
Boundless pains
Is now really the time for another migration scare campaign?Attorney-General Christian Porter. Image via ABC News
“Just imagine for a second that it’s not true,” said Attorney-General Christian Porter in yesterday’s anguished press conference, in which he came forward to reveal he was the cabinet minister accused of a 1988 rape, and to deny it. “That for whatever reason the recollection and the belief, which I’m sure was strongly held, is just not true. Just imagine that for a second.” This line was one of the most effective Porter used (leaving aside the awkwardness of the counterfactual implication of “imagine”), planting a little seed of doubt for those inclined towards believing in his guilt. I am among those, and I briefly did as he asked. I held in my mind the idea that Christian Porter did not rape the woman who said repeatedly that he did, and what it would mean if a man lost his job and reputation over a false allegation.
But just imagine for a second that it is true. Just imagine that for a second. The flip side of Porter’s statement applies also to the people who believe him wholeheartedly, because this is what so many in the Coalition and the media seem unwilling to do. Imagine if a teenage Porter once forced a drunk 16-year-old into oral sex, kicked and choked her, and then anally raped her when she passed out, leaving her bleeding and ashamed. What would it mean if such a man was allowed to remain attorney-general of this country, without so much as an inquiry?
This is what the debate, in many ways, comes down to: which of those two ifs is worse? Many seem to have made up their mind one way or the other about Porter’s guilt – based on his statement and what little we have of hers, his past behaviour, what we know of her tragic life, and gut instinct. Ultimately – as with many rapes, even when the accuser is still alive – we’re never going to know for sure. But there’s an unwillingness from Porter’s colleagues and supporters to imagine.
The prime minister today rejected the many calls for an independent inquiry into the rape allegation, citing the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, and the party faithful have fallen into line (along with journalists who are old friends of Porter). Of course, the presumption of innocence is extremely important. But those arguing for an inquiry (including, now, the woman’s family) are not arguing Porter should be put in prison for this. They want more facts to be established to get more clarity on what happened.
It’s clear some of those rejecting the need for an inquiry haven’t bothered to imagine it (or maybe they have, and are afraid of what it might reveal). Perhaps even Porter hasn’t imagined it – perhaps he has forgotten the night (it was 33 years ago, as he said), or has convinced himself it didn’t happen. After all, research shared by freelance journalist Jane Gilmore shows that rapists frequently do not believe they committed rape, and find all sorts of ways to escape reality. (Perhaps we could say of Porter, as he said of his accuser, “that for whatever reason the recollection and the belief, which I’m sure was strongly held, is just not true”.)
It would not, despite his claims, be the end of the rule of law in Australia if he stepped down over these allegations, while maintaining his innocence. It would simply be the end of his stint in the ministry. He’d go to the backbench. Is that so hard to imagine?
I can also very easily imagine that some of the “allegations that have been printed” did occur. I struggle to see why she would have lied (victims don’t tend to lie about rape); why the friends she told would have gone to this trouble and pain if they didn’t find her to be “very credible”, as they have said; why a woman who was, by all accounts, astoundingly brilliant would fall apart for no reason, though that could happen. “We did what normal teenagers would do,” Porter said of their time together. You only have to take a look at what normal teenagers do today to find the allegations credible.
Two weeks ago, Morrison’s wife asked him to imagine that Brittany Higgins was one of his own daughters. He did, and was left “shattered” at the thought. That burst of empathy must have worn his imagination out for the month, because he now can’t seem to envisage that his attorney-general could be capable of rape – not enough to even look into it, at least. But perhaps if he could imagine it, just for a second…
|
Boundless pains
Is now really the time for another migration scare campaign?What comes next?
How the government responds to recent challenges is make or break for effective progressive government in this countryThe farce estate
The Mark Dreyfus episode sums up everything that is wrong with our politics and our mediaA moment’s peace
Politicians briefly pause their ugly immigration war to pay tribute to Labor MP Peta MurphyWho is Taiwanese?
Taiwan’s minority indigenous peoples are being used to refute mainland China’s claims on the island – but what does that mean for their recognition, land rights and identity?Tacita Dean and the poetics of film editing
The MCA’s survey of the British-born artist’s work reveals both the luminosity of analogue film and its precariousnessDavid McBride’s guilty plea and the need for whistleblower reform
The former army lawyer had no choice but to plead guilty, which goes to show how desperately we need better whistleblower protectionsMars attracts
Reviving the Viking mission’s experiments may yet find life as we know it on Mars, but the best outcome would be something truly alien