Christian Porter has discontinued his defamation case against the ABC and reporter Louise Milligan for coverage of historical rape allegations. For the friends of Kate, Porter’s alleged victim, the ending is bittersweet.
Although the ABC won’t have to spend truckloads of finite resources defending itself, Kate’s friends and supporters won’t have to defend her name against harsh lawyers, and Porter won’t have to crowdfund legal fees, it also means the information the ABC has to support its truth defence stays secret while an independent inquiry into his suitability to remain in Parliament remains unannounced.
Suppressed information
Early into the defamation case, the public was already being robbed of detail. Most of the ABC’s 37-page defence was redacted at Porter’s lawyers’ request. They also tried to block a key affidavit from Macquarie Bank managing director James Hooke and lost — although the affidavit has still not been released. Other media organisations are pursuing a legal case to get the defence released.
Kate’s childhood friend and former Liberal candidate Jeremy Samuel tells Crikey he believes the public deserves to know what case the ABC would have put forward.
“The public deserves to know the full story,” he said. “It’s kind of bittersweet because it means that [Porter’s] managed to suppress that information.”
Milligan says Porter was first to propose a settlement. In contrast, Porter called the action a “humiliating backdown” by the ABC.
The ABC will cover the costs of mediation and have added two paragraphs to its story, including: “The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged.”
Courses of action
Prime Minister Scott Morrison had previously said the defamation heading was the “appropriate inquiry” to assess the allegations and Porter’s suitability to keep his role.
Now the case has been discontinued, Morrison remains silent on whether an independent inquiry into the allegations will be held, for which Kate’s friends have long advocated.
March4Justice ralliers also presented a petition for an independent inquiry, and the Greens have proposed an independent inquiry into Porter’s fitness to be a minister.
The South Australian coroner is investigating Kate’s death and that may lead to a public coronial inquest. Kate took her life in June last year.
Nothing resolved
Kate’s 1988 debate teammate and friend Ian Wilkins tells Crikey the defamation saga had “resolved nothing”.
“For the people who cared about Kate when she was alive, the withdrawal by the accused man of his defamation case against the ABC resolves nothing as to the question of justice for Kate,” he said.
“In this very difficult situation, justice must begin with a full, proper and thorough inquiry into the truth regarding Kate’s allegations.”
Instead the defamation suit shut down dialogue around the allegations, hindered the prospect of an inquiry and cost taxpayers a tidy sum to learn nothing new about our elected official.
If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.
Save this EOFY while you make a difference
Australia has spoken. We want more from the people in power and deserve a media that keeps them on their toes. And thank you, because it’s been made abundantly clear that at Crikey we’re on the right track.
We’ve pushed our journalism as far as we could go. And that’s only been possible with reader support. Thank you. And if you haven’t yet subscribed, this is your time to join tens of thousands of Crikey members to take the plunge.
Editor-in-chief
Leave a comment
i hope and pray that the electorate he is in kick him to the curb, will be self rughteous justice to see him get his justuce served to him by his electorate.
OK so the ABC cannot divulge their evidence, but what prevents someone else releasing Kate’s dossier to the public?
Her friends will have kept a copy, and releasing it to the public now would be a fitting response to Porter’s shameless stonewalling.
“The public deserves to know the full story” – If this is going to be played out in the court of public opinion, does the public also deserve to know the identity of the accuser and her character/background etc so they can make their own assessment? Do they also get access to the confidential discussion between Jo Dyer and Porters ex-lawyer? Were there untoward motives on either side in setting up that fateful meeting with Jo Dyer? What about the claims her friends were acting like a cult? Or are we only looking at publishing the dirt on CP while protecting everyone else’s right to confidentiality/privacy? ‘Full story’ should mean full story.
Hi Curious, I am curious as to your use of this name since an actual curious person would find it is not hard to discover “the identity of the accuser” and at least some details of her “character/background”. The background to the meeting between Dyer and Mr Porter’s barrister would be interesting to know, but I was intrigued by your use of the word “untoward”; since the motives could just as well have been “toward” or even irrelevant, so this seems to indicate a pre-judgement on your part. As to who made the claims that friends = cult — that’s news to me and frankly it sound absurd. As to “protecting everyone else’s right to confidentiality/privacy”, the accuser’s identity is no secret to the truly curious along with some information on her life and career (as mentioned above) as are the identities of her friends and defenders. So, where’s the beef?
Im aware of who Kate is. I’ve read the stuff thats been published, the letter, the diaries, her mental health issues and her parents take on the accusations. But I’m not Joe Public, I had to go looking long and hard to find some of it. You said “…no secret to the truly curious….” that’s my point. It needs to be as readily accessible to people as the backgrounding on CP.
Why did I use the word ‘untoward’ – that meeting has done considerable damage to CPs plans. I’m not fully across the motivation to have the meeting. Was SueC seeking confidential info she shouldn’t have knowing she would likely been CPs lawyer, or conversely did they set out to plant a CoI so she couldn’t. Maybe both are true. Maybe neither. So no, Im not making any pre-judgement at all.
