The 'me too' movement

[K]

Previously:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/i-am-not-sharon-stone-i-am-not-a-thief-emma-husar-launches-defamation-action-against-buzzfeed-20181206-p50kmj.html

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/labor-mp-emma-husar-accused-of-sexual-harassment-and

https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/emma-husar-seeks-special-damages-in-buzzfeed-defamation-case-20181207-p50kzu.html


New:

'Salacious': Judge rebukes BuzzFeed in Emma Husar defamation case

https://www.theage.com.au/national/salacious-judge-rebukes-buzzfeed-in-emma-husar-defamation-case-20181221-p50nm4.html

"The Federal Court judge presiding over Labor MP Emma Husar's defamation action against online publisher BuzzFeed has described the publication at the heart of the battle as "salacious" and said it would be open to readers to conclude the article suggested she was a "slut" who boasted about casual sexual encounters.
...

Barrister Tim Senior, appearing for BuzzFeed, argued on Friday that "the word slut is imprecise" and the imputation as pleaded by Ms Husar's legal team should be struck out.

Mr Senior said BuzzFeed had not used the word "slut" in the article and the allegation it had made was not that Ms Husar had indiscriminate sex but that she had allegedly discussed in the office who she had slept with or would like to sleep with, with reference to MPs or staff members.
...

But Justice Rares noted the article reported in its first paragraph that Ms Husar "bragged about who she was having sex with ... according to allegations".

He said the "fairly salacious" article "seems eminently capable" of conveying to readers the imputation as pleaded by Ms Husar's lawyers.
...

"The fact that it may be difficult to justify [the imputation] only goes to show that you might have thought about what you did before you published it," Justice Rares told BuzzFeed's barrister.

Ms Husar's barrister, prominent defamation silk Sandy Dawson, SC, successfully applied for BuzzFeed to pay the Labor MP's costs of the hearing on Friday.
...

Mr Whelan said the leaking of the allegations against Ms Husar had been "reprehensible".
...

Many companies in Australia cannot sue for defamation, but the restriction does not apply to those which employ fewer than 10 people and are not related to any other company."

[K]

Previously:

Retired Hawthorn GP faces major police probe over alleged sex abuse

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/retired-hawthorn-gp-faces-major-police-probe-over-alleged-sex-abuse-20181213-p50m46.html

...

Update:

Retired doctor charged with rape after former patients come forward

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/retired-doctor-charged-with-rape-after-former-patients-come-forward-20181227-p50ogr.html

"Dr Kyriacou’s arrest comes after three former patients went public with claims about Dr Kyriacou in November after concern about inaction by the national health regulator.

The women had independently lodged complaints about Dr Kyriacou’s behaviour with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) beginning in 2016, which has been investigating the claims of misconduct for more than two years.
...

All three women have previously described growing frustrated at the pace and thoroughness of AHPRA’s investigation and, concerned that the disciplinary process had stalled, decided to air the allegations in a story in The Age in November.

The coverage prompted numerous other women to come forward claiming to be victims and sparked an investigation by Victoria Police’s sexual offences and child abuse investigation team (SOCIT) in Box Hill.

The Age understands more than 20 former patients – all women – have now made statements against Dr Kyriacou to Box Hill SOCIT."

[Bucks5]

The Washington Post ponders whether children should sit on Santa's knee amid the #metoo movement:

http://www.fox4news.com/trending/washington-post-ponders-if-kids-should-sit-on-santas-lap-amid-metoo-movement

[think positive]

The title is misleading, the article questions should a crying child be forced to sit on Santa’s knee, for me the answer is no.

My eldest refused to kiss grandma if she had been smoking, I never forced her too. These things are not learning experiences or necessary. The end result is a photo of a child with a guy in a costume. I seepeople post those pics of screaming children and wonder what they are thinking. Yeah it’s a giggle, it’s also supposed to be a fun thing. I have a whole set of those pics, when one daughter wasn’t keen, I sat next to Santa and she is on my lap.

I agree with the reasoning in the article, even little kids deserve their personal space.

[David]

^ Well said! Couldn’t agree more.

