суточные щи -

Очередной скандал по следам эпохи #meetoo

https://politicom.com.au/brittanys-little-lie-detonates-national-scandal/


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12176277/Brittany-Higgins-encouraged-Lisa-Wilkinson-secretly-record-bosses.html

https://www.news.com.au/national/simple-truth-emerges-as-brittany-higgins-texts-are-leaked/news-story/088b7657f1a3ef41898b3e74ed5ad07f



Thanks primarily to the indefatigable journalism of The Australian newspaper’s Janet Albrechtsen, the relentless probing of His Honour Walter Sofronoff and the courage of Bruce Lehrman, we have been accorded a rare glimpse behind the curtain of the movement – and in particular that collection of male haters who have evil ideology where their brains should be.


The term “jumping the shark” originated in the mid-1980s and referred to the point at which a television show begins to decline.

The show had run out of ideas. The script writers had gone too far. The show had become an object of public ridicule.

WOBBLY

Well, the #MeToo movement which has been going after Bruce Lehrmann on a decidedly wobbly (actually, let’s call it baseless) rape claim might well be said to have done a Henry Winkler – aka The Fonz in US TV show Happy Days.

First, they came for the late George Pell. Astonishingly, many believed his complainant’s story for a time. Or, at least, they wanted to believe it.

It made sense of their world views. The belief in the “victim’s” narrative, probably peaked here.


Then they came for Christian Porter. It worked against him, too. He was “disappeared”.

Now they have come for a quiet, young Liberal Party staffer who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and who has had his life destroyed by unproven (to put it at its kindest) accusations.

Thanks to media leaks, probing journalism, an inquiry into the ACT’s legal system following Lehrmann’s aborted trial, a trial unwanted by police, law suits brought by Lehrmann and now his Channel Seven interview, we have been given a rare glimpse at the realities of the previously untainted #MeToo activists.

What do we see behind the curtain, revealed most recently in five hours of tape recordings of The Project’s Lisa Wilkinson and the alleged rape victim, Brittany Higgins?

It is truly unedifying. And it should be utterly humiliating to those involved. Ten aspects of the case stand out.

First, we have the same old faces driving the rape narrative. ABC’s Louise Milligan has been an activist-player, up to her armpits, in the cases of all three victims of misandry mentioned above.

Second, there are the high-level connections between politicians of the Left and media celebrities. Then there are the publishers. And the cross-owned media corporates. The ideologically-committed #MeToo luvvies are a vertically and horizontally integrated machine.

Third, the sheer cynicism of the players, revealed in the leaked tapes of the prepping of Brittany Higgins for her highly strategic, infamous appearance on The Project.

Then there was the “get Linda Reynolds” play. And the “get Bruce” play.

Make sure he never gets the chance to go for pre-selection! Before the trial. Oh yes, these characters are real pieces of work.

Brittany’s boyfriend David Sharaz seems to have been in it up to his neck as well.

Fourth, the lies. See under Tanya Plibersek, who dissembled when reminded of all her questions in the House of Representatives about the Lehrmann case.

MENTAL

See also under Peter FitzSimons in relation to the Higgins book deal. Finally, see under “mental health”, as in the apparently shaky mental health of the accuser.

Fifth, the nature of the targets. All conservatives, and one a Catholic prelate. The best kind of alleged rapist you can get.

Sixth, the attempt in all three cases to kill the careers of the targets. Perhaps even their very lives.

Pell could easily have died in prison, given his health at the time, and Lehrmann contemplated suicide.

Our peep behind the curtain reveals an agenda deliberately seeking to “get Bruce”. Porter, once realistically touted as a future prime minister, was forced to slink back to Perth to earn a living, having been milligan’d.

(The verb “to milligan” means to set out to destroy someone of whom you disapprove or with whom you disagree ideologically, by spraying malicious falsehoods all over the national media based on the flimsiest of “evidence”.)

Seventh, the lack of remorse of the perpetrators. One received a TV Logie, which, to date, remains unreturned.

Brittany Higgins was handed a two million dollar plus “settlement” from a newly installed Labor Government, allowing a lifestyle of rented luxury by the beach on the Gold Coast.

She even shared images of her new home on Instagram, saying that it was her “little piece of nirvana”.

“Home sweet home,” Ms Higgins captioned the post.

The Daily Mail called her new lifestyle “lavish” and the property as “flash”. And Mrs Higgins approves.

Ms Higgins also included a picture of her new living room, which is adorned with designer furniture – including a $500 white velvet mirror and a $330 decorative side table.

