Apart from their compelling, enraging and inspiring speeches at the National Press Club yesterday, Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins have found another way to dominate political debate.
Last week Higgins released a profoundly embarrassing text from Barnaby Joyce savaging the prime minister, after Joyce had denounced the unknown author of another text criticising Scott Morrison. Yesterday Tame revealed an official from a government body — almost certainly the National Australia Day Council — had warned her last year about speaking critically of Morrison.
In both cases, Morrison’s response was pantomime. Joyce was required to perform a humiliating apology and resignation offer — as if the leadership of the Nationals is Morrison’s to give and take — and Morrison generously publicly forgave him in a piece of theatre crafted with News Corp publications in mind.
The response to Tame was for Morrison to claim he knew nothing and for the government to set up an inquiry.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
Inquiries are the accountability theatre of the Morrison government — carefully structured, ritualistic, almost kabuki-like set-pieces that always play out the same way at excruciating length, and in which literally nothing ever happens. Nothing is intended to happen — their goal is to prevent action, not enable it.
Whether it’s the identities of those who knew about the rape of Higgins, or who backgrounded against her partner, or allegations of violence against Alan Tudge, or the “taskforce” to examine aged care deaths, or the investigation of the dodgy sale of land to a Coalition donor, or, now, to find out who rang Tame, the government is always inquiring, and never finding anything out.
That goes hand-in-glove with the fact that Scott Morrison is the most transparency-averse PM in history — a man with a history, dating back to the moment he was sworn in as minister, of doing anything he can and using any excuses he can find to avoid accountability and transparency. A man who has extended the confection of “on-water matters” to everything in government, proffering legal fictions and nonsensical justifications in an attempt to block media scrutiny, freedom of information laws, Senate committee scrutiny, legal basics like open justice, and the work of independent agencies.
Not that all information is kept hidden — instead it is deployed in the interests of the government, and of individuals within it. Morrison knows this well — he was a serial leaker to the media when treasurer, according to Malcolm Turnbull. There were no “on-tax matters” when Morrison was at Treasury; quite the opposite.
Now Morrison finds himself the target of leaking, with a disgruntled cabinet minister leaking an exchange about Morrison to Ten’s Peter van Onselen.
But this is standard stuff — members of a ruling group frequently end up leaking against each other, pursuing their own personal agendas with the help of journalists. However damaging to the government or prime minister of the day, they remain authorised leaks, because they serve the interests of someone powerful.
What Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins have done is make unauthorised leaks — leaks that serve the interests of no one in power, but instead expose the system of power to scrutiny. As Tame pointed out in response to the government’s announced “inquiry”, it merely perpetuates the existing system and culture, a piece of accountability theatre serving the powerful. For that matter, Tame’s entire analysis of embedded structures of abuse that she outlined yesterday is far more acute and insightful than most of what the media provides on the subject.
Unauthorised leaks scare governments. They create uncertainty — who will be next? what will be revealed? — and force them to change the way they operate to limit the internal distribution of information (what Julian Assange christened the “secrecy tax”). Careful political planning and election preparations can be thrown completely off course.
If they come from within the public service they can be investigated and prosecuted. If they come from a rogue member of a political party they can be bought off. But if they come from outside the political system, there’s very little that can be done.
The more unauthorised leaks, the more Scott Morrison’s code of omerta is breached, the more we’ll see how power really operates. All the inquiries in the world won’t stop it.
Leave a comment
You’re now untenable on this, BK. An experienced Gallery pro journo who doesn’t seem to mind that the NPC has been used as a casual platform to advertise a wholly-unsubstantiated accusation – not against the PM or the government, but against a stat body of public servants who are as you know unable to defend themselves specifically and individually. Yet another trial-by-media ambit claim…of a potential crime. Because the floodgates have long been opened on this extrajudicial lunacy, mostly by the Press, so of course these claims gush into the public domain like the Ord in the Wet. Need to wound, get attention? Fire off a media claim of abuse, via a suitably biddable, clickbait-deperate hack. A ‘threatening’ call not only transgresses multiple APS and other relevant workplace codes, as you well know, BK…but could easily be criminal under S474.17 of the CCC. So – as with the Miller ‘kick’ claims against Tudge, another meeja claim of a crime – the Federal Police really should investigate this claim. Given Tame’s profile, history and vulnerabilities, if it was a ‘threatening’ call, it is outrageous. And #MeToo is supposed to be ‘setting the standard’ now, for calling such abuse to account. So Tame should – must – take this claim formally to the cops, and back Ruston’s investigation. If on the other hand her accusation isn’t true, then it’s just highly defamatory and I’d be curious about whether the NPC – the entire Gallery body politic – is at risk of liability, as the platforming and broadcasting host of the (ticketed, ie for-profit) event. It’s also worth pondering if and/or how Tame’s claim indirectly sulllies every other Oz Award, including that of current Oz of the Year Dylan Alcott.