The headline of that Fox News article is a classic example of the phenomenon we see over and over again from tabloid newspapers (and which forms the basis of the “OMG I’m offended” thread): taking a reasonable and/or complex argument and presenting it in a way that makes it look crazy and ultra-PC. It’s like playing whack-a-mole debunking these things, so it’d be nice if more people would think twice before sharing stories from such publications and taking them at face value.

[K]

'Tom Valent, a Santa Claus who serves as the dean of students at the Charles W. Howard Santa Claus School, known as the “Harvard” of Santa schools, said he teaches his students to never force any child to sit on their laps and to leave it up to the family.

“We tell the Santas that you have to be extremely careful. You don’t take advantage of [being] Santa,” Valent said. “I tell them from the beginning: The spirit is love and giving.”

If a child cries, Santas should suggest that the parent join them in the photo, said Valent’s wife, Holly, who is occasionally known as Mrs. Claus.'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/should-crying-children-sit-on-santas-lap-for-photos-some-parents-say-no/2018/12/22/69be1a0e-02d1-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html

[think positive]

$£$%^%%$ common sense right there, unless your a pedophile

[HAL]

Are you still located in England?

[David]

[think positive]

I agree, I was only referring to the bolded! Don’t take advantage of being Santa! What a statement that is

[stui magpie]

Department store Santa: And how old are you little girl?
Girl: I'm 16
Department Store Santa: Ho Ho ho, well come up here and sit on santa's face

[David]

Sounds inappropriate, but let’s face it – he’ll only end up with a mouthful of his own fake beard.

[K]

Between a Rush and a Broad there's the stench of hypocrisy

https://www.theage.com.au/national/between-a-rush-and-a-broad-there-s-the-stench-of-hypocrisy-20181228-p50olc.html

"The Federal Court heard that Rush sent actress Eryn Jean Norvill a text saying he was thinking about her “more than is socially appropriate". Judge Michael Wigney was reportedly sceptical about claims the text was “an invitation” from Rush. “An invitation to do what?” the judge asked. “Are you seriously suggesting he’s expecting to have some sort of affair with her? That's bizarre.” This being a civil case heard by judge alone I’m game to call his honour’s remark bizarre, one only a man could make.

Again, even if every allegation against him is proven, Rush would be far from monstrous. He might have been a sexual harasser had he been persistently warned to rein in his self-described “spirited enthusiasm” and failed to do so. But Norvill had explicitly asked that Rush not be told about her complaint to the STC. And years later, Stone feels “regret” and “shame” about her own silence and servitude."


[J. Szego thinks... well, the title pretty much sums it up... She suggests that Broad was relatively hard done by. But these professions, big-screen acting and politics, have always been to a large extent popularity contests...]

[David]

While Szego lands some good points – there’s absolutely no doubt that the the chardonnay sippers have a tendency to look out for their own and have been much more sympathetic to Rush than they would have been to a conservative politician in the same situation – it remains the case that Rush’s and Broad’s sex scandals really have little in common. I can’t say I’ve seen much or any rhetoric seeking to lump Broad in with other #MeToo perpetrators, because most people understand quite well that he was seeking a consensual sexual liaison.

Unlike Rush, the main charge against Broad is hypocrisy. While it’s not necessarily out of the question that a Liberal, ALP or Greens politician would have also fallen on their sword in such a situation, there’s no doubt that the Nationals’ social conservatism made Broad’s position much more untenable than it would have been if he’d been a member of another political party. Like Christian morality campaigners, representatives of conservative political parties are held to a higher standard of personal behaviour – ultimately, less so by society than by their own constituents.

Otherwise, a common problem with criticisms of “double standards” is that perceived inconsistencies tend to become overgeneralised and, thus, overstated. In this case, I think Szego makes Rush out to be a much larger figure of public sympathy than he actually is. Letters to the editor from old stage cronies aside, my impression is that Rush’s public reputation is more or less utterly ruined now, and that to, for example, young progressives, he’s probably seen as about one step removed from Rolf Harris at this point. Broad may be a bit of a laughing-stock at the moment, but I think his public standing is probably more secure in the long run than that of Rush; Broad’ll still easily slip into a role on some lobbying board after the next election, whereas one gets the impression that the former Australian of the Year is well and truly headed for persona non grata territory.

[K]

^ If that's true, then the Telegraph's legal team, whose past actions have seemed very strange, have a lot of worries on their hands.