Her mother Kelly Higgins, who is a real estate agent, commented: “It’s exactly what you deserve my angel.”

“Brittany Higgins” and “angel” are not words you expect to see in the one sentence.

A third #MeToo perpetrator got multiple journalism awards for destroying Pell. No public sorrow there.

Eighth, the politicisation of the law, with the likes of the ACT’s Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold – an embarrassment to his profession – leading the charge.

He is now, mercifully, on gardening leave and with fewer friends by the day.

The #MeToo industrial complex did the same with Pell, massively benefitting from the moral panic whipped up by the Gillard Royal Commission.

BELIEVE

Right between Pell’s first and second trials, we had ScoMo and Bill Shorten pleading “we believe you” to the accuser.

With Lehrmann, we had dozens of questions asked in the Parliament. And the very same ScoMo called Higgins a “victim”. Before the trial.

That is both unforgivable and common these days. A #MeToo tactic.

Ninth, we have yet further evidence that once the big public lie is told, then subsequent little lies are needed to keep the narrative going, and, in the end, with sufficient journalistic prodding, the whole house of cards gets close to total collapse.

Tenth, there is the sheer sleaze of the whole episode. Signing a book deal before the rape trial even got under way? Yuck.

Of course, the ABC’s Milligan wrote her book on Pell – “semi-literate police talking points”, as one American observer described it – before his trial.

Indeed, the book helped to ensure the trial.

These are merely the top ten. One could go on.

Seeing behind-the-scene footage and tapes should shatter the illusions of those who take at face value the workings of government.

These glimpses of the sordid inner workings of the ruling class are rare and extremely valuable to the outsider class. The insider class knows full well that this is how the world works. Yes, we should be cynical.

With the Lehrmann case, you might well conclude that it isn’t a shark jumping we are talking of here. The #MeToo lobbyists have jumped the bloody humpback whale.

The Higgins fiasco is an own goal of epic proportions. And, shockingly, it was played out in the media before the (mis-)trial. What about justice?

As reported in The Australian: “AFP Detective Superintendent Scott Moller was ‘upset’ and ‘mad’ that the Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates was using an ‘investigation as a voice for reform’.

Moller, of course, has, almost single-handedly through his truth telling – a rarity in this affair – restored somewhat the sullied reputation of the AFP.

MEAN

And the fallout is only just beginning. Questions that might be explored include the role of the Labor “mean girls” in the whole saga and the Commonwealth’s payment to Higgins.

Why, also, was Higgins’ former boss Linda Reynolds prevented from appearing before the parliamentary inquiry that led to the generous payout?

Why were senior Australian Federal Police officers ignored in relation to the bringing of charges, and how did Shane Drumgold ever come to hold such a senior legal position?

One can also wonder how Brittany’s book deal is going? The deal negotiated by Peter FitzSimons prior to lodging her sexual assault complaint with police.

As The Daily Mail suggested in February this year, as the Lehrmann law suit for defamation then neared: “Bruce Lehrmann will take the stand to tell his story for the first time – and Brittany Higgins’ $325,000 book deal is in jeopardy.”

Not looking good, then. One wonders how many words she has actually written, between law lectures at Bond. One suspects that, the shakier her story is seen to become, the speaking engagements might dry up too.

We are also still fresh from Lehrmann’s “bombshell” interview.

Will there be defamation law suits against Higgins, as Lehrmann has hinted? Will there be further unemployment for Lisa Wilkinson?

If Higgins’ book is ever written and published, will it appear in the fiction section of bookshops?

Will the ACT legal system ever be brought into repute? Will #MeToo misandrists recover their former, esteemed place in the public’s affection?

It was reported that, laughably, in light of more recent revelations, Higgins described the criminal justice system as “asymmetrical”.

SUICIDE

Indeed, it can be. Bruce Lehrmann, having lost everything, contemplated suicide, and all but went through with it.

His accuser, on the other hand, received millions, a book deal, fame, adulation, TV stardom and a “lavish lifestyle”.

All that looks a little asymmetrical to me. Who marches for falsely accused men?

The law also takes its own good time. After it took Higgins two years to “go public” with the accusation, it was then another two years until the ACT’s DPP called off the second trial.

They do the falsely accused very slowly, it seems. All the while leaving what is left of their reputations swinging in the breeze.

Perhaps Lisa Wilkinson should have, instead, been awarded a silver Logie for “best actress”.

And perhaps, just maybe, the #MeToo activists and their low-rent media champions might pause and reflect on their cavalier approach to justice, before they march again into battle.



