The 'me too' movement
Moderator: bbmods
Yes, a good question. That people defend such nonsense is, I think, in large part due to the Cult of Personality.Skids wrote:I haven't read much into this thread, but your bold bit.... happened to US and didn't do US any harm... who is speaking for a collective... and how the hell could they reach that conclusion?!K wrote:...
As for that man's defence of paedophilia, it seems to have had nothing to do with a victim wanting to share his experience, or a victim wanting to be free from victimhood. It seems to have first come up in one of his trashy books (not an autobiography), in 2006. If you look at the passage, all he's doing is invoking the old, tired, feeble argument "It happened to us, and it didn't do us any harm". You frequently hear uneducated, unthinking dinosaurs saying this, along with claims that everything was better in the old days.
-
Woods
- Posts: 2096
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:54 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Previously:
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 50kmj.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/l ... ssment-and
Update:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/ ... 50kzu.html
"Embattled Labor MP Emma Husar is seeking special damages in her defamation case...
The investigation later cleared her of the most serious claims and found there was no basis for her to resign.
...
She said the publications wrongly convey a range of defamatory imputations about her, including that she is sexually perverted and repeatedly exposed her vagina to colleague Jason Clare, is "a slut who boasts about who she has sex with", engaged in inappropriate sexualised behaviour towards her staff, sexually harassed male members of her staff, and ...
Ms Husar is seeking general damages, aggravated damages and special damages as well as an injunction permanently restraining BuzzFeed and Ms Workman from publishing the article or other stories which carry the same imputations.
In defamation law, there is a statutory cap of $398,500 for general damages, which are awarded for reputational damage and hurt, however this cap can be exceeded if a court accepts a publisher's conduct has aggravated any harm caused. There is no cap for special damages, which compensate for economic loss.
...
Ms Husar argued in the documents that the harm to her reputation is so great she may lose her endorsement as the Labor candidate and will likely be shunned by future employers in a non-political career. She was formally disendorsed on Friday, one day after filing the court action."
[I guess anyone who wants to read the Buzzfeed article should do so now, before any possible order to take it down. Has Mr. Clare made any public statements??
Addendum: "Ms Husar and Mr Clare vehemently rejected these claims when the confidential Whelan dossier was leaked to BuzzFeed earlier this month...," it says in https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/emm ... 4zwqw.html ]
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 50kmj.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/l ... ssment-and
Update:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/ ... 50kzu.html
"Embattled Labor MP Emma Husar is seeking special damages in her defamation case...
The investigation later cleared her of the most serious claims and found there was no basis for her to resign.
...
She said the publications wrongly convey a range of defamatory imputations about her, including that she is sexually perverted and repeatedly exposed her vagina to colleague Jason Clare, is "a slut who boasts about who she has sex with", engaged in inappropriate sexualised behaviour towards her staff, sexually harassed male members of her staff, and ...
Ms Husar is seeking general damages, aggravated damages and special damages as well as an injunction permanently restraining BuzzFeed and Ms Workman from publishing the article or other stories which carry the same imputations.
In defamation law, there is a statutory cap of $398,500 for general damages, which are awarded for reputational damage and hurt, however this cap can be exceeded if a court accepts a publisher's conduct has aggravated any harm caused. There is no cap for special damages, which compensate for economic loss.
...
Ms Husar argued in the documents that the harm to her reputation is so great she may lose her endorsement as the Labor candidate and will likely be shunned by future employers in a non-political career. She was formally disendorsed on Friday, one day after filing the court action."
[I guess anyone who wants to read the Buzzfeed article should do so now, before any possible order to take it down. Has Mr. Clare made any public statements??
Addendum: "Ms Husar and Mr Clare vehemently rejected these claims when the confidential Whelan dossier was leaked to BuzzFeed earlier this month...," it says in https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/emm ... 4zwqw.html ]
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54842
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
Interesting. I read most of the buzfeed article, then looked her up to see her background.
Leaving aside the sexualised behaviour allegations, the other allegations are of extremely poor management behaviour and misuse of funds.
She appears to have no background in people management (even union officials have to have people management skills) or senior roles, now she's earning $200k, has a set of staff to manage and a constituency to service, all of which she appears patently unqualified to do.
I'm sure if I went looking, she wouldn't be the only one. A number of the Greens candidates in the Vic election would fit the same bill and I'm sure there's be others in both Labor and Libs.
Leaving aside the sexualised behaviour allegations, the other allegations are of extremely poor management behaviour and misuse of funds.
She appears to have no background in people management (even union officials have to have people management skills) or senior roles, now she's earning $200k, has a set of staff to manage and a constituency to service, all of which she appears patently unqualified to do.
I'm sure if I went looking, she wouldn't be the only one. A number of the Greens candidates in the Vic election would fit the same bill and I'm sure there's be others in both Labor and Libs.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54842
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
ABC, Herald add new defence in Craig McLachlan defamation case
https://www.theage.com.au/national/abc- ... 50lko.html
"The ABC and The Sydney Morning Herald have been given the green light to argue actor Craig McLachlan is a sexual predator who indecently assaulted and sexually harassed female colleagues in the workplace, in an eleventh-hour change to the media outlets' defence to his defamation claim.
...
The month-long trial is slated to start on February 4 in the NSW Supreme Court before a four-person jury.
...
The media outlets have pleaded the defence of truth but have also been fighting to plead the highly technical defence of contextual truth, where a defendant argues a publication conveys other defamatory meanings that are true and the plaintiff's reputation was not "further harmed" by the specific defamatory meanings at the centre of the plaintiff's case.
