This shocking, methodical documentary uses first-hand testimonies to expose a toxic culture where abusers prey on the vulnerable – while hiding behind a cloak of saintliness
Not the United Nations as well. We live resigned to the knowledge that our political parties, law enforcers, independent standards agencies and sport governing bodies are functionally corrupt and deeply chauvinistic. Now Whistleblowers: Inside the UN (BBC Two) is here to tell us that the nearest thing we have to an expression of global conscience is a source of shame as much as hope.
Anyone who has studied the mechanics of the UN security council knows the United Nations is an instrument of iniquitous power, not a check upon it, but Whistleblowers suggests the parts you could still naively have thought of as pure – the collective effort to fight disease, hunger and climate change – ripple with the familiar stench of powerful people who are concerned, it seems, only with how to preserve and abuse their positions. The documentary combines disparate accounts from former senior UN staff, to accumulate a breadth and depth of evidence that becomes crushing.
We start with Emma Reilly, claiming a boss overruled her when she refused to let China see the names of Uyghur activists who were to attend a human rights council meeting. She feared they would be targeted by state repression. One of those activists says his family was targeted.
OK, perhaps that’s just one blase manager, and in any case the programme-makers have been sent a UN statement contesting Reilly’s claim. But then we hear from James Wasserstrom, who says he found evidence that the tendering process for the construction of a power station in Kosovo was compromised by kickbacks, and John O’Brien, who raised concerns that an environmental programme in Russia had succumbed to local money-laundering scams.
Reilly, Wasserstrom and O’Brien all separately allege that once they spoke out, the UN went after them. O’Brien was suddenly accused of solicitation and viewing nude photographs on his phone at work (O’Brien sees the allegations as vexatious). Wasserstrom was promised whistleblower protection, then had his identity leaked to the very people he had accused. Reilly has footage of Swiss police entering her flat and refusing to leave: she says the UN had sent them, and had told them Reilly was a suicide risk. “Effectively,” she recalls, “the UN tried to have me sectioned.” By the time she’d convinced them it was a false alarm, she had missed an online meeting at which she had planned to raise the disclosure of activists’ identities – it so happened that the cops arrived just as the meeting was beginning.
Still, although the trio’s tears seem real, perhaps all three are lying and the UN’s flat denials are the truth. But we are not even halfway into a 90-minute programme that never feels short of material. Next, the journalist Jeremy Dupin relates how he came to suspect that leaking latrines at a UN base in Haiti caused a catastrophic cholera outbreak that began in 2010 and ended up costing more than 10,000 lives. Attempts to hold anyone accountable were stonewalled.
Somehow, after this allegation the programme manages to be shocking in a new way. Because, of course, we’re not talking here about powerful people. We are largely talking about powerful men and, in its latter stages, Whistleblowers switches its focus to an organisational culture of misogyny and rape. We hear how peacekeeping troops in Haiti and Central African Republic were implicated in numerous horrific sexual assaults against vulnerable locals, and we meet one of the victims – as well as the former assistant secretary-general Tony Banbury, who resigned in dismay at the UN’s indifferent response to a child in CAR being raped: “I needed the organisation to prioritise that girl. They prioritised the perpetrators.”
The 2022 federal election was a win for women candidates, and a historic moment in Australia’s journey towards a parliament that truly endorses and promotes gender equality in all its work.
At this stage of counting, it looks as though the House of Representatives will have at least 57 women, making 38% of the chamber female. This is our highest proportion of women ever in the lower house.
The Senate reached and exceeded 50% in the last parliament, and will maintain this in the new parliament. These new levels will see Australia reverse a 20-year decline in the international ranking of women in national parliaments, from 57th up to around 37th, ahead of Portugal, Tanzania and Italy.
How did this happen? And what will this mean for the culture at Parliament House?
First, look at the numbers
The simplest explanation is numerical: more women won because more women than ever contested seats in 2022, rendering true the maxim “you gotta be in it to win it”. Women represented just under 40% of all candidates in Saturday’s poll – an increase, says analyst Ben Raue, from about 32% in 2016 and 2019, and under 28% in 2013.
Independent Allegra Spender is the new member for Wentworth, having defeated Liberal incumbent Dave Sharma. Bianca De Marchi/AAP
The 2022 numbers also indicate women candidates actually outperformed men candidates.
And consider the swing
The depletion of the Liberal Party vote was accompanied by a wave of unexpected wins for women.
Women won as challengers in safe or fairly safe seats previously held by incumbent MPs and ministers. This includes the well-publicised wins of independent and minor party women in Curtin, Fowler, Goldstein, Kooyong, Mackellar, North Sydney, Ryan and Wentworth.
But it also includes the wins of Labor Party women who took the seats of Boothby, Chisholm, Hasluck, Higgins, Pearce, Reid and Swan.
Zeneta Mascarenhas was elected to the Perth seat of Swan, with a swing of more than 12%. Richard Wainwright/AAP
In this, there’s a historical comparison with the 1996 election in which John Howard’s landslide election saw an unprecedented 23 women swept into the House of Representatives. The Liberal Party had also placed these women in unwinnable seats, but the magnitude of the swing away from Labor changed the meaning of a safe, as opposed to a marginal, seat.
In fact, those women consolidated their positions in the 1998 election, and the number of women increased further. The swing towards the Coalition in 1996 was so great it was hard for the Labor Party to come back. However, women in the “class of 1996” also kept their marginal seats through concerted work in their electorates. The class of 2022 would do well to heed this lesson.
Community campaigning was vital
In 2022, Australian voters took advantage of the alternatives presented by independent and Green women candidates. Raue, again, was the first to notice the seismic change in the proportion of women running as independents in 2022: a whopping 65%, up from about 22% in 2019.
Women made the deliberate choice not to run as candidates for the major political parties. And for good reason: Australian major parties have proven, time and time again, that their pre-selection processes are top-down, out of touch and impervious to increasingly loud calls for equality and diversity.
These campaigns were also driven by record numbers of volunteers, knocking on record numbers of doors, having record numbers of conversations with local communities. These community-based campaigns followed the model established by Cathy McGowan in Indi in 2013, and serve as a key lesson not just in Australia, but around the world.
It’s also true that the swing and community based campaigns resulted in the loss of female talent. Moderate Liberal Katie Allen could not stem her electorate’s dissatisfaction with the government in Melbourne’s Higgins. Likewise, Labor’s Terri Butler could not prevent the “Greenslide” in Brisbane’s Griffith. Parachuted Labor candidate Kristina Keneally could not convince the people of Fowler that she would be their best representative.
New independents like Monique Ryan were elected on the back of strong community campaigns. Luis Ascui/AAP
Voters wanted something different
In what was arguably one of the country’s most blokey electoral campaigns, it appears Australian voters wanted something different.
Gender equality was not top of the list of issues considered important in this election, in fact it was well below climate change and the cost-of-living.
But voters across the country chose candidates who explicitly articulated a desire to shift our political culture. Climate 200 candidates, for example, had Women’s safety and equality one of their headline policies.
The last parliament brought the toxic work culture of Parliament House into the headlines.
Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins’s Set the Standard report late last year found the “win-at-all costs” mentality of major party politics was one of the key drivers of unsafe parliamentary workplaces. Deep-seated partisan differences have also prevented cross-party collaboration in the name of gender equality.
Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins made 28 recommendations to fix parliament’s work culture in November 2021. Lukas Coch/AAP
The election of so many women and so many women from beyond the major parties is a huge opportunity to change this.
The incoming Labor government will need to engage with a new brand of women in parliaments: women, importantly, who are new to the parliamentary area but who have worked in professional workplaces. They will carry those standards and expectations into the chamber.
The new cross-bench will not be encumbered by the need to protect a party. In fact, their electorates have given them a mandate to keep the parliament accountable, not only on the full set of recommendations of the Set the Standard report, but on the 55 recommendations of Jenkins’ Respect@Work report on sexual harrassment.
The women on the cross-bench will not always agree with each other, let alone with the new government, but there is a sense that they will approach the job differently. As new independent Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel told the ABC’s Insiders after the election, “independents already communicate and collaborate [with each other]”.
If this approach continues, it will make a big difference to the way parliament works.
Correction: the original piece included Robertson in the list of seats won by Labor Party women. It was won by a man.
In an electric event held at the ANU last month, some of Australia’s best female film makers and experts shone a light on a tough, sexist industry. The battle continues for female film practitioners and their supporters in policy, media, activism and academia to not only celebrate their achievements but also to address the ongoing challenges still facing the underrepresentation of women in Australian cinema. Here Professor Lisa French reflects.