-----------
-----------
Somewhere, lost in the vortex of thousands of Brittany Higgins’ text messages being leaked to media outlets, is this simple truth.

Whatever you think of how Ms Higgins, in her own words, “weaponised” her own story, nobody deserves to have the private contents of their phone disgorged across the media.

It is a terrifying precedent if we are to accept that the price of ever speaking to the media is that your entire phone is “fair game”.

There has been a striking lack of curiosity about how Ms Higgins’ text messages have been finding their way into media outlets.

It extends all the way to the board of inquiry led by Walter Sofronoff KC, charged with investigating the trial and the aftermath.

Plenty of witnesses were called. None were asked why this keeps happening.

But how can it not be a threat to the administration of justice if complainants in sexual assault matters see what might happen to their phone when it is handed to police?


Some will argue Ms Higgins chose this path. That she could have remained cloaked in anonymity.

That is true. But does it mean she deserves this? Does it justify this?

These messages have never been tendered as evidence in proceedings. They were not provided under freedom of information.

Some of the messages do raise issues of legitimate public interest.

Senator Katy Gallagher told parliament she was not tipped off about the rape allegation. The leaked texts suggest she was aware of the issue at least four days before the Higgins allegations became publicly known in February 2021. That raises questions as to whether or not she may have misled parliament.

But how these text messages found their way from her phone into the news is also relevant.

Ms Higgins was forced to hand over her phone to police as part of the investigation. She resisted this. She feared what might happen if they were leaked. She told police she was frightened.

She knew that under sensitive investigation protocols that the government of the day was briefed on politically sensitive investigations.

What’s happening now shows that her fears may have been legitimate. What is happening to her is unimaginable.


During the board of inquiry into the trial of Bruce Lehrmann - who was never convicted and maintains his innocence - much has been reported about what the police thought of Ms Higgins’ credibility.

Much of the bad blood between police and Ms Higgins can be traced back to her initial refusal to hand over her phone.

It is a Kafkaesque nightmare that just as police witnesses were tearing her apart at the inquiry for not handing over her phone, persons unknown were preparing to leak the phone’s contents to journalists.

Ms Higgins was legally unrepresented at the inquiry, a decision that looks in retrospect like a grotesque mistake.

She should have demanded the Sofonoff inquiry expand the terms of reference into the leaks of the personal and private contents of her phone.

Witness after witness has been given a platform to make strong criticisms of her.

She should have been legally represented at the inquiry as Bruce Lehrmann should have been.

At one stage the inquiry chair Walter Sofronoff KC complained about the media reporting that police included baseless sexual slurs about Ms Higgins in a brief of evidence.

In reality it underlined the DPP’s complaint that the brief included cherrypicked material designed to attack Ms Higgins’ credibility.

The DPP’s barrister Mark Tedeschi told the inquiry that this material would not have been admissible. But that is the point! Why was this inadmissible material in the police brief in the first place?

Separate to the inquiry, the old trope that Ms Higgins was a silly girl being bossed around by her boyfriend has reared its ugly head again, two years after it was peddled when the story first broke.

Ms Higgins had something to say about that too, at the Women’s March for Justice, which seems a lifetime ago now.

“I was dismayed by senior male journalists who routinely implied that my partner was pulling the strings behind the scenes,’’ she said.

“The subtle inference being that a traumatised woman wasn’t capable of weaponising her own story.”

Do the text messages suggest her fiancee David Sharaz was too involved and too invested politically? Most certainly. Does that mean Ms Higgins was being led by the nose? It does not. She made her own choices.

God knows, she must regret some of them now.

But she also achieved real things and legislative change that would not have happened if she didn’t come forward and shine a light on the way in which complaints are handled at Parliament House.

These important political reforms would not have occurred if she had remained silent, as many lawyers now primly insist she should have.

“By staying silent, I felt like it would have made me complicit,” she said at the women’s march for justice.

“ ... my ongoing silence would have inadvertently said to those people in charge that you can treat people in this way and it’s OK.”

Regardless of where you sit in this debate, what is happening to her now is not OK. How she is being treated is not OK.

The ends do not justify the means.



очевидно, "Believe Women" это лозунг на уровне речевок из красного цитатника Мао Цзедуна. Годится для возбуждения хунвейбинов и перехвата власти на короткое время, но плохо сказывается в общем в целом на общественной морали и политическом процессе. Коррекция наломанных дров совершенно невозможна, возможет откат общественного сознания на уровень "Believe No Women" и #youslut