Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
The 'me too' movement

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

As has been established, we have defamation laws that tend to heavily favour plaintiffs. I wouldn’t usually go into bat for the Murdoch tabloids, but not sure justice was done here.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:33 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

watt price tully wrote:
...
The judge noted it was "journalism of the worst kind": he obviously doesn't read Brietbart.
...

Or he doesn't consider it journalism.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:48 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

“For the reasons already given, the impression I gained about Ms [Eryn Jean] Norvill was that she was a witness who was prone to exaggeration and embellishment. I do not accept that she was an entirely credible witness, or that the evidence she gave about Mr [Geoffrey] Rush’s conduct was reliable. I consider that the evidence Ms Norvill gave concerning Mr Rush’s behaviour during the rehearsals was exaggerated and unreliable. I also consider that her evidence about other members of the cast and crew being complicit in, or enabling, Mr Rush’s allegedly inappropriate conduct towards her and other female members of the cast or crew was unreliable and must be rejected.” Judge Michael Wigney, Federal Court of Australia, 11 April 2019

...

'First, you need more than one witness, as we saw in the Rush case; and as we saw in the Chris Gayle case. In fact, as one defamation lawyer joked today, you need three witnesses and a person of impeccable gender. Except that wasn’t a joke.'

...

“If it wasn't for journalists, Harvey Weinstein would still be producing films.
"[But] if the Weinstein story had come out in Australia he would be suing you and probably have a good chance of winning."

Michael Cameron

https://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/gender/why-sexual-harassment-cases-should-never-end-up-in-court-20190411-p51de4.html
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:09 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

'Professor David Rolph, a defamation law expert at the University of Sydney, said the decision was "a comprehensive victory for Mr Rush" and "in light of the reasons for judgment, the award of damages for economic loss is likely to be very substantial".
...

But Justice Wigney said Mr Rush's earning capacity was likely to bounce back two years after his judgment. He said "the most likely scenario" was that he would receive no real offers of work for a year, before it gradually increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent and back up to his previous earning capacity.

But he said there was "little doubt that the publications had a devastating effect on Mr Rush’s reputation as an actor...'


https://www.theage.com.au/national/rush-set-to-win-very-substantial-damages-for-lost-earnings-20190411-p51dci.html
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:38 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/04/12/rush-judgment-a-crushing-blow-for-me-too/

Quote:
Rush judgment a crushing blow for Me Too
Michael Bradley


The bare facts of Geoffrey Rush’s vindication are these: In Federal Court yesterday Justice Michael Wigney found in Rush’s favour on all counts. He found that The Daily Telegraph, in two front-page articles in 2017, defamed Rush by suggesting he was a pervert, sexual predator and perpetrator of sexual assault on the young actress Eryn Jean Norvill, during a Sydney Theatre Company run of King Lear.

The Tele’s only defence — that the allegations against Rush were all true — comprehensively failed. The judge believed Rush’s flat denials of any misconduct, and disbelieved Norvill altogether.

Because of the Tele’s conduct — “recklessly irresponsible, sensationalist journalism of the very worst kind’” — Rush won a general damages verdict of a stunning $850,000, to be added to by “economic” damages for lost income, yet to be decided. It will be in the millions.

The 158-page judgment has ramifications that go way beyond the law of defamation. This case arose at a pivotal moment for the Me Too movement in Australia, and its ending will reverberate deeply.

Rather than retell the whole story, I’ll focus on one of the numerous allegations, which perfectly illustrates the contextual aspects of this case and the underlying problem which it hasn’t helped to fix. Norvill alleged that, during a rehearsal of the final scene when her character has died and Rush’s character is grieving over her corpse, Rush “hovered his hands over [her] torso and pretended to caress or stroke her upper torso”, then made a gesture “which simulated him groping and fondling [her] breasts”. The director Neil Armfield and much of the cast were present.

Rush denied the incident; Armfield and the senior actors Robyn Nevin and Helen Buday denied that they saw Rush doing anything untoward. The judge concluded that it didn’t happen.

There’s no point second-guessing a judge’s assessment of contested facts based on contradictory verbal testimony. The judge saw the witnesses in the box, observed their demeanour and was far better placed than any armchair critic to decide who was the most credible and reliable witness. So I’m not getting into that.

However, the judge went on to analyse an aspect of Norvill’s evidence in a way which can be fairly questioned. Norvill said that, in effect, “everyone in the rehearsal room was ‘complicit’ in, or even ‘enabled’, Mr Rush’s conduct.” For those with an understanding of the dynamics of sexual harassment, here we enter depressingly familiar territory.

