Liberal MP Andrew Laming, former attorney-general Christian Porter and journalist Peter van Onselen have issued concerns notices — the precursor to defamation action — against academic, writer and survivor Gemma Carey.
Carey published a series of tweets after Porter was accused of rape, after van Onselen, a friend of Porter, wrote in his defence, and after Laming’s history of jocular misogyny and harassing women online resulted in him keeping his job. The tweets were absolutely on the nose. One expressed concern for the women in a photo alongside the three men. One of the women is van Onselen’s wife, Ainslie. It was especially in poor taste for the couple: van Onselen has never been accused of sexual misconduct.
The tweets were soon taken down. Carey issued three separate apologies after receiving the notices.
She received the notices from rockstar lawyer Rebekah Giles’ firm (which has represented Porter, Brittany Higgins, businessman Mitchell Hooke and federal Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young). Leaving van Onselen out of it, the extreme response shows exactly how toxic patriarchy works: powerful male politicians have been quick to shut down discourse that puts them in a bad light.
Take a look at this list of men who have sued in recent history: there’s Peter Costello who sued over a speech implying he was like the emperor with no clothes; South Australian Labor politician Ralph Clarke who sued over allegations of domestic violence; Malcolm Turnbull who sued after being called “part polymath, part sociopath”; Bob Hawke who sued most news outlets over the years for millions.
Even when faced with bullying, former MP Julia Banks, former senator Lucy Gichuhi and former cabinet member Julie Bishop did not launch defamation proceedings. Neither did former prime minister Julia Gillard who was called a “witch”, had her body mocked at a Liberal dinner, and experienced near-daily threats of violent abuse and rape.
There have been just two notable defamation cases launched by female politicians: ALP MP Emma Husar, who sued Buzzfeed over “slut-shaming” stories; Hanson-Young, who successfully sued former senator David Leyonhjelm for telling her to “stop shagging men”, along with Zoo Weekly magazine which superimposed her face on to that of a bikini model.
Neither of these cases were as trivial as being likened to an “emperor” who has so much power no one is brave enough to criticise them. Husar and Hanson-Young’s cases dealt with pervasive sexism from both the media and their colleagues. Hanson-Young called her triumph against Leyonhjelm a victory “for all our daughters”, addressing the toxic culture in Parliament.
Could it be women have thicker skin, picking their battles more wisely — or could it be that men fear protection from their fellow boys could unravel if one is undone?
Prime Minister Scott Morrison is the leader of shutting down negative content, constantly harassing journalists over joke tweets and TV recaps and backgrounding journalists against Higgins’ partner after she went public with her allegation of rape. (To van Onselen’s credit, he exposed this brutal behaviour.)
Lightning-lawsuit Laming sent out a slew of legal letters to politicians, journalists and media organisations following coverage of a woman alleging he took photos of her underwear while she stocked a fridge. Laming said the photo was a “humorous” depiction of a woman hard at work, and Queensland police later decided to take no action on the complaint. Laming later took leave to undergo empathy training after harassing two female constituents.
Porter launched a massive defamation case against the ABC for its coverage of the historic rape allegation (the case was settled; the judge suppressed the ABC’s defence).
On Twitter van Onselen has said he had no idea his legal representative would send the concerns notice.
Porter and Laming are powerful and, as history has shown, well-protected. Carey is an expectant mother, lives with a disability, is a disability advocate and survivor of child sexual abuse. The difference in power dynamic is stark.
These men vouching for one another and launching joint defamation proceedings against anyone who says anything bad against them — however jovial — show how tight the old boys’ club is. Twisted and tied up in one another’s secrets, a tight-knit group so known to everyone on the inside, they may as well give their little club a name. The big swinging dicks club, perhaps?
This article was changed at 1 pm on Friday November 5 to reflect the fact the men mentioned had only issued concerns notices against Gemma Carey, not defamation proceedings.
Should powerful men suck up a bit of trivial or jovial criticism? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say column. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
“Could it be women have thicker skin, picking their battles more wisely — or could it be that men fear protection from their fellow boys could unravel if one is undone?”
My guess is that these men believe their power and privilege is a natural right and they will not tolerate anything they find offensive to their dignity from those they view as lesser beings. It resembles an unstated form of lèse-majesté protecting them, and it works much that way in practice.
Agree. All of these men are unused to being challenged – after all privilege is usually invisible to those who have it. Most women I know view being insulted as part of everyday life.
It’s a class thing – men are constantly insulted by those above them hence their need to kiss-up, kick-down, esp with a skin full when they come home.
For women there is an extra layer as per Lennon’s epigram, which the Bot will not permit.
I am tired of the same old same old tight “Boy’s Club” and their SOB.
