-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Nothing in my previous post suggests that under our rule of law, an allegation or charge that doesn't meet the requisite standard of proof that the accuser should then suffer a punishment. An inability for the Crown to prove something beyond reasonable doubt doesn't men the accusation was false or malicious.
This bit:
"I'm coming around to the argument that an inquiry to ascertain the identity of those who make these anonymous accusations may be a good idea. Consequences and repercussions..."
If I misinterpreted what you meant then apologies, but I thought you were calling for consequences for people making unproven allegations
Only for those not acting with good intentions. If those who provided the accusations to the journalist did so like the following "my friend says CP raped her way back when", or "here's the info I have on something you might find of public interest" then that is in my eyes very different to selectively releasing snippets designed to present the worst possible scenario. In the latter that's ideologically/ politically motivated and is not seeking justice as the rest of the community understands it. Quite the contrary.
As for sexual assault I hope I'm in good company in holding to the position that all accusers should be believed, their claims investigated and where possible prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
-
@antipodean OK, understand. So do you think that some people in this case are not acting with good intentions? And if so, why?
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Nothing in my previous post suggests that under our rule of law, an allegation or charge that doesn't meet the requisite standard of proof that the accuser should then suffer a punishment. An inability for the Crown to prove something beyond reasonable doubt doesn't men the accusation was false or malicious.
This bit:
"I'm coming around to the argument that an inquiry to ascertain the identity of those who make these anonymous accusations may be a good idea. Consequences and repercussions..."
If I misinterpreted what you meant then apologies, but I thought you were calling for consequences for people making unproven allegations
Only for those not acting with good intentions. If those who provided the accusations to the journalist did so like the following "my friend says CP raped her way back when", or "here's the info I have on something you might find of public interest" then that is in my eyes very different to selectively releasing snippets designed to present the worst possible scenario. In the latter that's ideologically/ politically motivated and is not seeking justice as the rest of the community understands it. Quite the contrary.
As for sexual assault I hope I'm in good company in holding to the position that all accusers should be believed, their claims investigated and where possible prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I'd change that to "thoroughly investigated". I know people that have been maliciously accused and it's devastating. Perhaps time for stricter sentences for false claims and I do wonder where the feminists are when it comes to communicating that false accusations mostly ruin the cases of real rape victims.
And...because, these days, no one can accept that you can hold 2 views simultaneously, I think real rapists should be shot.🙂
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean OK, understand. So do you think that some people in this case are not acting with good intentions? And if so, why?
Peter Van Onselen (hardly a supporter of the current government) made the argument over a week ago:
Porter has never been contacted by police. He hasn’t seen the so-called dossier prepared anonymously by the alleged victim’s friends. Neither have most of us. Selected materials from the accuser have been selectively leaked to selected personnel. Then when the time came for one journalist to publish the accusations, they were never put to the person they were being levelled against, according to Porter, which to my knowledge has not been contradicted.
[...]
We have heard from a random collection of the alleged victim’s friends, most of whom lost contact with her for most if not all of the past 30 years. We have not heard from her parents, who according to their daughter’s own writings and recordings — none of which were contemporaneous to the alleged crime, by the way — questioned her claims and didn’t want the issue to go public.
-
Haven't read PVO's piece, I'll google it and have a read.
Saying PVO is "hardly a supporter of the current government" is a little misleading though. He worked for the Australian and Sky News, which read like LNP party newsletters most of the time, and I've seen him referred to as a long term friend of CP.
Doesn't mean his arguments aren't valid of course, but it helps to know the background
-
I guess a lot depends on where you get your news from.
If you just read that PVO piece, and others like it, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is a trial by media, lynch mob mentality going on. I think that's horseshit. I haven't seen any article in any news source saying he's guilty, or otherwise attacking him. It's all been pretty factual and professional. There's probably people talking shit on Twitter, but that's hardly new.
Can't read PVO's full article (firewall), but from that section it is very clearly pushing a pro-CP agenda. Why are the alleged victim's friends "random"? If they've not been in contact with with her for 30 years is their credibility diminished? Why is it relevant that her parents didn't want this to be public?
This just looks like low quality, agenda driven journalism. "Selected materials from the accuser have been selectively leaked to selected personnel" sounds very sinister. But it just means they put some information in a letter and sent it to some people.
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
I guess a lot depends on where you get your news from.