‘Her friends are acting like a Cult’? No its not at all absurd. Widely reported in the last 24 hours. Read for yourself https://www.google.com/search?q=porter+cult
And Ill reiterate, “If this is going to be played out in the court of public opinion” I never thought it should be and I never thought Kate’s back story should be publicised….but if it is going to be a public judgement then just like in court the rules need to be applied equally. Seems everything of CPs is on the table, so in the interests of fairness I think everything about Kate needs to be on the table too, as horrible as that is for her family.
“Everything of CPs is on the table …”
Really? You think so? I couldn’t imagine we’ve read or heard any more than the tip of the iceberg.
So would you agree in principle that if the court releases the unredacted 37 page defense, THEN would you say the public deserves a comprehensive back ground on Kate? Her employment history, medical diagnoses and treatment etc.
Keen to hear your response.
I am not Dog’s breakfast, but I can’t see why on earth the release of part of its case that was embargoed but the ABC agreed to withdraw would require the release of any information about the illnesses suffered by the woman who accused him of rape, an accusation that CP has vehemently denied. Her illnesses occurred years after the event she alleges occurred in 1988, and which CP denies, and she discussed it with friends before she was ill. So, please, Curious, as I see it, you are far too curious about her medical condition, which is subject to in part to confidentiality, for one not to wonder whether you think the release of this information might support a view very briefly canvassed in the media that her illness led her to make up her allegations against CP, which he vehemently denies? That is a very silly view, since her allegations predate her illnesses.
Im not going to get into what her medical history is, and what should be released… But you are incorrect given what I have read in official public reports. Please seek out that info yourself. That’s all Im going to say as I actually respect her right to privacy, which I know is going to confuse the hell out of you.
My point remains the same. ** IF ** this is going to be tried in the court of public opinion (and it shouldnt be), and releasing endless salacious and largely irrelevant background info on CP as “evidence” is part of that tactic, then it seems reasonable for the public to be given more information on Kates background which is very relevant.
Ultimately an inquiry should be behind closed doors so that EVERYTHING about both parties can be tabled.
Lets be honest, most of the commenters here are specifically calling for CP to be grilled in public, not to be grilled per se. They are after maximum damage, not the truth.
I have read about her illness too and you are incorrect about her illness, which postdates her encounters with CP from 1988 to 1994. It is, in any case irrelevant. No one has suggested, apart from one journalist , who then immediately dropped the story, that she could have made up the story, shared with a number of friends, as a result of illness.
“I couldn’t imagine we’ve read or heard any more than the tip of the iceberg”. Could you imagine that there MIGHT be relevant info about Kate that hasn’t been disclosed. Im NOT saying there is, but we need to apply the same rules to all involved here.
”I never thought it should be and I never thought Kate’s back story should be publicised”
But your happy to spread rumours about her friends “acting like they’re in a cult”. I detect a certain slant on your interest in this story.
BTW, legal advice can’t be shared, so not much likelihood of getting any traction on that one.
Hi Dogs Breakfast,
Do you read newspapers or just Crikey? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/26/friends-of-christian-porters-accuser-threatened-to-make-things-very-bad-for-his-barrister-court-hears
Do you still think Im spreading rumors?
So thats the second Porter lawyer who has been threatened not to defend him. Peter Bartlett was the first. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/05/australias-largest-law-firm-in-uproar-after-taking-christian-porter-as-client
Lobbying to prevent someone having legal representation, while at the same time demanding he be hauled into court is a very bad look for his detractors.
My slant? I dont want Australia to go down the path that America has with hyper-partisan behavior from the public, the politicians and the media. Its a recipe for state failure. Simple as that. People who are cheering on the lynching simply because the hate the LNP dont realise that the tables will eventually be turned on Labour too. I dont like CP and I vote Labour, but we need robust processes to ensure that the public lynching happening to Porter doesn’t become the new standard like it is in the US.
Hi Dogs Breakfast,
Do you read newspapers or just Crikey? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/26/friends-of-christian-porters-accuser-threatened-to-make-things-very-bad-for-his-barrister-court-hears
Do you still think Im spreading rumors?
So thats the second Porter lawyer who has been threatened not to defend him. Peter Bartlett was the first. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/05/australias-largest-law-firm-in-uproar-after-taking-christian-porter-as-client
Lobbying to prevent someone having legal representation, while at the same time demanding he be hauled into court is a very bad look for his detractors.
My slant? I dont want Australia to go down the path that America has with hyper-partisan behavior from the public, the politicians and the media. Its a recipe for state failure. Simple as that. People who are cheering on the lynching simply because the hate the LNP dont realise that the tables will eventually be turned on Labour too. I dont like CP and I vote Labour, but we need robust processes to ensure that the public lynching happening to Porter doesn’t become the new standard like it is in the US.
Moral panic quickly morphs into public hysteria which can rapidly become mob violence – eg BLM, Me-Too or witches.
I am very curious about what you are trying to achieve Curious. Where is the “public lynching” of CP? You claim to read newspapers but are you reading Murdoch media? Sky News claims that Porter triumphed over the ABC. Doesn’t look like a lynching to me.
As to the “cult”, that’s just a dismissive term of abuse for a group of friends of Kate who clearly believed her claims, despite CP’s vehement denial of them, and feel that justice will not be served by the reality that no legal court is going to find her claims proven beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities.
