|
Being a public figure isn't always easy, as Bill Shorten's recent experience highlights. Apparently his ascension to the position of Leader of the Opposition stirred someone to make an allegation that she was raped by him some 25 years ago when he was 19. The matter was investigated by police and referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That office concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution. These are commonly used words that unfortunately leave some doubt in people's minds. It is not really fair because we assume you are innocent until proven guilty, but after an investigation these words leave doubt. The trouble is the investigating team can't act as judge or jury and declare guilt or lack thereof. All they can do is say that there is insufficient evidence to procure a prosecution. It is a messy and regrettable flaw in our system. Allegations of rape can in many cases be extraordinarily difficult for the police to investigate. As Sir William Deane once pointed out, the notion that rape is an easy claim to make is simply ludicrous. Equally, it can be an extraordinarily difficult claim to disprove. It is a very blasé person who sits idly by when circumstances come about which allow them to appear as though they might be guilty. As offensive as it seems, some complainants turn out to be complete liars who fabricate their stories. Others may believe that there was no consent but feel unable to face the consequences of raising their complaint with the police – or perhaps, for whatever reason, after many years, decide to pursue their case. Others may have consented at the time and, facing subsequent regret, again for whatever reason, decide to raise a complaint. In any event it cannot be an easy decision. There will be cases where consent, or lack thereof, will be clear on the evidence. Regrettably, in others cases it is an extremely difficult issue. The passage of time makes any investigation or prosecution even more difficult. It is even harder for the accused. Shorten is kidding himself if he thinks he could have kept this to himself. I think his claim that "I could have … but that's not who I am" makes him look a bit silly because nobody I know in politics thinks keeping this under wraps was an option. Indeed, silly might not be the right word. It looks as though, even under the pressure such an investigation and consequent announcement would bring, he was still thinking of how to make himself look good. Let's face it, he's a hustler. Hindsight is a great thing. Perhaps his advisers would now say a better comment from him would have embodied a manly facing of the stark reality. Something like, "Being a public figure has a price and part of that is that we can't always choose what part of our lives remain out of the public domain. Politics and the media being what they are, I think it best to tell you now, at a time of my choosing rather than at a time chosen by others, that …" Still, it's too late for that reality check now. There has been a good deal of restraint exercised by both the media and members of Parliament in the lead-up to and since Shorten's wise announcement. It stands in something of a contrast to the frenzy surrounding the apparent revelation that many years ago Tony Abbott had punched a wall very near a woman's face. That contrast invites us all to speculate what would happen if a similar complaint as was made against Shorten were made against Abbott. I think I know what would happen: The handbag hit squad would be out there fanning the fires with every bit of hatred they could muster. Does anyone seriously think the media commentary would be as restrained? Even if you backdate the question to when Abbott was opposition leader, you still get the same answer. Courts have rules of evidence, for very good reason. These rules have been developed over many years and are designed to ensure that judges and juries make the fairest decision possible. The problem is neither we, nor the media, follow any such rules. That means that bits and pieces of information about each of us – parts of the story when there might be many versions, often completely untested – are passed on every day. In normal daily life we call it gossip. Sadly, some investigative journalists get away with being paid to publish this sort of stuff, irrespective of whether innocent people are damaged along the way. They would say they are only doing their job, working to shine a light on bad things that do happen. When they do in fact shine that light and wrongdoers get their due, we should all cheer. The trouble is that often, in digging to find the dirt and shine the light, they chuck a fair bit of mud. Shorten has had a rough time of it. He can be grateful for the decency shown all around. Perhaps he will insist the same courtesies are extended by his team on future occasions. But don't hold your breath. Amanda Vanstone is a columnist for The Age and was a minister in the Howard Government.
