Bill Henson image from the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.
A vigorous discussion of various aspects of the controversy about Bill Henson’s photography (and particularly about the images of naked adolescents now at the centre of a media and legal storm) continues on this thread. I think it might be useful if we tried to separate out some of the issues - I think that discussion shows that a lot of us are agreed that an incredible number of different topics are collapsed together in the framing of the Henson “debate” in the media. So on this thread, I’d like to discuss the politics of the Henson controversy. Please restrict responses to that specific aspect - others can be discussed here on the continuation of the previous thread.
It’s pretty clear to me that the only political winners from the brouhaha over Henson’s photographs are the culture warriors themselves. Whether or not Miranda Devine knew what she was setting off is perhaps a moot question, but it seems obvious that the culture warriors are rejoicing in being able to find an issue that positions what they normally bang on about as much more central to public debate than their usual fare. I doubt their own triumphalism is warranted - they still face the problem that ranting and raving about Islamism and the enemy within and global warming denialism fails to cut through in a changed landscape of public opinion - not every issue will allow them to position all their enemies - “luvvies”, “the left” - in such a neat row with the highly emotive issues of child sexual abuse and internet pr0n as a hook to draw attention to their opinionating. This thing has moved at the speed of light in the media cycle, but conversely its centrality to the media cycle has already ended - we’re back to all things petrol.
So what about Kevin Rudd? Silence might have been a much more appropriate response from him. Let’s not exaggerate all this, but he’s done himself some damage in being unable to fully satisfy anyone. Electorally, it’ll probably have little impact - in the short term at least, but the damage to perceptions not just about the arts and culture but also about civil liberties might be lasting. Greg Barns, for instance, is quite right to point out in Crikey that the spectacle of NSW police officers rampaging through galleries when no law prevents the exhibition of Henson’s images is worrying. It may be contended that people concerned with this might have nowhere else to go, but that’s short sighted.
For mine, I’m happy to accept that Malcolm Turnbull probably does mean what he’s saying about art and liberty, because it’s not inconsistent with his having a personal and a political interest in saying that. But one Turnbull does not a small l Liberal party make. Still, while the Democrats actually got their start in a way with Don Chipp’s profile being built around censorship and civil liberties issues when a Minister, there’s no reason even if the Democrats are gone that the Greens can’t move into a political space Rudd just made a bigger one. His popularity won’t last forever, and the Labor Party should be concerned down the line about a movement away from Labor on primaries. We’ve seen that happen before, and it almost saw the ALP tossed out in 1990. People who might be permanently alienated by all this might be a more important voting demographic if the electoral cycle evens out and Labor loses voters from other demographics on other issues as the government ages to the Liberals.
And what of the impact on the arts? Alison Croggon’s letter, signed by Cate Blanchett and others, makes some excellent points. However, what Blanchett and Henson might have considered doing was funding a really smart public relations outfit - because these media storms really do cycle out of control very quickly indeed, and I’m not entirely sure it will have the effect they would like.
Incidentally, poor old Peter Garrett must be finding his own position fairly untenable.
There may not be too many votes in supporting the arts generally, but it’s interesting to reflect that Rudd’s Australia looks a lot like Joh’s Queensland at the same time as Anna Bligh’s Queensland gets kudos for promoting Brisbane as a creative city, and iniatives such as GOMA and the Andy Warhol and forthcoming Picasso exhibitions attract praise for repositioning out city and state from quarters far wider than the “inner city latte sippers” - culture is popular in the Brisbane of 2008. You don’t have to go along with every aspect of Richard Florida’s argument but there is no doubt that in a globally competitive labour market at the high end, the positioning of localities and nations as cosmopolitan and cultured does have real economic benefits in attracting the sorts of high value-adding workers you want. There were good reasons why Tony Blair’s government sought to brand Britain as “cool Britannia”. Andrew Bolt (himself an immigrant to our girt by sea shores of course) would probably pat himself on the back to think that people overseas who make key investment and mobility decisions probably think our country is a philistine nuthouse right now, but if you think that doesn’t make a real difference, then you’re just wrong. Rudd really has gone and trashed “Creative Australia” and that’s all kinds of dumb.