Their call is for a commissioned inquiry, like but not necessarily very similar to the inquiry into Justice Haydon’s alleged harassment of female juniors, which would look into CP’s fitness for ministerial office. Their position is not baseless.
Nice to observe, Curious, that you claim to vote Labor, but I find Labor voters cover a wide spectrum of views. Joel Fitzgibbon, for example, is grossly irresponsible in talking up coal, and protecting only the prosperity of current generations, when future generations will unjustly be made seriously worse off, if we don’t get out of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. So, I just think it is curious, Curious, that you claim to vote Labor.
Perhaps Curious is, as am I, concerned at the propensity of people to be so easily manipulated.
Look at the pile-ons here – on many topics – from as perfect an example of self selected, self satisfied and self righteous bien pissants as could be imagined.
Spot on.
If Ian Hunt is unsure of my motivations, he can simply ask me.
My recent feedback to Crikey survey was along those lines. To build something worth subscribing to it needs two things.
It needs to lift the standard of its journalism and stop the unbalanced reporting, otherwise its just the left wing version of the Herald Sun. I’m happy to say their reporting lately has been more even handed. Bravo.
But they also need to find a way to turn down the volume on the f wits who come here to do nothing more than slag off the LNP (or a few months back ‘the Patriarchy’). They need ways to encourage intelligent and respectful debate. Recognizing and rewarding respected commenters. Facilitating more nuanced up/down voting, such as ‘I agree but not with the way you expressed that’ or conversely ‘I disagree but I liked the way to argued your point’.
Yes, I’ve noted what you list as people being manipulated, which apart from the case of “witches” are just cases where people who have been oppressed protest against their oppression. You could have cited the storming of the US Capital on January 6 but didn’t. You could have cited numerous press conferences run by Morrison, where journalists are manipulated over the questions they can ask. You could include the cases where celebrities take advantage of their fame. You could take Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Trump’s presidency. And, of course, you could take the current LNP campaign to say that the judicial system, which cannot but be silent on CP, says all that can properly be said on the question of whether CP is fit for ministerial office.
It’s a legal maxim that “Hard cases make bad law” but victimology is no more trustworthy.
Ian, from what Ive read of BanMorags comments over the past few months, Im sure he despises the right wing examples of manipulation you mention. I certainly do. If there one one thing I would love Australia to achive in the next 12 months is the breaking of Murdoch’s grip on our democracy. It really has become a matter of foreign interference, sovereignty and national security.
I think you have a habit of jumping at shadows, seeing things in black and white terms, portraying opinions onto people and playing the man in your discussion. I’m finding it hard to have a rational discussion with you.
And do you not call your concluding comments playing the man?
Im trying to get you to discuss things objectively. Categorized that how you will but lets get on with a rational discussion of the questions at hand.
No, CP hasn’t triumphed over ABC. If they paid $100k out as reported in the Australian today, then thats a small victory.
‘Cult’ – please understand this. Kates FRIEND Richardson used that term about her other friends. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/26/friends-of-christian-porters-accuser-threatened-to-make-things-very-bad-for-his-barrister-court-hears Why are you pinning it on me? Have you actually read the articles?
I cant prove what I vote, so lets move on.
My comment was about your claim that CP was being publicly condemned. I cited Murdoch media to say that he was not being publicly condemned. I don’t need to be told that he didn’t triumph over the ABC. He does, as does the Murdoch media.
That Richardson is a friend of friends of Kate does not give his view absolute authority. You have to take into account the context in which he said and you just have to make up your own mind, based on the meaning of “cult” and what the friends do. With that understanding, it is absurd to call the friends a “cult”, in my view.
Again, Guardian reports of hearsay do not give me much idea of what sort of threats have been made, let alone any substance to your conspiracy suggestion that Jo Dwyer saw a lawyer in order to block her from acting for Porter.
As to your claim about how you vote, my point was that from what you write, you should vote LNP, regardless of what you might have done.
You dont think CP is being “public condemned”. Do you mean ‘tried in the court of public opinion’, ‘publicly lynched’? Kate has stated directly and/or thru her friends that she set out to prevent PM from ever being PM. Jo Dyer has stated under oath she believed Kates allegations needed to be MADE PUBLIC TO BE TESTED. Stop trying to pin this on me, and lets discuss whats been published.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/accuser-wanted-stop-porter-being-080232877.html
‘Cult’ – You are shifting the goal posts in this discussion. First you accused me of spreading false rumor and using damaging terms. Then I asked you (several times) to read those articles. Then you say I’m cherry picking. Now you are disagreeing with Richardson’s opinion in those articles. Are you somehow involved in the legal aspects of this case and therefore have insight that means your opinion is more credible that whats been publicly reported?
This is too vague for me even to understand exactly what you are saying. The use of the word “cult” is usually for people who are fixated in some beyond rational way on a shared objective. We do not call political parties “cults”, although we allow that they can have “cults” within them. As for Richardson, I am simply saying that I am not inclined to call the friends of Kate a “cult” just because Richardson uses that term for them in trying to warn off a barrister from taking on CP’s brief. While her friends feel that Kate deserves justice in some way, in my opinion, that does not make the term “cult” appropriate, since I do not think they show a beyond rational fixation on that aim. No need to get excited. Citing authorities might be alright in court but in political discussion it is not necessary and often not useful. Calling people a “cult” tends to discredit them if they have perfectly rational reasons, which some others might or might not share in full, for doing what they are doing.