Since the 1970s, each decade of women’s work in the moving image in Australia can be read as a significant cultural location. One of the most momentous in Australia was the 1970s, which saw the emergence of feminist culture and the revival of the film industry.
This year, the Pamela Denoon Lecture, Australia’s longest running and most prestigious feminist lecture, shone a spotlight on this era, and a significant event in 1973 called Womenvision. Organised by The National Foundation for Australian Women, it was presented as a panel of trailblazing women who looked back and joined the dots to 2022, to review the status, participation, and experience of women in Australian film and television today.
In 1973 there was barely an industry and women found it difficult to make films, but Womenvision created a momentum for change. From this time women stepped up and demanded and lobbied to be included. And according to panellist, writer director Kim Farrant, “so many women have shown their talent, and that’s just that cream rising to the top, they just keep having an incredible voice”.
Leaders of industry, and women who attended the 1973 event joined the panel: director/writer Kim Farrant (Strangerland, The Weekend Away ); producer Sue Maslin AO (The Dressmaker, and Executive Producer of Brazen Hussies); producer Sheila Jayadev (Way out West, Ali’s Wedding); Professor Lisa French (author and leading authority on women in Australian film and editor/ co-author of the book WomenVision), director/cinematographer Jane Castle (60 Thousand Barrels, When the Camera Stopped Rolling) and Director/ Producer Pat Fiske (Rocking the Foundations, When the Camera Stopped Rolling).
Pat Fiske described the atmosphere of the event, the energy and excitement.
Sue Maslin observed the debt that women in the industry owe to these trailblazers: “I completely owe my career to those women …[who] realized that we were not going to have women’s stories in our culture unless women did get the cameras get the sound equipment and just get out there and make the work”.
It was a completely different era but according to the Maslin, today, “the debate is just as valid”, and “diversity is central to our storytelling”. As Fiske noted, the event caused significant momentum, notably spawning women’s groups and then some of those women organized the first International Women’s Film Festival in Australia, showcasing female creativity and offering a context for women’s cinema.
As a woman of colour, Shelia Jayadev reflected on the personal and structural barriers, in particular fighting against the idea that diverse stories are ‘niche’ rather than something that the general public wants. Although Australia is diverse, she said “we’re not seeing those stories reflected on screen as much as we should’. The biggest fight for her is to shift thinking, to get the exhibitors and the distributors on board to “reflect what Australia looks like”, to be able to make films at the same scale rather than with a micro budget because it’s niche. Being female as well as looking different makes it harder to break through.
Farrant argued for intersectional considerations because: “if we’re not seeing ourselves reflected the colour of our skin, our gender, our sexual preference, our disability, our fullness, all of it, then how can we rise a sense of self-worth that healthy self-worth that we all need?”
Diversity seen this way is essential for an individual to mature, and for social cohesion and the range of identities we can inhabit.
Women in careers such as cinematography have had a harder time than some other crafts. Cinematographer Jane Castle has experienced great success but knows that change is slow. Her mother, Lilias Fraser (the subject of Castle’s When the Cameras Stopped Rolling), single-handedly shot her first film in 1957. The ABC picked it up and were “screening it every night but when she went to apply for a job as a cinematographer, … they just laughed out of the room”. According to Castle, “we still have this dreadful statistic of how few women’s cinematographers are shooting feature films”.
Kim Farrant, who is working currently in Hollywood, and whose film Weekend Away (2022) was number one on Netflix, acknowledged how significant mentors are. She also outlined the challenge women directors encounter up against male dominated teams, a lonely and often alienating journey if you are one woman with thirty men. Castle also spoke of women having to work harder to gain respect from male crew. Women’s issues such as the experience of violence, are not regarded by gatekeepers as what audiences will want to see, despite the large percentage of women who have encountered such violence. The panel discuss a breadth of issues such as wellbeing or childcare. An innovative solution to the childcare dilemma was that of sharing a job to achieve a doable work life (family) balance.
The panel pondered what is being done now to improve the position of women in film, which for features in Australia has women as around 34% of producers, 16% of directors and 24% of writers. Maslin was the founding president of the Natalie Miller Foundation, which offer screen industry career fellowships, and both Maslin and French have been on Screen Australia’s Gender Matters Taskforce, an initiative to support women’s careers and creativity. Gender Matters has increased the gender balance in creative teams, supported women’s businesses, funded storytelling and attachments, whilst achieving soft results such as increasing women’s confidence submitting applications and changing funding agency and film industry practices. These initiatives are valuable and have an outcome, but there needs to be a whole of industry commitment to change to achieve equality and equity. It is not about fixing women but that fairer film and television workplaces must be built.
The panel concluded with calls to action: listening to women, including women as leaders and gatekeepers to improve their autonomy over their work and enable women’s voices to be heard. Industry leaders must commit to inclusion. A recording of this event, which includes video material played, is available here: Womenvision Revisited video
Three Conservative cabinet ministers and two Labour shadow cabinet ministers have been reported to a parliamentary watchdog that deals with complaints against MPs, it has been reported.
The Sunday Times said the three members of Boris Johnson’s team and two from Keir Starmer’s are facing allegations of sexual misconduct.
Johnson himself has historically faced allegations of sexual misconduct which came to light before the December 2019 general election.
70 complaints
They are among 56 MPs who have been referred to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) in relation to about 70 separate complaints, it reported.
The allegations among the 56 range from making sexually inappropriate comments to more serious wrongdoing, the paper said. At least one complaint reportedly involves criminality and an allegation than an MP “bribed a member of staff in return for sexual favours”.
The ICGS was set up as an independent process with cross-party backing in 2018 after the so-called Pestminster scandal. The scandal cast a spotlight on sexual harassment in the rooms and corridors of power.
The ICGS operates a hotline allowing those who work in Westminster, including the staff of MPs and peers, to ring in to lodge a complaint or seek advice.
According to the body’s 2021 annual report, the service had been used by people stating they were MPs. It exists to allow workers to report experiences of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. They can also report having been witness to, or aware of, such behaviour.
In a statement on its website, ICGS director Jo Willows said the service is an “important step forward in tackling inappropriate behaviour in our workplace”.
Allegations made to the ICGS are private and confidential. And political parties are not given information about who has been reported.
Members of Boris Johnson and Sir Keir Starmer’s top team have reportedly been reported to the ICGS (UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor)
Disbalance of power
A union representing senior civil servants said more was needed to be done to stamp out harassment in Parliament.
FDA general secretary Dave Penman said:
Whilst some of the procedures for raising complaints have improved, the fundamental balance of power between MPs and the staff they employ has not.
Where that exists it will inevitably be exploited, either by those who do not have the skills to manage staff effectively, or those with more malevolent intent.
It can come as no surprise therefore that if the circumstances that allowed bullying and harassment to flourish have not changed fundamentally, what we are seeing is this number of complaints being raised now that we at least have an independent mechanism for dealing with them.
Parliamentary authorities need to address the fundamental causes of bullying and harassment, rather than simply rely on an enforcement mechanism that only protects those who feel able to raise complaints.
Penman said that meant “looking again at the employment relationship between MPs and the staff”, with a view to reforming the model of having 650 individual employers.
He said authorities should instead consider establishing a new employment model that “will help protect staff whilst maintaining the level of service that MPs need to support their vital work”.
Child molesters and alleged sex pests
A government spokesperson said:
We take all allegations of this nature incredibly seriously and would encourage anyone with any allegations to come forward to the relevant authorities.
It comes after Imran Ahmad Khan quit as MP for Wakefield last week after being found guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage boy before he was elected for the Conservative Party.
Meanwhile, David Warburton has had the Tory whip removed after an image was published which appeared to show the Somerton and Frome MP pictured alongside lines of a white substance.
David Warburton, the MP for Somerton and Frome, has had the Tory whip withdrawn pending an investigation into allegations about his conduct (UK Parliament)
Earlier in April, the Sunday Times reported that two women had made formal complaints to the ICGS about Warburton’s behaviour, and a third woman had also made allegations about his conduct.
Downing Street and Labour said they were unable to comment.
The #MeToo movement has powered an insurgency against sexism and sexual violence in Australia. From once-isolated survivors to political staffers, women everywhere are refusing to keep men’s secrets.
In an electrifying Quarterly Essay, journalist and author Jess Hill traces the conditions that gave birth to #MeToo and tells the stories of women who – often at great personal cost – found themselves at the centre of this movement.
