Australian Politics, Mark II


How about instead of telling women to be careful when walking around, tell men to stop attacking and raping women. Cos I’m really farking sick and tired of having to constantly monitor my behaviour in anticipation of potential threats.


Of course you are 100% correct, but I do not know any blokes who attack and rape women. I know they exist and I want to make sure others are safe from them.


There is a actually a saying that goes something like

“Every guy knows a girl who’s been sexually assaulted, but no guy knows a guy who’s ever done it”

Very true.


On Setka, I didnt find any of his alleged insults publised in the age to his ex any more harrassing than what is standard between many others fighting and carrying on verbally. There was nothing published threatening physical violence.

Now if this means he is now guilty of harrassment and this is something thats happened since Rosie has called for more action. Perhaps his comments were spot on. (who knows)

I dont agree with violence against women or threats of violence.

But if someone calls you a ct or a f*em dog and well you have given good reason too. Well aside from hurt feelings I say grow up. Women throw insults to men all the time like this in bad relationships.

If he threatened to actually physically hurt his ex? Well thats a different story all together. He has the responsibility not too.


Don’t mistake good advice for victim blaming. There is a difference.


I remember when a couple of Indian students were murdered walking through a gloomy park after dark in Footscray.

And you’d think “walk where it’s well lit”.

Same advice goes to everybody.

Didn’t help Jill Meagher unfortunately. There are scum everywhere.

I only have certain knowledge of one bloke who’s raped or assaulted a woman. Plenty of others I wouldn’t be surprised by, though.


Violence goes beyond the physical. Also, understand he is pleading guilty to harassment in respect of many threatening messages.


About 40 isnt it according to what you can go by in the age? (what the outrage is about)

And no violence by definition is by physical force.

Harrassment? Perhaps. Id say there are Millions of relationships where 40 abusive text messages occur, both ways.

Clogs up the courts and fairly vindictive. But hey thats just me on the evidence presented in the age. Which I understand what this outrage is based on.

Using Rosie Batty is perhaps in bad taste by this Setka bloke, or perhaps they are indeed Rosie Batty laws. I dont know enough about how the law has been written…

I do know we have some law which is way open to interpretation.

And this looks like it doesnt need to be clogging up the courts.

An adult would block her/his number and move on. Thats just the face of it and obviously there is more to the story.


According to Victorian law at least, violence extends beyond physical acts to include psychological or emotional injury. Family violence intervention orders cover behaviour which causes fear, including emotional and financial abuse.
And in some circumstances gaslighting and stalking can be more harmful than a physical act


Right. I go by the definition in the Oxford Dictionary. If that is the law in Victoria and its become só since Rosie Battys anti domestic violence campaign I can see where he is coming from.

Insulting sure can be harrassment. This bloke Setka looks pretty big. But being big doesnt mean someone should just be intimidated by you. Insulting someone smaller than you… Yeah not a good look. But geez I dunno. Criminal charges? I have read worse on Blitz.

Perhaps he might have threatened his ex, but that is not what is reported in the Age newspaper.

Civil Liverty on face value really is up for discussion.


Victorian laws, including the Victim’s Charter on the handling of complaints, predate the death of Batty’s son.


Vanders, good to know that you don’t agree with violence against women or threats of women. And I personally don’t object to being insulted or sworn at so we’re at one there also.

That said, it’s all about context isn’t it? Two characters of roughly equal size, age, authority etc participating in a “willing exchange” may clear the air and enable them to get to the crux of the problem they’re having.

However I’m sure that you’d agree that you don’t have to actually threaten a person to come across as threatening so it’s a question of where one (and the law) draws the line.

I’m not sure that I’d be that comfortable with a bruiser like John Setka hurling insults at me, especially if I was his much more petite and delicate ex. If you were her, that could be interpreted as threatening don’t you think?

Regardless, I reckon that we’ve got on obligation to ourselves: you, me, our partners, our kids, the community at large not to present as threatening or violent. Strong, resolved, principled – yes. But overbearing, threatening or violent, no. Of course, it’s an aspiration and we’re going to fail sometimes but I still think that it’s important to have something to aim at. And I’m sure John Setka performance falls a long way short of him at his best.