If you just read that PVO piece, and others like it, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is a trial by media, lynch mob mentality going on. I think that's horseshit. I haven't seen any article in any news source saying he's guilty, or otherwise attacking him. It's all been pretty factual and professional. There's probably people talking shit on Twitter, but that's hardly new.
That's disingenuous - you don't need to allege quilt, just merely ensure the allegation keeps getting raised.
Can't read PVO's full article (firewall), but from that section it is very clearly pushing a pro-CP agenda. Why are the alleged victim's friends "random"? If they've not been in contact with with her for 30 years is their credibility diminished? Why is it relevant that her parents didn't want this to be public?
Here's the article:
The way the allegations against Attorney-General Christian Porter crescendoed this week was utterly extraordinary. The denial of natural justice; the trial by media; the lost presumption of innocence; the mob mentality of convicting someone whom police didn’t even charge with a crime — I have never seen anything like it in Australian politics. But it is also important to note that the mood that precipitated the unedifying pile-on speaks to genuine and understandable angst about a criminal justice system that has let women down, sexual assault survivors in particular. Conviction rates are disproportionately low compared with other crimes. People, women in particular, have had enough. Change is necessary; men need to understand that and pay more than just lip service to the groundswell of support for action. Nonetheless, it is vital when seeking to overthrow tyranny that those who start with good intentions don’t themselves resort to tyranny or be used by those without good intentions in the first place. That may sound melodramatic, but in the case of Porter we have borne witness to something that hurts our institutions, our democracy, our standards of journalism and even perhaps the cause of better justice for sexual assault victims. I don’t know any more than anyone else whether what was alleged to have happened back in 1988, when a 16-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy attended a debating tournament, occurred. But I do know that whether Porter is guilty or innocent, the way it played out publicly could happen to anyone and that should concern everyone. The trite bullshit that an innocent person has nothing to fear is rubbish. Read nearly any history book to understand why. Porter has never been contacted by police. He hasn’t seen the so-called dossier prepared anonymously by the alleged victim’s friends. Neither have most of us. Selected materials from the accuser have been selectively leaked to selected personnel. Then when the time came for one journalist to publish the accusations, they were never put to the person they were being levelled against, according to Porter, which to my knowledge has not been contradicted. That is extraordinary. That the initial publishing of the allegations was anonymous doesn’t make this failure any better. It precipitated a pile-on and a witch-hunt. It put the entire Morrison cabinet under a cloud. In short, it released the hounds. We have heard from a random collection of the alleged victim’s friends, most of whom lost contact with her for most if not all of the past 30 years. We have not heard from her parents, who according to their daughter’s own writings and recordings — none of which were contemporaneous to the alleged crime, by the way — questioned her claims and didn’t want the issue to go public. I can only imagine their trauma at losing a child before also having to endure this. She, according to what has been released, had deep psychological issues. But we don’t know, of course, whether they were caused by a traumatic event or her reported bipolar disorder, of which delusions are a possible symptom. Yet friends who knew her as a 16-year-old, but not for the following 30 years, are sure. So the parents who weren’t so sure, and presumably have lived through their daughter’s difficult life, are ignored, as are their wishes for privacy. I find that extraordinary. One fact that isn’t in dispute but does seem to get breezed over lightly is that the alleged victim withdrew her complaint. She did so one day before taking her own life. People will make their own assessments about what may have motivated her to do so, but the bottom line is that none of us will ever know. She withdrew the complaint. Scott Morrison has said that there won’t be an independent inquiry into what happened. I disagree with this. We should get line of sight on these anonymous friends and their exchanges with journalists, seeking to bring this issue into full view. An inquiry with all the powers to compel witnesses and access electronic communications should happen in this matter. A chance to interview the alleged victim’s psychiatrists to paint an accurate picture of her mental health. The fact the family released a statement on Thursday indicating they would welcome an inquiry only adds to the value of having one. The irony is not lost on me that Porter is part of a government that denies refugee rights, used robodebt to take away the presumption of innocence for welfare recipients and fell in line behind a Prime Minister who used the floor of parliament to summarily stand down Australia Post chief executive Christine Holgate on spurious grounds. I have railed against the Coalition on each one of these fronts. But its failures to observe proper processes are no excuse for others to do the same, and in a most extreme and egregious way. As Porter said at his media conference on Wednesday: no one is beyond an allegation. That is why allegations that were never put to him before being published, that didn’t lead to charges or even a police interview for him, allegations the accuser ultimately withdrew, weren’t sufficient for him to get sacked. Were that to happen then anyone could weaponise allegations to remove any politician, or indeed anyone else, with any degree of legitimacy. Yes, I have known Porter for more than 20 years. Unlike many others reporting on this sad saga with close links and friendships with the alleged victim, I have been open about that. However, what I think about Porter’s guilt or innocence on this matter became of no consequence once it played out the way it did when the allegations became public. Which is why this is a matter for all of us. Self-interest should kick in because any one of us would want procedural fairness, which has been absolutely denied to Porter with the public tarring and feathering he has endured. I know some of the people who have targeted him: ideological opponents who have disliked him since the moment they met him; people for whom ends justify means. No doubt Porter made it easier for them to dislike him with some of his antics. Evidence could emerge tomorrow locking in Porter’s guilt for the alleged crime all those years ago and it wouldn’t change the fact that what has transpired in terms of denials of basic rights under our democratic and legal systems has been chilling and utterly disgraceful.
