Here we go again.
Forgive me if I find it difficult to get too hopeful about major reform, or even belated recognition, of the sexual harassment issue in our judicial system after the sensational revelations against former High Court judge Dyson Heydon.
My cynicism could be based on over 30 years of watching the evolution of sexual harassment laws in this county only to end up not much further along even in the supposed enlightened Me Too era.
And it’s not just here. It has been 29 years since the world was gripped by the sexual harassment allegations against potential US Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas by one of his former employees, a young woman called Anita Hill.
Fast forward to today and Thomas is now the most senior judge on the US Supreme Court, while the senator who oversaw the hearings which might have stopped him is running for president.
Joe Biden recently apologised for not doing enough to support Hill at the time. He’s lucky there’s no cancel culture there and he’s apparently been able to redeem himself.
It was only two years ago the US went through another bruising Supreme Court nomination process involving allegations of sexism and misogynistic behaviour against Brett Kavanaugh. He won.
We in Australia used to think we were above such sleazy partisan battles. Think again.
Thanks to Australia’s 70 year age limit for High Court judges, two positions will become vacant in the next year including one of the female justices.
The jockeying for position is always keen, but in recent months the political aspect has been gaining traction, and now, you would think, the whole gender issue might play a part.
Not if you read a lengthy piece in The Australian Financial Review by Aaron Patrick yesterday detailing the current frontrunners for the position headlined “Epic struggle for the High Court”.
It was a timely and telling piece on the boys club atmosphere that pervades the top echelons of our legal and judicial fraternity.
Candidates are judged not just on their competence but their social and networking skills. Nothing new there. However there was an increasing emphasis on political supporters and a noticeable lack of gender awareness.
The main reference to the two current female High Court judges quoted a male QC who disparagingly referred to them as “alpha females’ and added for good measure “they both can be difficult”.
The momentous claims against former High Court judge Heydon received only a passing mention as a scandal that “will increase the already acute political sensitivity about selection of the judges”.
You reckon?
Later we hear of the virtues of another popular candidate from NSW, one Andrew Bell whose main claim to fame, according to the article, was that “in 2017 he conducted the case against Amber Harrison, a Seven West Media secretary who had an affair with the CEO and published their private messages. Bell was so effective that Harrison eventually fired her lawyers and didn’t bother offering evidence in her defence”.
No mention of the words sexual harassment there — and why would you when you’re lauded for demolishing a young woman’s case against her powerful boss.
As the conservatives relish the prospect of a Morrison government getting to “tilt” the court in coming months, it remains to be seen whether we’re that much better than the US after all.
After all it will be politicians who get to decide and it was only two years ago that former PM Malcolm Turnbull was forced to employ the notorious “bonking ban” in response to Barnaby Joyce’s workplace relationship.
Turnbull talked of the power imbalance and right wing media railed at the prospect of an avalanche of salacious stories on pollies private lives.
Didn’t happen. Either they’ve all stopped bonking each other or nothing changed.
“Political sensitivity” – ha ha ha. You’re right, nothing will change and if anything, seeing the hubris of Morrison and his cronies, they will absolutely appoint white males who will possess more then a whiff of racism and sexism.
And then say they will do a fantastic job. And don’t forget “women’s empowerment shouldn’t come at cost of men” – remember that gem?
“.. Thomas is now the most senior judge on the US Supreme Court, while the senator who oversaw the hearings which might have stopped him is running for president. Joe Biden recently apologised for not doing enough to support Hill at the time.”
I remember it all vividly. I’d just spent a year living in New York and watching closely the way the US did politics. What I recall well is tv cameras focussing on the face of the hapless Teddy Kennedy who was unable to question Thomas due to his own appalling record on the treatment of women.
Harassment of women? All the time, everywhere, in all fields of human endeavour.
“Bell was so effective that Harrison eventually fired her lawyers and didn’t bother offering evidence in her defence”.
Well that might possibly be because the woman in question did not have any reasonable defence.
We should not forget the propensity for ‘blackmail’ amongst those who seek revenge for a real or imagined wrong. While explicit laws protect the target of a blackmail attempt – which is in crude terms – pay me or I will reveal the dirt I have on you.
Now it is not a crime to use ‘revengemail’ – you have a high position or reputation and I havn’t – so with this dirt I will destroy your reputation and I can remain anonymous.
Revengemail is part of the increasingly unjust ‘denunciation’ culture where the accused is fully exposed to the public and the accuser can remain anonymous – a sure fire way to encourage false or at best exaggerated claims.
Off topic muchly?
Denunciation culture?
Harrison was certainly not an anonymous accuser and suffered quite public character attacks as I recall.
Yollob, are you really trotting out a ‘think about the men and their reputations’ denunciation of this article? Think harder.
What should happen to the high profile women lawyers who were harrassed, stayed silent, and advanced their careers. Should they now come forward or stay silent? Should their appointments be reviewed? If the harrasers should be gaoled, which they should, should they be forced to resign?
Serious?
Most of them were kids fresh out of uni. and you suggest that they should sacrifice their careers because they were sexually harrassed, all for the greater good.
Any high profile lawyers who were harrassed should be free to react however they see fit.
The offenders should receive custodial sentences, or not, depending on the severity of the offence.
Well isn’t that nice “Exactly!”,
I can only assume the intention of that idea would be to remove women from the legal hierarchy as far as possible. If the young women were harassed and remained silent, they are deemed to be equally as guilty as the wrongdoer in a situation with huge power imbalances. If they did report the wrongdoing they most likely were squeezed out of the career they were just starting because they were deemed troublemakers and/or deemed not to fit in with the existing culture in the courts. Great choice!
Men in power should know not to sexually harass or worse, women without power should not be punished for being sexually harassed, even if, at a later point, they gain power.
Thank you for your comments. I am not sure if I agree with the direction of my own questions but there is an issue of equity between people who are harassed, do not report it, and who gain career preference, in comparison with those who exit the profession or who complain and are disbelieved and are labelled problematic. Activists always get a shit deal but unless people speak up nothing changes.
The legal profession and judiciary are inherently conservative and are inhabited in the upper echelons by the private school set. No-one ever truly discloses the leg-ups they received in getting there, that my dad was a judge or a partner in a major law firm or a general in the Australian Army, just bland progress through law school into a high end law firm and to the bar and bench.
Perhaps if we want change we should expect more from more people.
No, this is the Time of No Standards – we are no longer allowed to expect the best of people.
Everything is allowed, nothing works and nobody cares.
And none dare call it out.
Okay, I appear to have taken an unacceptable view that the victims of harassment should not be punished in the same way as the much more powerful harassers (even worse, I do not actually think they should receive any punishment for having been harassed and not speaking up, before there was a suitable reporting mechanism in place). If we follow that route we should at least end up with a better male dominated judiciary than we do now.
According to Talcum, in an interview with PK on RN this week, his bonk ban was a yoooog success.
Allegedly it stopped the rampantly priapic, and presumably succubi, from consorting with other consenting adults.
So that’s all right, then.