Parliament House sexual assault and harassment allegations

[stui magpie]

When it comes to national Security, governments can't be transparent. There's reasons why stuff is kept under cover till years later.

[think positive]

[David]

[swoop42]

Amanda Stoker.

Honestly, she has the personality of someone who just ran over your dog then reversed over your grandma for the added giggles.

Surprised she didn't bite his head off if her allegations are true.

[eddiesmith]

Whilst in general I’d agree with private information being private, unfortunately when you choose to go public and make a big name of yourself chasing publicity and money, then you’ve got to accept the consequences.

Much like a certain industrial body that is a huge political campaigner for the Andrews Labor Government then turn around and complain when they’re used by a political party!

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

Bernard Keane must be reading me on Nicks I reckon 😉

“News Corp campaign to destroy Higgins and damage labour takes out a Liberal Senator”

https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/06/16/david-van-lidia-thorpe-amanda-stoker-allegations-news-corp/

Dutton’s own goal.

[stui magpie]

Senator Van has resigned from the Liberal party and will move to the cross bench, where he will be seated next to old mate Thorpey.

[David]

I guess it goes without saying that they'll be happy to give each other a wide berth, or as wide as the seating arrangements allow. Hanson, Roberts and Babet might be more accommodating benchmates – the UAP in particular will be sniffing around, no doubt, given their track record of snaffling disgraced former Liberals.

[David]

More on the Higgins case on Media Watch last night:

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/britt/102497472

In other news, Guy Rundle may have published his last piece at Crikey, who have been in damage control over the past couple of days over an article on the Higgins case, which has also been scrubbed from the internet after Higgins herself took to Twitter to denounce it – the only trace of it exists here now: https://pastebin.com/DG1XTaWa

The issues are, specifically, that Rundle got his facts wrong (he claims that Higgins received a $3 million payout from the government, which is apparently way over what she actually received, though the exact amount is unknown), and more generally that he was out of line and acting disrespectfully towards victims of sexual assault by casting doubt on Higgins' allegations and suggesting that she's profited from the claims.

Personally, I found some of the tone of the piece a bit off too, but I think he also made some good (if uncomfortable) points along the way, and obviously I'll be very sorry to see him go if he is put out to pasture as a result. Meanwhile, Crikey's readers seem to be dropping like flies – half seem to have cancelled their subscription because the piece was published in the first place, and the other half are saying they'll cancel their subscription because it was removed. Who'd be an editor?

[stui magpie]

One of his better articles I thought. Interesting that the $3M was a point but in the article he said it was disputed.

It's interesting how people react now, the knee jerk cancel culture is strong and the capacity of people to face confronting views with an open mind has seriously reduced.

[David]

One thing I will say is that Rundle's remark at the beginning that the "decision tree" favours Lehrmann is not quite right. Lehrmann has denied having sex with Higgins; so, if they did, that would mean that he was lying – in which case the rest of his testimony of what he was doing that night (i.e. his alibi) would have to be taken with a grain of salt too. I can't say for sure, but I would assume that insisting on not having had sex with someone in a court of law would be enough to sink most defendants facing rape charges if it was proven that they did in fact have sex, and I also think it's fair to assume that defendants would ordinarily be on much safer ground to say that that's what happened.

So that means that, really, there are only two likely possibilities here: either Lehrmann raped Higgins, or she has invented or imagined the entire thing and they never had sex at all. The chances of there having been a consensual sexual encounter become pretty small in this scenario. So getting back to that decision tree, that makes it more like 50/50, he said/she said.

And yet, this is the main insinuation being directed at Higgins, quite directly by Rundle and perhaps more subtly by others questioning her claims: that she had consensual sex, got embarrassed when discovered and made up a lie. To accept that narrative as particularly plausible in the face of Lehrmann's own testimony is, to use Rundle's own words, to leave one's brain at the door.

Sadly, I think Rundle's take on this does reveal some prejudice on his part, which mostly seems to be coming from frustration at seeing progressives putting a well-connected Liberal Party staffer on a pedestal. You can note the irony of that, or make observations about what it says about politics now and the elevation of identity politics above class consciousness, but the facts remain: her party affiliation doesn't make Higgins more or less likely to be telling the truth, and it certainly doesn't make her any less of a victim if her allegations are true. On this, we should be able to exercise cross-party solidarity – much as we saw the other day with the staunchly right-wing Amanda Stoker coming out to reinforce Lidia Thorpe's testimony. That's something that should be encouraged, not undermined.

[stui magpie]

I think you miss read how the decision tree works. I agree with how he summed it up, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

It's like drawing a flow chart when you have options but not answers.

[David]

I got the point and think it was otherwise well expressed, but I still think he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too by presenting the consensual sex scenario as something we need to at least consider as a possibility (and it is the scenario he goes on to posit in so many words – presumably because it’s hard to comprehend why Higgins would have ended up naked on an office couch otherwise).

That’s not to say we shouldn’t entertain doubt, of course. Lehrmann is absolutely entitled to presumption of innocence, and I think Paul Barry (in the Media Watch segment linked above) is right to say that the media has failed to afford him that at times. And it’s necessary to push back against those who would have us think that all allegations should be automatically believed. But if Rundle is going to wade into these waters – which many others have, perhaps wisely, given a wide berth – then I think it is important to ensure that one is describing things fairly and accurately, and I do get the impression that he overplayed his hand a bit in his desire to challenge the dominant progressive narrative around this case.

[stui magpie]

fair points, but the fact that the article was pulled is BS and if it costs him his job, that's proof the world has gone insane.