Jess recently joined Virginia Haussegger, Founder of the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation, “In Conversation” live at the ANU to talk about this work.
The “weather event”
The Australian #MeToo movement may only be five years old, but the build-up to it was decades in the making.
In her hard-hitting Quarterly Essay, journalist and author, Jess Hill deftly traces the confluence of events in recent history that led to the seismic shift in how we talk about sexual violence.
From Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations against the U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991, the Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” child sexual abuse investigations, the child abuse allegations against Rolf Harris in 2013, Elliot Rodger’s Isla Vista killings and Rosie Batty being named Australian of the Year in 2015 – the list of sordid tragedies is longer than anyone cares to imagine. And it begs the question: why now? What was different in 2017 than in all those years before?
In her Quarterly Essay, Jess Hill traces the conditions that gave birth to #MeToo.
Jess Hill refers to this as the “weather event”.
“Sometimes with these types of cultural phenomenon, we tend to think in terms of linear progress, when in fact, actually what’s happening is multiple feedback loops.”
“What I was trying to understand is: What is it that fundamentally lodged in the public mind that was not lodged there before? And how was our public mind ready to hear that?”
Since the global social media traction in 2017, the #MeToo movement has spawned thousands of articles, events, scholarly investigations – and of course, legal action – a fact that did not escape Ms Hill’s notice.
“When I first got invited to write this essay, I thought to myself, ‘What more there is to say that we don’t already know? … It’s been written about so much, what am I even going to add?’”
“Partly what I decided to do with this essay was to go, ‘Let’s just like take it from the beginning.’ In four years, a lot of preconceptions can build up. So, let’s like try to take apart those preconceptions [and] get them back to their original components and analyse them. Is what we think about the #MeToo movement accurate?
“What’s amazing about writing this essay is realising what a different culture we live in to the one we lived in in 2017, when sexual harassment was barely ever talked about…when it was presumed… that sort of stuff just doesn’t happen here [compared to the US].”
“But the progress that we are making year on year…is quite seismic.”
The cultural shift
Jess Hill’s essay starts with the moment when, in the wake of Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations, Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s is holding a press conference supposedly showing the world he cares for and understands women.
He tells the press pack that violence and abuse of women “must be acknowledge and it must be stopped”.
Just moments later, however, in response to a Sky News reporter’s question, he changes tact and warns those in the room that people in “glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. He goes on to erroneously claim that there has been a harassment complaint inside News Corp about a specific journalist.
“The prime minister is not just making a veiled threat to the gathered reporters…he is sending a chilling coded message to one woman in the room: the journalist who broke the story of Brittany Higgins being allegedly raped in parliament house, News Corp’s political editor, Samantha Maiden,” Ms Hill writes.
In front of the ANU crowd, Virginia asks her what this says about the Prime Minister.
Jess Hill with Virginia Hausseger. Picture: Mary Kenny
“That he is a machine,” she replies without hesitation. “He’s just all about utility. Like, ‘What will keep me in a position of power?’”
At its heart, #MeToo is all about the power. The Harvey Weinstein allegations had laid bare the sinister reality of the patriarchal structures of the workplaces around the world. As Hill writes in her essay:
“This was a rare moment of structural weakness in patriarchy: a vulnerable piece of flesh had been exposed, and it was as though women all over the world received a subliminal message that now was the time to draw back their arrows and shoot.”
Speaking to Ms Haussegger, Hill draws links to the increasing media attention to child sexual abuse in the church: “This is starting to lay the groundwork to overturn…a presumption that people in power, particularly men in power, would never do what we consider to be depraved behaviour.
“There was a whole institution of silence and cover up that permitted them to go on and do it again and again.”
Reflecting on the many #MeToo stories that resulted in the victim getting attacked in popular discourse – including that of Tessa Sullivan – Ms Hill critiques Australia’s culture of mates protecting mates.
“Don’t let the law get in the way. Don’t let those bitches get in the way. You know, you’ve got to step in for your mates, it doesn’t matter what they’ve done.”
The unfolding of #MeToo in Australia
Australian television presenter, author and horticulturist Don Burke was the first target of Australia’s #MeToo movement. The story was uncovered injoint ABC/Fairfax investigation, and detailed claims from a number of women who worked with Burke in the late 1980s and 1990s.
Quoted in the essay, lawyer Michael Bradley explains: “The textbook example of how to do it was the Don Burke one, which was really a replication of the Weinstein approach: bury him in volume, so he knows that there’s no point – he’s done. There’s a tipping point, and it’s a game of bluff, right? [By contrast, actor] Craig McLachlan took the other course: call the bluff. He went after them and sued one of the victims.”
Michael Bradley further explains: “It was the [Geoffrey] Rush case specifically that “scared the shit out of everyone. It was just such a game-changer,” Bradley says. “If that hadn’t happened, if they’d done their homework properly . . . I know that Fairfax and ABC had a queue of stories lining up they were going to run. Everyone just ran for the exit. It stopped the whole thing dead in its tracks.”
Ms Hill is scathing about how this unfolded. She writes: “Let’s be clear: The Telegraph’s story on Rush was an epic failure of journalistic ethics – by far the most egregious example of ‘trial by media’ in Australia’s #MeToo era.”
She further explained at the ANU event: “They were just desperate, because they didn’t have a #metoo story. And it was the biggest story going.”
“They’d heard second-hand that Eryn Jean Norvill had made this complaint, but they did not go to her [for comment] and she had expressly said she did not want to go public with it.”
The Telegraph, Ms Hill says, then published front page story: “[W]e can say what we like about defamation laws, but it was very clear that what it was saying about Geoffrey Rush, and did not substantiate it.”
In her essay Hill describes this as “sloppy ‘gotcha’ journalism’. Recounting the advice of Michael Bradley to the ANU audience, she argues: “You have to prepare these stories and the people who are the victims, survivors, like they are witnesses going to trial.”
“You need to do that not just because of defamation laws, but because that’s actually what good investigative journalism does.”
“There’s a real question mark around whether Australia’s defamation laws would have crushed the #MeToo movement, had it not been for this catastrophic error that News Limited made.”
“Anyone who has allegations against them…when you launch a defamation case, all of that evidence is going to be brought to bear. Do you want that? And they know how many potential accusers there are. So, it’s a game of bluff.”
Content warning: this article contains descriptions of alleged sexual assault which some readers may find distressing.
David Warburton, the MP for Somerton and Frome, has had the Tory whip withdrawn pending an investigation into allegations about his conduct. The MP stands accused of sexual harassment, drug use, and failing to declare a loan from an ‘unfit’ Russian financial adviser.
Shocking conduct
Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) is examining the claims about Warburton, who sits on the backbenches. The Telegraph said the ICGS received a report claiming the MP had behaved inappropriately. He’s reported to deny any wrongdoing.
A photo shows what appears to be Warburton sitting besides several lines of cocaine:
Goodness me. Yes, it's yet *another* Tory MP implicated in a sexual assault allegation. https://t.co/QWyo61fhHl
A report in the Sunday Times details allegations of Warburton inviting himself to a drunk woman’s house where he snorted several lines of coke. As the Sunday Times also noted:
Only a few years ago, in the House of Commons, Warburton condemned the “appalling” exploitation of young people involved in the sale of drugs and the “intimidation, violence and criminal incentives” they face. He has also called for international action in “tackling the drugs trade” and criticised “double standards” in politics.
The allegations in the paper include the following:
She recounts that as she became less drunk she grew uncomfortable that the pair were alone together and retreated to her bedroom to put on her pyjamas in an attempt to encourage his departure. When she emerged, she says, Warburton was naked. He allegedly explained that he always slept nude and climbed into her bed. Fearful of how he might react, she did not push him away, she says, or demand that he leave.
Despite her repeated and explicit warnings, before and during his visit, that she did not want to have sex with him or do anything sexual, Warburton allegedly ground his body against hers and groped her breasts. The woman says she lay frozen until the MP fell asleep, snoring loudly.
More allegations
The report also notes:
two other women have taken action against similar conduct by Warburton. Both former aides, they had to sidestep his parliamentary office, in no small part because the person responsible for handling HR issues is his wife, Harriet, whom he employs on a publicly funded salary that could be up to £51,000 a year.
And that:
Warburton is not only alleged to be a risk to women. Evidence suggests his conduct could fall short of the rules governing standards and transparency in public life. He borrowed £100,000 from a Russian businessman without declaring it, a decision that could lead to an investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for standards.