Elsewhere: Gary Sauer-Thompson is disillusioned.
A good follow-up post Kim on what is becoming an absolutely farcical situation. My local Newcastle Gallery is now a questionable ‘den of debauchery’.
I wish the Greens would say something, particularly local Upper House member John Kaye. But I particularly wish some elder ALP identities would check Rudd. Gough may not be up to speed but where’s Neville Wran when we need him. I can’t imagine it would have happened in his day. Jim McCleland and Lionel Murphy would have jointly sponsored his expulsion if he had allowed it to happen in NSW.
This issue, like multiculturalism once-upon-a-time should be dealt with in a bi-partisan way because of its potential to inflame. Malcolm Turnbull might have unwittingly started this with his admissions. Now it needs a Labor heavyweight to say he has one on his walls and its a nude and the cops will need a search warrant or a sledgehammer.
Shorter Kevvie: We’ve finally caught up with that revolting Irish art forger. He signed his work Pissarco.
(Plagiarised from Dave Allen)
Rudd is unrepentant about his views: http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/turnbull-condemns-henson-raids/2008/05/28/1211654081371.html
I’ll write something over at our place drawing all this together if I get time, the story’s moving really fast. I’ve tried to put links up to various things and they’re getting spaminated (which is understandable, the spambots love these threads).
Yep, it’s been happening a lot today, SL. I think it’s the short sentence followed by a link that sets off the Spaminator alarm bells.
Pablo, is there anyone from the Greens who’s spoken about this? We may have missed it in the frenzy.
Not just Nifty Nev - I wonder what Whitlam and Keating think!
I don’t like his work, but that is no reason to call it child porn, if your into child porn I’m sure a google search will find what you want at to any lack of standard you desire. So the big question is; why the fuss? Was the NSW government looking for something to break the news cycle.
Charles, pablo, the NSW Government as far as I’ve read has kept out of this particular shitstorm, it’s been the Police themselves who’ve run with the complaints. I haven’t heard a word from the Premier, Minister for Police or NSW Attorney-General. If unclear, I think that’s a good thing.
[Pablo, is there anyone from the Greens who’s spoken about this? We may have missed it in the frenzy.]
Bob Brown has come out in Support of Henson, but what’s the bet some dimwit will now equate “Gays get off on Kiddie pr0n”.
I’ve heard that when police search sex offenders houses for Child Porn, they also find innocuous stuff like kids clothing catalogues amongst the pure stuff.
What is “the pure stuff” Frank? What an interesting term you use. What does it mean?
Hopefully a joint appearance Kim
Whitlam: “That was a good speech. You should go back comrade, and get yourself an honours degree.”
Keating: “What for ? Then I’d be like you.”
[What is “the pure stuff” Frank? What an interesting term you use. What does it mean?]
I meant proper child pornography as opposed to innocuous photos like Swimwear catalogues.
Liam. Iemma has expressed outrage along very similar lines to Rudd.
Kim. I’m not aware of any Greens comment on the record. Yes of course Keating would be a good check and I live in hope that Gough suggest comrade Rudd was perhaps unfairly ambushed over his initial outburst. Did Rudd see the uncensored pics on tv?
I think he did, pablo. He’s out tonight saying he doesn’t resile from his comments, and won’t change his view. His “out” is that it’s only his personal opinion - as a “parent”.
Iemma, apparently said:
Bob Brown spoke out today on ABC local, Melbourne.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/28/2257747.htm
Good to see that from Brown.
“where’s Neville Wran when we need him.”
Nifty is 82 years old. Unless the defence of liberty is the preserve of the gerontocracy, it’s time for a new genration to speak out.