My bet is of course that it’ll just fizzle out. I think that even #MeToo’s most breathless groupies are recognising that TamePunk has prlly over-reached a wee bit here. Whatever. But at some point, #MeToo does need to get it: break the ‘rules’ of public discourse, yeah yeah, you go grr-girls…but you can’t just fling criminal accusations about and then blithetly say – as Tame is now saying – that ‘it doesn’t matter’. It does. It can – now routinely does – ruin real people’s lives, no less than sexual abuse and assault itself can and does.
For the record? As you know BK, the Oz Council denies the ‘threatening call’ flatly. Morrison denies any knowledge of it, disavows it, calls for an apology. Ruston launches an investigation – as of course the government has no option but to do. (Good grief, imagine the Tame and #MeToo flaming if they hadn’t…). Tame’s response is again as you say…to call all of this yet another part of the ‘silencing’ that has supposedly bedevilled #MeToo anyway. Using an Oz Council team and system that represents, articulates and acknowledges so much of what is good about our common public polity as little more than another weaponised media opp. OK, fine. As the PM stresses, Tame is free to do and say what she pleases. Good luck to her.
But the press – the NPC, FFS – ought not be so gullible, so biddable. At long last. And as for your response, Bernard? Jesus wept: you’re out-Taming even TamePunk now, and invoking the mafia? Which…murders people to shut them up. Including aspiring Australian MPs, like Don Mackay. Come on: it’s just an…untenable line for any serious journalist or forum to take.
Ha! Get used to it Jack. I hope a lot of the things that are so comfortable for you blokes right now are going to be untenable.
Get used to what, Kath, trial by media? No thanks. Not ever. Not ever. Nor should you. You wait until it comes for one of your sons, brothers, lovers, friends. Or daughters, sisters…or you yourself.
It’s reactionary madness. All the best Kath.
When the law is so biased against women, trial by media is the only way.
Amazing how the right use the scandal sheets to manipulate public opinion but when the tables are turned they scream like stuck pigs
Can you back that assertion up? I dont think I’ve seen any reference to gender in the riminsl statues I’ve read?
Have you read “The Scarlet Letter”?
How about “The Crucible”?
Maybe Ibsen’s “Enemy of the People”? Not that JR is Dr. Stockmann.
Quite so. I learned to swim in the post-carp Murray, Epi, I’ll cheerfully wallow in any old muck.
I suspect that Kath is of that contemporary ‘progressive’ cohort that watches ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and genuinely believes themselves to be on the bienpensant side of Atticus Finch and Tom Robinson, rather than part of the anonymous mob wielding the summary noose. So even if Kath has read such tomes…I expect their true relevance would have escaped them.
Defending the rule of law against a reactionary mob always – always – involves defending the legal rights of the most hated individuals du jour against the demands of the curtain-twitching, moral-wowser, mostly-middle class, that said rights be summarily stripped or bypassed. It always involves being called all sorts of unpleasant things by the mob. It might, as in Finch’s case, be ‘n–ger lover’, say. It might, as in our times, be ‘rape apologist’ or ‘abuse enabler’ or ‘part of the violence problem’. The principles worth relentlessly defending remain the same, as does the personality type relentlessly – self-defeatingly – seeking to trash them. Good old human history cyclically repeating itself, huh Epimenides…waddaya gunna do!?
You’re going to choose a side, is what you’re going to do. I choose the rule of law, and laws. Reassuringly simple, even in the most complex, noisy, morally-panicking times. Chrs Epi & take care.
You “choose the rule of law”? Ha. What. Surely you jest. This current Federal Government doesn’t care at all about the rule of law, or laws. Yet you’re quite keen on them. Delusion runs deep hey Jack? Current Ministers don’t care when they are told that something they want a Department to do is unlawful, they just get it done anyway by the unprincipled senior executives this very same Federal Government keeps on appointing. All these words of yours have the most wafer thin justification – Ms Higgins being believed and therefore listened to. That’s all you’ve got. And this is your focus. Get real. You can pretend all you like that you’re an upstanding fellow and try to contrast yourself against ‘the mob’. In reality you are a member of a reactionary mob yourself.
Nah I’m not part of any mob, ‘A’. You can see my face, for starters!