This just looks like low quality, agenda driven journalism. "Selected materials from the accuser have been selectively leaked to selected personnel" sounds very sinister. But it just means they put some information in a letter and sent it to some people.
Why would you only send the worst?
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Why would you only send the worst?
I didn't, I just read the two paragraphs that you posted and quoted from that.
Thanks for posting the full article, I will read it now
Edit: or did you mean why would the accusers only send the worst in the letter?
-
And here is the article that Porter is claiming defamed him:
I know nothing about defamation law, so no idea if his case has any chance of success. But from a layman's point of view, I don't see anything in here that should be illegal. It doesn't identify him, doesn't make any accusations or cast any aspersions. Seems like a fairly straight reporting of the facts of the case.
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
Why would you only send the worst?
I didn't, I just read the two paragraphs that you posted and quoted from that.
Thanks for posting the full article, I will read it now
Edit: or did you mean why would the accusers only send the worst in the letter?
The latter. The allegation is they've selectively presented information. A case made here: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/christian-porter-rape-allegations-kates-dossier-of-tragedy/news-story/3e48224a9a5f3a16b4d75510607ec272
It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister chose not to read the dossier compiled by Kate, the woman who alleged Christian Porter raped her 33 years ago when she was 16 and he was 17. The dossier was sent anonymously to Scott Morrison, Penny Wong and Sarah Hanson-Young by the woman’s friends after she took her own life in June 2020.
It is hard to read. But had Morrison bothered to read Kate’s statement before listening to the Attorney-General’s version of events, his decision to reject calls for an inquiry would have been better informed.
No one can claim to know what happened in the early hours of January 10, 1988, between Kate and Porter. Their accounts are diametrically opposed. But what is clear is that Kate’s friends released this information into the public realm, and the media, especially the ABC, has chosen to reproduce only parts of Kate’s statement that serve their pursuit of Porter, even after she told police she wanted to withdraw her complaint and the decision of NSW Police not to pursue the matter.
Kate, by all reports, was a champion debater. A smart, witty, brilliant young student. As a member of the Australian schools debating team two years in a row, high expectations surrounded her. There was talk among her friends she could become Australia’s first female prime minister. Instead, Kate’s life spiralled downward. She suffered from long bouts of serious mental illness.
Her life and death are a tragedy. Especially for her family, who have expressed concerns that, perhaps due to mental illness that included a bipolar disorder, she may have imagined the rape. They didn’t want Kate’s claims to go public.
And no one wants to add to their grief. Or the grief of former high school friends, though many of them appear to have lost contact with Kate for most if not all of the past 30 years.
But the vicious, often hysterical and emotional public sham trial of Porter ignores why we have a legal system — to test very serious accusations such as rape by amassing evidence to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
We detail below far more material than has been disclosed to date by any other media organisation, despite many inside the political and media beltway having access to it. Now readers can judge for themselves.
We lay out below the four sources of material compiled by Kate in the order in which they were created. The dossier says: “To be submitted to the South Australian Police 28 February 2020.” It was forwarded to the AFP by those who received it.
None of the material in the dossier is contemporaneous to the alleged crime. This is an important point. The first three sources — Kate’s Princeton Diary, Kate’s “F..k it” note, and 11 ripped pages from Kate’s “Food Journal” — were written one to four years after the alleged assault.