I thought we were Spiros. Lest both of us be accused of ageism my point was that a political elder owes us/society..to the grave…to pull a political junior into line. If they don’t then just wait for a maverick like Mark Latham to let fly.
Federal Police are now investigating the National Gallery in Canberra, which owns 79 of Henson’s works:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/28/2258586.htm?section=justin
Politically, this is straight out of The Crucible. Pretty soon anybody who doesn’t denounce Bill Henson will be equated with witchcraft, and hung out to dry.
They’ve used a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. But the howling mob want blood, and they just might get it. And not a single child will be protected by any of this.
Incidentally, I retract my complimentary comments last week about the police workers. I’ve been involved with excellent child protection cops who would never waste their valuable casework time on a voodoo exercise like this. So I don’t know who the goons are behind this current dragnet, but maybe they need to think about doing some child protection work instead of arresting photographs.
Word, Mercurius!
Did anyone read Crikey today? Bernard Keane has a vicious scattergun attack on “luvvies” in general and on Alison Croggon, who wrote the open letter from the 2020 participants, in particular, plus a spray at Keating, suggesting that he allied himself with the “luvvies” too closely (I presume he means the like of multi-award-winning writer Don Watson, ground-breaking publisher turned high-rise arts bureaucrat Hilary McPhee, and concert pianist Geoffrey Tozer, among others) in his assessment that falling out the with Teh Luvvies can only be good for Rudd’s popularity:
Yeah, I thought Keane’s thing was dumb as feck, Dr Cat. Bring back Christian Kerr! I reckon Crikey’s really been on the decline lately.
[Politically, this is straight out of The Crucible. Pretty soon anybody who doesn’t denounce Bill Henson will be equated with witchery, and hung out to dry.]
Which is why Rudd and Iemma said what they said, however stupid it was.
I dunno, Frank. Rudd said it right at the start, if I remember correctly before the cops got into the act. He fueled it and gave it legitimacy, not reacted to it.
[I dunno, Frank. Rudd said it right at the start, if I remember correctly before the cops got into the act. He fueled it and gave it legitimacy, not reacted to it.]
Rudd commented when shown the photos on The Today Show on the day after the police raid.
Oh ok! Thanks, Frank. I still don’t see that refusing to comment wasn’t a viable option for him. This “it’s in the hands of the courts” thing they’re saying today - which it isn’t - no charges have been laid - is now a way of running away from it.
And Mercurius makes a good point - who is authorising the NSW and Federal plods to arrest photos in galleries? It can’t be without political input. Not with the space the issue has taken up in the media.
[And Mercurius makes a good point - who is authorising the NSW and Federal plods to arrest photos in galleries? It can’t be without political input. Not with the space the issue has taken up in the media.]
Hetty made the initial complaint and the NSW cops handballed the internet posting side to the feds, as they only I believe they could only prosecute the gallery, as the website would be covered by Federal Telecommunications laws.
Yes, but what are the NSW cops doing in Newcastle? The gallery’s had no complaints. And why are the Federal Police roaming around the National Gallery in Canberra?
[Yes, but what are the NSW cops doing in Newcastle? The gallery’s had no complaints. And why are the Federal Police roaming around the National Gallery in Canberra?]
I reckon they’re looking at EVERY Henson photo on public display and trying to find a “smoking gun”.
On whose authority?
[On whose authority?]
Probably the officer in charge of the investigation
And spare a thought for Ratty. He’ll be having his happiest night since November.
See what Greg Barns had to say in Crikey - the link’s in the post:
Dr Cat at 33 - Yep, it’s a ratty old country we’re living in tonight.
“Dr Cat at 33 - Yep, it’s a ratty old country we’re living in tonight.”
Shall we prepare to have our books burned? Is it worth rewatching Fahrenheit 451? Shall we sharpen our memories…do a bit of rote learning?