Jack Robertson
5/18A Ballast Point Road
BIRCHGROVE
0429 690 261
All the best ‘A’. Don’t let that white pointy hood slip, will you.
Dunno Jack, looks to me like you’re getting old, confused and more conservative by the day. If you live long enough perhaps you’ll start writing for Quadrant. It also seems to me that your approach is driven entirely by self-interest. It’s all talk, no action, with no courage to suggest anything specific or stand for anything but platitudes. So of course council would be ideal for you. Personally though, if I were running for council I’d refrain from claiming someone is a fascist because they suggested you seem like a deluded reactionary who is concerned about the wrong issues.
Election was two months ago – do keep up, ‘A’! Cheerio.
So you were unsuccessful and are now experiencing ongoing relevance deprivation syndrome? This is a treatable condition, but quite tough at your age as it’ll require you to stop talking, start listening, and consider whether you could have been wrong all along.
I dont see anyone here attacking you on a personal level “A”. Want to tell us about yourself so we can pick you apart?
Achievement unlocked. We’ve finally reached the “Come and fight me bro” stage of internet discourse.
chortle…wot’s to ‘fight’, ‘Spicey’, a handful of oscillating 1’s and 0’s waving a made-up nickname boldly from the middle of a snug mob…?
Shall cheerfully pass, mate! All the best.
Thanks mate. Best of luck with the election. You’re clearly a glutton for punishment.
Garrulous is bad enough when spoken, but painful when Jack puts it in writing – no need to skim through, just skim past. He is on the wrong forum anyway, needs to return to Sky and the Oz where he is with friends.
Ahaha. Your lack of self awareness knows no bounds Jack. The Coalition has been murdering both people and any remnants of our still functioning polis with its sit on its hands, pay off its mates, appoint its lackeys, grind the poor into the ground, and never ever tell the truth style of governing for most of the last quarter of a century. What have you been doing? Voting and supporting these complete scoundrels? Seems that way. You’re a pretty dumb fellow though hey. Oh no, the journalist has used a word associated with the mafia? Wow, an outrageous metaphor. How could a political party that effectively controls the highest levels of the Parliament, the Executive, and mainstream media and that hobbles and threatens all of its critics be compared to the mafia? I wonder. This is only a troubling metaphor for the deeply confused amongst us who have been sitting in the tent for too long. Jack are you still there? What’s it like in that dark sad little corner? Hope the canapes are good.
Still here A but as I said earlier we have nothing to offer each other. On this occasion I stopped reading when you said the coalition had been ‘murdering’ etc… All the best.
Your apparent faith that the Coalition have been good for the country, could be good for the country, or at worst at least have good intentions is I think why you are struggling to understand what is going on right now.
Robodebt? Aged car debacle? The term ‘murder’ doesn’t seem so outlandish after all.
I thought that your ‘Aged car‘ meant the erstwhile NSW premier & peripatetic ex Foreign Minister with the relevance deprivation syndrome.
Did you really
Well considering that our wonderful government closed it’s embassy in Kabul 4 months before the airlift and stopped processing protection visas for our translators and families in January, it is not a long bow to draw that our government has murdered the very people who helped our troops.
And if any diplomats were harmed as a result of staying on, you’d be the first to call the gov murders hey?
Got my vote ratty . Always suspicious of the likes of Jack is he for real. Must be a story in Jacks past
Chortle…do feel welcome to scope me out up close n’ personal if those suspicions are causing you sleepless nights…’ratty’.
https://www.jackrobertsoncommunityindependent.com/
…oops – and Detts! Apols ‘ratty’.
A is a carbon copy of the more vitriolic and bitter journalists at Crikey. Pity, I suspect A has some really useful things to contribute if only the anger could be managed.
And I think it’s on record that a certain Victorian Liberal leader has had rather close ties to Mafia figures in the past.
You do have to admire Jack, though. Demanding Ms Tame reveal her sources, while he’s sticking up for the most secretive government in Australia’s history. Oh, the hypocrisy…
It’s not a ‘source’, it’s a person she claimed ‘threatened’ her. Do we want to call out specifics acts of abuse and hold specific abusers accountable, or not? Or so do we just want to wave platitudinous slogans about very publicly and wield them as partisan political weapons…when it suits us each?
I despair, ChipsNbeer.
By “… any remnants of our still functioning
polis…” did you mean POLITY – a form or process of civil government, constitution or organized society?A polis was a group of houses, usually behind defensive walls, at the centre of farmlands radiating outwards – like spokes of a wheel.
This was the basis of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon – which sounds like the sort of society of which you’d approve.
For Others.
