for the political and personal fortunes of Netanyahu himself. JOHN YANG: Less than 24 hours before Israeli
polls open, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greeted voters in Jerusalem’s main market. In the campaign’s closing days, he has made
full use of the stature and the perks of his office, meeting with Russian President Vladimir
Putin in Moscow, helping lay to rest the returned remains of an Israeli soldier killed in Lebanon
in 1982, and, just this weekend, reversing course to say that the time is right for Israel
to annex parts of the West Bank. Israelis have a term for Netanyahu’s last-minute
pre-election surprises. They call it his gevalt campaign, using the
Yiddish expression of alarm. Netanyahu and his center-right Likud Party
have dominated Israeli politics during his 10 straight years in office. Now he faces his toughest reelection challenger
yet. He’s Benny Gantz, who led supporters on motorcycles
on his final day of campaigning. Gantz is a retired Israeli army general and
served as army chief of staff under Netanyahu during the 2014 Gaza war. DANA WEISS, Journalist: After 10 years, there
is suddenly an alternative. JOHN YANG: Dana Weiss is chief political correspondent
for Israel’s Channel 12. DANA WEISS: When people are asked in approval
rates who is fit to be prime minister, for the first time, there is a tie between Prime
Minister Netanyahu and the person standing against him. JOHN YANG: Gantz leads a center-right coalition
that includes two other former army chiefs of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi and Moshe Ya’alon,
who also served as Netanyahu’s defense minister. They hope their combined military experience
offsets Netanyahu’s reputation as Israel’s mister security. BENNY GANTZ, Israeli Prime Minister Candidate:
On my watch, Iran will not threaten Israel by taking over Syria, Lebanon or the Gaza
Strip., nor will it undermine pragmatic regime in the Middle East. On my watch, Iran will not have nuclear weapons. JOHN YANG: Netanyahu trumpets his close alliance
with President Trump. The president has boosted his Israeli counterpart’s
standing by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, cutting aid to the Palestinians, and during
a White House visit just two weeks before the election recognizing Israeli sovereignty
over the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 War. The White House even agreed to release its
likely controversial Middle East peace plan after the election so it wouldn’t become an
issue. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister:
Mr. President, over the years Israel has been blessed to have many friends who sat in the
Oval Office, but Israel has never had a better friend than you. JOHN YANG: But analysts say tomorrow’s vote
could be a referendum on the effect on the nation of Netanyahu’s policies and politics,
which some call divisive. DANA WEISS: It’s not security, it’s not international
relationship, it’s not even economy. It’s what he is doing to the society inside
Israel, us against them, against the elites, against the left, against the liberals, against
the Arabs, in order to stay in power. JOHN YANG: Listen to these anti-Netanyahu
voters at Jerusalem’s main market. Rachel Ben-Schlomo is a physical therapist,
and undecided, except about Netanyahu. RACHEL BEN-SCHLOMO, Physical Therapist: I
want a change and wanting to be something that will contribute to societal living, you
know, not only the security all the time. JOHN YANG: Rochali Kashivitsky says she will
vote for the once powerful left-wing Labor Party. She used Netanyahu’s nickname. ROCHALI KASHIVITSKY, Political Scientist:
No, no, no, no, not Bibi. I want somebody that think about the people,
that take care about the people. JOHN YANG: Netanyahu supporters say they’re
better off now than before he was prime minister, when the economy was slumping and Palestinian
suicide bombers were attacking Israeli buses, the issue responsible for his first narrow
1996 election as prime minister. Schlomo Peretz was having coffee in the market. SCHLOMO PERETZ, Israel (through translator):
I don’t believe that someone else can come in and improve. In my opinion, Bibi is the right man in the
right place. JOHN YANG: In this campaign season, the market
sees some good-natured debates. Dozens of parties are fielding candidates
for the 120-seat legislature called the Knesset. Some are very small and very extreme. Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the far-right anti-Arab
party called Jewish Power, did a little retail politicking at the market. The minor parties’ results could be very important. Polls show voters closely divided between
Netanyahu and Gantz. If each ends up with roughly the same number
of seats in the Knesset, that could give small parties outsized influence in forming a coalition
government. Analysts say Netanyahu’s task of coalition-building
could be complicated by looming corruption indictments. In February, the attorney general, a Netanyahu
appointee, said he intends charge him with trading official favors for positive news
coverage and for hundreds of thousands of dollars of cigars, jewelry and champagne. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU (through translator): I
intend to serve you and the country as prime minister for many more years. Don’t believe all the spin. JOHN YANG: Netanyahu denies the charges and
says it’s a left-wing political persecution. While the announcement didn’t move Netanyahu’s
poll numbers, Gantz is trying to make it an issue. BENNY GANTZ (through translator): The mere
notion that, in Israel, a prime minister can remain in office while under indictment is
ridiculous, in my view. It won’t happen. JOHN YANG: Reelection could be Netanyahu’s
strongest protection from prosecution, and he would demand that coalition partners help
him, suggests Dana Weiss. DANA WEISS: This coalition is what we call
the indictment coalition, because Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to make sure, you want
to join my party? Please give me your promise that you’re going
to do what it takes to make sure I’m not going to go through my legal procedures. JOHN YANG: And Netanyahu refuses to rule out
seeking legislation that would outlaw the indictment of a sitting prime minister. RONEN BERGMAN, Journalist: This is going to
be very complicated. JOHN YANG: Ronen Bergman writes for Israel’s
largest newspaper and is author of “Rise and Kill First” about the country’s history of
targeting killings. RONEN BERGMAN: Not all of these parties, maybe
not even one of them, would agree to go for something that would be seen, even by their
base, by their constituency, as a break of any kind of ethical, lawful, legal prosecution
of the law. JOHN YANG: While the campaign is the subject
of intense interest in Israel, just a short drive away, it is largely ignored. In the past, Israeli elections were closely
watched on the streets of the Palestinian West Bank for clues about the future of the
peace process, but not this time. ®MD-BO¯ GHASSAN KHATIB, Birzeit University:
There is no partner for the peace process with the Palestinians in Israel. JOHN YANG: Ghassan Khatib is a political scientist
at Birzeit University in the West Bank and a former Palestinian peace negotiator. GHASSAN KHATIB: The issue of the Palestinian-Israeli
relations is not a major issue in this election at all, because the major parties in this
election are in agreement over the need to continue the Israeli occupation over the Palestinian
territories, West Bank. It’s wise to expect that the current status
quo is going to continue for a long while. And I think the Palestinians are learning
that there is no solution in the horizon. JOHN YANG: In Israel, despite Netanyahu’s
standing in the polls, few are counting him out. RONEN BERGMAN: He’s the best campaigner and
the best spinner and the best politician in Israel, by far. He understands the system. He understands Israeli electorate. He understands the public. He understands Israeli psyche and Israeli
mind-set. He understands what he needs to do in the
last few weeks, the last few days, in order to get these small fractions of votes that
will give him the next coalition. JOHN YANG: And he may need all those skills
in order to fend off Benny Gantz and win a fourth consecutive term leading Israel. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m John Yang in Jerusalem.

