NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller has proposed an app for sexual consent to address Australia’s pervasive culture of sexual violence, and to modernise attitudes on the importance of actively agreeing to sexual activity.
You’d be forgiven for thinking we’re in an episode of Black Mirror.
The idea has a range of problems, from fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of consent to opening up sexual assault cases to more technical arguments and victim-blaming.
A fundamental misunderstanding of consent
Fuller is trying to address the need for affirmative consent — meaning there’s verbal, rather than implied, consent between sexual partners — following criticism that recommendations from a three-year review into sexual consent laws in NSW missed the mark.
Similar ideas have already played out elsewhere. Denmark has affirmative consent laws and also has a consent app. Consent for “one intercourse” logged in the app is valid for 24 hours. The app has been widely criticised.
Chair of Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy Dr Rachael Burgin told Crikey the app skewed the definition of affirmative consent. She says concerns around when violence or coercion is used to force someone to consent on the app, and around when consent is withdrawn.
“Ridiculous is the word I would use to explain it,” she said. “The ignorance it shows is unparalleled.”
More protection for predators
The app might also strengthen protections for perpetrators, giving them a way to “prove” consent, even when it’s forced, Burgin says.
University of Wollongong criminologist Julia Quilter told Crikey that when using the consent app in sexual assault convictions, the question of who had been the “author” of pressing the consent button — and when — would become an issue.
“It strikes me that this is going to open up further grounds for more technical legal arguments in an area that’s already very complex,” she said.
Data is another huge issue. Women in sexual assault criminal trials often have their use of dating apps brought up by the defence.
“There’s a series of issues around storing that data and how it can be accessed by people and for what purposes,” Quilter said.
“I suspect it could strengthen the defendant’s case, and given the statistics on rates of conviction I don’t think they need to be strengthened.”
Who was consulted?
Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy wasn’t contacted before Fullers proposal, and it’s not clear whether any advocacy groups or NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman had been consulted.
Speakman and NSW Police have been contacted for comment.
Absolutely terrible idea. As if consent was some sort of contractual transaction covering itemised sex acts rather than an ongoing agreement before and throughout intimate contact, predominantly based on small, non verbal indications that each person wishes to proceed. You can’t contract that. You can’t give a person sex credits through an app.
Agreed. This is a serious issue but forgive me for laughing my head off at the thought of a couple being caught in a steamy moment and both reaching for their mobiles and the app. And providing a voucher for sex – popular maybe, hilarious arguably, and ridiculous, certainly.
Cannot wait to see what the Beetota Advocate does with this!
I thought that Fuller had ripped it off from the Beetoota.
Let it not be forgotten that part of the madness is that “consent can be withdrawn at any point” including post facto – the morning after, a week later or the next missed mense.
If this is the principle now demanded why not 30+ years?
I’ve raised this previously but the concept is clearly beyond the readership, not to mentioned the staff hacks.
However, never one to give up I will try again – post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the great fallacies of moral panic, perfectly exemplified by la démence du jour.
They could link it to Porn Hub to keep things on the up.
Agree, absolutely terrible idea.
However, in the current environment, your comment regarding the impossibility of legislating for ‘consent (as) some sort of contractual transaction’, is, I fear, precisely where we are heading.
And whilst I also agree with the idea that consent is ‘predominantly based on small, non verbal indications’, such a view, in a legal and political sense, is now becoming increasingly untenable.
Strange days….
Its inevitable.
There was a time when teachers would give kids a hug, workers would put their hand on a peer’s shoulder when they were distressed, people would walk someone home for their safety.
Society has thought it over and those days are gone. I certainly don’t put myself in those positions anymore.
The outcome isn’t going to be as one way as some hope.
A written marriage contract doesn’t work, over 50% of participants change their minds.We’re human.
So there’s Buckley’s chance for a sexual consent app especially if consent is given whilst in a mind-altered state.
Yeah that’s a good point – marriage was the original contract for free sex. It also institutionalised abuse and shrouded it in legitimacy. The app idea is basically marriage on a micro scale. Instant contract. Let’s pretend the app did exist… are they proposing like a sex SnapChat where you consent to say, fellatio (proper names used for a gvt app right) and that consent disappears after a certain time period or when the fellatio is complete…?
I’m NOT passing judgement on Islam, but the precedent for sexual contracts already exists in some countries. Nikah mut’ah is the use of temporary marriages to legalize sex outside of marriage.