The man who lent him the money is Roman Joukovski, a financial adviser who has specialised in offshore tax advice and providing tier-one “golden” investor visas to foreign citizens, including oligarchs and the family of Kazakhstan’s dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev. In 2014 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) refused to certify him as a “fit and proper person”, limiting his ability to provide certain kinds of financial advice, and one of his businesses was recently forced into insolvency after a separate FCA ruling.
Journalist Gabriel Pogrund commented further on the harassment allegations against Warburton:
A second aide says Warburton brought her to his flat, touched her against her will and physically stopped her from leaving
She's been moved to office of a woman MP
Both women struggled to address his conduct internally as the parliamentary aide responsible for HR is his wife
I have enormous amounts of defence, but unfortunately the way that things work means that doesn’t come out first.
I have heard nothing whatsoever from the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. I’m sorry, I can’t comment any further.
A spokesperson for the Whips Office said:
David Warburton MP has had the Conservative Party whip removed while the investigation is ongoing.
Warburton was first elected in 2015 with a majority of 20,268, or 53% of the vote. According to the MP’s website, at 18.3%, this represented the largest constituency swing to the Conservative Party. He was re-elected in 2017 and 2019. He is the current chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Music and was previously a member of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee.
Response
Sarah Vine – columnist for the Daily Mail – described the situation mildly as a potential “mid-life crisis”:
Sarah Vine thinks that a Tory MP [Warburton] allegedly sexually assaulting women, snorting cocaine & receiving Russian money is a ‘midlife crisis’ which means she feels “sorry for him” I don’t, do you?pic.twitter.com/znWDImC7e2
Sarah Vine “feels sorry” for suspended MP David Warburton and speculates it might be a “midlife crisis”? Typically belittling the allegations of the female complainants in his office. #SundayMorning
David Warburton seems to have completed the Tory MP hat trick of sex and drugs allegations as well as trousering Russian money a promotion will be fast tracked now
let he who has not been photographed with four lines of cocaine, accused of alleged sexual harassment, and loaned £100,000 by a questionable Russian businessman cast the first stone https://t.co/LGHexfbdzr
The BBC initially had far less to say on the matter, however:
The BBC's report on the Conservative MP David Warburton being suspended for allegations of sexual and financial misconduct is so heavily redacted they may as well have not published anything. pic.twitter.com/g5kNqPmZAJ
In Turkey, International Women’s Day is not celebrated only at corporate breakfasts and morning teas. It is celebrated on the streets and at night by marching, dancing, and chanting. At Feminist Night Marches, celebration also means resistance, writes Burcu Cevik-Compiegne.
This year marks 20 years of Feminist Night Marches in Turkey. On 8 March International Women’s Day, women take to the streets in major cities to march, sing, dance and repeat their iconic slogan: “If you ever feel hopeless, remember this crowd”.
“If you ever feel hopeless, remember this crowd”
This is a simple yet powerful slogan, as it is not uncommon to feel hopeless in this country. At a time when femicide and transphobic crimes have skyrocketed, it is easy to succumb to feeling powerless. In 2021, Turkey withdrew from the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence.
The Istanbul Convention, as it is known, saves lives by laying out the framework to deliver justice and support to women who have suffered gendered violence. When a presidential decree can undo years of work overnight – which is essentially what happened when Turkey withdrew from the Convention – it automatically raises the question: what is there to celebrate on the International Women’s Day in Turkey?
Celebration takes on a different meaning in the context of contemporary Turkey. An increasingly authoritarian rule has systematically attacked women’s rights and freedoms in an attempt to shape society made up of families after its own image, featuring an unrestrained, vindictive and self-righteous male head of the household. The role that is defined for women in President R. T. Erdogan’s so-called New Turkey is one of the dutiful wife and mother.
Against this background, claiming the streets and the night to perform their spiteful joy is a powerful response to neoconservative familism that aims to confine women to home, and their social and public life to the daytime only.
Women take to streets at night on every 8 March to express a range of views and emotions. In the current political environment, the power of their actions cannot be overstated.
The two emotions that stand out are anger and hope. Yet it is joy that links these two together and sets the atmosphere of the Feminist Night Marches. When women are told not to laugh out loud in public by top government leaders and they are arrested for insulting the President by jumping to the rhythm, a joyful celebration at night on the streets gains a whole new meaning; it becomes resistance.
The Night Marches do not use joy to tone down anger or smoothen the rough edges of feminism in a bid to make it more palatable. Women use music, dance and humour to create an atmosphere where they feel united, strong and untamed in equal measure. The witty and dark sense of humour that comes through the placards is not to please the outsiders. One often used slogan suggests “We don’t want a dictator, we want a vibrator”. Another advocates for “three orgasms per week” rather than the three children recommended by President Erdogan. These slogans intend to shock the sensibilities of the mindset that ties women’s sexuality to reproductive and marital duties.
This resistance hasn’t gone unnoticed. The authorities’ response to Feminist Night Marches is loud and clear. Every year, the security forces put in place blockades to prevent women from marching, using intimidation and arrests as dissuasive measures. The very same women who ordinarily feel threatened on those same streets become perceived as a threat to an order that oppresses them.
The legitimacy of authoritarian rule depends on the polarisation of society, and the creation of constant crises. In a highly polarised society, like Turkey where difference can be a matter of life or death, Feminist Night Marches do not just tolerate, but instead embrace and celebrate difference. Run by a coalition of diverse organisations, the press releases are broadcast in four of the most common native languages spoken in Turkey (Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, and Armenian).
Women can be seen carrying their placards in their native language, joined by the rainbow-coloured flags of the vibrant LGBTQI+ communities. Women proudly proclaim their identities as Muslim feminists, socialists or sex workers. Along with the Pride marches, Feminist Night Marches is arguably the only regular event that has achieved and nurtured such solidarity. And that in itself is worth celebrating!
Feature image: The feminist night march was organized to protest violence against women and defend women’s rights. Turkey Istanbul Beyoglu March 8, 2021. Picture: Shutterstock
Amy Remeikis, political reporter for The Guardian, has written and extraordinary essay, titled On Reckoning. This work tells of the moment when the personal became very political and when rape became the national conversation. BroadAgenda’s editor, Ginger Gorman, asked Amy a few questions.
Amy, what prompted you to write this essay? What exactly are you reckoning with?
I wrote On Reckoning because I was watching Australia’s political leaders flailing around in an attempt to deal with the issue of sexual violence and failing so comprehensively, while at the same time, there was this incredible rage which seemed to be building among the public – particularly women. As a sexual assault survivor, I recognised that rage, and believed it deserved further examination.
You’ve written unflinchingly about your own sexual assault. How did that raw and traumatic experience you’ve had – and so many of us woman have had – clash with the complete inability of the Federal Government to deal with these issues?
I don’t think you can ever separate trauma from who you are and how you react. It becomes a part of you and while it may not colour your every action, it certainly tints it. I didn’t try to pretend to be an impartial observer in what was happening.
My experience and that of so many others was relevant – people needed to know that they weren’t alone, and many of us absolutely ‘got it’. My anger was obvious – but I tried to be as open as possible about why, while also explaining what impact those failures were having on people. Politics is never a game. It impacts how people live their lives. So watching some people trying to play political games just infuriated me. Which I think was obvious to anyone who saw my commentary.
Amy Remeikis on the lawns of Parliament House. Picture: Supplied
How did you use your position as reporter inside the Press Gallery to try and grapple with this story – both personally and professionally?
I am very, very lucky to have a platform and I just try to use it for good. But also, to try and elevate other voices that we don’t hear from enough, while also, where I could, making space for those people who don’t have as many opportunities as I to speak, to step forward.
But it was a story where the personal merged with the professional – we saw that happening for so many people. It took a toll, at least on me – reliving trauma doesn’t come without a cost – but it was worth it to ensure the issue wasn’t pushed to the side.
There are so many people who are unable to speak about their own sexual violence experience – but that doesn’t mean we ignore them. Instead, we should try to ensure they know we see and hear them, and we believe them. I tried to spread that message as much as possible as well.
Throughout 2021, the anger both inside and outside the Gallery was indescribable. Every woman I know was talking about their own experiences of sexual assault and harassment. How did this influence your telling of this story (or reckoning with it)?
It is absolutely heartbreaking how many people carry this load. Every story I heard lodged itself within my heart. I still think about so many strangers at night – it keeps me up.