Indira Gandhi Interview | TV Eye | 1978

Mrs.. Gandhi can you imagine any circumstances in which you might once again become prime minister of India [I]? Can certainly imagine the circumstances, but the question is whether I want to be or whether I’ll agree to be or not? What would be the terms under which you would agree to [be] no, it’s not about such terms. [I] don’t want to be You [are] not in politics. You can’t make a very categorical answer I didn’t want to be in parliament, and I told everybody I wouldn’t stand But here I am What do you think the Indian people? Saw renewed they feel that you had a particular Sympathy for their cause what made you the figure that you are in in their eyes what I’ve done for them It’s what they’ve seen that. I’ve Done I Get they booted you out in 1977 Well, I think booted is a strong word We were defeated but within less [than] a month after the defeat they were coming back to me because there was such a Such a very sustained malicious propaganda that people were taken in by [it] When people like your own parliamentary spokesman described you as the woman to whom the gods have entrusted the destiny of India What’s your reaction? I haven’t even heard this phrase. I don’t know [how] was yours – do you do you regard that kind of phrases of Meaningless extravagance? Yes? and we in India there is most beaches are full of this if you see the You know [the] [addresses] [that] [are] presented to anybody not me anybody at all you [would] be full of [phrases] like phrases like this do you ever Feel [that] you have in any way abused the trust that the the Indian people have forgotten you certainly not I’d like obviously because that’s a question directed towards the state of emergency Which you declared in 1975 when you gave yourself very great powers And you explained if I’m right when you wrote to the president requiring the permission to to carry out the state of emergency Information has reached us which indicates that there is an imminent danger to the security of India? What was the precise nature of that danger? Well? You can’t say anything with great precision? But you talked to your people of a deep and widespread conspiracy which you were sure they were aware What conspiracy well it’s obvious isn’t it now the whole concept continent has been destabilized But this is also internal why people you were told no it was both It was supported from outside, but you required the the the special powers on the basis of internal upheaval No the question was had it been only internal with no foreign interference one could have dealt with it in a much easier way But it is not [you] didn’t do with [respect] and you didn’t mention No, why should one mentioned everything one doesn’t mention everything at any time? why should one can I [try] but it’s very obvious [when] people have followed the Doings of international agencies and who was present at India at what time and what is happening today is borne out Everything that we suspected earlier can I put to the the findings of the Shark Mission Just set up to inquire whether there are any cause to [take] you to court and have you condemned for excesses abuses of power in that report they quote on the basis for your Requiring this emergency. No evidence Whatsoever police reports home ministry reports your intelligence services had given you no Evidence, what sort of not true at all? What had they given you what did they told you precisely? It’s not about [him]. They’re telling me I’m prime minister I have the business to know and all reports do not come through police They come through other heads of other states and very many other agencies But they also had given those reports how the justice Matthew know for instance And many other people who spoke at that time this report is an entirely prejudice one-sided report They’ve completely ignored Whatever people had to say on the other side most of the people who have given evidence are government servants Whose whole Livelihood and future depends on what they said here? Do you notice bad Justice sure? He was after all a former Chief [justice] behind Supreme court judge who had expressed himself very strongly? Against me and my policies before being appointed what it said? He’d miss speeches against us recorded speeches against you well not me [personally], but against our policies, and he appeared against us when we maybe there was a in fact Parliament wanted to impeach him at one time did he not a lot of the realities that he found against you in the courts on One Occasion I don’t think Tonight, but he opposed bank nationalization very very strongly [too] and after that that he spoke He’s been speaking continuously against me [in] my garden, Mrs.. Gandhi was it mere? Coinciding that in any other country they would appoint or even nine in India They seldom been a case where somebody was known to be and he has been appointed to Inquire against that person in fact at the same time another judge was approached But because I had superseded him he refused to take up these things because he said that people would not think he was fair Mrs.. Gandhi was it mere coincidence that at the same time the allahabad high [court]? Had said that you could stay in office as prime minister provisionally But had found you guilty of Electoral malpractice and that therefore there was a serious risk that you would not be able to remain prime minister was that just a [coincidence] that just came in same range. It was not a coincidence [he] [was] absolutely sure that I mean now How does it help me to escape now? If I wanted to remain prime minister? All I had to do was to listen to the party buses they would not have wanted me out at all I would have been prime minister for life, but you wouldn’t holding office under the findings of the corner. Yes but on what issues and If you look at your own newspapers, they all said they were very trivial issues, Mrs.. Gandhi I must ask you did you not concoct a Threat to the survival of the state in order to ensure your own survival, okay? That’s a very rude question and it’s entirely baseless. [it’s] nothing at all to base it on well the Charr commission to which I must refer because it was a commission set up by the government It’s a judicial inquiry and he is an eminent judge says that says very clearly that that The reason for if I can get just exactly I just lied if I may you’ve said I’ve asked your real question I Didn’t know no you death [see] I would just like to say one thing about what is in the report if I may because what he says is that that that the [only] evidence he can find is the Allahabad judgment and on the basis of that [he] [says] thousands were detained and a series of totally illegal and unwarranted actions followed Involving Untold human Misery and suffering. That’s why I put the [question] I didn’t put it out of a desire to be rude to Mrs.. Gandhi is In a parliamentary democracy is a judge competent to override. What parliament has done the decision I took Was ratified by the cabinet and by the parliament it was not only accepted it was applauded by the entire nation Had we held the elections in 1976 we would have won hands down Now we did not hold the elections because the state of the economy was such at that time the political situation was [alright] But the state of the economy meant that we had at we could see that if we continued We by I don’t mean us as people But the policies we were pursuing if they continued we could give India a start sound and stable Had we held the elections then this would not have been possible therefore we jeopardized our political future and chose giving political stability to I mean economic stability and soundness to to India Rather than saying well let us be sure of our election. Why then was it necessary to IMprison Mr.. Murad You decide then became prime minister of India was he in the economic threat [-] no? They were they these were the people [who] were destroying democracy Destroying them destroying the straw democracy because well I’m sorry [that] [you] people have short memories, but Because they felt they could not win an election. They said we must take the battle [to] the streets Mr. Morarji Desai is on record in a interview having said we are going to surround The prime Minister’s house. We are [going] [to] surround parliament. We will see that No, business is done by that the prime minister cannot come out nobody can go in another member of the opposition now a minister said that if we cannot win by the ballot we shall win by the bullet somebody else Incited the police and the army that’s joking around Disobey illegal orders, he said why [couldn’t] you alien? Why could I just ask you why couldn’t you have used? The law that you already had available to you to arrest these people if