Norvill didn’t complain when Rush mock-groped her. In explaining why not, she said that she “was at the bottom of the rung in terms of hierarchy”; “his power was intimidating”; “I would jeopardise that relationship”; and, critically: “Everyone else didn’t seem to have a problem about it, you know, so I was looking at a room that was complicit . My director didn’t seem to have a problem with it, so I felt quashed, in terms of my ability to find allies.”

In his judgment, Wigney bolded the same sentence I have. He quoted more of Norvill’s evidence: “There are bullies, and sexual predators, and sexual harassment happens in my workplace, and it happens often; and it happened in that room, to me; and, I believe, people knew about it, but didn’t know what to say … they were frightened.”

For the judge, this didn’t make sense. “Ms Norvill appeared to be saying that Ms Nevin, Ms Buday and Mr Armfield knew about the behaviour of Mr Rush … but chose to do nothing about it.” He rejected this.

To the suggestion that the three theatre elders might have had different ideas about inappropriate behaviour than the younger generation of actors, the judge was dismissive: “each of them was a highly-qualified, experienced, accomplished and well-respected, if not revered, figure in theatre circles. No question was raised about their character or integrity. Nor could it have been.” It was ridiculous to suggest that any of them was “frightened” of Rush, or would not have spoken up if they saw misconduct. Armfield had worked with Rush for many years. Rush described him as his “artistic brother”. That he might be unwilling to confront Rush was “fanciful”.

The only other witness was an actor who vaguely recalled the incident but whose evidence the judge rejected, noting that this actor thought Rush to be an “exemplary company leader”. How could he hold that belief, the judge reasoned, if he had seen Rush behave the way Norvill alleged?

The killer blow came last: “Ms Norvill’s apparent willingness to cast such aspersions [of complicity and enablement] on Ms Nevin, Ms Buday and Mr Armfield … did not reflect well on her credibility and reliability as a witness. It displayed a propensity to exaggerate and embellish.”

As I said, the judge was entitled to disbelieve Norvill, and to believe Rush’s denials. He was entitled to dismiss, as he did, the significance of the fact that Norvill was an unwilling witness who had not wanted to be involved and had nothing to gain but everything to lose. Rush is entitled to the benefit of his victory; we must accept the verdict.

It is nevertheless emblematic of how far we have yet to travel, that we are still having conversations that question the existence of complicity and enablement as powerful contributing factors to the comfort that powerful men feel to continue perpetrating sexual harassment and worse against women and men who lie beneath them in the pecking order. That’s precisely how the status quo is preserved. The judgment, constructed within the limitations of the legal system, betrayed little understanding of how this works.

We have a deep systemic problem when a young woman’s complaint that she has been a victim of serious sexual abuse falls to be determined, on the balance of probabilities, by a system created and dominated by middle-aged men, in the trial of a defamation case between her alleged perpetrator and a newspaper publisher.

That was the wrong context and the wrong forum. Eryn Jean Norvill lost, in the hugest possible way, in a game which, no matter the outcome, she never stood to win.

This case has done lethal damage to Me Too; that’s the fault of The Daily Telegraph, for publishing a story it could not stack up. It deserves its crushing loss. Rush has been vindicated, and good luck to him. Norvill is the collateral victim of a broken system.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:29 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

"But while I applaud his decision, much of his reasoning invites precisely the kind of social commentary that #MeToo has unleashed. Reading his lengthy judgment, I struggled to glimpse reality in its pages.
...

I’m not second-guessing his findings. But I was struck in parts by the naivety of his assumptions.

Over and over the judge used the phrases, “it’s almost impossible to believe”, “untenable,” “implausible”.
...

Rush has been rightly awarded $850,000 in damages, with more to come for economic loss. I find myself wondering if Norvill risks losing opportunities, if some in the industry might see her, unfairly, as too fragile or prudish to take a punt on. And if that eventuates who will give her redress?"


https://www.theage.com.au/national/i-struggled-to-glimpse-reality-in-the-rush-judgment-20190412-p51di3.html
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:29 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

National sexual harassment inquiry to examine lessons from Rush case

https://www.theage.com.au/national/national-sexual-harassment-inquiry-to-examine-lessons-from-rush-case-20190412-p51djf.html

'"It's almost like there are two worlds there, divided by gender, and that's why we need #MeToo to communicate across that divide," Dr O'Connell said.