Roll forward 30 years and there will be legal options available to people who want to be sexually cautious, just like there are prenups for marriages. Unpopular, divisive, potentially unenforceable, open to abuse… but they will exist.
I know a couple first hand that drew up a marriage agreement that listed everything including household duties and yep, the frequency of sex. Bizarre, but it worked for them.
In fact marriage contracts were for the orderly transfer of property, goods & chattels – which included women – and then only for the rich with something of worth.
Those below the salt had not even that – until the Reformation it was rare that there was even a line in the feudal domesday ledger, along with livestock and acres under plough.
The posting of banns was the first official recognition for such folk and that was mainy to ensure that they weren’t escaping from the manor to the manse.
Great idea Mick, they can use it when the NSW police do strip searches of young boys and girls.
I was thinking the same thing.
Insane idea. If he was in a private business & put rubbish like this on the table he would be out of a job. He clearly has NO UNDERSTANDING of rape if he seriously believes this is an idea worth exploring. Groan.
Agree P but I don’t actually think this app has anything to do with rape despite the claim. It’s more about men trying to protect other men from being”accused” it has nothing to do with protecting women or addressing the very real and complex issues around sexual assault. It’s actually insulting and makes me feel more and more angry the more I think about it. What really gets my goat is why can’t these ignoramuses start talking about the real issue here – respect for women as equal human beings – how hard is that?
Maybe negotiation is needed. One side learns to respect, and in return they have protection from false accusations.
Given that la bêtise du jour is based on unproven/unprovable allegations from decades past, consider Wednesday on RN Breakfast when Fran Kelly demanded from a GetUp spokesbot that the organisation apologise to Flint for her hurt, even if it was not caused by GetUp.
When everyone is a victim, we are all guilty.
Yes, that sounds like a great idea. Hamilyn asks for respect as human beings, and you want to “negotiate” and put conditions on that. You probably don’t even get just how fundamentally and thoroughly effed up up your response is, because for you it is normal to withhold respect as human beings to half of humanity at will.
That the specific condition you want to place on granting us respect us human beings is one positively impossible to fulfill (none of 3.5billion individuals doing anything objectionable ever) is really just the icing on the cake.
The real problem is the basic premise: you think you have the right to say I will not respect you as a human being, unless… to begin with. Because you don’t have any respect for us at all.
I cannot say I have any for you, but that has nothing to do with your sex and everything to do with how you present yourself here.
Hi BaBr
Im not sure you read my comment correctly. I could have been clearer. I wasnt implying men would only respect women IF they got some protection, but i can accept you might have read that. I wasnt implying an order of precedence. Swap the order if you prefer.
I was referring to the fact that we have two sections in society wanting something. Neither seems willing to listen let alone concede anyhing so i suggested they should approach it like a negotiation. “Ill give you what you want if you give me what I want.” Me/I/you meant figuratively.
Note that I said “one side”. I didn’t say people like me. Im talking about those currently screaming at each other, and yes many of the men doing the screaming dont respect women, but Im not here spewing vitriol and I respect women.
One side wants to be believed without necessarily proving proof and another side is afraid that that would expose them to false accusations. Both are equally fair positions to take. But screaming at each other is going to achieve nothing.
Do you have a suggestion on how to get each side to listen to the other?
All Im seeking here is a civil discussion. Doesnt seem like that possible but ill keep trying. Is there anything else ive said here that you’d like to discuss further?
(Search for the word ‘logical’ here to find my full comment).
Thanks for your reply. I’ll try to do this civilly.
1) If there’s conditionality, the order doesn’t matter. A negotiation where respect as human beings is traded in exchange for anything, is one where no respect is being granted. Such is the nature of respect. Regradless of who is asked to deliver first.
2) If you don’t think of it as a “negotiation”, but simply some sort of mechanical process, then “give respect and in return you get no false accusations” is absurd. I have no idea by what process you think this could happen. Unless you believe that women run around casting wrong accusations of rape in retaliation for a lack of respect – which is preposterous IMO – there’s no way how not denying women the respect as human beings they are owed, has any effect on wrong rape accusations one way or the other.
Wrongly accusing someone of a violent crime, is a crime. It’s not playground retaliaton tactics. It’s also rare, and its importance laughably blown out of proportion.
3) “One side wants to be believed without necessarily proving proof and another side is afraid that that would expose them to false accusations” This is a very inaccurate and misleading representation of what “one side” wants.