they were breaking the law I’m afraid you see India is not a small country like the uk it is a very big country in very complex problems and In the whole country they had created an atmosphere of extreme [indiscipline] so that assembly like Mr.. Galbraith said it seems to be a functioning Anarchy, but it was not functioning. It was becoming an unfenced non functioning Anarchy and at that moment if we had not stopped it, India would not have survived. Yes Unfortunately the dealings of the present government are taking India along that path once again The only difference is [that] because we left a very sound economy that momentum is sustaining the government Why was it necessary to remove from every individual in India and in particular from the tens of thousands who were put in prison? Their right to go to court and and pro-and before their case [that] their their right indeed to know why they’ve been detained [why] did you remove those rights? Well? I would like to say with all respect that all this is happening today there is no emergency in India but 23,000 teachers who are non-political have been arrested for merely? Nonviolent peaceful demonstrations, but this I presume are that isn’t a justification sure what happened under you and under you no But you have to see that if some things are happening all the time It’s not necessarily that something happened in emergency if the police have indulged in excesses They have been doing so before during and now but this is a different case I’m bad, you know your home minister said at the time. I think rather neatly if perhaps cynically pinpointing the issue no fundamental rights He said have been taken away from any individual just their right to go to court to enforce their rights now That was under the special powers that you took that was but it will also be about abuse by minor officials we’re talking about state policy that is true, but it was [some] it was just for a very limited period and we have in what time a lot of political rights and civil rights are taken away from people and this for India was as serious as a war war period It was a death threat not very survival. Why was it necessary? Mrs., Gandhi to forbid newspapers to report the speeches of MPS. I Don’t know I think Censorship was not properly managed and the same initially we thought it would be for a very brief period And some code of conduct would be worked out that’s remarkable right would you say the purpose of pre censorship? This is government? regulations Is to guarantee certain safeties for the state all the chief censor must see everything that’s published and speeches of members of Parliament [must] not be published in any manner or form only speeches of ministers I mean was that necessary to defend India from color a short period Yes Because as I [said] the situation was [more] or less Going out of control and it was necessary there is which developing country has been able To go ahead it own only India has tried this experiment of having social and economic changes through peaceful and democratic means now when these means were threatened we took a temporary measure it was I who Revoked I declared the emergency, but also I [would] revoke immediately before the elections – yes, so later We said certainly but then I did hold the elections [bush] I don’t think there’s a single instance in world history of this happening the shark mission and [once] [no] I know how to change it. I have intended at all because since you’re talking about the press I would like to say something about the press here a news item came in That the judge who had given his [judgement] in my election case Died and it was very broadly hinted that. I had had him done away with When the high commissioner clarified the position that my judge is perfectly hale and hearty Living where he always lives and a judge of a similar name Has died of a heart much older man has died [of] a heart attack in another part of the country Your newspaper us did not have the grace even to print that contradiction that seems a curious curious grounds. I’m not Justified. I’m not yet removal of freedom. I’m sorry. I’m not justifying. I’m just showing what you don’t like the newspaper [no] I’m not I’m saying that the newspapers are a part of a Force which is there to obstruct the social and economic Changes which we want to bring about and do you try to [initiate] [or] force to support what we were doing? No, we are not interested in support, but we are interested so not having the obstruction the evidence Mrs. Gandhi shows that during that period for instance all [India] [India] radio during that period in one month December 76 had over 2,000 lines reporting government statements 34 lines Recording [Opposition’s] you’ll find exactly the same in all India radio today So this is just a frailty in any case of the freedom whether it is or not they don’t know but it’s no use picking out something out of Context this is what I’m trying to the shah commission said that the reasons for the measures taken against the media in General And the press in particular was to keep and this is on the basis of the evidence put to him was to keep the public in ignorance to instill fear in them thereby suppressing dissent in every form individual political Parliamentary judicial it was used as an instrument of news Management aimed at thought controls if you want to give a lecture in the shark commission. You needn’t have me here You can give it any way as other media are doing We do not accept the shah commission’s Report and the people of India do not accept they have shown that he is quite irrelevant his remarks and his findings to the situation which prevailed earlier and the Situation is prevailed during the emergency before the emergency or after how does Mr. Shah know what is happening in the political world? What are the forces at work which just? Want to destroy a developing economy? [is] it is a judge competent to decide that then why have democracy why have elections? Why have political people in power it was a commission of inquiry which lot of democracies? No, it was not it was [a] purely vindictive action by the present government It’s it’s very interesting that of the cases referred to the shah commission They have they did not want to inquire into any cases except those against me or those whom they considered my supporters? they did not even record the evidence or the The of those who said anything in my favor. He just said this is irrelevant in the courtroom itself They had a [picked] crowd with Giada’s Anybody who wanted to and we didn’t want cheering, but if anybody did that person was thrown out? I mean when you take up a thing you should try and find out the whole background and what has actually happened [I] went into us it doesn’t matter what the british media says it’s quite irrelevant to India but it shows that you [are] divorced from the facts and Divorced from what the people [are] thinking and if you don’t you if you’re not bothered about [what] the people are thinking then you shouldn’t? Talk about Democracy I certainly am bothered what people are [thinking] and of course one’s concerned to try and establish The basis on which they might or might not hold particular judgments And that’s why I’d like to ask you about the 20 months of your Special powers there were I want you to remind you I think some 8 million people who were sterilized more than 250 court night I was like this is not any of this [fart] figure has not been borne out by anybody in any commission There is evidence to suppose that very large numbers of people were sterilized right [by] your view over you well It’s been alleged that there was widespread compulsion if there was compulsion at all for the purposes of argument what be your reaction to Compulsory sterilization sterilizes [yes] myself in government statements as well as privately that I’m not for compulsion records from the time from the Chief secretary of the government of utter Pradesh government attached highest importance to achievement of family planning targets failure to achieve monthly Target will result in stoppage of salary suspension and Severus penalties other states all eligible cases for sterilization in my office and department have been sterilized persons who have refused to get themselves Sterilized have not been paid their salaries the evidence surely Mrs.. Gandhi [that] a combination of intimidation coercion Economic sanction not giving people licenses not doing people rights to free education and health and so on were used by officials throughout India to to Disappear in effect you have sterilization. Yes. They were those are major wide-scale excesses, then aren’t they no I don’t think so [and] Furthermore now people realize that if our population goes up at the rate