Just to pick you up on that Vanders, I had a quick look at the Oxford Dictionary (online only) for violent and found this:
“Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”
‘a violent confrontation with riot police’
1.1 Law ‘Involving an unlawful exercise or exhibition of force’

It’s the definition at law that caught my eye, the ‘unlawful exercise or exhibition of force’ so even in the Oxford there’s a definition that’s not confined to actual force.

However, the legal definition of ‘family violence’ in section 5 of the Family Violence Act is much more comprehensive:

5 Meaning of family violence
(1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence is—

  1. (a) behaviour by a person towards a family member of that person if that behaviour:
    (i) is physically or sexually abusive; or
    (ii) is emotionally or psychologically abusive; or
    (iii) is economically abusive; or
    (iv) is threatening; or
    (v) is coercive; or
    (vi) in any other way controls or dominates the family member and causes that family member to feel fear for the safety or wellbeing of that family member or another person.

As you can see from the act the law itself, certainly in Victoria, is explicit in that it lists a broad range of threatening behaviour under its definition of family violence.

Of course, you are free to disagree with it or query the law. Regardless, as it stands, John Setka’s conduct certainly falls under its definition.

And by the way, that act was passed in 2008, close to a decade before Rosie Batty lost her son, Luke, to her mentally ill ex-partner. A complete tragedy for all involved. I cannot but admire Ms Batty for her incredible capacity to find something redeeming in her loss


Albanese may be using Batty and family violence issues as camouflage for a wider power struggle. For instance, if he has the NSW branch of the CCFMEU in his pocket, but does not enjoy support from the Victorian branch?


Setka is in the middle of a massive factional shitfight in Labor. The Left has split into Socialist Left and Industrial Left mostly over seats in Parliament, and a few other issues over policy.

There was no reason for Albo to stick his head into the Setka Saga, but he is flexing his new muscle, probably just to show he can. Not good Leadership in my view, and sadly a sign of things to come. Labor may be farked for a long time.



agree whole heartedly. but read the texts quoted in the age.

they arent “I am going to do X to you, or you will be sorry for Y etc etc”.
They “appear” to be course insults aimed at how the other person has behaved.

Now in this context Setka as I understand it has pleaded guilty to harrassment and he thinks this is due to the environment Rosie Batty has assisted in creating through her independent fight on treating domestic violence. (as far as I can understand). This may be incredulous and totally mistaken, or behind closed doors many in the legal fraternity may agree with him. Who knows.l, I am not a lawyer and not someone who has hung out at the courts.

What I do understand is the contents of a news article that has generated outrage in the media and the ALP.

On that evidence, I think it appears to be a little hysterical and and drawing a little bit of a long bow.

And I think I feel for anyone thats been taken out of context. On that basis you can’t ask for someone to quit their job. kick them out of their clubs and associations.

I am far, very far from a Union sympathiser or protector of grubs or bullies. And on many instances I’d prob be happy that Setka “got what’s coming to him”. (had that pathetic stunt with his kids is the only thing I really know about him).

To me this all seems to be overkill and pure outrage for the sake of it. Let the guy settle with his Ex partner.The relationship obviously brought out the worst in him, and let this guy get on with his life.


I agree that this is far wider than just a ‘Rosie Batty’ thing. Albo, the ‘greatest parliamentarian if our generation’ is playing power politics here without a doubt. Whether he has bitten off more than he can chew we will have to wait and see. By doing this early in the term Albo is giving himself time to position himself as someone not beholden to the more radical elements of the movement. I won’t be surprised if the CMFEU is up for degistration/expulsion from the ALP next, particularly if Setka digs his heels in


Never going to happen. CFMEU may choose to tell the ALP to fark off, but they could never be deregistered, as they have too many votes on the Admin Committee. Albo is going to get bitten on the bum over this.


Setka’s alleged comments came out of a CFMEU national committee meeting. Whether true or not, he clearly has enemies within that committee who presumably want him gone. That’d be of more concern to him than the Labor Party wanting him expelled - but only if he feels that the Victorian executive are similarly split on him. If he doesn’t, he won’t care. If he does, it’ll get ugly. Transition of leadership groups in Vic Construction unions can be ‘interesting’.

I’ve little time for this bloke. Lowest common denominator thug. The CFMEU could go about things differently and still get the same outcome imo. But it’s a tough industry and the rank and file like tough talking and tough acting blokes.