Are anti-war pics & old mags (front cover w/ poor young naked lass tragically sizzled by napalm running down Vietnam road) next on the INQUISITION agenda?
I wouldn’t hang Henson’s pics on my wall, it’s a matter of taste…but I don’t think he’s a kiddy fiddler or promoter of such. Nor are Turnbull or Brown. It’s MORAL PANIC serving as DISTRACTION & political ploy…& makes heaps of dosh for the black hole media.
Some of the Laborites have gone as bonkers as the Right-Wing zealots & contemporary Inquisition mob…in order to appease Fielding & win the likes of QLD. Such is life in Australia, the 51st State of Puritan-run America.
Perhaps one of the offended Laborites could ask for a job w/ Rupert down the road…act like Bill O’Reilly. They seem to enjoy feeding Rupert & the other singularities their grapes.
Which group will be fed to the maw next time? Certainly not corrupt soccer officials…not when there’s a World Cup to be had for the BUYING.
Tiptoe…crunch…thru the Tony B. tulips…crash…
OT on this thread, but i find the juxtaposition with the naked Napalmed girl in Vietnam absolutely facinating. There is absolutely no question the girl in the pic Kim Phuc is in grave danger, or that the photo was posed.
She isn’t exploring her adolescence, she’s having her childhood viciously and literally stripped from her.
But maybe the same is happening to Hensons’ child now, just not in the way it was originally conceived.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if all this is much more damaging to the subject of that photo, sc, than the photo. If she’s aware of it.
But can we stick to the politics stuff on this thread, please? The other one’s broad enough to consider most anything else.
“i find the juxtaposition with the naked Napalmed girl in Vietnam absolutely facinating. There is absolutely no question the girl in the pic Kim Phuc is in grave danger, or that the photo was posed.”
sublimecowgirl, I put up a link related to that tragic photo at comment #32 here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/28/questions-on-the-bill-henson-sexualisation-of-children-debate-continued/#comment-472557
This case is a signal example of the importance of an independent, unelected judiciary that dispenses passionless justice. If judges had to make rulings with an eye on the mob, Henson would be off to the gallows at dawn.
Frank Calabrese is correct - Rudd and Iemma and the rest said what they said because they’ve all seen The Crucible too. None of them are willing to be a John Proctor to save Bill Henson, and why would they? Sure they might lose some of their terribly important inner-city vote, which has swung not a single election anywhere in Australian history.
The brutal political calculus of this affair is that nobody in any elected position of any consequence is willing to die in a ditch to protect Bill Henson’s right to photograph naked kids for art’s sake.
Re the Greens, Lee Rhiannon was quoted in last Sunday’s Sun-Herald in support of Henson. Unfortunately I can’t find a link.
In today’s Sydney Morning Herald, Alan Leek (retired superintendent of police) makes a lot of sense, whilst Miranda Devine once again fails to do so, suggesting that Jim Henson and his Muppets could be corrupted by Bill Henson and his moppets.
Disappointing as it is, I suspect you’re right about the motives of Rudd and Morrie, Mercurius: The Jellyback comes with the job.
It doesn’t speak well of them, regardless. If they’re prepared to go-along with the ritual scourging of Bill Henson for a few points in the polls, how are they going to deal with any political issue that involves significant questions of principle? Take a straw poll first?
The disgusting populist calculation that led that creep Howard to kick the Christ out of Refugees, should logically lead Rudd to do the same.
What I want to know is just how the hell we let ourselves get into a position where the skewed opinions of a few fixated purse-lipped wowsers could frame the political debate, dragging our political leadership along for the ride?
That’s the true evil of the thing: The obsessives going-after Henson just had to hang a label on him and the Mob (from the PM on down) did the rest.
Good links Paul Norton.
“In time, this whole inane episode will appear pretty dumb, but the damage to Henson and his subjects and lost opportunities for professional policing are inestimable.”