that [it] [is] going Their children won’t be alive. They won’t have the they won’t have enough food or education or any of those rights Do you accept no responsibility? At all I have accepted own Responsibility because I happen to be head [of] the government, but you know there was nothing No You see you cannot be categorical about these things certainly mistakes when you take up any major program Mistakes will take place, but they were there was a very large force working against us Which was [determined] to use anything it could against us And they I think that they played a very large part in Creating these so-called excesses [a] lot of them seem to be in prison you had tens of thousands in prison with the endless more forces Against you trying to destroy him scandi the most of the people in Prison were smugglers Hoarders black Marketeers, not academic students teachers politicians no they were politicians but not many academics or students [know] the evidence unless they were in the naxalite movement or something like that Under what you have some you are accepting without question a particular evidence which has not yet gone [to] court which is sub judice [II] and Which we do not accept under what conditions now would you would you justify imposing a similar state of emergency? Would you do that if you were in charge in India now where you said is this this? Display [of] [some] terrible problem would you do it no, no? Because today’s Chaos is created by the government You had a different That’s quite a different situation as I said at [that] time as you said that had we taken action in what you think it says Legal earlier on maybe all this would not have been necessary And this is why I feel [that] I was at fault in this that I did not take action earlier on But we felt that in Elections were not far off, and we could wait till the elections. We didn’t know that these people would precipitate The situation as they we knew that in elections. We may or may not win You don’t [fight] another state of emergency in India no as I’m saying today. That is a state of emergency It is not legal it is not constitutional It doesn’t have parliamentary sanction, but in every other way there is a state of emergency [if] Justice, Mr. shah says that the people are in fear. [you] [are] only to go and walk the streets of delhi today Or calcutta or any city and where [is] that time written only those [who] were in fear who were doing something? anti-social but today it is the common citizen The poor man was in fear What then do you expect the future of India to be Mrs. Gandhi? For the future of India is for us to decide and we will fight it out in India I don’t think it’s anybody else’s business. you of course [assume] going back to face criminal charges on the basis of the shah commission’s allegations on the basis of that evidence I’m obliged to ask you why [would] it not serve the interests of truth and justice? justice for you to be found guilty Because I’m not guilty

3 ways America is doing politics all wrong

So I am an eternal optimist about how and
why we should continue to innovate every aspect of our lives. And that’s science and technology imbuing
more efficiencies in how we run businesses, but also how we deliver healthcare and education. So as far as I’m concerned I’ve adopted
this same lens as we think about the political process. So just to give you some flavor for some of
the proposals, on the politician side I consider the argument that we should perhaps increase
the pay of politicians and actually force them to justify their compensation. Singapore is a great example of this model. In Singapore the head of state, the prime
minister earns over $1.4 million a year in compensation. But, to me, what’s even more interesting
is that the ministers who are responsible for education and healthcare and infrastructure,
et cetera, earn 30 to 40 percent bonuses based on certain metrics and outcomes—So how GDP
performs, whether life expectancy increases, whether inflation declines. I think that that is a very interesting model
for us to explore because I think it could impose discipline. By the way a discipline around reward for
performance which we already see, and it applies to many of us as we work in the private sector. So certainly worth of a consideration. I think that could actually force politicians
to think a little bit more long term. Another proposal on the politician side is
to basically think about minimum standards for politicians. And this is an idea that really, for me, stuck
out as I thought about how the British Parliament looked back in the 1950s and 60s. In that period the average age was higher,
on average about 60 years old. But also the skill set was incredibly varied. They had teachers, lawyers, doctors, farmers. And so people had had other careers and had
a better understanding of how the economy works because they came to become parliamentarians
having experienced different sectors of the economy. Today, some of the citations that I reference
in the book, the average age is closer to 40 years old and many politicians actually
have no experience except having been professional politicians. And I think that can be quite a disservice
in terms of not really understanding the complexity of how an economy works. A third – I’ll just very quickly give
you one more example of what we might consider in terms of politicians is we might think
about extending the terms of political office. This is essentially to get away from this
idea of having elections every two years as we do in the United States. Mexico is an example of a country where the
president is in office only once for six years. And so I think you get away from this desire
of politicians to constantly court or tempt and try to seduce voters with policies that
may be short term appealing but over the long term incredibly damaging for the economy (and
ultimately for generations to come). Brazil, the senators have eight- to nine-year
terms. Again it’s really picking on this theme
of extending the thinking to better match the economic challenges and economic headwinds
that the global economy faces.

Political System and Politics in Russia Documentary

Russian politics is laid out in a
framework where the country is led by the President along with the
Prime Minister and his ministers. The country is governed by the
Constitution of Russian Federation. Constitution of Russia A national referendum
brought the present Constitution which was adopted
on December 12, 1993. On December 25, 1993
the Constitution was officially published and
it came into force. Article 11 of the Constitution states
that the subjects of state power are: The President of the Russian Federation The Government of the Russian Federation The Federal Assembly (The Federation
Council and The State Duma) Courts of the Russian Federation President of Russia Russia elects her President through
direct suffrage by secret ballot. An individual can hold the position of the
President for two consecutive terms only. The President’s term lasts for six years. The Constitution of
Russian Federation appoints the President
as the head of state. He is responsible for setting all
domestic and foreign policies and will represent Russia at for
internal and international affairs. The President is also
responsible to protect the rights and freedom of
the Russian citizens. He is the “Supreme Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces of Russian Federation” and can take all necessary measures to
protect the independence of Russia. The President also holds power
to dissolve the State Duma. Articles 82-93 of the Constitution
define the responsibilities, powers and limitations of the President
of Russian Federation in detail. If the President fails
to fulfil the duties towards the nation the
post shall be temporarily deputized to the Prime
Minister who will then become the Acting President of
the Russian Federation. A Prime Minister can also assume
the role provisionally when the President is undergoing health
problems such as a surgery etc. The President then resumes back
his duties once he if fit. Current President of Russia The most recent Presidential elections
took place on March 18, 2018. Vladimir Putin won the elections
retaining his position as the President of Russian Federation for
the second time consecutively. Vladimir Putin has also held the
office of President twice earlier from the year 2000 to 2008 when the
Presidential term was for four years. The Government of Russian Federation The executive power of
the Russian Federation is held by the
Government of Russia. The Prime Minister, Deputy
Prime Ministers and the Federal Ministers are the
members of the government. Some of the responsibilities of the
Russian government include drafting and implementation of the nation’s budget,