The Jo dyer – SueC consultation. My pondering here is quite simple. Given the gravity of that outcome, I think there is a sufficient public interest angle to want to explore whether ANY of the parties had ulterior motives going into that meeting. Given client privilege, I doubt we will get access to anything further. All Ill say is that lawyers across Australia are going to be a lot more careful going forward in agreeing to such meetings.
How would you know what lawyers across Australia are going to do? And surely, thinking that an interview conducted before the question of a defamation case arose is designed to take one specific lawyer out of the case, which did not then exist, is taking conspiracy thinking too far. Just take it that a suitable authority has dismissed the possibility of abuse of process.
You keep asking how would i know what xyz thinks. Obviously i cant read minds, but spare me this constant question. Its obviously my opinion.
… and still keen to hear your response to the Minters (Peter Bartlett) situation. I feel you are avoiding that topic, and its very relevant to the discussion we have been having about whether lawyers are under pressure not to represent CP, which we both agree is vital in any form of court or inquiry.
Well, put it as your opinion. Say “In my view, lawyers around Australia … “
Ok, and back to the more pertinent question about right to legal representation.
Are you going to respond to the Minters question? Im perplexed why you havent, given your strong statement that no one is trying to deny CP his rights.
One lawyer, even two, and one person who thinks their firm should not take on CP, does not constitute a campaign to deny CP a right to representation. That should surely be obvious, but I guess a person who baselessly believes in a conspiracy, might need to be told that one legitimate objection to one lawyer, and one person’s reaction to another taking on a CP, does not amount to a campaign to deny CP legal representation.
When you put it it as your opinion, the question then is “what is the basis of your opinion”. My guess is that your opinion is entirely baseless and that you put your opinions as fact simply because you don’t want to say what evidence you have for your baseless opinions. Saying that Kate withdraw her complaint because she knew she was wrong is another example in which your opinion is utterly baseless.
My withdrawal comment – It is a deliberately
symmetrical arguement to show that people are using one logic to defend a party, and then the reverse of that logic to attack the other.
Re read it as many times as necessary to realise that. Your tendency to project beliefs onto others is quite noticeable.
My evidence is the same as everyone else here. I read about it in credible newspapers. The positions you have taken are simply because you have read about them.
What im trying to point out is that while people (for example) can write sensationalist articles implying that NSW police, the AFP, the cleaners, and the APS were complicit with the LNP in shutting down Brittany’s path to justice….so too can others write articles about forces trying to prevent CP seeking his justice.
Your constant arguement about conspiracy and hearsay needs to be equally applied, not just to those who disagree with you.
Guardian reports of hearsay? Whether you agree the CP rape allegations are true or not, can you acknowledge that some people are looking at what the ABC, Kate and her friends have said and are reacting the same as you are here? That its all hearsay until it is assessed by an independent arbiter such as the coroner, civil or criminal court.
The real issue here is that it failed to make it past NSW police. So then the question many want to know whether people (prominent or average) have a right to demand other avenues of justice such as boards of inquiry (how many? public or private?), and failing that trial by media?
Endless demands for alternative justice remedies are wonderful when someone is guilty, but what if they arent. Would you be happy if LNP follow the same tactics against a journalist or a whistle blower? What about Murdoch going after a critic?
Put yourself in the defensive position. Someone accuses you of something heinous. There is no evidence. The Police rule there is no case for the courts. Lets say the Coroner clears you. Lets say an independent inquiry is unable to find you guilty… and now your name and every unsavory utterance or photo in your life is all over the media. Your children will see everything for the rest of their lives. At what point along this pursuit of justice would Ian Hunt be screaming its unfair?
Please understand what Im talking about is NOT specifically about CP. He is just the test case so to speak. Whats happening to him is setting the new norm for the rest of us. Thats why I’m here speaking up.
“Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me”
Eventually, everyone will be Pastor Martin.
Well except for the lobbyists, lawyers and media who will make a killing while Australian parliament descends into Taiwanese or US style gridlocked governance.
Even Robespierre met Madame Guillotine a little later than others but she was just as lethal.
If you have an interest in the french revolution, check out ‘Born to Rebel’. A (mostly) scientific analysis of how birth order correlates with conservative/radical outlook. They used the FR as their study because it was so well documented as to who was on which side and what their birth order was.
Bonhoeffer aside, I think you have erred in what the issue is about. I don’t dispute that CP cannot justly be found guilty of rape. If there ever was any evidence that a court could consider, it is gone. Besides a Coroner, who might look into why a woman died, but which is unlikely to be able to establish the full reasons a dead person had for dying, neither a civil nor criminal court can consider the issue of whether CP raped that person when she was 16, which CP vehemently denies. Nevertheless, no one can say that there is no reason whatsoever to think that Kate’s claims are true, just because a Coroner cannot conclude that, since his brief will only extend to what she believed, or because a criminal or civil court cannot conclude that she was raped either. There is no danger for me, since I do not hold high office. What some people ask is whether there is a sufficiently strong reason to believe Kate’s claim for us to justly conclude that CP is not fit for high office. That has not been decided but people are not being unreasonable or threatening ordinary folk when they call for that question to be fairly decided.