She said the legal requirement for consistency in the way a complainant responded to harassment "is at odds with the experience of living in that world in which women have to feel their way through, adapting as they go".

"We cannot go through life behaving like these ideal victims because we couldn't live our lives," she said.
...

Dr O'Connell said that from a "legal point of view [Justice Wigney] was on very strong ground", as the actor was supported in court by witnesses who "all gave very strong evidence" in support of him.'
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

#MeToo controversy erupts at archaeology meeting

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/metoo-controversy-erupts-archaeology-meeting

"The annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) here was roiled by a #MeToo scandal this past weekend, when an archaeologist banned from his university’s campus for sexual harassment attended part of the meeting. Some of his accusers were also present...

Many archaeologists were outraged that the accusers’ meeting was spoiled, and that the meeting organizers did not immediately eject the alleged harasser. ...

Furious archaeologists took to Twitter denouncing SAA’s inaction, and by Monday morning, more than 1500 had signed an open letter calling for change. ...

A Title IX investigation found nine women’s accusations ... of sexual discrimination, assault, and harassment by Yesner to be credible, according to an investigative report commissioned by UAA and dated 15 March. Accounts included that he stared at students’ breasts, took and saved inappropriate photos of students, and assaulted a student in a public shower during fieldwork. On 8 April, Yesner was banned from the UAA campus, events, and all other university property, according to an email sent to all students by the university police. On 12 April—2 days after the SAA meeting began here—the Alaska Anthropological Association in Anchorage revoked Yesner’s membership and 2014 Professional Achievement Award and banned him from its annual meeting and other events."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:38 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^^ A journo acted himself & got ejected:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/an-archaeology-meeting-finds-itself-in-the-middle-of--metoostem-65737

'Michael Balter ... has been ejected from the conference after he confronted archaeologist David Yesner at the meeting and repeatedly contacted a society communications officer to ask for a response. Yesner, who is now retired, had recently been banned from coming to his own university campus because of accusations of sexual misconduct.

The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) tells Balter in an email that he violated its conduct policy regarding his “outreach” about Yesner, a former professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) who was found to have sexually assaulted and harassed multiple women. Balter explains that, while in the exhibition hall of the conference yesterday, he told Yesner to leave and escorted him to the exit.
...

“Journalists shouldn’t necessarily be kicking the subjects of their reporting out of meetings, but quite frankly nobody else was protecting these students,” Balter tells The Scientist. “I considered this an emergency.” '
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

"An emergency"? Isn't that a bit hysterical? If the man is free to go about his business in public without being considered an imminent threat to women's safety, I don't see why the moment he steps onto a university campus people need to sound the air-raid alarms. Not sure it was right for Balter to be kicked out, but it does sound like he overreacted somewhat in trying to play the hero.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Extreme grandstanding. Rolling Eyes

some of these older blokes haven't moved with the times is all. The uni took action, Balter was definitely trying to play hero, overstepped the mark and got binned for it. it wasn't his place to police attendees and this archaeologist David Yesner is hardly a serial rapist or someone who poses a threat.

Banning him from attending the uni is a good move, a guest speaker taking matters into his own hands to remove someone from a conference, isn't.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 5:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Daily Telegraph launches appeal in Geoffrey Rush defamation case

https://www.theage.com.au/national/daily-telegraph-launches-appeal-in-geoffrey-rush-defamation-case-20190506-p51kig.html

"The publisher says the trial miscarried because the conduct of the proceedings by Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney "gave rise to an apprehension of bias".

It does not accuse Justice Wigney of actual bias, but says the way he conducted the hearings created an appearance that he was biased.

Nationwide News also says it was denied procedural fairness and the amount of damages awarded by Justice Wigney was "excessive".
...

In its notice of appeal, Nationwide News says Justice Wigney's finding that Ms Norvill was an unreliable witness prone to exaggeration supports its case that his conduct of the proceedings gave rise to an apprehension of bias."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2019 5:47 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Not sure they’re going to get very far going after the judge. An appeal against the aggravated damages would seem more promising.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2019 1:10 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/daily-telegraph-appealing-rush-defamation-case-federal-court/11084192

Contains 4min video of the judgement.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 8:29 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
^ Not sure they’re going to get very far going after the judge. ...

The cop-punches-kid article linked in the Egg Boy thread shows that "going after the judge" can work.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 26 of 37   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group