management of federal property, implementation of laws and public
order, implementation of foreign policy, implementation of a uniform
financial and monetary policy etc. Current Prime Minister
of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev holds the office
of Prime Minister in Russia. He has been serving the Russian Federation
as the Prime Minister since 2012. He is considered as the second most popular
politician in Russia after Vladimir Putin. The Federal Assembly According to the Russian
Constitution the Federal Assembly is the national legislature
of the Russian Federation. It comprises of – The Federation
Council known as the Upper House and The State Duma which is
referred to as the Lower House. The Federation Council or Upper House The office of the Federation
Council is situated in Moscow. The Chairman of the Federation
Council is the next most important person
after the Prime Minister. Valentina Matviyenko holds
the position as the Chairman of Federation
Council currently. In situations where both the President
and Prime Minister fail to do their jobs he/she becomes the Acting
President of Russian President. The main duties of the council
comprise of impeachment of the President, appointing all the
judges of Russian High Courts, approving the decree of
President on introduction of Emergency in the State or
introduction of Martial Law, giving decisions on possible
use of Russian Armed Forces beyond the Russian
boundaries, appointing or discharging the Deputy
Chairman and half the auditors of the all
Accounting Chamber etc. The State Duma or Lower House The State Duma office is
also located in Moscow. The members of the State
Duma are known as deputies and are led by the Chairman
of the State Duma. The current Chairman of the State
Duma is Vyacheslav Volodin. Some duties of the State
Duma include appointing or discharging the
Commissioner of Human Rights, appointing or discharging the Chairman
and half the auditors of Accounting Chamber, consents on the appointment
of Chairman of the Government, advances charges against the
President for his impeachment, decides the problems of confidence
in the current government etc. Courts of Russian Federation The Supreme Court of the Russian
Federation is the last court of resort within the Russian judiciary for civil,
administrative and criminal cases. The Supreme Court is also
responsible for administering the work of the lower courts operating
in the Russian Federation. The Russian President
appoints the judges of the Supreme Court and a judge
must be a Russian citizen. The Supreme Court comprises of
the Judicial Panel for Criminal Affairs, the Military Panel and the
Judicial Panel for Civil Affairs. Each panel is responsible
for the respective cases that fall in their
area of jurisdiction. The Russian Supreme court has the power to
hear a case from the beginning (original jurisdiction) and change the decisions of
the lower courts (appellate jurisdiction). The Supreme Court holds the power to
terminate political parties and Russian NGO’s, it can challenge the actions of
Central Electoral Commission of Russia while the Presidential Elections are being
structured, it can also challenge the legislation of government
agencies, criminal charges pressed against
the federal judges, State Duma and Russian Federation Council
are also heard by the Supreme Court etc. After an emergent opposition
movement the media is under strict observation of
the Russian authorities. The current President has
embraced a vociferous nationalist path and requested
his people to the same. Vladimir Putin is a powerful leader who has
fished Russia out of the dangerous waters of economic and political crisis which had
been hovering the nation since the 1990’s.

Why the world is worried about Turkey

“I say this over and over again; this is
not a system that belongs to Tayyip Erdogan” It’s really never a good sign when
a person one refers to himself in the third person. “I am a mere mortal… i can die at any time.” and more importantly has to repeatedly deny that they’re a dictator. “Here we have an election, if you say a ballot box produces a dictatorship, then you are being unfair to the ballot box process”
On April 16, Turkey narrowly voted yes on a referendum that will dramatically reorganize the government. It allows changes that give sweeping powers to the President, Tayyip Erdogan. He could have complete control of Turkey’s budget and military, will be able to appoint judges to the courts without a vote, can dissolve parliament whenever he chooses, and can stay in power until 2029. This has prompted concerns that he’s becoming too authoritarian – and these concerns aren’t that outlandish. Mostly because Turkey was built by an authoritarian… What’s interesting about this vote is that
if you look at the arc of modern turkish history, it begins with Kemal Ataturk Ataturk was a military general who created the Republic of Turkey out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire in 1923. During his 15 years in office, he enjoyed
similar powers now held by Erdogan. And he used them to build Turkey into a modern and secular state. Turkey’s new government separates church and state. He banned head coverings, To Kemal, this headgear, the fez, symbolizes Turkey’s oriental fatalism and ignorance. He will abolish it. He put mosques under state control, Islamic traditions are shattered He made it basically illegal to discriminate against women. He takes pleasure in the company of emancipated women. He made women’s education compulsory, he made literacy rates rise,
he made schools opened everyone, To make a modern nation, all Turkey must be sent to school. Ataturk also industrialized his country. Under his watch, the industrial sector saw
a sharp increase. And his liberal foreign policies built a close
relationship with the West which paved the way for Turkey to join the NATO alliance in 1952. We know that Ataturk succeeded because for decades Turkey was a modern secular Western country, like he wanted it to be. Ataturk is dictator, so that Turkey will never again have a dictator. And now you have President Erdogan, President Erdogan is going in literally the opposite direction. He wants to make the country more openly religious. He wants to get rid of and has already gotten rid of much of what Ataturk had done. But how does a religious conservative leader acquire so much power in a secular country? To understand this, you have to know what
happened to Turkey after Ataturk’s death. For 5 decades, the country was constantly in a state of upheaval. Ataturk had given the military the responsibility of keeping Turkey secular. And they did so by staging coups in 1960,
71, 80 and again in 1997. While the interventions were meant to keep Turkey democratic, the instability left the country in poor shape. So in the nineties and even to the early two
thousands Turkey had a totally completely stale economy,
the GDP growth would slow unemployment was very high, it was seen as a very corrupt country, the government didn’t function. Enter Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He was the mayor of Istanbul from 1994 to
‘97. Two years later he was arrested for a public
reading of a politically charged Islamic poem by a Turkish Nationalist. Turkey was still a majority Muslim nation
and his arrest made him popular with many who felt oppressed by years of the secular,
military rule. After a short jail sentence, he formed a moderately-conservative political party, the AKP, which went on to win a landslide victory in the 2002 elections,
and he became the Prime Minister of Turkey. Erdogan went on to pull the country out of
poverty by giving more opportunities to Turkish entrepreneurs and expanding access to foreign markets. This led to a sharp rise in the GDP and inflation plummeted. Turkey’s success even prompted efforts to
join the EU. This all made Erdogan wildly popular. It was like he came onto a boat that was listing, and taking on water, and managed get the water out of the boat and made the boat sail straight again. So for many years, you could see why a man like this became as powerful as he became But then he went too far. Over the next ten years, Turkey continued
to grow economically but Erdogan started pushing more Islamist and authoritarian policies. He was quoted saying he did not believe
men and women were equal and that women are meant to be mothers. His government also began arresting protesters
and journalists under the guise of anti-terrorism laws. This stirred unrest in Turkey’s more liberal
urban areas. In 2013, there was a small, peaceful demonstration
in Istanbul’s Gezi park to protest Erdogan’s plans to reconstruct military barracks that
would include a shopping center and a mosque. Seeing the demonstration as opposition, Erdogan
