Put yourself within the sights of the Murdoch perpetual war machine and prepare to be shot at.
Fortunately its aim is not very good.
My turn came yesterday in the form of a classic hit job by the loyal soldier Chris Mitchell in The Australian titled “Reporters should give thought to how they are used by activist lawyers”.
I’m an activist lawyer, whatever that means.
Mitchell opens with a hilarious lawyer joke from the evergreen humorist Paddy McGuinness (deceased), then the first of many baseless assertions: that there has been an outbreak of “activist lawyers recruit[ing] journalists to their causes, usually involving calls for judicial inquiries. All with enormous billing opportunities for lawyers.” Greedy, tricksy lawyers.
Next, an excursion into an irrelevant debate about the social value of a truth-telling commission on colonisation, strangled into this killer argument: “In a world where victimhood is a status symbol [yeah I had to read that twice too] commissions of inquiry may give the powerless power to proclaim their disadvantage. They certainly give activists, especially activist lawyers, a platform for publicity, plus large fees.”
There it is again. The avarice.
So it is, Mitchell goes on, with calls for an inquiry into the historical rape allegation against Christian Porter — which he strenuously denies. A claim which the complainant “withdrew” before ending her life. (She didn’t withdraw it, by the way. The day before taking her life she told the NSW Police she wouldn’t be pursuing it further.)
“Activist lawyers and legal academics claim rape victims are discriminated against by traditional concepts such as the ‘burden of proof’ and ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’. They say women, like victims of child sexual assault, must be believed.”
Wrong, wrong and wrong. No lawyer I know of, certainly not me, has claimed any of those things. What we have said is that the allegation against Porter is serious, and holding an inquiry is essential to preserve the integrity of the office of public trust that he holds.
Nobody has suggested the allegation must be believed. It should not, however, be dismissed on Porter’s denial alone.
But we continue: “This is a decades-long campaign. At its heart is lawyer Michael Bradley.” Aha. Although, decades? Not sure where that came from. Anyway, Mitchell reports that I represented Kate, who made the allegation against Porter (yes I did), and Brittany Higgins (no I did not).
Time to introduce a tantalising subplot: ABC reporter Louise Milligan, who “says she met Bradley the day after the woman’s suicide”. She didn’t, and she’s never said she did. Mitchell goes on, discussing how Milligan got hold of the letter about Kate’s allegation that someone sent to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, about which she then reported and is now being sued by Porter.
Relevance to me? None, but the implication is hard to miss. Although I’m not sure if I’ve been manipulating Milligan or she’s been manipulating me.
We move on to a benign canvassing of my involvement in a legal dispute between “feminist campaigner and journalist” Nina Funnell and Bettina Arndt, and my firm Marque Lawyers’ partnering with Funnell, End Rape On Campus and, um, Mitchell’s employer News Corp, on the very public Let Her Speak law reform campaign. In other words, legal work that a lawyer might do.
Then, randomly: “Marque also has a formal financial relationship with GetUp, a strong supporter of the Labor Party.” Well, that is a smoking gun, I admit, if you ignore the fact that we haven’t had any interaction with GetUp for over five years and never had a “formal financial relationship”, whatever that means, unless he means we did legal work for it and it paid us for it, which did actually happen.
The point to all these excursions, apparently, is that although it is “fair enough, and all a legitimate part of political lobbying”, most journalists and politicians “don’t know all this”. And voters “may have a different view”.
So now I’m a lobbyist? Ew. That’s almost as insulting as calling me a politician. Or a News Corp hack columnist.
I am not entirely sure what I’ve been accused of — something about failing to disclose my relationships with clients I don’t act for or my status as a secret agent of the Labor Party — but I guess the real clue is in the headline. I’ve been “using” journalists to further my activist agenda, which itself is really just a stratagem for making lots of money.
Defamatory? Yeah, I’d say so. To be honest though, I’m more offended by the terrible writing, non-existent fact-checking, incoherent logic and the sheer inept laziness of the whole thing.
He gets paid to do this? I mean seriously, if you’re going to try to do me over, at least get out of your pyjamas and write something that doesn’t read like a random collation of the bits the editor cut from someone else’s column.
Actually, maybe that’s what this was.
The headline should have read: “Calls grow for inquiry into lawyers caught red-handed engaging in legal practice. Sometimes even for fees.”
PS: we acted for Kate pro bono. If you were wondering.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.
Follow the team that follows the money
Nobody digs into corruption in this country better than Crikey does.
Now we’re digging even deeper with our new multi-part series, The Dirty Country: Corruption in Australia, where our team lifts the lid on corruption, telling us how it’s done, who wins and what it costs.