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
I worked a few years as a croupier about 15 years ago. For someone just out of high school it was an amazing job, paywise. But like someone mentioned earlier it's absolutely soul destroying. If you have any empathy at all you'll quickly start to hate the industry and yourself for being a part of it. You'll see people ravaged by addiction and debt who still think that they'll find salvation at the blackjack table. You'll know the regulars by name and they'll know you too. Sometimes they'll come up to you on the street, thinking that you're a friend rather than someone who gets paid to smile and take their money. You'll have heavily pregnant women screaming at you for taking money that they need to look after their child. You'll have one or two regulars that won big on their first few nights on your table, and consider you their lucky charm even though you've taken it back from them many times over since. and you'll be disciplined if you ever suggest to these tragic people that they should walk away.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Wyatt Roy wrote an op-ed in the arsetralian today calling for the Government to more than double our humanitarian refugee intake. He names three examples of persecuted minorities that could be helped once the Government "frees up positions that had previously fallen to illegal boat arrivals". Can you guess which ones? Minority Christians in Syria, Coptic Christians in Egypt, and other Christians in North Africa and the Middle East.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Oh gently caress. Looks like Brown Blitzkreig started WWIII.5: I'm not going to comment as to why the alert was raised, nor am I going to read the full article in the Terrorgraph, but want to point out that the Defence Security Authority is a different part of the national security bureaucracy to ASIO (Department of Defence vs Attorney-General's Department) and I don't think the email sent out by the former was justification for the latter raising the alert. It's just the Tele being the Tele.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Ask them for a job
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Like a Lambie to the slaughter I caught the interview on the newsradio simulcast, just the audio of the "describe sharia law" question was excruciating. iviewing that poo poo as soon as I get home.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:So if I went around a shopping centre waving a flag with the First and Second Commandments on it, would I be under surveillance? Depending on what you're saying, sure. You realise that intelligence agencies monitor right-wing hate groups and would-be abortion clinic bombers too, right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Perhaps a better way of phrasing that would be, would I get as much media attention as a Muslim, would I be portrayed in the same media as a potential terrorist and would there be a focus on my religion in any news articles about me? Sure, but media attention is a different point to being under surveillance by the cops / spooks. Everyone knows that the tabloid media is poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Yeah Bro posted:This man was a victim of a system that consistently and deliberately marginalises minority groups. You've got a pretty hosed up sense of what constitutes a victim dude.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
That's a whole lot of words to argue against something that no one is saying. Not one person in here has said that the media doesn't unfairly target Muslims. Not one. Of course they do, and it's ugly and divisive and wrong. But people in here are using the tabloid terror hysteria to absolve or even justify this bloke stabbing two cops. Which is hosed on a number of levels.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Joe Hockeys Scrote posted:I really dont believe in these conspiarcy theories about national security stuff being a distraction, or an attempt to boost popularity and get a bump in the polls It seems like there's this idea that the heightened security poo poo is either a response to an identified threat or a smoke and mirrors play by the government to distract from the kicking they're getting in the polls. Why can't it be a bit of both?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Most of those also apply to auspol discussions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:
The flip side of this exact point is one that IWC has previously made when (from memory) the Salvos boycott was discussed, when he suggested that the overall good work that they do with the poor is a net good for society regardless of their views on homosexuality. I think the overwhelming response he got was "gently caress the Salvos and gently caress you too".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:What's your ratio of harbouring pedophiles to sheltering (cis) homeless people that makes it balance out in the positive? And you accuse IWC of being disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:If you're going to argue that the salvos are on balance a force for good then you should probably start with a measure of how many homeless people they need to shelter to make up for the pedophiles they have protected in their ranks and the gay and trans people they have hosed off. I accept that there are elements of the Salvos who, by their extreme interpretations of their faith, say and do things I find abhorrent. I'll speak out against these views, but I'm not going to ignore their work with the poor because I find their views on homosexuality objectionable, nor will I assume that the thousands of volunteers who work in the organization are guided by the message of "God hates fags" rather than "help the needy". Tirade fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Given that there are plenty of other charities who work with the homeless and do not have a long and storied history of institutional homophobia and transphobia, as well as harbouring predators, why would these people choose to work with the salvos? I don't know. But compare your willingness to denounce an entire million-strong organization and the vast majority of work they do because they have backward conservative views and a small number of them have engaged in criminal behaviour, versus your outrage when the Sheehans of the world do the same about Islam.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:An organization consists of many people, but it is not a person itself. It does not deserve to be personified or protected as if it were a minority. I'm sure there are many nice ordinary people working on the lower rungs of Monsanto just to get a paycheck and feed their families, does this mean for their sakes we should never complain about what their employer is doing? First off, most charities have more positives than your average multinational agriresearch companies. Secondly, I already said that you should absolutely speak out against the regressive elements of the Salvos, but muyb's position that they're a haven of pedophiles and queer-haters ignores the unambiguously good work they do with the poor, the elderly, gambling and drug addiction, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Splode posted:This is extremely pedantic and irrelevant FYI. auspol.txt
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 08:23
|
|