sent in riot police to remove the protesters which quickly attracted more protesters. And it got bigger and bigger because it became
a proxy. From a protest over a park to a protest of
Erdogan, against how religious he was becoming… And it got violent Previsouly he had not been a brutal ruler. After this, he became a brutal one. Erdogan began removing Ataturk’s secular laws more aggressively. He ended the ban on wearing headscarves, tightened
restrictions on alcohol sales, and freed mosques from government control. Then in 2014, Erdogan was elected president
which in Turkey, is a ceremonial role with little real power. But that didn’t put an end to the arrests
made across the country, which indicated that Erdogan was still in charge. And there were two groups of people who are
terrified by this one were the kind of secular Turks who look back to Ataturk and said what
the hell is happening to our country?! And the other was the military and they were the ones, again, who believe that their core mission in life was to keep Turkey secular and that he was a threat. So in July 2016, they staged a coup and it
almost worked. There was one problem — the military couldn’t
get the public’s support this time. Erdogan had found a way to reach his supporters… I want to encourage my people to the streets and invite them to the airports. And together as people gather, to show them, by letting them come with their tanks, to see what they are going to do, do it right there to the people. Erdogan had this amazing moment where he used
face time on his iPhone to kind of rally the country defend the country defend us against the military, come Turks, come to me, come rally around me. and it worked. You had secular Turks for the first time in
years defend Erdogan. You have religious Turks literally stream
from mosques into the streets to fight the military. The military overstepped, you had Turkish
F-16s fire rockets and missiles at parliament, Turkish tanks fired on people on the streets. That was very effective for him. Erdogan emerged from the fighting more popular
than ever and ramped up his purge of the opposition. More than 100,000 journalists, academics,
military officers, and politicians have been arrested since the coup attempt; tens of thousands
remain in detention. This brings us to the recent referendum, which
follows Erdogan’s post-coup popularity. He set it in motion to acquire more power
and make it permanent. But the vote was much closer than he it was
anticipated, suggesting that much of the country wants to hold onto the secular Turkey created
by Ataturk and they are willing to fight for it. I think you’re gonna have the inevitable
tension between a president who believes he’s entitled to more power, taking more and more
of it, and what remains a somewhat secular country not comfortable giving him that power. Do those tensions
play out politically in the courts or in the streets. If it’s actual fighting and violence then
what we know as a democratic Turkey will be be over.

Donald Trump: Art Of The Handshake

Donald Trump recently made news with his 19-second handshake of Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. I’m going to break down some of the more unique aspects of Donald Trump’s handshake and in this video, we’re also going to cover the more standard business handshake which many people habitually do incorrectly creating an impression of weakness or over-compensating insecurity. But first, if you haven’t seen it, here is Trump’s 19-second handshake. What did they say? “Please, look at me.” Alright, thank you, press. I said that this handshake has some unique properties but it’s actually not unique for Donald Trump because it contains a number of his signature moves. I’m not going to speculate on why he does these but they absolutely do exist. First off, the yank — this off-balances the other person and likely makes that person reluctant to take control of the interaction and probably makes them a little suspicious of Donald Trump. Check out another example here… Thank you to Mike Pence. Thank you, everybody. …then you’ve got the wrist bend and lift. Twisting the wrist this way is easy enough for the person doing it but it puts the person on the other end in a very uncomfortable position and it likely has the same effect as the yank namely that it makes the other person less likely to take control of the interaction and probably a bit more suspicious of Trump. Here it is in a different context. And lastly, we see the hand tap. What’s interesting here is that while both the yank and the wrist bend and lift are uncomfortable, the hand tap is relatively nice and it’s more likely to be perceived as good-natured but when you’ve just yank someone towards you and crank their wrist, the hand tap becomes more of a pacifying behavior almost as if to say, “No hard feelings,” which matches what Trump said after the handshake — something that didn’t get much coverage. Listen closely. Alright, thank you, press. Thank you, everybody. Strong hands, when you… (Shinzo laughs) Did you hear Trump say, “Strong hands”? This is a classic Trump double-bind. If Abe accepts the compliment and thinks, “Yes, I do have strong hands,” he’s just accepted that the yanking didn’t happen. After all, he has strong hands so no one would be able to whip him around. But if Abe thinks, “No, I don’t have strong hands. You just nearly ripped my arm off,” he’s accepted that he has weak hands and probably should have done more to prevent himself from being yanked around in the first place. It creates a fascinating mental trap and it’s one that we’ve discussed in earlier videos on Trump which I will link to, again, in the description. But the sum of it here is that Trump is able to pull a physically dominant move while verbally complimenting Abe and in some cases, this could position him as the dominant force in an interaction without too much resistance from the other person but all that only works if the person mentally accepts the double-bind which isn’t a guarantee and if there are no news cameras around, much more importantly because when there are cameras, people start to prepare for that same tactic. Watch out how Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau braces himself against Trump’s shoulder and resist two attempted yanks. The lesson here is that when you pull covert power moves whether they’re conscious or not, word is likely to get out and it may wind up backfiring in the long run. The good news for you is that in 29 years of my life, I have never come across someone who shook hands like Donald Trump does so you’re unlikely to need to physically brace yourself against someone’s shoulder but I promise you will come across all manner of weird handshakes and some may even be your fault which is why I thought it would be good to cover how to shake hands properly. This may seem obvious but it’s very simple to mess up and, who knows, maybe Donald Trump will even watch this and we can avoid this kind of stuff happening again. Just to be clear, the shake that I’m talking about in this video is the business handshake — not the fist bump, not the bro hug — maybe those will be in another video. For this, the mentality is that handshakes are not your chance to prove how dominant you are. There’s a chance to build trust. The goal is not for your body language to show raw power but to show that you are warm, assertive, and not hiding anything. So don’t treat it as a dominance contest or else you’re starting off in an adversarial frame which is not great for business. Second off, in a professional business environment, at least in America, this is the most common greeting for people of all levels both male and female. Obviously, you have a whole lot more options in social settings but this is the go-to greeting at work. Now that that is said for the mechanics, the biggest issue is not knowing whether or not you should be shaking someone’s hand. Check out this video for an example. Look at this lucky policeman who gets to shake hands with the president of the United States. Oh, and here comes the prime minister of th— No. Gordon Brown winds up looking kind of like a jerk because he didn’t take that guy’s hand so the safe bet is to always shake someone’s hand the first time you meet them or if handshaking has already started amongst that group — don’t be the guy sitting out not shaking hands. And you communicate that you’re ready to shake someone’s hand simply by extending your hand usually two to three steps before you get close enough to reach that person. Wait any longer like Gordon Brown did in this clip and it could be confusing. So it might look something like this. Good morning. Good morning. The second and very important piece with regards to mechanics is to keep your fingers fairly straight on