The addition of a contextual truth defence would allow the media outlets to raise allegations from women who worked with McLachlan on the television show The Doctor Blake Mysteries, in addition to the Rocky Horror Show allegations.
...
Justice McCallum said she was persuaded by submissions by the media outlets' barrister, Sandy Dawson, SC, that "the alleged discreditable conduct with which these articles are concerned is in the nature of a persistent characteristic" and the organisations should be allowed to introduce "allegations tending to prove that characteristic" that went beyond the 2014 production of the Rocky Horror Show.
Justice McCallum had previously struck out contextual meanings pleaded by the media organisations on the basis they were "insufficiently precise", including a broader meaning pleaded by the ABC that the actor was a "sexual predator".
...
"In order for the proceedings to be fair, the imputation itself must be clear enough to allow rulings on admissibility to be made and to permit a clear case to be left to the jury," Justice McCallum said."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/abc- ... 50lko.html
"The ABC and The Sydney Morning Herald have been given the green light to argue actor Craig McLachlan is a sexual predator who indecently assaulted and sexually harassed female colleagues in the workplace, in an eleventh-hour change to the media outlets' defence to his defamation claim.
...
The month-long trial is slated to start on February 4 in the NSW Supreme Court before a four-person jury.
...
The media outlets have pleaded the defence of truth but have also been fighting to plead the highly technical defence of contextual truth, where a defendant argues a publication conveys other defamatory meanings that are true and the plaintiff's reputation was not "further harmed" by the specific defamatory meanings at the centre of the plaintiff's case.
The addition of a contextual truth defence would allow the media outlets to raise allegations from women who worked with McLachlan on the television show The Doctor Blake Mysteries, in addition to the Rocky Horror Show allegations.
...
Justice McCallum said she was persuaded by submissions by the media outlets' barrister, Sandy Dawson, SC, that "the alleged discreditable conduct with which these articles are concerned is in the nature of a persistent characteristic" and the organisations should be allowed to introduce "allegations tending to prove that characteristic" that went beyond the 2014 production of the Rocky Horror Show.
Justice McCallum had previously struck out contextual meanings pleaded by the media organisations on the basis they were "insufficiently precise", including a broader meaning pleaded by the ABC that the actor was a "sexual predator".
...
"In order for the proceedings to be fair, the imputation itself must be clear enough to allow rulings on admissibility to be made and to permit a clear case to be left to the jury," Justice McCallum said."
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54842
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54842
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
I suppose she has got a book to try to sell, so any publicity etc etc.
I couldn't help but wonder if she'd happily put her partner and son on that boat.
Ah well, attention seeking oxygen thieves come in all flavours.
I couldn't help but wonder if she'd happily put her partner and son on that boat.
Ah well, attention seeking oxygen thieves come in all flavours.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Chris Gayle awarded $300,000 in defamation case against Fairfax Media
https://www.theage.com.au/national/chri ... 50jum.html
"The figure is at the lower end of the scale compared with recent defamation payouts, and is within the statutory cap of $389,500 on general damages for non-economic loss. Aggravated damages were not awarded.
Gayle launched defamation proceedings against Fairfax Media in 2016 over a series of articles which alleged he exposed himself to massage therapist Leanne Russell during the Cricket World Cup in February 2015.
A four-person jury found in October last year that Fairfax had failed to establish a defence of truth to the three allegations at the centre of the case, namely that he intentionally exposed his genitals, indecently exposed himself and indecently propositioned Ms Russell.
...
The jury also knocked out the publisher's defence of qualified privilege, which requires a media outlet to show defamatory articles were of public interest and it acted reasonably in publishing them.
The defence can be defeated by malice, meaning the articles were published for an improper purpose. The jury found malice had been established, wiping the defence out.
...
His teammate, Dwayne Smith, was present in the dressing room at Drummoyne Oval in Sydney's inner west at the time of the alleged incident on February 11, 2015. He gave evidence it "did not happen" and said "that's something you would remember" if it did happen.
...
Ms Russell told the court Gayle asked her, "Are you looking for this?" and "pulled his towel out and down" to expose the top of his penis."
Chris Gayle to receive half of defamation payout pending appeal
https://www.theage.com.au/national/chri ... 50llt.html
https://www.theage.com.au/national/chri ... 50jum.html
"The figure is at the lower end of the scale compared with recent defamation payouts, and is within the statutory cap of $389,500 on general damages for non-economic loss. Aggravated damages were not awarded.
Gayle launched defamation proceedings against Fairfax Media in 2016 over a series of articles which alleged he exposed himself to massage therapist Leanne Russell during the Cricket World Cup in February 2015.
A four-person jury found in October last year that Fairfax had failed to establish a defence of truth to the three allegations at the centre of the case, namely that he intentionally exposed his genitals, indecently exposed himself and indecently propositioned Ms Russell.
...
The jury also knocked out the publisher's defence of qualified privilege, which requires a media outlet to show defamatory articles were of public interest and it acted reasonably in publishing them.
The defence can be defeated by malice, meaning the articles were published for an improper purpose. The jury found malice had been established, wiping the defence out.
...
His teammate, Dwayne Smith, was present in the dressing room at Drummoyne Oval in Sydney's inner west at the time of the alleged incident on February 11, 2015. He gave evidence it "did not happen" and said "that's something you would remember" if it did happen.
...
Ms Russell told the court Gayle asked her, "Are you looking for this?" and "pulled his towel out and down" to expose the top of his penis."
Chris Gayle to receive half of defamation payout pending appeal
https://www.theage.com.au/national/chri ... 50llt.html