Retired superintendent Alan Leek’s comment adds to my worries this is a distraction & political game rather than a bona-fide inquiry into exploitation & abuse of children. But like I said on the other thread this morning, we’ll see…maybe some good will emerge from this very odd affair.
The thing that really shits me about all this is that I thought this debate had been had and settled 40-odd years ago, with “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”, the Oz trial, “Hair”, “Oh, Calcutta”, and all the rest of it.
Elsewhere: Gary Sauer-Thompson is disillusioned.
I think we should be very careful not to confuse this with those earlier examples, David. The politics are different and some of the issues are different, even if some of the proposed techniques of dealing with them are the same. To write this into the narrative of the relaxation of censorship is exactly what commentators like Devine and Donnelly have been trying to do, because their targets are civil libertarians, artists, academics etc as a category. Nothing is ever settled in politics, but I think we should be thinking this in terms of its discursive and political newness, even if it looks the same as those old, old battles. We are in the process of retrospectively constructing a new taboo, rather than of dismantling old ones.
Sorry about this, not sure of the correct netiquette. Just thought this might be better here than where I wrote it at the other Henson thread:
I would like to explore another angle here - one which may change others’ preparedness (as it has mine) to defend Bill Henson as an artist.
I have it on very good authority that it is none other than Mr Henson himself who is responsible for the noise complaints regarding music at the Wesley Anne in Northcote, which backs onto his studio. As a result, the venue now features a noise-meter that cuts power to the stage and PA system whenever sound in the venue exceeds 85dB. [for those not in the know, this is quiter than a string quartet playing moderately loud, unamplified]. This has ruined numerous gigs, not least the final farewell show of my old band, such that many acts and punters don’t go there any more.
If Mr. Henson withdraws his complaints and allows the Wesley Anne to resume making a contribution to the vibrant arts community of Northcote, I will consider resuming my support for his artistic freedom.
Until then, he is a MUSIC HATING PROMOTER OF PAEDOPHILIA.
Well, you can’t settle it on such a tit for tat basis, FDB. Your bias would be showing. (Although I do sympathise with you.)
FDB,
You don’t have to like music to be an artist/wtiter, sculptor/actor etc.
But the politics of this - I agree the whole thing has a Salem character to it, plus the Howard-bashing of elites. Since Garrett just recently was spruiking a belief in freedom of the arts, its time he got some spine and spoke up, but he won’t.
I look forward to the satire/abuse/mockery and the like Rudd will now get on TV generally ftom various artists. He deserves every bit of it.
And from what I can gather, and I may be wrong, the Libs have played it very smart, apart from Turnbull, keeping their mouths shut.
“Your bias would be showing.”
*looks down*
*blushes, squeals*
FDB - selective tolerance of artistic expression by our Mr H eh? Are you saying Henson is one of the wowsers who rely on the state to enforce legal restrictions on artistic expression?
Most ironic thing i’ve heard.
(The name calling is, of course, completely unhelpful.)
I think FDB was pulling a few legs.
And Paul at 50, no, both Nelson and Abbott have issued the expected denunciations of the images and Henson. Turnbull’s out there on his own as far as I can see in the major parties.
heh!
Yes and regardless how we otherwise regard him (I regard him as urbane, intelligent and so arrogant as to make Keating look a chronic neurotic) those who agree with him should support him on this. It takes guts.
>
I don’t think Kevvie’s being insincere here. He’s avowedly Christian and altho’ that doesn’t necessarily mean he’d be howling for Henson’s blood it’s hardly inconsistent of him. Must be giving all those Creative 2020 types a little dose of reality re the ALP tho’. Hint guys: there’s a lot of social conservatism in them thar hills and even more populist opportunism.
Right on both counts, Adrien.
FDB, you’re missing the point. Henson was not trying to shut down your show. He was acting as a muse to provide you with creative growth - to explore the artistic merits of mime. And you squibbed it, for shame!
But given your anecdote about the suspicious propensities of people who call the police to have local music venues shut down, I think I’d better keep a close eye on my nanna.