the approach. The problem with curled fingers is that it doesn’t give the other person a good angle to connect the web between their thumb and forefinger with yours combine this with the lack of tension in your muscles, after all it is tension that forces your hand open, and it means that you’ll wind up giving them the dead fish handshake where they can only grab your fingers. If this consistently happens to you, uncurl your fingers. You want to make it easy for the other person to connect the web between your thumb and index finger and the uncurled fingers make that much, much easier. Merkel does much better in this clip. Third, come in with your hand at a vertical angle — this typically requires you to face the person with whom you’re shaking hands. If you find people are often grabbing your fingers, it’s usually because you are tilting your hands palm downward and not giving a big enough target for the web of your hands. Ignore the awkwardness of the double shake in this next clip and just watch how the fact that Trudeau is facing forward makes it hard for him to give Obama his hand at a neutral angle creating a finger shake. Another issue that causes bad handshakes is when you start shaking a hand before you’ve actually connected hands and this is most likely to happen in groups when you’ve shaken a bunch of hands and your hand is just in shake mode before you’re actually touching people’s hands. It looks like this. This is a Key and Peele skit but the handshake here is actually natural and the point stands. If you want that handshake to connect, you need to touch webs first, grasp the hand, and then shake. It’s particularly important to keep in mind in groups because sometimes that hand just keeps going. When you do it right, it looks like this. Lastly, give the hand a squeeze only after the web of your hand connects. If you squeeze before that connection, you will wind up just gripping fingers and this is what bone crusher guys tend to do and it does not make you well-liked. Here’s an example of that. Finally, once you’ve got their hand in yours, give two to three shakes and you’re good to go. In some, decide that you’re shaking hands and make that clear by extending your hand two to three steps before you arrive in their space. If you’re forced to close quarters with someone before shaking hands, stick your hand out decisively so that they see it and don’t ignore you. You may even have to gently grab their other shoulder if they don’t see your hand the first time. And then, keep your hand at a vertical angle with your fingers uncurled, hit the web of their hand with the web of yours before grabbing and you’re set. And perhaps the most important thing, if no one shakes your hand because they don’t see it, you can always just do it yourself. And if you’re curious about the other elements of a great first impression that are not just shaking hands, we’ve set up a video that covers four things that you’ll want to keep in mind. If you want to check that video out, click the button on the screen now. You’re going to be taken to another page where you can submit your email and get immediate access to that video, now. Also, if you like this video and want to see more on the topic of charisma and confidence, make sure to click the subscribe button now. If you really want to see more videos, make sure to hit the notification bell as well. Otherwise, it’s just kind of recommendations from our channel and the sidebar from time to time. Subscribe is plenty. Either way, I’m making new videos every single week to help you master your charisma and I hope that you decide to watch. Drop any comments that you have for video topics below. I have a couple of ideas up my sleeve for this next week but nothing a hundred percent so your comments really can help tip the balance if there’s something you’re particularly interested in — I’ll be keeping an eye on those. I hope that you’ve enjoyed this video and I look forward to seeing you in the next one. By the way, Happy Carnival.

Julia Gillard’s ‘misogyny speech’ in full | ABC News

is that the motion be agreed to. I call the Prime Minister. [JULIA GILLARD] Thank you very much Deputy Speaker and I rise to oppose the motion moved
by the Leader of the Opposition, and in so doing I say to the Leader of the Opposition:
I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the government will
not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man—not now, not ever. The Leader
of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not
appropriate for high office. Well, I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of
paper and he is writing out his resignation, because if he wants to know what misogyny
looks like in modern Australia he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives;
he needs a mirror. That is what he needs. Let’s go through the opposition leader’s repulsive
double standards when it comes to misogyny and sexism. We are now supposed to take seriously
that the Leader of the Opposition is offended by Mr Slipper’s text messages, when this is
the Leader of the Opposition who has said, and this was when he was a minister under the last government—not when he was a student, not when he was in high school, (but) when he was a minister under the last government. He has said, and I quote, in a discussion about women being underrepresented in institutions of power in Australia, the interviewer was a man called Stavros, the Leader of the
Opposition said: “If it’s true, Stavros, that men have more power, generally speaking, than
women, is that a bad thing?” And then a discussion ensues and another person
being interviewed says, “I want my daughter to have as much opportunity as my son,” to
which the Leader of the Opposition says: “Yeah, I completely agree, but what if men are, by
physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or to issue command?” Then
ensues another discussion about women’s role in modern society, and the other person participating
in the discussions says, “I think it’s very hard to deny that there is an underrepresentation
of women,” to which the Leader of the Opposition says, “But now, there’s an assumption that this
is a bad thing.” This is the man from whom we are supposed to take lectures about sexism. And then, or course, it goes on. I was very offended personally when the Leader of the Opposition as minister for health said, and I quote, “Abortion is the easy way out.” I was very personally offended by those comments. You said that in March 2004.
I suggest you check the records. I was also very offended on behalf of the women of Australia
when in the course of this carbon pricing campaign the Leader of the Opposition said, “What the
housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing …” Thank you for that
painting of women’s roles in modern Australia! And then, of course, I was offended too by the sexism,
by the misogyny, of the Leader of the Opposition catcalling across this table at me as I sit
here as Prime Minister, “if the Prime Minister wants to, politically speaking, make an honest
woman of herself …” — something that would never have been said to any man sitting in this
chair. I was offended when the Leader of the Opposition
went outside in the front of parliament and stood next to a sign that said ‘Ditch the
witch’. I was offended when the Leader of the Opposition stood next to a sign that described
me as a man’s bitch. I was offended by those things. Misogyny, sexism, every day
from this Leader of the Opposition. Every day, in every way, across the time the Leader
of the Opposition has sat in that chair and I have sat in this chair, that is all we have
heard from him. And now the Leader of the Opposition wants to
be taken seriously. Apparently he’s woken up, after this track record and all of these
statements, he’s woken up and he’s gone, “Oh dear, there’s this thing called sexism; oh my lord, there’s this thing called misogyny. Now who’s one of them? Oh, the Speaker must be because that
suits my political purpose” (He) doesn’t turn a hair about any of his past statements, doesn’t walk into this parliament and apologise to the women of Australia, doesn’t walk into
this parliament and apologise to me for the things that have come out of his mouth—but
(he) now seeks to use this as a battering ram against someone else. Well this kind of hypocrisy
should not be tolerated, which is why this motion from the Leader of the Opposition should
not be taken seriously. And then second, the Leader of the Opposition is always
wonderful about walking into this parliament and giving me and others a lecture about what
they should take responsibility for; always wonderful about that – everything that I should
take responsibility for, now apparently including the text messages of the member for Fisher.