Frankly I don’t think either polis or polity quite gets it. Though polis still seems more apt. And these days it isn’t really used in English to describe “a group of houses”. Not sure you’ve realised this, but words generally change use and therefore meaning as the years go by. I most often see polis used to describe the citizenry or even the state as a whole. The Coalition have been at work for decades destroying our communities, our institutions, our principles – the state as a whole of which the citizens are the fundamental. The polis.
Being ancient Greek, polis has not changed to mean what you imagine.
It is not synonymous with ‘polity’, despite the same root – eg Gallipoli, an Italian corruption of Kallipolis, (Greek – beautiful city), in Eastern Thrace.
Perhaps you are thinking of hoi polloi?
NB not ‘the’ hoi polloi, which is tautology.
Well all I say is I’m happy to stand corrected, though I’ve seen polis being misused as you would see it for quite some time. I may just go with society next time, which is a bit vague but certainly capacious enough. Perhaps you could use the energy and fanaticism you’ve brought to this topic and take a closer look at our our current PM’s approach to truth and honesty in public life.
As to your final flounce, I’ll leave that to the overly opinionated such as yourself since perspicacity is, apparently, unnecessary.
It is a good rule of thumb to only use words of whose meaning you have some inkling – ‘society’ would have been perfectly adequate, if prosaic, to your..err, argument, such as it was.
Unless we, as a polity, have truly embraced Humpty Dumpty – for whom words meant only what he chose them to mean at any given moment of expectoration – then there must be some basic standard for comprehension.
An agreed lingua franca, if you like. Keep the argot for your fellow droogs.
I admire your vocabulary.
Nah, polis are the Scots constabulary
In Skandiwegia they are Polite and, amazingly, really are!
Jack,
I see you’ve joined the chorus of voices on social media claiming that “Tame should – must – take this claim formally to the cops”. I strongly disagree.
If she names whoever called her, (and BTW, maybe she never got a name, maybe yes but maybe no), Consider the following:
Providing a name either a person or agency will expose her to litigation and empty her pockets for very little real benefit. Irrespective of whether it is tested in court or in an inquiry, people will either believe her or not, no matter the outcome.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe she received legal advice regarding what she should say and not say, and how to say it?
To date, she just stated that something happened.
So currently, she has not exposed herself to litigation and if I were in her shoes, I would hold the same line. There is little to be gained and much to be lost.
What you have just described is precisely – exactly, perfectly, with spectacular lack of insight – the mournful process by which abuse…too often remains unaddressed, Klicker. Its alleged victims ‘(self) silenced’.
As #MeToo – Tame especially – has been endlessly explaining. Yet now she is right to…self-silence herself?
Do you not grasp this? What the hell is the message supposed to be now? That…alleged victims of abuse should not, in fact, pursue actual specific accountability, for specific alleged examples of it, when it allegedly occurs? What on EARTH then has the last few years of ‘(re)setting the standard’ been all about????????
Surely not simply…partisan politics?
Join the club Klicker what we need is a Suffragette MK 2 movement to finally create a society where all Australians are equal regardless of their gender.
And you dont think that your political opponents will return the favor with [non] allegataions that for a range of tenuously possible reasons they cant substantiate. Wow the media is going to make a killing if this is how politics is going to be fought.
Are you related to Menzies?
I’m not sure that the portly one would have anything at all to do with the current iteration of his Liberal party.
You are jumping to conclusions as to which senior person of which organisation phoned Grace Tame. It can only be conjecture on yours and anyone else’s part as she refused to name the source, only that it happened. Her statement simply gave voice to what we already know and that bullying occurs by those who abuse power.
Mostly self-serving hogwash. No -one has pointed the finger at any specific body; as for Morrison, well he would say that and always has ( doesn’t mean he’s either guilty or not guilty, though ). Morrison has a long track record of being ‘unaware’ that anything questionable may have occurred – his assertions of ignorance of how business is conducted under his watch in every job he’s had remind me of what eventually didn’t save Nixon – ‘plausible deniability’.
As to the ‘rules of public discourse’, they have been long set by people like ‘on water’ Morrison as well as those others in power. If you can’t see that it’s time to reset that, then you’re definitely part ( a big part ) of the problem.
I see you prefer to attack the messenger rather than the message – the ultimate in ‘hey; look over there’ !
Research this sorry excuse for a PM’s CV. Plenty to see, plenty of mystery . How do you get the sack from Tourism Aus by a 100% liberal party board and still cop a $500.000 golden handshake? As the leaks from within increase how long before a big bucket of scandal drowns the PMs leadership. Is God embarrassed?