No, neither do I, that’s what’s so depressing. He really meant it.
What Dr. Cat just said.
Australia is sorely missing a proper liberal party that can appeal to liberal voters whose tastebuds still find the Green brew a bit too potent.
What was I thinking when I used the phrase “Green brew” in my last comment.
For what’s it worth, FDB was not pulling a few legs (cept for his closer).
It’s well known Henson was the sole complainant of noise levels from the Wesley Anne.
Bill, you want peace and quiet in your inner-suburban studio, heaven forbid you take a few practical and inexpensive sound proofing measures and allow the continued enjoyment of many more people than yourself.
Or alternatively, jump up and down, get the police involved, demand ‘censorship’ of artistic expression - and yes, generally act like nanna/grandpa, outraged art and the world don’t conform to your personal expectations of comfortability.
The irony hasn’t been lost on anyone - it’s more of a running joke right now.
I appreciate it’s a running joke Nick & FDB, but was Henson there before the bar or whatever it is moved in? Northcote only became ‘inner-suburban’ a short time ago, and in these situations the onus is always on the last in to justify changes they make to the character of an area. I’d bloody complain if a music venue set up next to my joint and I could hear it at night. Why can’t the bar install the inexpensive and practical soundproofing?
Why can’t the bar install the inexpensive and practical soundproofing? 85db is the threshold for permanent hearing loss
I know what the law is Laura.
So does Bill - yes, he was there first otherwise he couldn’t have employed the law.
‘imagine if it was your child being photographed’
It’s a familiar sounding argument.
Yep, so would I. And unless Henson has been knocking on the neighbours’ doors late in the evening and forcing them to look at his work, I don’t think you’ve got a working analogy there, FDB.
Nick - ever hear of the concept of externality
Yes. In this context it would translate to - when an artist’s work has unfortunate and unintentional side-effects, like offending the general public semi-outside its field of exposure, the general public can demand the earth move to prevent/remove/tone down the artist’s work.
I don’t think Henson has to be a perfect or a perfectly consistent human being for his art and his rights to make and exhibit it to be worth defending! This is a total non-issue.
Yes everyone, though the story is unfortunately true, I was ‘aving a larf.
Personally, learning about this actually HAS made me care much less about how he’s been treated, but of course it has no bearing on the substance of the controversy.
Laura, 85dB is the maximum level allowed INSIDE the venue, measured directly above the front of the stage. Also, 85dB is the recommended level for continuous workplace exposure. I have demonstrated that it’s possible to trip the Wesley Anne trigger by strumming moderately hard on an UNPLUGGED ACOUSTIC GUITAR.
another thing about noise limits is that why are they always placed INSIDE the venue? surely the issue noise OUTSIDE the venue (or inside someone’s house/studio/whatever). Soundproofing can accomplish desired noise restrictions outside the venue while still allowing “rock and roll” in side.
BTW, 85dB SPA? that’s about the recommended level to mix recordings for long periods at (i.e. won’t tire the ears). it’s not “loud”.
Yes in fact if we made that a criteria the result would be: shithouse art.
For those who haven’t viewed the Kevin Rudd interview on the Today show in full, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6zReaqDIwk
His choice to respond and his comments are of course up for debate and interpretation - but I think the following points might be acknowledged, or…disagreed with
1) This is all he’s had to say on the issue - apart from standing by these original comments.
2) It’s a reasonably frank response - not overblown soap-boxing on ‘what is our society coming to’, ‘this kind of thing should be banned’, ‘you can count on us, the government’ etc.
3) He didn’t suggest in any way he think Henson is a deviant (I’d be almost certain he knows he’s not), or that he should be condemned or found culpable of anything.
4) He didn’t suggest in any way he considers it porn. He viewed and referred to it as art - but doesn’t see the merits of it.
5) He finds the images visually revolting.