That would be Pastor Martin Niemöller – not Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
“I don’t dispute that CP cannot justly be found guilty of rape.– very magnanimous of you – If there ever was any evidence that a court could consider, it is gone..”
BUT
“…no one can say that there is no reason whatsoever to think that Kate’s claims are true…” – do you understand double negative?
As for “There is no danger for me, since I do not hold high office.”
your insouciance is scary.
You’re right about Niemoller. I should look quotes up to assist my memory. There is no double negative in what you cite but, in any case. writing in this context is not aiming for literary perfection. “Insouciance”?? The point I am making is that the precedent claimed is not, in fact, being set. With an ordinary person, with no high responsibilities, no one would pursue the matter.
The issue is clarity of logic not literary perfection – your double negative, translated, means “…there IS reason…to think…(the) claims are true.”
Please supply one.
You have the wrong translation. “There is some reason, though well short of that they are more likely than not to be true, to think that her claims are true”. And it is not a double negative. Acknowledging that CP denies that there is any truth to her claims, the letter sent to Morrison claims that she told friends about what happened to her in 1988 but also said for a few years afterward that “It would be alright if he married her”. After a subsequent encounter with CP, according to the letter to Morrison, she told friends that CP would never marry her.
You seem impervious to reason.
A person who’s adopted title suggests that they think the sun shines from their bum should not make baseless assertions without providing evidence, now should they?
????
What’s hard to understand about the fact that you pontificate often and rarely reason. In Gaelic, Morag means “Great”, “Sun”.
On which planet? Not one my antecedents ever visited.
I think many Australians would agree that there are SOME reasons to believe Kate. The issue is whether it is enough to punish CP, either criminally, civilly, career wise or his reputation.
And thats where the counter arguements come in. Her existing and subsequent mental health issues, the marriage statement, her parents concerns, withdrawing her complaint. All of it needs to be assessed impartially.
Sounds like we actually agree on this.
Well, yes, it does suggest that we agree somewhat on some things. I think an authoritative inquiry, conducted in private, should establish whether the claims have sufficient plausibility for the PM to take the view that CP is not fit to be a Minister of the Crown.
Would you also agree that processes and policy need to be developed and agreed by parliament to ensure we dont then suffer from a rash of vexatious demands to inquiries against MPs everytime some faction wants to score points?
In principle, yes. I don’t expect Morrison to agree to what would be a reasonable way to meet the demands of those who think that what Kate claimed is sufficiently likely to be true that CP should not be considered for Ministerial Office. I think that justice demands that more be done than Morrison is willing to allow and that this should be made clear to people. I think the latter is all that will be achieved. Look at danMorag for an example of a person who is too up himself to consider that justice can lead one beyond usual judicial process.
If there was more evidence, then id be more inclined to agree to an inquiry, but all we have are two opposite and emphatic statements, and one of those is now silent.
So the independent inquiry will discuss what? A parade of people will say CP is wicked and try to smear his name as Kate said she wanted in lieu of a conviction. I presume another parade of people will say he was good to them. It will allow some people to have some closure. Maybe. Some wont be satisfied. ($20 it gets raised at the next election even if he is exonerated).
As a way forward, I think a first step would be to have a pre trial type hearing. People make written submissions. Find out what evidence exists and what is worthy of being presented. Leave out the +/- character witnesses. Then make a determination as to whether their is sufficient merit in going forward. That would avoid what people are alternatively hoping for or fearful of….an inquiry where CP just sits there for weeks saying over and over again ‘no i didnt’.
Maybe that’s something the coronial inquest can achieve.
I think we have only one emphatic statement. The other side began with statements of distress, with a hoped for solution that, as some people thought thirty years ago, marriage would fix a situation where a person you liked and considered a candidate for marriage would make good that distress with marriage. As time went by and following the “Me Too” movement, a move was made to report to NSW police that a rape had occurred. After this move was thwarted by events the complainant put an end to her life. There cannot now be more evidence than that and what people remember was said. It is not sufficiently likely to be true to establish that the rape occurred on the balance of probabilities. This is a tragedy and we should simply ask what justice requires. I doubt that Morrison will allow justice to be done, since he has adopted the position that it can only be a matter for the police and the NSW police have rightly concluded that no case in a criminal or civil court could succeed, now that the complainant is dead.
Yes, it is a tragedy, just like with Brittany. I hope justice prevails.
Can you explain what you mean by “and we should simply ask what justice requires”. Who are we asking? Are you are saying Morrison should appoint a retired judge and let them decide the path forward.
I’m still struggling with what i think you are expressing that CP cant be proven guilty of rape even on the balance of probability… but because its a BIT plausible then he can be a punished a BIT.
It’s an interesting concept that withdrawing an accusation is being “thwarted by events”.
So CP was thwarted by events into withdrawing his defo?
I don’t expect you to read what others say carefully enough to get it right.
For someone who recently complained about being subjected to ad hominem you have no hesitation in using it.
This is often the case with the cognitively challenged.
If banMorag is like me, he would be getting frustrated that neither journalists nor commentators here are interested in anything but playing to emotions and sensationalism around the gender topics.