People were sharing things with me that they hadn’t told anyone – in some cases, for more than 50 years. It only made me more determined to ensure we kept talking about solutions and action. That we centred the right voices. That those with the power to make change understood why there was so much anger and despair. And that we keep shaking those systemic power structures so we get some much needed change.
‘On Reckoning’ is a searing account of Amy’s personal and professional rage.
With On Reckoning, why have you chosen to weave personal experiences together with data and research about systematic misogyny and abuse? What does that give us?
I think it gives us some idea of just how wide spread the issue is – and that it impacts more people than you might think. It also makes you wonder how we all know a survivor of sexual or gendered violence – but none of us seem to know a perpetrator. Statistically, that is impossible.
It’s easy to try and dehumanise this issue – put some distance in it – by just talking numbers, which is why I chose to include real experiences as well. It’s hard to ignore when you know who it’s happening to. But we also need to look at how we think and report and talk on this issue – women in particular have done so much. It’s time for the men to step up and address the major role they play in sexual violence. Why do we teach girls how to protect themselves, but we don’t teach boys how to avoid becoming the person their classmates are protecting themselves from?
There’s a point activist and advocate for survivors of sexual assault, Grace Tame, made about why survivors of trauma are required to partake in a kind of “trauma porn” – trotting out their stories over and over again in order to try and make change. How do you reflect on this?
It is almost like to get people to listen, you do have to perform your trauma publically so people can empathise – and then be motivated to act. In my case, it can be exhausting. It’s constantly there anyway, but having to put words to it frequently, to revisit those times, does take something from you. I just try to fall back on my responsibility to try and do as much good as I can with the platform I am so lucky to have. I can speak and so many others can’t. It seems a small price to pay, in that context.
I recently watched your remarkable takedown of PVO on the Project in response to Grace Tame’s now-famous side eye, directed at the Prime Minister. What motivated you to speak out to a media colleague in this way?
Today, Grace Tame met with the Prime Minister at the Lodge, with now-viral photos appearing online. We discuss the day and the differing opinions with @AmyRemeikis. #TheProjectTVpic.twitter.com/9TsYJbFKfY
It was not planned, and not something I found comfortable doing. But given everything I have been speaking about, I thought I would be the world’s biggest hypocrite if I didn’t say something. Our job is to hold people to account, but we probably fail more often than not to turn that lens on ourselves. The real hero was Carrie Bickmore, who questioned a colleague while sitting next to him – I was just a contributor, sitting in my lounge room. Carrie had more to lose than I, but didn’t hesitate to follow up in questioning his motives. At the end of the day, I was more worried I had embarrassed myself, or taken away attention from the actual issue – journalists should never become the story. But we should also do more to call each other out. We all have platforms – some bigger than others – but it is a responsibility and privilege which should be taken seriously.
Our words have impact. We should all remember that.
Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins were widely praised for using their National Press Club addresses to highlight politicians’ hypocrisy. Sue Bull argues we need action not words.
Censoring of Facebook in Papua New Guinea can be addressed by three mandated government agencies, says Chief Censor Jim Abani.
He was responding to the Post-Courier on how his office was dealing with indecent content posted on Facebook in view of a controversy over a video of an alleged child molester.
“FB censoring is to be addressed by three agencies with relevant responsibilities that are mandated to carry out policies and regulations,” Abani said.
He added: “In the event that pictures and sexual references and connotations are published then the censor will say its objectionable publication.”
Abani said the Cyber Crime Code Act defined penalties for cyber harassment and cyber bullying.
“NICTA (National Information and Communications Technology Authority) may look into electronic devices used to commit crime or offence while Censorship Office will vet or screen the content of materials and determine whether it’s explicit, or not explicit and allowed for public consumption.”
He said police under the Summary Offences Act are equally responsible to censor illicit material posted online.
“Indecent publication published is in the amended Summary Offences Act.”
No comment on specific case
Abani could not comment on the specific video of the alleged 16-year-old child molester, saying that his officers were still working on gathering information.
However, he added that the approved 2021-2025 National Censorship Policy called for partnership and a collaborative approach from each responsible agency.
Abani said a new trend in the digital space had meant the Censorship Office to build its capacity to monitor and control apart from developing the recently launched policy it had been currently doing by reviewing the Censorship Act 1989.
The office was also working on signing an agreement with an internet gateway service provider.
Phoebe Gwangilois a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.
Campaigners have welcomed reports that harassing women in the street or in bars and making lewd comments at them could become an offence under proposals to be published next week.
A review by the Law Commission will call for “public sexual harassment” and inciting hatred against women to be made criminal offences, the Daily Telegraph reported.
However, the newspaper quoted Whitehall sources as saying the commission will reject calls for misogyny to be made a hate crime, arguing it would be ineffective.
‘Gaping holes’
The commission advises the government on reforms to the law. Its review of hate crimes was originally ordered three years ago by Sajid Javid when he was home secretary.
We're campaigning to make public sexual harassment a crime and to do this we need a comprehensive Public Sexual Harassment Law.
The issue has since become the focus of intense public interest following the murder of Sarah Everard by Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens, which led to a national debate on violence against women.
Gemma and Maya Tutton, co-founders of Our Streets Now campaign, said the government should move urgently to implement the commission’s reported recommendation. They said in a joint statement:
The recognition of existing legal gaps by the Law Commission makes it clear that the Government should urgently make public sexual harassment (PSH) a specific criminal offence…
Our current legal framework to address PSH is fragmented, antiquated and has gaping holes which means that many behaviours fall through the cracks.
Our laws reflect our society, and it is crucial that Government send a clear message that public sexual harassment will no longer be tolerated in this country.
“No girl should have to fear for her safety”
Rose Caldwell is chief executive of the children’s charity Plan International UK, which has also campaigned on the issue. Caldwell said a new law would send a clear message that such conduct is not acceptable:
The Government must act swiftly on this recommendation and introduce a new, comprehensive law designed to protect women and girls from the relentless threat of public sexual harassment…
Girls as young as 10 are being harassed, followed and touched, and this is having a serious impact on their mental and physical health.
A new law will send a clear message that this is not acceptable in our society. No girl should have to fear for her safety in our public spaces.
A Home Office spokesperson said:
The Government asked the Law Commission to conduct a wide-ranging review into hate crime to explore how to make current legislation more effective, and if additional protected characteristics should be added to the hate crime legislation.
We will respond to their recommendations once published.
In the wake of Brittany Higgins’ shocking allegations about being raped in a ministers’ office by a colleague, Prime Minister Scott Morrison initiated multiple inquiries.
The review has been underway since March, speaking to current and former MPs and employees at parliament house and its associated workplaces – such as electorate offices and the press gallery. On Tuesday, the 450-page report, Set the Standard, was released.
As Jenkins observed, parliament house should be something “Australians look to with pride”.
This report represents a wholesale change strategy, and calls for leadership and accountability across a diverse parliamentary “ecosystem”. This new roadmap is grounded in the testimony and experiences of more than 1,700 contributors, including 147 former and current parliamentarians.
What did the report find?
The report included a survey of current parliamentarians and people currently working at parliament house (such as staffers, journalists and public servants). More than 900 people responded.
It found more than 37% of people currently in parliamentary workplaces have personally experienced bullying in a parliamentary workplace. As one interviewee noted:
Frequently, like at least every week, the advice was go and cry in the toilet so that nobody can see you, because that’s what it’s like up here.
It also found 33% of people currently in parliamentary workplaces have personally experienced sexual harassment in a parliamentary workplace. As one interviewee reported:
Aspiring male politicians who thought nothing of, in one case, picking you up, kissing you on the lips, lifting you up, touching you, pats on the bottom, comments about appearance, you know, the usual. The point I make with that… was the culture allowed it, encouraged it.
The report notes a devastating impact on people as a result of these experiences. This included an impact on their mental and physical health, confidence and ability to do their job, as well as their future career, “these experiences also caused significant distress and shame”.
Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins has been working on the parliamentary review since March. Dan Himbrechts/AAP
The drivers behind this behaviour
A critical part of the report looks at the drivers which contribute to misconduct in parliamentary workplaces. Participants also described risk factors which interact with these drivers to endanger their workplaces.