Always keen to say others should assume responsibility, particularly me. Well can anybody
remind me if the Leader of the Opposition has taken any responsibility for the conduct
of the Sydney Young Liberals and the attendance at this event of members of his frontbench?
Has he taken any responsibility for the conduct of members of his political party and members
of his frontbench, who apparently when the most vile things were being said about my
family raised no voice of objection. (Government members interjecting)
[DEPUTY SPEAKER] Order! [GILLARD]: No-one walked out of the room,
no-one walked up to Mr Jones and said that this was not acceptable. Instead, of course, it was all viewed as good fun—until it was run in a Sunday newspaper, and then the Leader of the
Opposition and others started ducking for cover. (He is) big on lectures of responsibility,
very light on accepting responsibility himself for the vile conduct of members of his political party. Third, Ms Deputy Speaker, why the Leader
of the Opposition should not be taken seriously on this motion. The Leader of the Opposition
and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have come into this place and have talked about the
member for Fisher. Well let me remind the opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition particularly,
about their track record and association with the member for Fisher. I remind them that
the National Party preselected the member for Fisher for the 1984 election, that the
National Party preselected the member for Fisher for the 1987 election, that the
Liberal Party preselected the member for Fisher for the 1993 election, then for the 1996 election,
then for the 1998 election, then for the 2001 election, then for the 2004 election, then
for the 2007 election and then for the 2010 election. And across many of those preselections
Mr Slipper enjoyed the personal support of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the
Leader of the Opposition that on 28 September 2010, following the last election campaign
when Mr Slipper was elected as Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition at that stage said this, and I quote; he referred to the member for Maranoa, who was also elected to a position at the same time, and then went on as follows: ‘… and the member for Fisher will serve as a fine complement to the member for Scullin in the chair. I
believe that the parliament will be well served by the team which will occupy the chair in
this chamber … I congratulate the member for Fisher, who has been a friend of mine
for a very long time, who has served this parliament in many capacities with distinction …’
The words of the Leader of the Opposition on record about his personal friendship with
Mr Slipper and on record about his view about Mr Slipper’s qualities and attributes to be
the Speaker. (There is) no walking away from those words—they were the statements of
the Leader of the Opposition then. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, who
now comes in here and speaks about Mr Slipper and apparently his inability to work with
or talk to Mr Slipper, I remind the Leader of the Opposition, he attended Mr Slipper’s wedding. Did he walk up to Mr Slipper in the middle of the service and say he was disgusted to be there? Was that the attitude
he took? No, he attended that wedding as a friend. The Leader of the Opposition, keen
to lecture others about what they ought to know or did know about Mr Slipper but, with
respect, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition after a long personal association,
including attending Mr Slipper’s wedding, it would be interesting to know whether the
Leader of the Opposition was surprised by these text messages. He is certainly in a
position to speak more intimately about Mr Slipper than I am and many other people in
this parliament, given this long personal association. Then, of course, the Leader of the Opposition comes into this place and says, and I quote: “Every day the Prime Minister stands in
this parliament to defend this Speaker will be another day of shame for this parliament;
another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame.” Well, can I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition, the government is not dying of shame,
my father did not die of shame. What the Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of is
his performance in this parliament and the sexism he brings with it. Now, about the text messages that are on the public record, (Opposition members interjecting) [JENNY MACKLIN]: You used those words. It is a quote. [GILLARD] That is a direct quote from the
Leader of the Opposition, so I suggest those groaning have a word with him. On the conduct of Mr Slipper and on the text
messages which are in the public domain—I have seen the press reports of those text
messages, I am offended by their content. I am offended by their content because I am
always offended by sexism. I am offended by their content because I am always offended
by statements that are anti-women. I am offended by those things in the same way I have been
offended by things that the Leader of the Opposition has said, and no doubt will continue to say
in the future, because if this, today, was an exhibition of his new feminine side, well
I don’t think we have much to look forward to in terms of changed conduct. I am offended by those text messages but I
also believe that, in terms of this parliament, making a decision about the speakership, that his parliament should recognise that there is court case in progress, that the judge has reserved his decision, that having
waited for a number of months for the legal matters surrounding Mr Slipper to come to
a conclusion, that this parliament should see that conclusion. I believe that is the appropriate
path forward and that people will then have an opportunity to make up their minds with
the fullest information available to them. But, whenever people make up their minds about
those questions, what I won’t stand for, what I will never stand for, is the Leader of
the Opposition coming into this place and peddling a double standard; peddling
a standard for Mr Slipper he would not set for himself, peddling
a standard for Mr Slipper he has not set for other members of his frontbench; peddling
a standard for Mr Slipper that has not been acquitted by the people who have been sent out to say the vilest and most
revolting things, like his former shadow parliamentary
secretary, Senator Bernardi. I will not ever see the Leader of the Opposition seek to impose his double standard on this parliament. Sexism should always be unacceptable. We should
conduct ourselves as it should be always unacceptable.
The Leader of the Opposition says, ‘Do something.’ Well he could do something himself if he wants
to deal with sexism in this parliament. He could change his behaviour, he could apologise
for all his past statements, he could apologise for standing next to signs describing me as
a witch and a bitch—terminology that is now objected to by the frontbench of the opposition. He
could change a standard himself if he sought to do so. But we will see none of that from
the Leader of the Opposition, because on these questions he is incapable of change. (He is)
capable of double standards but incapable of change. His double standards should not
rule this parliament. Good sense, common sense, proper process
is what should rule this parliament. That’s what I believe is the path forward for
this parliament, not the kind of double standards and political game-playing imposed by the
Leader of the Opposition, (who is) now looking at his watch because, apparently, a woman’s spoken too long—I’ve had him yell at me to shut up in the past. But I will take the remaining seconds of my
speaking time to say to the Leader of the Opposition I think the best course for
him is to reflect on the standards he has exhibited in public life, on the responsibility
he should take for his public statements, on his close personal connection with Peter
Slipper, on the hypocrisy he has displayed in this House today. And on that basis, because
of the Leader of the Opposition’s motivations, this parliament today should reject this motion,
and the Leader of the Opposition should think seriously about the role of women in public
life and in Australian society—because we are entitled to a better standard than this. [GOVERNMENT MEMBERS] Hear hear!