We are not asking for men to be thrown in jail without proof. When women ask to “be believed”, this is simply in the way society “believes” reports of just about any other crime. If I go to the police and say, my car was stolen, they’ll listen to me, with an open mind. Then they’ll go and invetsigate. Maybe I have given them information about who allegedly stole the car – then they’ll talk to that person. Hopefully, again with an open mind.
They won’t just “believe” me and send that person to jail. But you know what also nobody will do? Immediately level accusations at me, and pretend that it’s jsut impossible to give the alleged car theft presumption of innocence without levelling wild accusations at me.
“But how do we know she hasn’t given the car away as a gift, then changed her mind later on?”
“She was probably given money for the car, but now she’s ashamed to tell her husband that she sold the car and blew the money on handbags, so she claims it was stolen”
“She was drunk, she probably told him he could take the car for a spin because she thought it was cool. The moral here really is that people shouldn’t drink so much.”
When this horrible “trend” came up, the “king hit” – punching random men on the street in the face and all too often killing them by doing so – nobody asked about the victim “why was even there?”. Nobody suggested that, maybe, young men shouldn’t go to King’s cross, because “it’s just common sense not to put ourselves in harms’ way.” Or that “young men should always make sure to be walking with someone taller, of more intimidating stature.”
No, none of that nonsense. Swift legislative action, unfailing enforcement. And it worked!
And no “but what if someone initiates a fight, and gets punched, and then claims it was an unprovoked king hit? Some men lie about this stuff.”
We know! Men lie! Women lie! People lie! Sometimes. Somehow, that doesn’t usually prevent us from investigating reported crimes without prejudice.
Somehow, we can “believe” victims of car theft – believe in the sense of taking their claims seriously and then investigating them with an open mind, without worrying about rampant wrong accusations of car theft. We can listen to them, without making an alleged victim feel so dirty, so aggressively questioned, so humiliated, that 90% of all people who have their car stolen prefer not to go through the horror of reporting it.That is what I want to see if the crime is not car theft, but sexual abuse and harrassment and rape.
Bittany Higgins allegedly was threatened with loss of emloyment when she wanted to report her rape to the police. I don’t know if it’s true (and now the guy charged with finding out who knew and said what in the PM’s office, has said he’s not going to try and find out). But do you even find that conceivable had her claim been that her car was stolen in front of Linda Reynolds office?!
For Christian Porter, the presumption of innocence is apparently so all-encompassing, it doesn’t just prevent judgment, it prevents inquiry into his conduct.
Women do not want special treatment. We want to be treated no worse if we report a rape, than if we repot a car theft.
That was a staggeringly brilliant comment. I think it should be used in one of Amber’s next articles.
I’ve posted a long reply and its awaiting approval. It will be at the bottom of the comments if approved.
Hi BaBr
I replied to you however Crikey have blocked the reply without explanation. It was long, comprehensive and respectful. I acknowledged lot of the points you and others have made but I’m not sure which aspects were of concern to them.
Ill try to reply in parts and see what happens.
Part 1
Hi BaBr
I used two terms – negotiation and respect in an 18 word comment. My comment was actually a defence of women, stating that men won’t get what they want if they don’t give women what they want. You responded with over 1000 words projecting concepts, meanings and linkages onto that comment and then proceeded to attack what you substituted in as my opinion. That’s sounds like textbook “Strawmanning”.
Please note that in my reply I am agreeing with you on many points – would you offer me the same courtesy and acknowledge the points which you agree with?
I’ll start from the top and reply to your comment as I go.
Part 2
———–Respect ————-
o ‘Respect as a human being’ is something every person should start with. From there some people earn more, some people lose it all. Neither men nor women respect rapists as human beings. So it respect is not some inalienable right.
o You are correct – respect not given freely is not genuine respect. Spot on. Those who go the extra mile to stand up for the other gender should earn additional respect. I think people can earn additional genuine respect even though they did something to receive it. That respect should allow them some latitude for their grievances to be heard and considered.