Look at all the comments under the endless Crikey articles on MeToo, Brittany and CP over the last 6 months and there only about 5-10 people who are interested in a rational two way discussion. So many comments are either juvenile anti LNP or anti Patriarchy, or unquestioning cheerleading/parroting. A few do add some analysis to the conversation and then simply disappear back into the shadows when challenged.
I can count on one hand the number of people (who support the journalists typical position) I’ve been able to engage in a civil discussion. Youre one of them. The others have since gone silent probably for the same reasons. One person i greatly respect seems to have needed to take a breather from the angst.
That’s a huge missed opportunity for Crikey to create something (ie the comments section) worth subscribing to and which serves to advance the level of debate.
They should be doing things like inviting selected commenters to debate topics in an otherwise restricted comments section. Facilitating actual debate to find workable solutions to our problems.
The comment threads were once far superior to the articles but that has ceased to be the case, for the reasons you mention.
If the (entirely performative) emos. on display are any indication of the electorate then we are deeper trouble than I would have thought possible.
I am entirely partisan – a Marxist of the Groucho tendency – and see no succour in what is on display here.
I responded to a person who complained about me personally that that person was just as engaged in ad hominem. My comment about you is that you misunderstand what others say. I said that Kate tried to make a complaint to NSW police. The COVID outbreak meant she could not arrange an interview for more than a year. That was what I clearly was talking about. You, however, decided that I was talking about her withdrawal of her complaint which was made shortly before she died. My complaint is not about how “cognitively challenged” you are but about the fact that you misunderstand what you read so that you can make some smart aleck comment in reply.
Don’t read no good, does ya?
Spectacularly nasty. Goodbye.
Promise?
Good point. Depending on which side people are in this saga, CP (or Kate) was unfairly forced to drop their pursuit ……but conversely Kate (or CP) pulled out because they realised they were wrong.
And that’s why we have an independent and dispassionate legal system that follows due process.
Worlds collide when due process meets moral panic.
Add partisan moral myopia, ignorance & arrogance plus the evil art of advertising – aka manipulation – and the resultant brew bodes ill for us all.
Good grief. Are you referring to the Lindy Chamberlain case? Goodbye.
Whaa…?
Second time you’ve bade goodbye.
Please keep that commitment.
Actually that case is somewhat relevant. A defenseless victim, society looking for a perpetrator. People jumping to conclusions based on biases.
And to this day there are some who maintain their belief in Lindy’s guilt.
“None so blind as they who will not see“.
Applies to so many aspects of human behaviour.
Glad to see you back in sync boys. “BanMorag” means something like “Great Lady” but the person is neither great nor a lady. Sydney pboys private school is my guess. Goodbye to you both.
Make up your ‘mind’ – you earlier claimed that it meant SUN.
Is there any more intelligent discussion we squeeze out of this or are we done now?
Its actually been a good chat. Catch you guys on the next Crikey gender article….which undoubtedly will be a rehash of the same pleas to emotion and sensationalism.
How would you know why Kate withdrew her complaint? How would you know why CP settled with ABC?
You claim to know.
Your clairvoyance also extends to other commenters’ motives, abilities and beliefs.
As I asked earlier re your abilities as a seer, haruspex or ornithomancy?
I see you have resurrected the ‘how would you know?’ question. See my stock answer to your stock question.
Such grounds as “..those who think that what Kate claimed is sufficiently likely to be true…” is certainly sound “judicial process”, compared to Scummo’s belief in sky fairies but hardly a basis … for anything.
Certainly not in the real world which most, but clearly not some, of us inhabit.
I’m sorry to hear that you don’t inhabit the real world. The vagueness of what you say certainly seems to confirm that view.
You had me scurrying off to google on the Bonhoeffer reference.
As per the reply elsewhere here a few mins ago. When you say ‘high office’, do you mean an MP, chairman of a committee or a Minister of xyz?
If you are talking about barring CP from being even an MP, then the bar needs to be set high. Well above the level you stated. The Division of Pearce in WA voted the guy into parliament to represent them. Any action that would result in their duly elected representative being banned has very serious consequences for the safe operation of a democracy. Lets image those ‘involved’ in his ouster are anti LNP or anti WA, should they have the right to subvert the will of the people of Pearce? If so, we are in for a wild ride if MPs can force each other out of parliament.
Then we get to a bigger problem. Can the unsworn testimony of an anonymous accuser, will zero evidence and nothing but mountains of unprovable hearsay (and I’m not saying its not true) be used to subvert the will of the people.
Then it gets bigger. What if CPs dismissal from parliament caused the LNP to lose the balance of power? Can the unsworn blah blah blah blah be used to kick the LNP out of power? If so then I’m packing my bags.
Thats the problem with creating processes on the fly as a result of an appeal to emotion. They can have dire consequences when someone with less morals comes along in the future. Ie Donald Trump. Look at all the norms and unwritten rules of congress he has subverted because no one ever thought a sociopath (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-21/trump-was-a-demagogue-president-and-sociopath-says-comey/13079186) would hold the office?
But lets be realistic. No one honestly believes CP is going to get kicked out of government, at least not during his term. This is simply about maximizing damage to CP, the LNP and the Patriarchy.
The suffering of Kate comes way down the list of many peoples real concerns despite what they say publicly.