Hi Jack, just letting you know what a benefit to my sleep deprivation you are.
Try as I might I just can’t keep awake reading your rambles.
Usually a paragraph will do me in.
Have you thought of patenting your stuff for insomnia?
Could be lucrative.
Thanks mate.
Wow, you’ve hit a nerve there. I thought Grace’s speech was excellent, but this reference to the threatening call came across as a POSSIBLE cheap shot. Seemed like a last minute edit made in anger to an otherwise well scripted oration.
Best go back to the party and say I tried .Don’t think you have much support.
Not many downvoters from the right. Interesting that a suggestion that we look at the CV of the habitual liar we are shortly to interview for the most important position in the nation is downvoted.
I do not always agree with what Bernard writes but this was, I think, spot on. Your problem Jack is that you get overly excited by what Grace Tame says. Your excitement seems to have something to do with “grr girls” speaking up. First, Grace Tame’s explanation for her silent side eyed glance at Scott Morrison at the Australian of the Year ceremony is just that. Your reaction is to scream out that, when she spoke of a “threatening” phone call, she was speaking of what “might” have been a “crime”, which then becomes an allegation of a criminal offence, which out to have been referred to the police rather than have been made at a “for profit” NPC event. Oh, please, Jack, to avoid allegations that might be defamatory, I think you should ask yourself whether all threatening phone calls are matters that should be referred to the police. When an employer reminds an employee over the phone of the rules that the employee has undertaken to follow, the employee can reasonably call it “threatening” but there is no prospect whatever of it being a criminal threat. Again, when a phone call is made, without witnesses as to what is said, there is no point whatever to taking a “she said, she said” threatening call to the police, since there is no prospect whatever of a successful prosecution. So, Jack, please calm down and spare us your lengthy “Coalition Warrior” reflections.
Bernard’s “Omertà” metaphor for the PM’s refusal to speak about matters that are “on water,” or of which he knew nothing because he only heard of them two days ago, or which he had referred to a police body that had no jurisdiction in the matter, who must now be left to investigate what they could not investigate, or which had been referred to this or that inquiry so that he couldn’t talk about the matter now is, if you can contain your excitement, just a metaphor not a literal description.
If you want to criticise a journalist, try our national broadsheet journalist, Shari Markson,
who went so far as to write a book about what “really happened” in Wuhan, with the original Covid strain, but failed to write about the secret Chinese virus lab in Southern India that out did its Wuhan counterpart with the Delta variant. She’s also the journalist who revealed what Albo “really stood for” back in 1991 without revealing that it “might” not be what Albo thinks 31 years later, since things have changed a bit since 1991.
I wonder, of course, why a “Coalition warrior” would not go after journalists employed by a propaganda outlet, pretending to be a newspaper, for crimes against journalism far greater than Bernard’s “Omertà” metaphor, alluding to how the powerful can arrange to suppress accountability.
Great post Hunt, Ian.Only 2 downvoters . Guess that means Jack has a mate. Imagine the conversations.
Thanks for your compliment on my post but Jack has been busy and complimented me with 6 downvotes in response. He has rustled up 5 mates over time but has probably run low by now
The mob really is keen on a take down of Jack it seems.
Not sure about that. Are they mates or sock puppets?
Of course, 5 people disagree with you so they must be sock puppets. Put in a bit of effort please.
What delegitimizing tactic are you going to try next? You could go with your trusty old claim that I work with a LNP funded PR company. I haven’t heard that one for a few weeks now.
You could try not making things up when you cannot think of a clever answer.
The Strawman was wandering on the yellow brick road, forlornly seeking a missing part, before being made curiouser & curious by Alice.. sorry Dorothy.
-48 votes for articulately pointing out an obvious issue in Tames generally excellent speech. Jack, glad your here offering counter points. This is exactly how democracy’s are supposed to function. Dont let them burn you out.
likewise Straw, thank you & bless…wrmst rgds JR
Up to 49 as I type – is this a record?
Are there really so many self regarding people with critical faculties so lacking and so intent of performative self validation?
…kind of hoping for my first half ton, Epi…chrs & best rgds old friend JR
You prefer cover up and manipulate the public with lies by media? Our hospitals are coping well and everyone is getting quality care, we care about the disabled and placed them in the top priority for vaccinations etc etc etc.etc etc. Tame leaked an actual email which was verified as genuine by Barnaby. So what? More hope of resulting in change that would benefit the public than portraying the liar and hypocrit in chief as fine just as he is.
Sad man feel sorry for you.