Part 3
o Now to reality. While I would like respect from the guy at the pub who wants to knock my teeth out because I bumped him, Ill settle on just keeping my teeth and him letting me enjoy my night in peace. 4% of society are sociopaths (and make up 25% of the male prison population, and no doubt a fair percentage of sex abusers) then there’s the other non-pathological low empathy mental health conditions. Check out the DSM-V if you are not up on this. My point is that education only goes so far. These are the men that other men are referring to when they say PEOPLE shouldn’t walk alone at night. PEOPLE should lock their doors. PEOPLE should be aware of their situation. PEOPLE shouldn’t get blind drunk in insecure locations. Such dysfunctional people will take what they want if given the chance. And yes, there are far more men in that category when it comes to using force to do it. These people need laws with consequences and constant policing. Most men don’t think women aren’t to entitled do the above things, they aren’t victim blaming, they are honestly trying to protect women… and in return they get personally slammed. Repeat that cycle a few times and a lot of good allies get be lost with NOTHING to show for it. But doesn’t it feel so satisfying to see ‘them’ hurt too. Sadly many of the women leading this debate either don’t get that or don’t care and they aren’t doing women a favor. Case in point during the Eurydice Dixon follow up the Chief of Police pleaded for people to “help the police by being mindful of their personal security”. That’s all he said. I’m sure he was up the night before whittling down the dangerous words and ended up settling on something so blandly self-evident. Emotions were understandably raw, but what was the end result? He was accused of victim blaming and Dan publicly threw him under the bus. I wonder how many times that cop (and the cops he leads) has put his life on the line to protect the innocent – both male and female. I’d bet protecting the innocent is why he wanted to be a cop in the first place. I wonder what he felt after that day.
Part 4
o Moving on from the low empathy type personalities, some physiologically normal men aren’t brought up to respect women. Most of those go on in life feeling entitled and too many act it out in sexual ways when their needs aren’t met. Same can be said for racism, religion, nationalism, ageism, classism etc etc etc etc. Shame on them. Those people need education (assuming they haven’t offended).
o Now to the majority of men. We respect women. I think many men still see them as equivalents not equals due to traditional gender role division. These attitudes have come a very long way in 50 years, but more work is needed. The current generation of men (and boys in particular) are the most equality minded in the history of human kind. That’s social evolution. Care is needed to not shame those boys for the behaviors of their ancestors. That’s were women need to be careful which spokespeople they choose if they want to avoid alienating a whole generation and radicalizing many. ‘Entitlement’ awareness needs to be more than shaming because as you pointed out, respect that is forced is not genuine respect.
correction: psychologically normal…
Part 5
o And now to me. I respect women and treat them equally and I’m sure you would never falsely accuse a male……. But I’m not interested in proving our REAL beliefs nor anyone else’s here. We could exchange CVs and character references and all that would result in “ok so maybe YOU are not entitled/a rapist /chauvinistic….. but all the other men are….my position remains unchanged”. I could do the same thing to you. I’m interested in the big picture – you helping me understand what women as a group see as the problems and how to move forward in a workable way that engages men and encourages them to change…. and vice versa. It’s not A then B, or B then A, but a little bit of each incrementally so that each side feels they are being listened to and progress can begin.
o Is it just about respect and false accusations? No, each side has a list of demands and grievances. When I made my key point (that “Negotiation” is what’s needed) I referred to respect and protection from false accusations as they were what was being discussed in preceding comments. Read the other comments here and I could have easily made reference to entitlement, victim blaming, false labelling as victim blaming, personal responsibility, victimhood etc.
Part 6
o So now that I’ve clarified everything I didn’t actually say, let’s talk about the negotiation bit. How could it possibly work? Well protesters asking ScoMo to come out for a photo opportunity of them shouting him down isn’t going to work. Going inside for a civil conversation was obviously going to get a better reaction. However I don’t think the organizers were looking for that. They wanted media coverage. They wanted the world to see a powerful man feeling women’s wrath and being unable to jump left or right without taking another blow. Maybe he could have just snapped at the protesters and shouted ‘Are you really going to talk over me on this issue?’ They wanted a public beat down. They were applying pressure in a way a politician fears. And the relentless pressure on the Libs has resulted in movement on consent training, quotas, and cabinet positions. I’m concerned however that we are now following the US model of hyper partisan politics. Don’t discuss, don’t negotiate just play to your base, grandstand, attack, and use your tribes preferred journalists (and now lawyers) to heap on the pressure. Great idea, gets results, until the tables are turned and opposition is in power and returns the favor. We end up like America – divided and utterly dysfunctional gridlocked government.