How would you know what people’s concerns are?
I find it curious that peoples position on this CP matter seems to align nicely with their voting preference. You said it yourself, that i should vote LNP based on my assumed position on this topic.
Same for our pollies.
So while i cant read their minds i also i cant help thinking Kates situation has been turned into a political weapon and she is just being used as a pawn in bigger battles. I think that is very obvious and plenty of reporters have drawn the same conclusions.
Same as what happened in the ‘Babe saga’. No one really cares whether she liked the wine he picked, or the dress she wore or whether she was forthright enough in conveying her discomfort…both players were simply touchstones for wider grievances boiling over in society.
Perhaps by using the same haruspex that allows some people here (coff, coff) to be so certain of the truth of this matter?
Or do you rely on the more accurate method of ornithomancy?
Maybe Castenada’s B/S about sewing up lizard eyelids?
Just to be really clear.
“… people are not being unreasonable or threatening ordinary folk when they call for that question …”
You are correct, people can ask all the questions they want. Go for it. That’s the lifeblood of a strong democracy. But as the saying goes, ‘your right to swing your fists around ends at the tip of my nose’.
One persons right to use all means necessary to kick CP to the gutter and out of parliament has a very real impact on the rights of others, let alone CP himself. So no, ordinary folk ARE being threatened as he is their representative. The way a democracy should work is that if the electorate thinks he is unfit then they will vote him out at the next election, and if his electorate is rusted on LNP then the LNP as a whole would suffer at the ballot box … eventually, but not a quick fix.
Not ideal, but give me the slow fix and keep our democratic process safe.
I’m going off target, but I don’t think the media should be able to assassinate someones character, elected official or Joan Citizen. Hence my anger (unrelated to the CP saga) at Murdoch and other other lobbyists like the Herald Sun and sometimes Crikey. But thats the downside of freedom of speech and its better than the alternative. Our institutions and social norms need to be strengthen so that we are less susceptible to such pressure…. which goes back to what BanMorag said about the public being so easily manipulated.
Thomas Jefferson posed the choice as between “Government without newspaper or Newspapers without government“.
I have my druther.
I was not suggesting that CP be kicked out of parliament, precisely because he was elected. That stops your side track at the gate. We face the danger of manipulation by the Murdoch media, which combined with some inadvertent help from Bob Brown, meant that Bill Shorten could achieve high office. He would probably have been more capable than Morrison but I think that, if you want to huff and puff about manipulation, that sort of manipulation is more significant than legitimate questions about CP’s fitness for high office.
Well, I wasn’t talking about disallowing CP as an MP, since there is a vote behind that, as you say, but only as a Minister, which is at the discretion of the PM, who should be guided but not determined by a finding that he is not fit for high office.
Thanks for clarifying that.
2 down votes for posting a link to a reputable, mainstream, left leaning newspaper. Says something about the pile-on mentality of commenters here.
That’s what scares me – many of these people vote.
The CEO of Minters (Annette Kimmitt) was sacked for her actions btw.
Oh please, Curious. My impression is that there is no lobbying against lawyers, while simultaneously demanding that he be dragged into court. Why on earth would anyone, apart from CP, want to drag CP into court, when the only possible outcome is that he would be acquitted of a criminal charge of rape and compensation could not be claimed, since it could not be established on the balance of probabilities that he raped the woman as alleged? The objection to his lawyer is that she could not properly act for him in a defamation case, given confidential discussions with another person. I don’t think the ABC or Louise Milligan wanted CP to be dragged into court.
If only your total immunity to simple facts could be made into a C19 vaccine.
Yes, im starting to wonder if ian and i are talking about the same CP or a different saga.
Well, yes.
So did you read the article i posted discussing the ‘cult’ label? What did you think of it and the behaviour it outlines.
Your immunity to simple argument would obviously not work as a Covid vaccine or anything else.Less smug abuse of others would be welcome.
Criminal charges arent settled on balance of probability. Thats civil charges.
Oh, please. I was talking about compensation, which is claimed in a civil court and decided on the balance of probabilities. Show a bt ore care in what you read.
Compo?
To whom, for what?
The only winners – as always – would be lawyers, aka blood sucking shysters.
If we are going to be semantic about it, almost every commenter here wants CP dragged in front of either a civil court or an enquiry because the police won’t drag him to criminal court. Am I correct Ian?
The “either into a civil court or into an inquiry” is only correct to the extent that some commentators, excluding you and “Ban Morag” (really) and some others, want to drag CP into an inquiry to establish whether he is a fit person to hold ministerial office. If that inquiry were sufficiently authoritative, it would settle the question of whether we need to discuss the letter sent Morrison any further. I am unaware of anyone who wants to drag him into a civil court, given that the ABC is correct in saying that it cannot be established on the balance of pro Bali ties that he raped the woman, since the woman is dead.
If parliament can come up with concrete ground rules on when an MP can be dragged before an inquiry to determine their fitness, so that everyone is aware of the rules of the game, and those rules are applied equally to both parties… then sure, lets have an independent inquiry.
I would argue that when it digs into someones private life (ie not on the public record, not business activity related, not part of their official duties, etc) and especially something 30 years ago, then it needs to happen behind closed doors. That way it will prevent the grandstanding and smear tactics I think are happening here.