Good article. The Morrison Gang’s retention of government information so it can be concealed or leaked as required for its advantage mirrors its use of public money for rorts and electoral bribes. In both cases the gang steals something that belongs to the Australian public and uses it illegitimately for party benefit.
Easy to see why the Libs are petrified of an ICAC.Would need to build a new prison in Canberra .Could be named after one of the current lot of rorters. Maybe a hyphenated name even, with wings named after the main rorters
Two downvotes only.Better sign up some more members Jack with the ratio against 40 to 1 in favor of your opinion I think the people have spoken
‘whether it’s the identities of those who knew about the rape of Higgins, or who backgrounded against her partner…’
So Crikey scribes have now dispensed with the word ‘alleged’ before referencing Higgins’ case, which is set down for hearing in June this year.
Hope BK, or anyone else so blindly ignorant of due process, is never empanelled on a jury.
Trying to keep up with the mob, being the leaders, is very exhausting.
Apparently, sub judice is sooo last millennium.
Yep. Can’t anymore.
In what sense is the alleged rape ‘sub judice’?
Google is your friend.
The term sub judice, literally “under a judge”, means that a matter is due for, or is under, trial.
The matter is going for an initial hearing.
No, it’s the actual trial, due to start on 6 June, and expected to run for 3-4 weeks.
Alas there’s growing legal discussion suggesting a chance it might get stayed, maybe even permanently. Even as a lay person I can understand the risk that any ‘guilty’ verdict (even under a judge-only trial) might not survive a High Court challenge now. Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer is certainly publicly angry about the impact of Parliament’s at least arguably ‘defacto-guilty’ noises of late, and that’s leaving aside the spectacularly prejudicial year-long media storm many of us have been objecting to. So I imagine the DPP will be grappling with its implications, too. Prejudice elements (and ruling) aside, any (hypothetical for now!) High Court appeal’s commentary on Separation of Powers issues at least would likely be lively reading, you’d think.
Anyway, for now we’ll all have to assume a four month + wait to find out. But it is Lehrmann’s trial proper that’s scheduled for 6 June, not an initial hearing.
There’s an outside chance that a ‘permanent stay’ will be applied for and granted. Morrison’s office has recently come out with a hastily prepared statement along the lines of ‘the apology was by no means a reflection on matters before a court’.
Australia is a party to the UN Human Rights Committee, which clearly states that ‘public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by making statements affirming the guilt of the accused, and the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence’
Quite a bit more to play out in this sorry saga….
The last five years or so has just seen a truly dizzying abandonment of all legal propriety/sanity in the public sphere. Would have to google (too net-buggered) but reckon I could vaguely back-project its origins to an ABC Lateline interview Emma Alberici (think?) did with Peter Fox, re: Hunter Valley/police ‘pedo ring’ conspiracy claims or some such…that were gobbled up hook line and sinker by pretty much everyone, and kind of triggered a whole moral panic/snowball climate…a crazed extrajudicial mash-up of Weinstein, Gillard’s speech, Pell, Walkleys, Rush, Inside Canberra, Porter, etc etc….basically the mainstream press has since managed to turn itself into a hard copy version of the Drudge Report. Subsequently Fox was I recall found by the NSW RC to be a vexatious and unreliable or similar…think…ancient history.
Anyway It’s been a legal catastrophe, for us all….and yep Droppy…with a long long long way to play out. Lots of defo lawyers surveying the crystallising wreckage very, very hungrily by now, I very glumly suspect…
chrs and keep fighting the good fight man
Like the krazy kop the Caterwauling Catamite boosted for far too many years, forgotten the name…Priest I think..?
Of course. Naturally. Predictably.
Despair, Epi.
***
Brittany Higgins’ accused to seek trial delay after PM apology
Ronald Mizen and Hannah Wootton AFR
Feb 11, 2022 – 8.22pm
Prime Minister’s Scott Morrison’s apology to Brittany Higgins in Parliament this week could contribute to an indefinite delay to her alleged rapist’s criminal trial slated to be heard in the ACT Supreme Court in June.
Lawyers for the man accused of raping Ms Higgins said the comments were “extraordinarily prejudicial” to their client, Bruce Lehrmann, and that they would “be seeking a stay” on the criminal proceedings.
“The Prime Minister has mocked the rule of the law and the fundamental presumption of innocence upon which our criminal justice system is premised,” solicitor Warwick Korn told AFR Weekend.
Mr Lehrmann is facing a charge of sexual intercourse without consent for the alleged assault in the Parliament House office of the former defence industry minister Linda Reynolds in the early hours of 23 March 2019. He denies the allegations and has indicated a plea of not guilty.