Part 7
o So what works? How do most organizations, families, charities and nations solve their differences? They go outside of the public view where there isn’t the temptation to grandstand, where people can make concessions and trades without being called traitors and all the public gets to see is the final agreement.
o And if that doesn’t work due to the lack of political pressure then each side needs to get behind spokespeople who can behave civilly and debate in the public eye. Prove them wrong with logic. We don’t need more hyperbole and theatrics in politics. Remember when it came out that all the punch ups in Taiwan parliament were staged by politicians to make it look like they were doing something for their constituents. A big part of the problem is the state of journalism. Most journalists seem to be more influencers and commentators than objective ‘reporters’. The papers are going broke and controversy sells papers. Then you have the Murdoch factor.
o If parliament isn’t working then the other institutions of democracy need to step up and facilitate debate. That’s the universities, professional organizations, charities, churches, and especially the media. Call ScoMo to public debates and mercilessly apply pressure tactics above until he agrees, then turn down the heat and start discussing things rationally. That will win over people better than screaming and preaching at them.
Part 8
· ——— False accusations ———-
o Yes, false sexual assault accusations are a small percentage over all, but the question then is how many innocent people are we willing to burn to get justice. I don’t think it’s as minor an issue as you say but the reality is nuanced.
In relation to the most violent rape by strangers as portrayed in movies, yes it would be very very low as its damn hard to manufacture the necessary false evidence and why would sometime set out to destroy a stranger.
o The lower the violence level I would say the rate of false accusations rises dramatically but still a small proportion overall.
o Refer to Wikipedia ‘Gender_symmetry’. Let’s not argue that one out as the experts still don’t agree. All I’ll say is that when there is proven mutually inflicted DV there is a tendency for women to claim they are the innocent victim.
o At the bottom end of the spectrum you get a lot of situations where a woman agrees to things reluctantly thinking its ok if there is long term commitment. Eg early relationship sex, types of sex acts, sticking around for 10 years of her reproductive window etc, and then he dumps her or does something really slimy (but not illegal) and she’s scorned and she is rightfully out for vengeance and the easiest tactic is a whispering campaign. This stuff plays out daily across Australia. ‘I wasn’t comfortable but he pressured me’ and plenty of nasty males paying back women for being scorned too. While most of this doesn’t proceed to conviction it can do lasting damage to people. And here Ill loop back to the initial topic, treat women with respect and we will be better off.
o The lower down you go in this violence spectrum the less tangible the evidence, the easier it is to claim, the more false claims happen.
o So when men get wound up about lowering the bar on false accusations I don’t think they are focusing on women being dragged into cars and raped by strangers, but the other end of the spectrum where it comes down to someone’s word and against another. ‘he should have sensed I felt uncomfortable’. The Babe Aziz Ansari saga is a real case in point.
Part 9
———- Women want to be believed ———-
o Here’s my big learning opportunity. I think a lot of guys are having troubles understanding what ‘being believed’ means in practice.
o ‘We are not asking for men to be thrown in jail without proof’ – well some are asking for exactly this. Sounds like you agree with men here. Thanks for reassuring us.
o Ill use your car analogy only because you introduced it. Not meaning to equate women to cars. Im not trying to be offensive.
Part 10
o Scenarios
§ Someone jumped me at the office and took my car and it was found burnt out. If someone was raped and discovered naked, bleeding and dead, comatose or mentally incapable then the police would investigate the rape every single time, even if she couldn’t speak. Why? Because there’s major physical harm done and physical evidence that speaks for itself.
Part 11
§ Someone broke into my house and took my keys and stole the car. It was found interstate with a few dents. I think it was the guy next door. If you went to the station and reported this I think you’d get it investigated. There is evidence of force entry to the house, the car was damaged, there’s a good chance of CCTV somewhere along the route. I think they would interview the guy but there is no way they would be publishing his name at this point.
Part 12
§ I normally let this guy drive my car but this time I made it clear I wasn’t comfortable with him doing that and he took it anyway. I was drunk and there was no one around to witness what I said. He returned it undamaged.- What do you expect the busy police officer to do. She has a pile of reports to investigate where the car was destroyed or still missing. Do you want to her stop investigating those to investigate your case knowing full well there is no chance of conviction? It’s not that they don’t believe you it’s that they know there is no hope of a conviction. In this case I would expect the officer to respectfully take down my explanation, acknowledge I’m angry about it, maybe offer me some advice on how to prevent it happening again, file it in case of others start claiming the same thing and send me on my way. I also expect them to give the guy a discreet call and ask them to come in for a conversation. I would not expect them to turn up at his house or place of employment, nor to name him to the newspapers or say to me that the guy is under investigation (so i can feed the whisper mill). Initially it would be discreet to protect his rights from false accusations and to let him know that there is now a third party involved so at the very very least to serve as a check on his behavior.