The drivers include:
power imbalances, where participants described a focus on the pursuit and exercise of power as well as insecure employment and high levels of power and discretion in relation to employment
gender inequality, including a lack of women in senior roles
lack of accountability, including limited recourse for those who experience misconduct
entitlement and exclusion, or “a male, stale and pale monopoly on power in [the] building”
The risk factors include:
unclear standards of behaviour, leading to confusion about the standards that apply
a leadership deficit, such as a prioritisation of political gain over people management
workplace dynamics, a “win at all costs” and high-pressure and high-stakes environment
social conditions of work, including “significant” alcohol use and a “work hard, play hard” culture.
employment structures and systems, such as a lack of transparent and merit-based recruitment.
Recommendations
There are 28 recommendations in the report.
They include a statement of acknowledgement from parliamentary leaders, recognising people’s experiences of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in parliamentary workplaces, targets to increase gender balance among parliamentarians and a new office of parliament staffing and culture.
Former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins was briefed on the report before it was made public. Lukas Coch/AAP
The report also wants to see the professionalisation of management practices for parliamentary staff and a code of conduct for parliamentarians and their staff. An independent commission would enforce these standards.
The report also calls for a new parliamentary health and well-being service.
Where to from here
Two key press conferences – from Morrison and Jenkins – accompanied the release of the Set the Standard report. But the change expected by the report requires much more than words – it requires concerted action.
Parliament now needs to endorse and implement a number of key accountability mechanisms to ensure that, as an institution, it ensures all building occupants are safe and respected at work. These include the office on parliamentary staffing and culture and independent parliamentary standards commission.
In addition, the report calls on the parliament itself to continue reflecting and thinking through appropriate changes. For example, the parliamentary work schedule is shown to drive a workplace culture that values “presence and endurance” over remote working and flexibility. Sitting in the chamber at 9pm does not necessarily equal productivity, particularly when it is propped up – among political staffers – with alcohol.
There is no simple solution here. Some argue long hours in parliament house mean longer periods away from parliament, in the electorate, with families. Others argue the work day should end – as it does in other workplaces – before dinner. Jenkins recommends parliament does its own review of the sitting schedule. Hopefully this will create “buy in” from parliamentarians, but reviews like this have been undertaken before (and have not led to cultural change).
For this report to lead to meaningful change, everyone in all the many, varied parliamentary workplaces has to take responsibility for the systemic inequality that drives toxic workplace behaviour in the building.
Responsibility is not equally distributed though. Morrison may call for a bipartisan approach, but he currently leads the government responsible for instigating the inquiry and implementing its recommendations.
His challenge will be in convincing the electorate he means it when he says he wants to fix this “very, very serious problem”.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, family or domestic violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit www.1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000. International helplines can be found via www.befrienders.org.
Disgraced MP Rob Roberts has been given his Tory membership back despite a warning the move would “let him off the hook” for sexually harassing a member of staff.
Sex pest
The Conservatives confirmed on 1 November that Roberts was a Tory party member again after a 12-week suspension. The MP for Delyn in North Wales will continue to sit as an independent as the Tories are still withholding the party whip in the House of Commons.
A Conservative Party spokesperson said:
Rob Roberts’ membership suspension concluded on Monday November 1 after serving a 12-week suspension. The whip will remain suspended.
Labour Party chair Anneliese Dodds described the scheduled end of Roberts’ suspension as “scandalous”. She added:
Rob Roberts should have resigned as an MP the moment he was suspended. That he is now set to return to the Conservative Party shows they’ve let him off the hook
Roberts was stripped of the whip after Parliament’s Independent Expert Panel found he broke the sexual misconduct policy by making repeated and unwanted advances towards the man who made the complaint. The former staff member who complained in June last year told BBC Wales that the MP had repeatedly propositioned him, leaving him feeling “uncomfortable”, “shocked”, and “horrified”.
Roberts, who became an MP in 2019, apologised for the “completely improper” behaviour but insisted his actions were “romantic” rather than sexual. The Commons approved a motion to suspend Roberts from the House for six weeks in May, in line with the recommendation from the independent panel.
The Conservatives suspended him from the party for twice that duration, while senior figures including Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg urged Roberts to do the “honourable” thing and stand down as an MP.
The return of Roberts’ membership has drawn criticism:
This is a disgrace. Rob Roberts has no place in Parliament, politics or public life.https://t.co/lcnJkhLiOa
On 27 October, thousands of young people boycotted their local clubs, bars and pubs and took to the streets to demand action on spiking and sexual harassment. The protest came as a response to the recent rise in drink spiking cases, as well as new allegations of spiking via injections.
Rise in spiking incidents
According to the the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), people reported nearly 200 drink spiking incidents to UK police in September and October. Spiking typically refers to the surreptitious addition of a drug to someone’s drink which can leave the victim incapacitated and unable to remember what’s happened. This method is often used to facilitate sexual assault. But this figure also includes 24 allegations of perpetrators using “some form of injection” to incapacitate victims. According to police, young women were disproportionately represented in reported cases. In response to what has been labelled a “spiking epidemic“, young women have spoken out about their experiences of gender-based violence.
Responding to the proliferation of unhelpful social media posts encouraging women to ‘stay safe’, campaign group Cheer Up Luv shared:
This is an absolutely horrific method of targeting women and marginalised folk in nightclubs, and especially student areas. Although we know that’s spiking is not limited to freshers week, there have been increased reports of this happening at towns all around the country.
National Union of Students president Larissa Kennedy shared:
so fucking angry that women + marginalised folks on our campuses and in our communities cannot be free from the fear of violence. these spiking attacks are so terrifying.
The limited research on the practice of spiking via injection has left plenty of space for fear-mongering and misinformation. gal-dem‘s political editor Moya Lothian-McLean tweeted:
The panic about drink spiking via needles is Grade A social media misinformation in action
Looking to “cut through the noise” regarding the rise in spiking incidents, Vice reporter Sophia Smith Galer shared:
So, while we talk about spiking this week, it’s worth remembering that the autumn spate is sadly not unusual nationwide, and also that it’d be wrong to assume it’s a uniquely ‘stranger danger’ issue. It’s also worth adding victims often don’t get the support they need.
Emergency medicine consultant and founder of the Welsh Emerging Drugs & Identification of Novel Substances (WEDINOS) David Caldicott toldVice: “The idea that a clubber would do this to a fellow clubber seems highly unlikely”. He added that the phenomenon “has not been adequately investigated” to reach firm conclusions.
We have also seen a rise in misinformation around the allegations of spiking via needles and the contraction of HIV. Highlighting the harm this could cause, Ellie Redpath said:
keep in mind that the false posts about HIV and spiking going around are bad not only because it makes everyone unnecessarily scared, but also because it contributes to stigmatisation and panic around HIV, and thus subconsciously the queer communities who it historically affected
Sparked by recent social media conversations about the prevalence of spiking, young people in university cities up and down the country took part in a ‘night in‘ on 27 October. Thousands boycotted clubs and other night time venues, and took to the streets to raise awareness and demand action on drink spiking and sexual harassment.
Some have argued that protesting in this way encourages women to retreat rather than claiming space. But given the boycott resulted in clubs not being able to open, it proved to be an effective protest tactic. Sharing images from the boycott in Oxford, Oxford Students’ Union tweeted:
Afterwards, students went to the Clarendon steps for a demonstration showing the volume and strength of students’ feelings against spiking. There were speeches from student campaigners and local councillors on this topic. In the end, more than 500 students came to demonstrate! pic.twitter.com/0eLLM3uH3N
Local politicians voiced their support for the campaign, and others attended protests in cities across the UK. Sharing images of campaigners and their banners at the Manchester protest – which mayor Andy Burnham attended – the Guardian‘s north of England editor Helen Pidd tweeted:
Hundreds of young people have gathered in St Peter’s Square in Manchester for the End Spiking Now protest. Banners saying: “I have never felt safe” and “Educate your sons”. #GirlsNightInpic.twitter.com/waHrcoSsmJ
Tonight was so powerful; to march with over a 1000 people standing up against #spiking against women, demanding concrete change, and making it clear that it is male behaviour that needs to change, not ours. #girlsnightinpic.twitter.com/1yXrMDtEGg
Campaigners have launched a petition calling on the government to introduce a law making it a legal requirement for nightclubs to search guests on entry to venues. However, some have raised concerns that increased security and surveillance on nights out would disproportionately impact marginalised people. Summarising the potential consequences, one Bristolian shared:
enforcing searches on night club attendees will absolutely be weaponised against marginalised people, especially black men. Giving bouncers more power is not going to protect women from assault/spiking !!!!
i’m also sick of the lack of intersectionality when looking at the issue – security is often the problem! increasing that will not make this go away! obviously i do not have the answers but increasing searching is absolutely not it
Campaigners are also urging venues to implement anti-spiking measures including “drink protection devices”, accessible medical centres, and safe ways to get home. Further protests are due to take place in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff and London. So far, the campaign has sparked meaningful conversations about the safety of people of marginalised genders in public spaces, and has prompted politicians to take the issue seriously.