The other part of the dossier is Kate’s typed statement. It was compiled, along with her transcriptions of the first three sources, after she attended sessions with Sydney psychologist Katie Thorncraft in September 2019 and Adelaide psychiatrist Dr Tony Davis in late 2019.
Princeton Diary
Kate says her Princeton Diary was “created circa 1989” and that photos of four pages were taken on February 19, 2020, and transcribed November 25-26, 2019. Each page of the “scratched entries” is covered over in thick blue highlighter pen, making it hard to decipher. The reference to “James” is James Hooke, her former teenage boyfriend.
“How can I tell this tale? Who to? James – maybe [?] him – if we ever get back together, I’ll have to tell him [.] Before then or After–1 way or the other??? But we won’t [??? ..] together. I’m too damaged [?] might [?] [final line] F..K IT WHY
“What did I do? Porter will say I led him on — did I? I said NO — I said NO. To the blow job. He never asked about the rest. Just did it & took what he wanted. Me. My virginity & my voice. What a Prick.”
“F..k It” NoteWhat follows is what Kate calls the “F..k It” note that she says was written in January 1991 and included in her dossier for police after she found it in mid-2019. The description of the note says: “transcribed by me in July 2020”. Kate took her own life prior to that, in June of 2020. Hence the below transcriptions were either done by someone else, or, if done by Kate, the date is incorrect. It notes that some of the original pencilled words were traced over in black pen before then being rubbed out.
Below are the horizontal words in the middle of the page transcribed from the original 1991 document:
“I don’t know & I can’t explain it to you even if I did know. It’s either as simple & facile an explanation as ‘I was drunk’ or I can go into my psyche up to the elbows & drag out some reason but either way & [?] I’ll never explain it to you properly. You’ll have to do that for yourself.”
Below are the words that formed concentric circles transcribed from the 1991 document:
“HE LOVED ME? IN AUG 88. IN JAN 89. HE MUST HAVE. HE SAID SO. HE MEANT IT. I FELT IT. I KNOW HIM. HE KNEW ME. I CAN TRUST HIM. HE’D HELP ME. HE WOULD — I JUST NEED 2 LET GO. S/1 ELSE NEEDS TO KNOW. IT CAN BE HIM. SO WHAT IF HE RECOILS? THEN, @ L, I’D KNO. IT WILL B A 1St STEP ON THE NEC PATH. NECESSE EST. MAYBE WRITE TO HIM IN LATIN? MAKE IT A GAME, A PUZZLE. HE MIGHT EVEN APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO USE HIS BRAIN ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN SKIRT CHASING. HE’S SMARTER THAN HE GIVES H’SELF CREDIT 4. NOT QUITE AS CLEVER AS YOU BUT THAT’S GOOD. HE WON’T CUT H’SELF ON HIS MIND’S RAZOR SHARP EDGES à THE WAY YOU DO ON YRS. F..K IT WOMAN. JUST TELL HIM. HE WAS GOOD 2 U. SO WHAT ABOUT the kid? THERE’S STILL TIME 4 THAT – 1 DAY – THAT’S WAT HE PROMISED U @ ANU. GET THRO’ UNI, GROW UP – THEN SEE IF IT STILL BURNS. IT NOT, HE’LL B A GOOD FRIEND & THAT’S BETTER THAN A LOVER & LONGER-LASTING. “1 of the GIRLS”. HE MIGHT EVEN LIKE THAT! J YOU GAVE HIM HEAD OFTEN ENOUGH (DID HE EVER REPAY that fave? Don’t think so ... Little shit...ASK 4 his help or you’ll end up in a ditch s/where. He hates Xtn already – no? MORE REASON 2 REACH 4 HIM. J. HELP ME Honey.”
Food Journal
Kate says she took photos on February 19, 2020, of 11 pages from what she called her Food Journal that she kept in 1990-1991 or “possibly in 1992”. There is one single word on each page:
“I [o?] [n?] don’t want to
Xtian [Christian] [.]
Pl[ea]se do not take me [.]
88 [1988] I [January, the first month indicated by my using a lower case Roman-numeral].”
Kate’s typed statement written more than
30 years laterHaving collected the above material in mid to late 2019, Kate typed a statement to be submitted to the police.