Part 13
As the role of a police officer is to establish the facts I would also presume they would probe my story for inconsistencies given the lack of evidence. When police arrive at a crime scene they take statements from everyone and collect evidence. They rarely say ‘I believe your story over theirs’. Its standard practice to investigate the spouse in missing person cases despite the obvious trauma caused by even entertaining the idea they might be the perpetrator. I’m not a police officer so I don’t know for sure, but when you say police immediately question whether women are telling the truth, maybe this is what’s happening. Better to find out if you haven’t repaid the car loan to this guy before the jury finds out. Once the case has been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office it’s their role to believe the victim – lawyers are legally not able to represent someone they think is guilty (paraphrasing).
Part 14
o One punch analogy
§ Young men shouldn’t go to King’s cross, because “it’s just common sense not to put ourselves in harms’ way.” Or that “young men should always make sure to be walking with someone taller, of more intimidating stature.” – Sorry but your completely wrong. Guys talk about personal safety a lot because they are the primary victims of (non-sexual) violence. They hang around in groups when they do go out for this very reason.
§ They swiftly legislated it. The thing they are legislating against is something that usually happens in full public view, with witnesses to the lead up and actions. There’s often CCTV because it happens outside entertainment venues. There is indisputable evidence (dead or damaged body). There is a high chance of conviction because there is no lawful reason to punch someone in the head. There are lots of public education campaigns tell people to not drink heavily, to not get into fights and no one calls this useful advice victim blaming.
§ Compare that to a coercion type rape case. No evidence, no witnesses of the event, no CCTV, the witnesses to the lead up say the guy was charming before he drove the girl home, the act is normally normal human behavior. No one other than your mother or grandmother would dare to suggest you shouldn’t rely on the behavior of someone you don’t know really well for your personal safety. It’s a mean world we live in.
Part 15
o Moving on from the analogies, I would expect all towns to have female officers trained in taking statements from sexual abuse victims. However at some point in the process they still need to collect the facts no matter how uncomfortable that is. Have you have sex with this guy before? Did you agree to sex and then change your mind? Did you agree to such and such just not intercourse? Are you sure you were clear that he was to stop or did you expect him to read your body language? How long into the act did you object? Being asked these questions would be a truly horrible experience but they are asked for a reason. All I can suggest is female police are trained to ask these questions, explain why they are asking and how to get legal, medical and emotional support for the victims afterwards.
Part 16 – Brittany – lets just leave that one.
Part 17
· The AG – guilty? Maybe. An even more problematic situation. I won’t regurgitate what many have said about the problems of this case. Its going to come out in the defamation trial so there’s no point. To be coldly clinical I think there are two alternative outcomes that are ideal for society – 1/. Kate turns out to be actually and demonstrably wrong and the broader legal/political system succeeds in protecting the innocent via due process. 2/. AG turns out to be actually and demonstrably guilty and is crucified as a rapist via due process. What I think a lot of people are concerned about is the potential for scenario 3/. AG is innocent (or guilty) but due process isn’t followed….and this then weakens our systems and legal/social/political precedent has been set and the bar lowered for personal, political or commercial attacks. Imagine in a few years that Labour is looking set to win the election and someone with an axe to grind (not a comparison to Kate) gets angry about that possibility and thinks they can start firing off accusations to the media…who would then feel permitted (even obligated) by to let rip on Labour. Think this is farfetched? Look at whats happening in the US. Nutters making wild allegations to help their tribe win at ANY cost. Sidney Powells trying to say she can tell outlandish lies to subvert the peoples will during a national election because they were so outlandish no one would believe her. That’s where we will end up eventually if people are allowed to make seriously damaging allegations without proof or consequence. Risk vs reward. Look at the Abetz v Hickey situation – at first glance this seems like a total hatchet job to settle a score that will damage him and she will walk away scot free. Just imagine for a moment he didn’t actually say these words – what a horrible position to be put in. High reward, no risk defamation.
· What should happen with AG? Let him have his defamation case – for a range of legal reasons I think the ABC is toast. They also should have a coronial enquiry but I don’t know what the ToR would be. Could an ‘extra judicial inquiry’ find him guilty – not from what Im hearing. And so the point of this is purely to shame him publicly instead? Until more evidence comes out, I think the risks to our legal system are just too great to allow this to happen. Maybe if they wanted to hold it behind closed doors and in a depoliticized way. Plenty of guilty people have walked in the past because a law was poorly designed, but engineering legal processes around a particular defendant goes against everything the legal system is built on.