Coming Home is a narrative and political podcast about women’s homelessness, made in conjunction with Juno, a women’s homelessness service. It tells the story of three women from Melbourne’s northern suburbs, from their childhoods, through to facing homelessness and eventually finding home. Along the way it explores the history and policies of Australia’s broken housing system, and the politics of women’s lives.
As I’ve previously reported, older women are the fastest growing group of homeless Australians. Therefore, it seemed crucial to get in touch with independent audio producer Kate Lawrence, to ask her a few questions about the pod.
Kate, the first thing I noticed when listening to this podcast is how compelling the personal stories of the three main characters are. What can you tell us about those characters and how you decided to approach their stories?
The three women – Kiara, Mary and Keen – are clients or former clients of Juno, a women’s homelessness service in Melbourne’s northern suburbs. The recruitment process was carefully undertaken to ensure the women understood what was being asked of them. It was always envisaged that they would not be in a housing or domestic violence crisis at the time of the interview, but had passed the crisis stage and able to share and maybe reflect.
It was also important that the women knew they were in charge of their story at every stage: they listened to the edited recordings and the final episodes and could ask for anything to be changed. They could also withdraw their story and their recordings at any point. Support, communication and follow up was ongoing through out.
In terms of approach, one of the goals was for listeners to ‘meet’ and know the women as whole people, not just through their housing crisis, and to share their full stories, to draw us in and along, wanting to keep listening to know how it will all unfold.
For women – and especially older women – homelessness is a national crisis in Australia. But it’s also an issue often ignored in public discourse. What approach have you taken to keep people’s ears and minds stuck to this critical issue?
The whole series is dedicated to showing how and why women become homeless, including older women, and the systemic reasons there is a crisis in Australia.
There are many points throughout the podcast where we highlight why women’s homelessness is often invisible and why we need to broaden our conception of homelessness from rough sleeping, which will always be a much more dangerous option for women, and for women with children, it is often seen as not an option at all.
The structure of the podcast is to follow the course of these three women’s experiences, with narration, commentary and analysis inserted in and around the stories. to explain and highlight the history and systemic issues that are impacting them, particularly in relation to housing, economic disadvantage, gender gaps in employment and family violence.
Some of the things these women discussion – like childhood sexual abuse, family neglect and domestic abuse – are really hard to hear (even for me as a social justice journalist who has reported on these topics for years!). Why did you feel it was important to include these aspects in the pod?
A key purpose of the narrative structure was to allow the women’s character to show through their stories, their hopes and dreams, heart and humour, so that listeners can relate and not ‘othered’, and to better illustrate how culture and systems conspired to create their housing crisis.
So the women’s childhoods’ were important, really important for us to understand and connect to them, and to draw us into their worlds, to know who they are. It was also important for the tellers themselves as one story teller said ‘…I will not be silenced any more…this is my way to put it to rest”. So for them it is about justice for their experience.
That the stories contained childhood sexual assault or domestic violence was the fact of it, and to sanitise their lives by deleting this would be to again silence women.
It is through these and other experiences that we can see and introduce the issues that relate to the way women are treated in our culture and how this disempowers us and leaves women vulnerable to homelessness because the system is profit driven, not human rights driven.
For audio producer Kate Lawrence, story is her “passion and tool of choice to change the world.” Picture: Supplied
There are many compelling moments in your podcast series – both personal stories and opinions and facts. But which incident or interaction sticks in your mind and why?
Moments from the women’s stories that stand out to me are:
Neen as a child, running away at night and lying on top of a child’s grave and asking God to not let her wake up in the morning.
Kiara driving round and round on Sunday afternoons, with three kids in the car waiting for her parent’s visitors to leave, so she didn’t bring shame on the family because she’d left her abusive husband.
Mary deep pain at realising our system just did not care about her and her toddler when she was homeless.
Realisations that stand out for me are:
The basic unpaid and invisible nature of women’s work, bearing and raising humanity which leads to significant economic disadvantage which of course affects housing options.
The realisation that of course you are unlikely to see women rough sleeping because it is so dangerous, so women’s homelessness is largely invisible.
Finally and hugely the understanding that housing is a fundamental human need on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, more essential than health care and education and a host of other things we spend buckets of money on, that are seriously exacerbated by not tending to the more fundamental need of shelter.
Without giving away too much about the podcast, what did you learn about homelessness in Australia that you didn’t know? What solutions and hope for the future did you find?
In terms of the future, in a practical sense housing is a totally solvable problem and has been successfully dealt with in Australia in the past, and there are great examples overseas, cities like Vienna. The issue in Australia is a lack of political will and changing that requires all of us to push and pressure and demand action from our political system.
In recent negotiations on behalf of a woman who was sexually harassed at work, I found myself in an unusual position. My client sought an NDA (non-disclosure agreement). They generally prohibit all parties to the agreement from talking about the claim to anyone. She continues to wrestle with the trauma that her experience caused and didn’t want public attention on what had happened to aggravate the problem.
Her employer was having none of it.This company has recently adopted a policy of not entering into NDAs in cases of sexual harassment as part of a renewed focus on providing a safe workplace for women. In the end, we agreed to a compromise whereby the fact of the sexual harassment could be disclosed but my client’s identity remained shielded.
Let me undercore this – any company NOT wanting an NDA in a case like this is highly unusual. For decades, NDAs have been the standard price of settling a sexual harassment law suit. With few exceptions, it’s been a case of no NDA, no settlement.
Late last week, California was the source of another tectonic shift in the battle for gender equality when Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Silenced No More Act into law. The new law extends a ban on the enforcement of NDAs in sexual harassment cases to all cases involving unlawful discrimination.
A similar move is underway in Ireland with the tabling of the Employment Equality Bill by Senator Lynn Ruane who argues that “it is simply untrue and a further manipulation of a victim to imply that settlements require NDAs. They are required to protect employers’ reputations and perpetrators’ identities. If it was in the best interest of the victim then it is only the victim they would protect.”
There is no doubt that NDAs have protected higher status perpetrators at the expense of the interests of their victims. They have operated to shield the true extent of sexual harassment and gendered violence from us all. This has also impeded the ability of researchers to study the problem with a view to assisting in minimising it. I have repeatedly had to tell academics wishing to conduct research into sexual harassment that my clients are unable to assist them because of their NDAs.
NDAs are another reminder that we live in a brand-driven world. In recent decades, businesses have turned away from production and direct employment in favour of investing heavily in brand development and management. Anything that may tarnish the brand has become anathema. Since the 1990s, the use of NDAs has exponentially increased. Many US companies now sign their staff up to non-negotiable employment contracts that ban them from saying anything critical of the company in perpetuity.
Brand management does not sit comfortably with fundamental human rights.
The Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse showed how religious institutions used NDAs to try and hide the systematic extent of child sexual abuse in their ranks.
Journalist Jenna Price argues that NDAs are “a vile legal instrument that silences women and covers up the behaviour of sexual harrassers at all levels and in every sector in Australia.” While there have been calls to ban NDAs about sexual harrassment in Australia, to date that approach has not been embraced. Earlier this year Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins delivered her major report, Respect@Work, which discusses reforms to the use of NDAs.
“The Commission heard about the benefits of NDAs in sexual harassment matters in protecting the confidentiality and privacy of victims and helping to provide closure,” the report says. “However, there were also concerns that NDAs could be used to protect the reputation of the business or the harasser and contribute to a culture of silence.”
The Commission went on to recommend that guidelines be produced that identify principles for the use of NDAs in workplace sexual harassment cases and that possible further regulation of NDAs be considered.
The issue is not straightforward. While some women do want to speak out, a significant number of women who suffer sexual harassment are not comfortable with the details of their traumatic experience being disclosed to others. There can be many reasons for this including shame, guilt and fear of further adverse consequences.
Recently both Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins have sought to challenge the notion that women who suffer sexual violence should be shamed into silence. They have sought to encourage other women to come forward and speak out. Their advocacy has inspired many including prominent journalist, Lisa Wilkinson, to disclose her experience of being sexually harassed by the father of a friend when she was a teenager.
However, it’s important to recognise that the impact of sexual harassment varies for each affected woman. Some are comfortable in disclosing the experience, others may take years before being able to speak openly about it and for other women the best approach is to leave that experience behind and not revisit it.