I’m not quite sure how this was transformed so quickly into ‘oh great another Howard, thinks he speaks for all of us’…
But as you point out up top Kim, as Labor creep to the right (questionable but strategic sense for a centrist government to push the Opposition further into their corner), a vacuum opens up on the left and issues like this will be where the Greens etc can score points and fill it.
I’ve said before, but the success of the UK Lib Dems these last 10 years is a pretty good example. If Labor stay in power in Oz, the Greens will quite probably double their vote in the next 2 terms.
I liked this from Gary Sauer-Thompson:
Spot on. Iemma in particular must be hugging himself that someone has tethered this particular sacrificial beast to his door post. Someone mentioned Girard in another post. Henson gets to represent the complicity of institutional power so that everyone else can just carry on with business as usual.
Wow. Is an unplugged acoustic guitar like a gay homosexual?
FDB, you continue to ignore the fruitful creative opportunities before you. Just think: Wesley Anne could host next year’s national Air Guitar championships!
Meanwhile, back on the topic…
su, on Bill D’Arcy, I can’t recall the detailed ins and outs of the events of those times, but I bring these matters to your attention.
There is a website devoted to establishing his innocence with his wife apparently leading the charge. You will find it easily if you google. It contends that he was convicted on the basis of one witness who 35 years earlier was claimed to have been raped in front of a class of 20 children. D’Arcy’s supporters claim that the 8 year old victim told no-one at the time. They further claim that the police tried to get supporting statements from the 20 children present and failed.
I’ve got no opinion about that. The fact is that he was convicted by the jury. Whether, as claimed, he was a victim of trial by media I have no idea.
Back in January 2000 the Magistrates Court ordered that D’Arcy stand trial. On ABC radio there was this exchange:
Beattie said that he had been on the case since August 30 1998.
Clearly it was to Beattie’s political advantage that the reasons he had been trying to edge D’Arcy out did not become public and create a media storm. But Beattie is also a lawyer. It’s my impression that he has shown a commendable interest in protecting the integrity of due legal process, even when his political interest was in play.
In any case time has moved on and I don’t think those events have any relevance to what’s happening now. Are we going to have the matter of Keith Wright (who claims to have been stitched up by his own barrister who was politically aligned with his factional opponents) brought up also? It was 1992, and some of the players in Qld politics then are very much around.
It’s similarly irrelevant, I think. Iemma is another matter entirely.
Mercurius:
Acoustic guitar pickups
And yet you felt the need to include those non-facts as if they may have pointed to some hidden truth, including a slur against the plaintiff.
Anyway take it up with Gary Sauer-Thompson, I was quoting him.
What a bunch of double standards hypocrits, most nudes from the Masters had “under age” models and yet those works are praised all other the world and fetch millions at art auctions.
su, it’s not a slur against the plaintiff. Bad things happen. People do at times become victims of trial by media. The judicial process is not perfect. Sometimes convictions are overthrown.
Sauer-Thompson said;
“a political party that has defended the sexual offenders in its own ranks. Remember how they closed ranks around … Bill D’Arcy in Queensland?”
I’m saying that the reality is more complex, that the notion the Qld Labor defending Bill D’Arcy and closing ranks around him is at least highly debatable and probably dead wrong, and in any case irrelevant to the matter in hand.
You brought Sauer-Thompson’s statement to our attention and endorsed it, (”Spot on.”) so you have to take some responsibility for it’s truth and relevance.
It could be said that Beattie in trying to ease D’Arcy out before D’Arcy was committed to trial was prejudging his guilt, but then D’Arcy was quite lazy as a local member, if memory serves and was probably not doing his job of representing his electorate well. On these grounds alone he may have deserved to go.
But it’s all irrelevant to the Henson matter and indeed, I think, to any generalisations one would make about the nature of the Labor Party today.