I was gobsmacked when Peter Van Onslow defended “His friend” on the ABC.
“I don’t believe that he could/ would do that”
Why?
“Because he is a personal friend”.
That’s it??
Don’t ever think that the law is not white upper middle class and male.
How does Peter van Onslow “know” what his over indulged male friend was like or capable of at 17?
And what did David Speers say or do after Peter’s outburst?
Other than an inane grin, nothing.
Let’s hope that, like Blot & Gerontius, he is now persona non grata.
However, when one looks at the trogs. & throwbacks on The Dumb or Q&A that is probably unrealistic.
Peter van O may now realise how stupid he is in defending a ‘friend’ under these circumstances. How can anyone know what your best friend gets up to when you are not around to applaud him and stroke his ego.
Yes. A sense of entitlement underlies this behaviour. And perhaps some personal insecurity as well.
For these men, their ego is their most important consideration. So, in a sense, it’s that they’re thin skinned, as anything which undermines their own self importance is a threat.
Watch the developments in the upcoming defamation case against Channel 9 . Very interesting and with the Boss of channel 9 being Peter Costello and the litigant being the former Victorian Liberal VP the other party, could Michael Sukkar be collateral damage or will we see an early settlement to avoid bad press? Even the Bot will be on edge
The original ACCC set the bar! It regulated competition alright! The thin and thick skinned fruits are bearing and are turning up in the intended recipients baskets from years back.
Men’s groups have simply had more exercise over a longer period of time in equity, all for one, and one for all.
Yep, but they call it reputation rather than dignity, as in we can’t possibly have a Federal ICAC conducting public hearings because of reputational damage.
Let us not forget that evergreen idiot John Barilaro who was miffed at being brought into ‘ridicule’ by Friendlyjordies.
I would suggest the ridicule existed long before the comedian tweeted anything.
Let us also not forget how Abdel-Magied was forced to flee the country because of the vileness spewing forth from every rightwing hack and politician after she critiqued ANZAC Day.
Women generally just ignore the crap that issues from so many male mouths because to acknowledge it would just encourage them.
Women have also seen what happens to those who push back – one wears the full force of the hate machine, as do one’s children and loved ones. The similarities with the rape and sexual abuse scenario are all too close, to say nothing of the power imbalance.
Powerful males, on the other hand, are well armed with lawyers and well placed mates who can raise the odds of a win very considerably. At the very least they can secure a confidential confidentiality agreement in any settlement so that they can claim vindication, even if they don’t get squillions.
I can’t understand why these politicians who take offence don’t listen to Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton and “move on”and “get over their hurt feelings”.
Reading between the lines are you looking at federal politicians who see the threat of a federal ICAC after a loss at the next election. Many of the male politicians now resorting to the public purse to fund litigation must be very nervous hence the panic
I wish I could believe there is such panic. From what I can see they are confident a robust federal integrity commission will never happen and they are probably right. What you see as panic is just irritation as they swat down the attempts by minor parties or independents to bring a credible bill into parliament. The Coalition of course is only pretending it intends to set up a commission while Labor is at best luke-warm about its commitment (it was opposed until recently) and likely to be even less keen if it wins government. The major parties will either prevent any commission at all or else ‘compromise’ by putting up an imitation of a commission with no useful powers. For the latter the backlash to the NSW ICAC hearings with Berejeklian is very helpful, they will make full use of all the ‘poor Gladys’ sentiment to ensure nothing about any politician is ever made public by any federal integrity commission, in line what we already know of Porter’s proposed political corruption facilitation commission.
I think you are right. I would like to see an ICAC but maybe I am dreaming. A minority government may be more likely to establish one and a few more strong independents could force some responsibility on the rorters.
What bullsh+i! Labor has said over and over again, to anyone who is listening, that a Federal ICAC ‘with TEETH’ will be introduced as a priority when they win government.
I am sick to death of people like you trying to make out that ‘there is no difference between Libs and Labs’. Read the bloody policy statements of both parties for doG’s sake. And remember it is only the Libs who tell lies like there is no tomorrow…this edition of Crikey is full of examples of this fact, from both contributors and commentators
As an admitted rusted on Laborite, seemingly since Federation, have you no memory?
ALL the following were election manifesto commitments –
“No child in poverty”, “Tax cuts L.A.W. law!”, “No uranium mining”, “Whistleblower law reform” and that thingy which was ““the great moral challenge of our generation” etc ad nauseam.
And BULLSH=T to you too! That was decades ago…none of those people who made those statements are standing for election NOW. I am in my eighties, and remember most of what went on at the time you say these promises were broken…NO comparison with the biggest liar of them all…none whatsoever!!