Part 17a – Its the last part on the AG thats being blocked.
Part 17b
To be coldly clinical I think there are two alternative outcomes that are ideal for society – 1/. She turns out to be actually and demonstrably wrong and the broader legal/political system succeeds in protecting the innocent via due process. 2/. AG turns out to be actually and demonstrably guilty and is crucified as a rapist via due process. What I think a lot of people are concerned about is the potential for scenario 3/. AG is innocent (or guilty) but due process isn’t followed….and this then weakens our systems and legal/social/political precedent has been set and the bar lowered for personal, political or commercial attacks.
Part 17c1
. Imagine in a few years that Labour is looking set to win the election and someone with an axe to grind (not a comparison to her) gets angry about that possibility and thinks they can start firing off accusations to the media…who would then feel permitted (even obligated) by to let rip on Labour.
Part 17c2
Think this is farfetched? Look at whats happening in the US. Nutters making wild allegations to help their tribe win at ANY cost. Sidney Powell is trying to say she can tell outlandish lies to subvert the peoples will during a national election because they were so outlandish no one would believe her.
Part 17c3
That’s where we will end up eventually if people are allowed to make seriously damaging allegations without proof or consequence. Risk vs reward. Look at the Abetz v Hickey situation – at first glance this seems like a total hatchet job to settle a score that will damage him and she will walk away scot free. Just imagine for a moment he didn’t actually say these words – what a horrible position to be put in. High reward, no risk attacks..
Part 17c4
What should happen with AG? Let him have his case. They also should have a coronial enquiry but I don’t know what the ToR would be. Could an ‘extra judicial inquiry’ find him guilty – not from what Im hearing. And so the point of this is purely to shame him publicly instead? Until more evidence comes out, I think the risks to our legal system are just too great to allow this to happen. Maybe if they wanted to hold it behind closed doors and in a depoliticized way. Plenty of guilty people have walked in the past because a law was poorly designed, but engineering legal processes around a particular defendant goes against everything the legal system is built on.
Your opus magnum above reminds me of a character in the Sainted Sir Terry’s oeuvre who asks the ultimate library for a list of the dangerous lifeforms of the strange continent XXXX.
Within seconds he is buried by hundred of thick tomes, one of which he notices is volume 29, pt ix.
Rejigging his question and asking for a list of less harmful creatures seemingly results in nothing until eventually, down from the topless shelves a small post-it note wafts which reads “Some of the sheep.”
I would suggest that they are in fact far more dangerous because they are so numerous and so very, easily biddable.
None so fervent as a mob in the grip of a moral panic – usually most dangerous to themsleves and their own best interests.
Which most cannot tell from a hole in the ground.
Hi Babr
Well thats the entirety of my reply with a few words changes here and there.
Im putting my faith in Crikey as honest journalists who say they are interested in facilitating respectful discussion. Lets see if they are genuine about that.
I have taken a copy of the whole comment section if we need to revisit anything.
You’ve “taken a copy“?
I suppose, with modern W/P search facilities, that might be handy – it would certainly save anyone with a life from having to read it.
Pity Gibbons is dead – he could have given you some hints on brevity and how to achieve it.
.
Im not here to trade endless witty barbs with people day in day out BECAUSE i have a life. I would like to have a discussion of substance with those who hold such different view points.
What id really like is for ABC/RMIT Fact check or someone with cred pick up these topics and pursue them. Eg “Do police disbelieve rape victims?”, “Is it victim blaming to teach people safety awareness?” Then then they can do their special Zombie Fact Checks when pollies and journos keep repeating them. TBH the police need to get an independent report done on the disbelieving issue as its constantly brought up.
… and now that Ive re read the comment you were responding to, I cant see how you could have misread it. I never said men would be more respectful AFTER they are protected from false allegations. On the contrary, the (unintentional) precedence implied women would ensure men are protected if they felt more respected.
Given the level of vitriol in your response i think its clear you don’t visit here looking for solutions. My offer is still open if you want to discuss any topic….civilly.
An app! I thought it was satire for a moment.
Cops are not noted for a sense of humour.
Exhibit A being our laughing boy Gestapotato.