There are three statements about my position on what I’m saying here that might have relevance. One is that personally I have an extreme negative emotional reaction to Bill D’Arcy. It’s unreasonable that I should have this reaction because I’ve never met him. But it could have something to do with the media’s treatment of him. In fact, from what I recall there is a question as to whether he could have got a fair trial.
Second, what he is said to have done is abominable.
Third, I’ve heard a psychologist who did his PhD on memory and worked both forensically and therapeutically with the victims of childhood sexual abuse. His position was that a person’s memories are their’s alone and have to be respected and treated as part of the experience of that person. The stability and accuracy of such memories for forensic purposes, however, is quite problematic.
But D’Arcy’s conviction stands and I’m not prepared to lift a finger to change it. It’s all in another place, another time and has no relevance to the issue at hand. That’s all.
Brian, while the public presumption of innocence before the trial is laudable and essential, extending that to matters that have been decided is above and beyond the call of duty. It is different for family members and friends of the accused, it is to be expected that they will not accept the verdict in most cases. The same is true for Orkopoulos, his family are hinting at unexposed truths. People who commit these crimes delude themselves about what they are doing, they are highly unlikely to admit their culpability to themselves or anyone else.
Even recent eye-witness testimony is problematic Brian, and extremely susceptible to suggestion whether unwitting or deliberate. It is exceptionally difficult to secure a conviction for these kinds of cases so I think this assumption that they were all the victims of a set up is just wishful thinking. I will believe it when the appeals are upheld.
I disagree strongly that tardiness in addressing complaints of criminal activity is irrelevant. If the first instinct of an organisation is to manoeuvre to protect itself from bad publicity, or to put itself at arms length from a person who is seen as tainted, rather than referring the matter for investigation, then inevitably it will lay itself open to charges of complicity. The fact that there have been convictions is a good sign but sacking the person who had an obligation to report is a very clear indication that there is a problem in how these matters are dealt with. It isn’t a problem restricted to any political party, it is a fundamental failure shared by other institutions; churches, schools etc and it needs to be addressed.
Just as the Buswell thing was interesting, not because it revealed him to be a jerk, but because it said something about the institution that rewarded him with power, the Orkopoulos matter is important because it indicates a problem with detecting abuse of power. Burying heads in sand is not a good response to that.
su, it actually annoys me more than I can say when members of the public and the media, and indeed politicians presume to know better than the courts whether the accused is guilty and even how severe the sentence should be. If we haven’t sat through the whole procedure we really don’t know. Of course journalists and writers sometimes do sit through the whole procedure, and they are in a position to have a better idea.
I can’t comment on whether in “most” cases the family and friends rally around the accused. That’s a matter of counting heads. Certainly being accused can interrupt ties, loyalties and friendships and some of the harm done by false accusations where they occur can be permanent.
All I’m trying to say here is that in the D’Arcy case the crime was horrible, the accusations were contested and are still, but to my knowledge not in a way that is going anywhere legally. I have no idea whether D’Arcy’s supporters are lying, deluded or whatever. I’m saying that the case was complex, the media storm significant, but Beattie seems to have acted with circumspection and responsibility. That doesn’t make him as pure as the driven snow, but he probably did better than you’d normally expect from a politician.
I’m saying that the assertion that Labor in Queensland was defending a sexual offender and closing ranks around him doesn’t seem to stand up. Remember he was pushed out of the party as soon as he was ordered to stand trial and before he was found guilty.
Even so, the main player in Labor then has now moved on. It’s stretching things to use those events as evidence in making generalisations about the Labor Party now.
Probably I should have just referred to the fact that he was pushed out when committed and that Beattie had been trying to ease him out for some time prior to that. But I wanted to indicate just what a smelly pile we were dealing with.
It’s simply of a time past and of a different kind and order, compared with what’s happening now.
Can we talk about something else now?
Certainly. I don’t like talking at cross-purposes either.
Hear fucking hear!
Just to be clear - I was talking about accepting the verdicts, not disputing them. So I have no idea what that was about.
su, I t