But a successful stay application could see the trial delayed or aborted indefinitely. The High Court has recognised very extreme cases of adverse pre-trial publicity could justify a stay of a prosecution. Mr Korn did not indicate whether the request would be for a permanent end to the proceedings, or only temporary. A temporary stay may be granted until such a time when the memory of the events pass.
The issue of adverse pre-trial publicity is particularly pertinent in the ACT where the charge laid cannot be heard in a judge alone trial, but instead must be heard before a jury.
Lisa Parker, a University of South Australia criminal law lecturer, said Mr Morrison’s apology to Ms Higgins in Parliament added more material to a series of incidents that would make finding objective jurors difficult.
“It’s the totality of everything on this, the media and social media [coverage] which seemed to reach a peak with this apology,” Ms Parker said.
But the court would also need to consider the “significant public interest in trialling an alleged sexual assault that happened at Parliament House” before deciding on the best course of action.
**
‘It’s the totality of everything…’’
Well done, #MeToo cult groupies. Well done, opportunistic pollies and partisan agenda pushers. Well done, contemptible Fourth Estate. (Special shout-out to the peak body, the National Press Club! Onya Laura & Grrrl Gang!)
And well done, anonymous online lynch mob.
Together – I wearily predict, anyway – you’ll all have totally f**ked up any chance whatsoever of any justice for anyone at all, in this ruinously farcical, recklessly juvenile episode.
You’ll all have also – I wearily fear, anyway – managed to make things worse for current and future victims of sexual crime. Not better. Worse.
Do you understand why we have legal principles, processes and rights yet?
Do you understand why trial-by-media is so sh*t yet?
Do you, mob? Not yet? OK, fair enough. Long way to play out yet, I guess.
G’warn then. Keep screeching, mob. See how justice works out for Brittany & Bruce in the end…ffs.
Despair, Epi. Warmest rgds & chrs all.
A different perspective, although one I have severe reservations about, is the US’s take on freedom of the press.
Given how difficult it is for someone to even get charged-let alone convicted-of rape in this Country, the fact this individual was charged is pretty damning….especially when we consider the lengths Moronscum and Co went to in order to destroy evidence and allow the alleged rapist to initially flee the Country. None of which are the actions of INNOCENT people.
Why is the cleansing of a possible crime scene not being treated as a crime . Who gave the order and why ? Could this be part of an attempt to Teflon coat someone who knows nothing, sees nothing, and never lies?
Perhaps because no allegation of crime was laid before police for two years?
Morning after syndrome is dodgy enough but… several hundred later?
Yes, proving mens rea might be tricky. On the other hand, although the allegation only reached the police after all that time, it is quite possible that some of those in the minister’s office the day after the alleged incident had more than a slight suspicion something untoward had occurred. Their enthusiasm for cleaning up so very thoroughly and immediately with no further questions is curious.
The long interval between the alleged crime and its reporting can be explained in various ways and some of the more probable do nothing to undermine the allegation.
This stuff gets normalised so easily and deeply and unthinkingly, and yet its implications for the truly powerless and vulnerable are profoundly frightening and far-reaching. Add the general lynch mob climate to concrete but ill-thought and still deeply problematic legislation being spooked/railroaded into being – in areas like consent, victim impact procedural cross-examination limitations and sentencing – and we risk creating a truly toxic and illiberal cocktail for injustice for our kids, men and women, future accused and accusers alike.
Not, as ever, if you are wealthy and powerful. As ever, the wealthy and powerful will generally be fine. For the rest of us. The rule of law, expressed in and via our democratically-legislated framework of laws, is all we have.
Bernard isn’t some nasty anonymous internet troll, He’s an intelligent, experienced and decent APS and Gallery media professional. He should know better. All our senior Gallery elders…should know better; that this trial-by-media habit is becoming really dangerous. I despair. And not because I’m a sad old misogynist rape apologist. Please at least think hard about the path you’re carelessly helping us down, Peter Fray & Co.
Thank you for the space and indulgence, Crikey. I appreciate it, very much. Chrs.
‘Bernard (is) an intelligent, experienced and decent APS and Gallery media professional’.
Sorry Jack, but any journalist who wilfully disregards one of the foundations of our legal system, namely the presumption of innocence, cannot be seen to be either intelligent or decent.
JR tends to the ‘good form’ club manners – not to call another a poltroon until it is unavoidable.
Scotty would have served himself better if he had made an unreserved apology to Higgins in 2019. Hopefully Tame and Higgin’s NPC speeches are the nail in the coffin for the Coalition. The female vote for the LNP continues to fall.