Genuine question. Can you explain to me that if CP cant be found guilty (whether he actually is or isnt) on the balance of probabilities in Civil court… how will he be assessed in an inquiry. There isn’t anything less rigorous than balance of probabilities is there? Hence why I think the real reason many are calling for an inquiry is for the damage it will inflict on him publicly debating his fitness. If there is a private inquiry then its going to be fascinating to watch many of his detractors frantically shifting the goal posts.
Maybe the case for the inquiry is that it wont just be about the rape allegations, but other professional or relevant private behavior. Im not against such a thing as long as its not process being made up on the fly and tailored for political partisanship.
OK. Let’s have an independent inquiry and in private, by all means, but with conclusions made public. There is something less rigorous than more likely than not, which is that there a real possibility that it is true, that is, it has some likelihood of truth, sufficient to take precautions if not sufficient to act as if it is true. In this case, the precaution would be excluding CP from ministerial office.
In plain language, heads he’s unfit, tales (sic!) he’s guilty?
Yes, that’s in keeping with the rigour of your previous logic.
That is just nonsense. But then a person who reaches for abuse first and foremost is not to be sought out for understanding or logic.
I would like to clarify what ‘minister’ means.
I can see why a person could be deemed unfit/unsuitable for a specific role in parliament (eg Minister of Education if their husband was the Secretary of the Education department, or on the intelligence committee if they had family ties to an adversary of Australia) and I can see why someone can be already be deemed unsuitable to be an MP (eg dual citizenship) …….but I cant for the life of me see how there is a category in between that says they can be an MP but not be the MINISTER of ANYTHING.
Or are you and others arguing CP should be assessed as being unfit to even be an MP?
Well, you might not be able to see why a person might be allowed to be an MP but not a Minister but then that is because you don’t take the role of voting into account.
I think you are referring to the de fam ation proceedings. Yes? Im referring to the rape allegations.
Either way he has a right to legal defense and there are several people intent of stopping him getting it. If you aren’t willing to read the articles i posted and address the issues in those then lets stop here.
I am not referring to the defamation proceedings but to an idea floated by some that Kate’s parents might be able to claim compensation. I don’t see any role for a civil court myself.
An inquiry into his fitness For office would require him to have legal counsel. I don’t know of anyone who wants to deprive CP of a legal defence. I am only aware of people who objected to his having one specific barrister. I doubt that if he had pursued the matter with another barrister that anyone would have objected, whatever barrister he had chosen. I’ve read the articles you posted but I don’t think that they show that some people have the aim of depriving Porter of any legal defence but only of one barrister that he initially chose.
What about at Minters? The CEO was sacked for suggesting that they shouldnt have accepted him as a client.
If Kates parents were to claim compensation, i would suspect that her medical providers would be in the spotlight not CP. When the Sydney hospital released her into the care of her Sydney and Adelaide carers, did someone drop the ball? In NOT saying they did, but that seems to be a more pertinent line of questioning regarding her then commiting suicide.
Did NSW or SA police do a thorough investigation before pulling the plug? Its possible but I dont think thats the sort of thing that is compensatable.
I think these are going to be the focus of any coronal inquiry, not something that is alleged to have happened 30 years ago.
But I’m certainly no expert in coronial inquiries.
It seems that you are spreading hearsay, and taking the not necessarily true view of a lawyer as the truth about Kate’s friends. Your selective use of comment, not established as fact, as though it were fact, is simply bias.
Have you read those article yet? Lets play the ball and talk about those no each other?
Ian, You say no one is stopping CP being represented. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on what happened at Minters. Do you agree with what was widely reported and resulted in their CEO being sacked, that Minters (a big player in legal circles) thought they should not represent him.
“It’s kind of bittersweet because it means that CP managed to suppress that information.” What ABC planned as their defence is irrelevant now. If the ABC had collected ‘public interest’ information from sources, then there is nothing stopping those sources going public now. The sources own that info, not the ABC. Those sources will be on the phone right now telling their stories to others. So lets stop the conspiracy theories.
The “sources’ info” now forms part of the defence lodged by the ABC with the Court and is thus a public document.
As HH Jagot made clear, it is not in the purview of either Party to require, request, demand or beseech that it be ‘disappeared’.
We mug punters, await, with varyingly bated breaths, HH’s decision on whether it will be sealed from scrutiny by the Great Unwashed.
Or worse, the mendacious minions of NewsCorpse .
Even if the defamation trial was successful for CP, would there still be calls for an independent inquiry? Of course there would.
Lessons to learn
1/. ABC needs to be SEEN as being unbiased especially if they are going to do investigative journalism, especially against politicians, especially against conservative politicians. They havent been proven to have defamed CP, but a reasonable reader can see the article was a very one sided expose designed to take the guy down and prevent him from being PM as per the motives of the ‘cult’ behind it, dressed up as a salacious but ‘public interest’ story… not unbiased investigative journalism. Im not saying he isnt guilty, but ABC has lost credibility and given ammo to those conservative politicians who say they are biased.
2/. Lets say he is guilty (and Im undecided), then this take down of a prominent political figure is a success story of how there are other venues of justice… but what checks and balances are in place to stop the same recipe being used maliciously as is now the norm in US politics?