I must have missed the news of an outbreak of integrity & honesty in the Machine aka Sussex St to which diktats all Labor MPs must adhere, past, current & future.
Or suffer the fate of the unaligned, faction despising Rudd.
Of course there is a real difference between them. Labor, unlike the Coalition, is not encumbered with being in power.
It would be easier to believe Labor is genuinely keen on a federal integrity commission if it had done anything about it when it was previously in government. But of course it didn’t, because it was opposed to the idea. And it should surprise nobody if what it says now bears little resemblance to what happens should it return to power.
Of course Labor now says it wants a commission. But don’t try telling anyone that makes Labor very different. The Coalition also says it wants a commission. Talk is cheap, and your precious point of difference is actually one of similarity.
Difficult when in power as for some reason Australia has consistently had barely majority government and too often minority government and/or held to ransom by LNP friendly independents and even Greens; precludes much legislation being passed using GOP tactics.
But then, Morrison has a wafer thin majority too, so why not cut him the same slack?
I’d be happy to give him some slack – the bit after the trapdoor opens and before the rope suddenly tightens.
In a word, No!
Absolutely no more slack and if you want a colour coded spreadsheet on the billions of reasons why, as his office if they have any more copies to spare.
Why?
When a regional development slush fund can find 10 million dollars towards the North Sydney pool and the little kids from Quirindi get bused 180 km each way to the nearest pool to learn to swim.
There is something very wrong with both the design and decision makers of the Regional Development Fund.
Scottie from marketing has made being secretive and dishonest an art form and when challenged on the veracity of any of his statements, lashes out, like the bully he is.
Sorry, my fellow swimmer he has used up all his slack and some.
You cannot be serious!
Had Gillard’s minority government legislated for an ICAC, the Greens, Wilkie, Windsor & Oakeshott would have been loud and vigorous in support.
Why would a government with a majority want their actions scrutinised?
Talk is cheap when in Opposition.
Geez, the “Labor, wrong or wronger” claque are hyperactive here.
Oh, my fellow swimmer, you do go on!
The last time Labor was in power, they were in a minority government and yet, still managed to introduce a price on carbon, a water trigger which Sussan Ley won’t pull even tho’ the Adani mine will drain it very quickly.
Whilst Barnyard the Gasman’s Piliga forrest gas fields near Narrabri will destroy part of its catchment.
The previous government of Kev Rudd was faced with the GFC and toned Abs consorting on the parliamentary front lawn with “Ditch the Witch” campaigns, truckies blockading Canberra. All the lights and hoopla that only someone with the maturity level of first year university student could stir up for no good reason except to be destructive.
It was a troubled time, but, thank goodness even Tony didn’t think lying to the French president or leaking against both the presidents of France and the US was a good idea.
To leak and lie about top secret dealings leaves us with the reputation of completely untrustworthy.
And so my fellow swimmer, I am headed for shore and may the tide be with you.
A from of ‘whataboutery’ seen elsewhere in media, supposedly libertarian MacroBusiness blog (inspired by Zero Hedge and obsessed with ‘immigrants’) does this by claiming both the LNP and Labor are as bad as each other, therefore (the sub text being) keep the status quo….. another old political ‘wedge’ that’s repeated often to ….
As I see ir, we have 2 choices:
1. Re-elect the provably corrupt Coalition, & be guaranteed we *never* get an ICAC with any teeth (if any at all).
2. Elect a Labor government, which is ar least making the right noises about bringing in an ICAC with teeth, & could be pushed across the line with appropriate pressure from minor parties and independants
I agree- labor’s policies at the last election held much needed reforms to try to reverse the increasing distance between haves and have nots. Their inability to prosecute their case was probably due in part to Shorten’s “popularity” but without doubt the election was lost in States where the Murdoch news dominates and scare campaigning was rife. I’m consistently saddened to see Australians voting against their own best interests- eg. for a PM who screwed up his nose in horror and said he would never send his children to a state school-
Rather it was Palmer’s lies & $80 million. Remember “Death Duties” and the pensioners without shares being worried about losing their franking rights!
The PM looks to the sky and calls the last election a miracle win (aided by the $80 Million) Who got preferences and what did the giver get ? ICAC please
The current liberal problem is very interesting.Public purse about to get another hammering. A bit like Al Capone’s downfall.It’s the dirt you leave around the hole you trip over you don’t fall into the hole
Berejeklian’s legal team costs are being fully paid by vote of her grateful (ex?) colleagues, via the NSW taxpayers.
Looks like one rorter could have to face the courts
I have long believed that many men don’t like women who are more intelligent than they are.
Especially men who are higher up the food chain.
All women marry less intelligent men – otherwise they’d be single.