I hope the “voices of ” movement grows into a landslide and sweeps the current government into a phone box as in W.A . Their views on the gender imbalance alone should be enough. Only a coal miner led miracle delivering preferences could keep this lot in power
I don’t think she made it up. I don’t think there is any doubt she WAS raped, technically the only thing ALLEGED is whether the person charged is the one who raped her, and that is what is to be determined in court.
That is a very old cartoon – one jurist saying to another, “I don’t listen to the evidence, I make up my own mind“.
Rather similar to the FUX network disclaimer.
The rape is not alleged, only the perpetrator is alleged…reckon BK is on very safe ground
Higgins’ claim that she was raped is an allegation and remains so until the defendant is tried and either convicted or found not guilty in a court of law. BK is just another in a long line of lazy, partisan ‘journalists’ that are either wilfully ignorant regarding the concept of the presumption of innocence or are confident in their ability to assert guilt without pushback.
Journalists asserting ‘guilt’ prior to the outcome of a trial is exceptionally reckless. Did BK learn nothing from the Pell case?
Yep, that’s the way I read it. I think there are options for requesting a ‘Judge Only’ trial (on the basis of adverse publicity detrimental to the defendant) but from memory this option is not available in the ACT, which is where the case is listed.
Pell? He just had to get the appeal into a high enough court to be filled with his “peers”. The consequences of money and power.
And my understanding of the law is not guilty is not the same as innocent. Any legal experts give me some advice?
Scotland has the option of “Not Proven” due to the french/roman propensity but that does not exist in any other Anglosphere jurisprudence.
A court trying a criminal case has no interest or concern with ‘innocent’. The only findings available (outside Scotland) are guilty or not guilty, because it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. It either succeeds or fails in doing that. That is the entire purpose of the trial. Guilty means the prosecution crossed the line of proven beyond reasonable doubt, not guilty means it did not get over the line. Nobody is required to prove innocence and nobody tries. The is no verdict of ‘innocent’.
Then it all goes to hell because anyone found not guilty will, very reasonably, expect to be regarded as innocent, and that is what is supposed to happen, but very often the public will not be so respectful of the legal convention.
Scotland, for no good reason, has a third verdict of ‘not proven’ which falls between guilty and not guilty. It is therefore entirely redundant because the plain meaning is the same as not guilty, but juries use it when they could not persuade themselves to say guilty and yet wanted to leave the defendant under suspicion. This is immensely unsatisfactory given the fundamental reason for any proceeding such as a trial or inquest is to get a clear authoritative decision so that everyone involved can move on.
All the above relates to common-law jurisdictions rather than European Napoleonic code systems.
Just to emphasise the difference between British accusatorial & European Napoleonic code inquisitorial systems.
In British law (most, if not all, of the anglosphere) the obligation is on the accuser (usually, but not necessarily, the State) to prove the charge.
There is no obligation nor requirement for the accused to prove their innocence.
The Napoleonic code is said to be inquisitorial in that the magistrate seeks the truth of a matter.
This requires the accused to participate, and otherwise prove, their innocence.
It is not, strictly, guilty until proved otherwise but that is the effect.
The major difference between Britain – with Common Law as the basis of jurisprudence the individual is the sole source of legitimacy.
Europe, due to the constant tumult of its chequered history, deems the State supreme and the citroyen a mere appendage.
However, I specified criminal law because the British, or Anglo-Saxon, or common-law jurisdictions do not operate exclusively in an adversarial manner. The inquests of Coroners Courts inquests and judicial inquiries in general are of course inquisitorial.
It is curious that despite endless arguments between the proponents of the adversarial and inquisitorial systems trying to prove the superiority of one over the other for operation of the criminal law, in practice it hard to find any difference. Whichever is used, the quality of the results is far more influenced by whether the system is run competently with adequate resources by an independent judiciary acting in good faith.
Excellent point re Coroner & judicial sittings.
Thank you for clearing that up
Brittany Higgins was highly intoxicated on an unknown substance and thus legally unable to consent to anything.
Her condition was witnessed by a female security guard and the security guard’s instructions from her male superior were to ensure that BH was breathing and organize a steam clean of Linda Reynold’s lounge after she left, Sunday morning.
Depressing that it is necessary to repeat, yet again.
Seriously, what is it with the Too Often Spotted Lesser Cognitive Process, a clearly endangered species?
Brilliant article Bernard, well done!
Expect a lot more leaks from a terminal govt. Every man for himself in a sinking ship.
Not ‘women and children first’? Oh dear. And what about the rats? Will nobody think of the rats?
Nah, they cost too much due to Scummo’s perfidy & price gouging.