Get involved. Follow the team that follows the money. Save 50% on a year of Crikey — that’s just $99 for an annual membership — when you subscribe today with the promo code CORRUPTION.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
Michael Bradley looks a lot like John Roskam from the IPA. Has anyone seen them together anywhere? They are both zealots though from different angles. It seems to me one is the evil twin of the other. How can we tell which is which?
By their words shall ye know them.
Knock Knock … is that you Mitchel?
John Roskam is a science-denying zealot for the coal/oil/gas businesses that fund the IPA. Michael Bradley is a perfectly sensible lawyer who writes very well. And, by the way, has painted a very poor picture of the former Editor of The Australian, “at least get out of your pyjamas and write something that doesn’t read like a random collation of the bits the editor cut from someone else’s column.” GOLD!
Deflection…. You forgot that ‘freedom of speech on campus’ zealot Drew Pavlou does not look like the IPA’s John Roskam, and so what?
While Pavlou (like his fellow traveller Bettina Arndt) pretends to have nothing to do with the IPA while promoting exactly the same issues. This is normally via NewsCorp and any other media outlet which will give him oxygen (Like IPA graduate or ‘fellow’ Tim Wilson popping up in HK for some media opportunities in promoting ‘freedom’…..)
There is an unfortunate slight likeness, not likely to bother Mr Bradley at all. But speaking the truth is hardly zealotry, and if it was Roskam would never be accused of it.
In terms of Roskam’s appearance, you can’t help but recall the old joke about shaving a dog’s bum and training it to walk backwards…
Join the club of litigation. Chris could do to a lose of a few pounds….financially and physically.
“Pro bono” Good oh… Perhaps Michael would be generous enough to work for Crikey pro bono too – in their comment moderation dept (if they have an actual human doing that). I understand Crikey is terrified of being sued (fair enough), but claiming “Crikey isn’t the quiet type” and then banning any commentary by its brilliantly informative readers is bit weak…
The comments ban only stated after Porter’s press conference, before that the usual suspect were all allowed to weigh in. And they did! I was certainly able to learn that the ABC had Porter in its sights by reading Crikey. But sshhh…Best keep that quiet now…
I think you’ve demonstrated there are ways of getting your comments across on crikey.com.au, btri…
…and a disregard for reality.
Pity that you took the matter personally and not as a rather good example of post-truth. Addressing the issue in that context would have been considerably more edifying.
As to standards of English the head line ought read
“The Oz and I..”
The implication of the title is fairly clearly that it is about the Oz and the author, in which case the pronoun ‘me’ is entirely correct. But full marks for condescension, as always.
The grammar as printed is not correct and hence my remark. Similarly for “me and X” while we are on the point.
If uncertain refer to the speeches of the Queen during her visits to the country from the mid 1950s. The services of a retired primary school teacher in their 70s+ would do as well.
Ras, I wouldn’t go claiming superiority in matters grammatical if I were you.
“I would have liked to have nominated…”
“I can’t imagine as to why…”
Shall I provide some examples front Richard Sheridan or similar?
Just because the verb is not there, doesn’t make it implicit or explicit for that matter, Eras.
But the Queen???? Well I suppose, it’s her English.
If there is no verb – aka “a doing word” as we were taught in infant school – then there is no sentence orcompleted thought.
Which, come to think of it, describe much of what passes for public discourse, esp the flatulence found in pollispeek – it is rarely intended to convey information but great at sprinkling emotion trigger words, unmoored from reason, which is the forte of tabloids – dead tree or electrons.
Geez some people have a basic understanding of grammar.
A clause with no verb (aka a phrase) can be subjective or objective Aggie. That determines whether the personal pronouns are in nominative or objective case.
Without a verb there can be no “nominative or objective case” – it would be an ejaculation or expectoration, just a agglomeration of words well suited to meaningless slogans or headlines.
As someone seemed to suggest above, some people lack “a basic understanding of grammar“.
Oh, wait…
Maybe Crikey has ‘headline’ people, like other papers do.
Pity when one is able to correct the punctuation in newspapers when, decades ago, the standard was reasonable to good and exemplary for some newspapers.
A fortnight ago you made the same error in attempting to defend the misuse of nominative/accusative.
I showed, in simple steps, why your contention was incorrect, “as always”.
What about the font, Rassie? Is that to your liking?
Does Mr Bradley get to write the titles for his articles? I thought most journalists and authors in newspapers and journals didn’t write the titles for their articles.
In all likelihood : yes, but the comment prevails
The header was probably written by one the grammar challenged staff.
However the slab of petulant petal prose itself was laden with sufficient grammatical howlers that it would, in days of yore, have been illegible (rather than just sub literate) due to red ink, had it been handed in by a 6th former.
The quintessential example that I have used with undergraduate students in Asia is the correspondence between the AG (Brandis) and the Solicitor General. Fearful!
You da man, Raz!