Before setting out her allegations, Kate writes: “I have always remembered these things. I had a better understanding of these memories, and only really understood them, once my Sydney-based psychologist Katie Thorncraft referred me to The Body Keeps Score: Brain, Mind and Body in the Healing of Trauma (Van Der Kolk.) … our bodies will store traumatic events and only allow them to resurface when our minds are able to examine them.”
As Richard Guilliatt reported last week in The Weekend Australian: “This theory is controversial because it harks back to the recovered memory phenomenon of the 1980s and 90s, which caused an epidemic of false and unreliable recollections of sexual abuse.”
Kate’s claims are as follows:
“Given the surreal quality to my memories of his raping me, and the dissociative states that I have (and still) experience, I suspect that CP put some sort of date-rape style drug into my drink” when they were at the Hard Rock Cafe in Kings Cross.
“CP walked me back to my room in Women’s College … CP propositioned me, asking ‘How about a pearl necklace?’, I agreed to do this.
“He then forced me to perform oral sex on him ... he had his hands around my throat, I thought that he would choke me to death ... I remember that I vomited ...”
Kate then describes a ritualised form of behaviour by the 17-year-old Porter: “CP then took me from my bedroom to a bathroom … and made me have a bath or a shower.”
Porter “undressed me”, “brushed my teeth”, wrote ‘Christian Porter was ’ere Jan 88’ in the steam on the mirror”, “soaped and washed me with a flannel”, “washed and conditioned my hair”, “shaved my legs and under my arms” and “spent a lot of time washing my anus”…“he was a bit impatient but still shampooed my hair twice”.
“CP took me back to my room and dressed me in my nightie and a clean pair of underpants”… “we got into my bed together and I fell asleep”. “I woke up to CP anally raping me” noting “he did not use a lubricant or a condom” and it was “extremely painful”.
The next day, Kate writes, “All I could cope with, as I remembered parts of the night before, gingerly, was the idea that things had gone ‘a bit too far’ with CP, the previous evening. But it was ok, I reassured myself, because we were going to get married — one day. CP had implied this to me on the previous afternoon, when I was ironing his shirt.”
After the alleged rape, Kate writes about “the last time I saw CP”. She had dinner with Porter, in Perth, almost six years later where, she says, Porter propositioned her, but nothing happened.
The question readers might now want to ask themselves is does Kate’s dossier raise doubts about what has been alleged against Porter?
-
@antipodean Man, that was a tough read.
-
Ok, I've read PVO's article (not the second one you posted yet). Gives more context. I agree with some things he's said, particularly that an enquiry would be a good idea for all concerned (this argument that it would undermine the rule of law sounds like a furphy). And he makes good points about the way women are let down by the police & justice system, and that CP is no fan of the rule of law whereas powerful people are on the receiving end. But there are plenty of other examples in there that I think betray his agenda.
"Pile-on", "witch hunt", "release the hounds", "public tarring and feathering", "denial of natural justice", "the trial by media", "mob mentality" are all emotive terms meant to portray a hysterical mob baying for blood. I just haven't seen that. The protests yesterday, and the news coverage of them, are not about CP, or even Brittany Higgins, they're about thousands of people who have experienced sexual violence, and the institutions that often protect the perps over the victims.
Morrison's dismissive having of this has exacerbated the perception that he doesn't care (or at least not until Jenny explains it to him in terms of his family members).
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
And here is the article that Porter is claiming defamed him:
I know nothing about defamation law, so no idea if his case has any chance of success. But from a layman's point of view, I don't see anything in here that should be illegal. It doesn't identify him, doesn't make any accusations or cast any aspersions. Seems like a fairly straight reporting of the facts of the case.
Male
Cabinet Minister
Early in 1998
SydneyYou could get there with the appropriate "Guess Who" panel of Australian Politicians I guess.
-
@nta 22 members of cabinet, 6 of who are women. I don't think the year or visiting Sydney rules anyone out. So that leaves 14 (or maybe 13, if you exclude the PM).
I can't see how you could narrow it down any more from that ABC article. Plenty of other sources where you could find out, but you've got to wonder why Porter is suing the ABC rather than any of the other dozens of media outlets that reported on it.
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
you've got to wonder why Porter is suing the ABC rather than any of the other dozens of media outlets that reported on it.
I don't wonder about that at all
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
a
Hey man. Will get back to you on this topic.
Post was deliberately provocative so when I have time, inclination and sobriety all at once I'll discuss this and some subsequent topics on this thread, and try and make sense.
Aussie Politics