To add further complexity, the perspective of many women may change over time. Signing an NDA during a traumatic period of a woman’s life may assist to manage her anxiety and the process or recovering her mental health. Years later, telling her story may become an imperative.
Picture taken at the March4Justice in Canberra. Picture: Kat Berney
Women who complain about sexual harassment are whistleblowers; disturbing the prevailing workplace culture. Like other whistleblowers, they are keenly aware that if they are publicly identified, they may face difficulties in securing employment in the future.
The story of whistleblowers in this country is not a happy one. When former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was recently fined for not complying with health laws requiring the wearing of a mask , he complained that to “dob people in” was not part of the Australian character. That sentiment underpins the experience of many whistleblowers.
A ban on NDAs would rob women of choice.
There is no reason why NDAs could not be adapted to prioritise the interests of women in cases of sexual harassment. Under such an approach, the woman’s identity could be protected for as long as she wished, but could allow the organisation to acknowledge what had occurred including identifying the perpetrator where allegations are substantiated.
Feature image taken by Jenny Scott at the March4Justice, Tarntanyangga, 15 March 2021. It’s used here under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC 2.0)
As a podcast junkie and host, people recommend podcasts to me all the time. A few days ago, I was recommended a pod called ‘Everybody Knows,’ hosted by Ruby Jones. What a great listen!
This investigative audio series delves into ‘why #MeToo stories are still so hard to tell in Australia – and why there is so much fear about speaking out and naming names.’
Specifically, Ruby and her team look into a huge company in the music industry and the ongoing sexual harassment and abuse that have occurred there. It’s not pretty.
What led you to ask this question about why #MeToo stories are so hard to tell in Australia? How hard was it for YOU to report this story, given so many people who actually speak to you are clearly afraid?
When #MeToo arrived in Australia, I was so excited. I remember thinking that things were finally going to change. In a matter of days in 2017, sexual harassment went from a secret we all kept to front page news. Then, as quickly as the stories began, they stopped. I wanted to understand what had happened. What I quickly came to realise is that harassment, abuse and assault are still endemic in Australia, four years on from MeToo. But the barriers to speaking about it, and reporting it are huge. In many cases, they’re insurmountable.
Time after time, I came to realise that women (in this case women who worked in the music industry) were terrified of speaking publicly.
Many of them had been threatened, told they would never work again if they spoke out.
They stood to lose their jobs, their livelihoods, they could be targeted online, and they could also face legal action if they tried to name their abuser. So how did this happen? How did we create a system where it’s almost impossible for women to talk openly and honestly about their experiences? And if we can’t even talk about the problem, what hope do we have of changing things?
Reporting ‘Everybody Knows’ was extremely difficult. There were times that I didn’t think I would pull it off, that no one would want to go on the record. That the behaviour that I was hearing about would stay secret, perpetrators would remain unchallenged, and women would continue to be scared. The threat of legal action hung over me, every move that I made – it’s impossible in this country to try and report a MeToo story without taking our extremely strict defamation laws into account. But eventually – one by one – women made the decision to speak, and the series took off from there.
Sony has been entirely run by men. And Ruby says this is a huge part of the problem. Image: Shutterstock
There are so many moments in your podcast series which stick in my mind. But which incident or interaction sticks in your mind and why?
There was one moment that was particularly big, and unexpected. A few months into the project, Denis Handlin, the CEO of Sony Music Australia, left the company. No-one thought that would ever happen. Denis Handlin was almost universally known as the most powerful man in the music industry, he was untouchable. His departure sent shockwaves through the industry. I remember jumping into the studio to talk about it the morning the news broke, and my recording kept getting interrupted by people texting me or sending me internal correspondence about what was unfolding inside the Sony building. It really felt like I was witnessing something historic in the industry. I was seeing things change and feeling the impact of that in real time. It changed my entire investigation, because people began to feel like this was the time to speak publicly, that maybe the industry was going through a seismic shift. To be clear – I’m not alleging any claims of sexual harassment against Denis Handlin, but there’s no doubt he was a larger than life figure in the industry. To many people he represented the old way of doing things, and they couldn’t imagine that changing – until it did.
Without giving away too much about the podcast, what did you learn about the organisational structures and cultures that allow a company like Sony to harbour so many abusers for so long?
It became clear to me that abuse only happens – to the extent that it has in the music industry – because it’s allowed to occur. There will always be people who try to take advantage of their positions of power, but it’s when those perpetrators know that they will be able to get away with it that you see endemic abuse of this kind. And for years, men in the music industry have been getting away with it. Harassment is so normalised – so many of the women I spoke to in the industry had multiple, horrific stories, but they didn’t necessarily realise how bad their stories sounded to me, an outsider, because the entire industry around them had been toxic for so long. Some women had tried to complain when it happened to them, but there was nothing in place to help or protect victims – in fact, when some women tried to seek help, through HR departments, things became worse. HR was really acting in the interests of the people at the top. And these kinds of cultures are set at the top. If you look at Sony – or really any major music label – they’ve traditionally been entirely run by men. That is slowly changing, but a lot of this sexism is deeply ingrained in the music industry. And of course, women can be sexist and can be bullies too.
What’s the difficulty you see in the media requiring those who’ve been harassed and abused to keep publicly telling their stories and keep putting their trauma on display?
For so long, we’ve been relying on individual women to tell their stories of harassment and abuse. We hear their stories, we feel their pain, and then we move on, and structural change doesn’t come. To me that seems unethical. Why do we expect the person with the least power to speak about traumatic incidents, over and over again, in the hope of inciting change? There’s no doubt in my mind the toll that it takes on these women. You only have to look at someone like Brittney Higgins to appreciate that. The scrutiny she’s been under since she went public with an allegation of rape at Parliament House would be unbearable for a lot of survivors I think. That’s not to say that there isn’t power in women owning their stories, and speaking publicly if they decide to – it’s just that there is a very high cost to doing so.
To that end, I think the media needs to take a good look at the way we report harassment and abuse. Media outlets tend to focus on the victim, particularly if they seem like the right type of victim – young, white, beautiful – we make it all about them.
They become the face of the abuse. But to get real accountability you have to go beyond that – you have to go to the perpetrators, and ultimately the enablers too, the ones who allow this to happen, or who look the other way. You have to see harassment, abuse and assault for what they are: systemic problems in society, not one-off decisions made by individual bad men.
This series made you question things that had occurred in your own life. What can you tell me about that?
Almost every woman I know has a MeToo story, and I’m no exception to that. I’ve experienced workplace sexual harassment, and it really shook my confidence. Like many women do, I tried to bury it, minimise it and to move on. I just wanted to live and work normally. But it does have an impact on your self worth, and your ability to feel safe in the world and to follow your ambitions. I understand that intimately, and I saw that play out again and again for women in the music industry.
Many of them left jobs, jobs that they were good at and loved, as a result of the things that happened to them. It made me so angry seeing women constantly carrying the burden of their own mistreatment. That’s what really drove me making this series – the unfairness of it all, and the lack of accountability.
As someone who has also suffered workplace sexual harassment (in the media) myself, the series made compelling but difficult listening. As you suggest, so many scenarios are familiar. After everything you’ve investigated, what hope do you hold that there will be long-term societal change when it comes to sexual violence, particularly against women, but also against and others, in workplaces?
I’m sorry to hear that! Sexual harassment really is so common, and to be honest I think the media is still to have it’s real reckoning with this kind of behaviour. It’s rife in the industry. But I do have hope! I think seeing the women I spoke to come into their own power was very inspiring. They simply weren’t willing to tolerate this kind of thing any more, or feel shame about it. And we’re seeing that on a national level too – someone like Australian of the Year Grace Tame refusing to carry shame for the things that were done to her is extremely powerful. Being able to speak about the issue is the first step. That was what MeToo was supposed to be about, before the wave of legal action effectively silenced journalists and victims. And I think that’s the next frontier – the next place that structural change needs to happen – in the legal system. People have to be able to speak about their experiences without worrying that they could be sued.
As for workplaces – I do think things are slowly getting better. Some of the stories I’ve heard about what happened in the 80s for example, I don’t think anyone could get away with now. But it’s such a painfully slow process. What’s required is real leadership, real accountability. Men and women deciding to take harassment and abuse seriously, and to really – and proactively – mean it. That would look like public statements, specific and clear workplace policies, actively supporting victims. None of this should really be that hard – but we’re not very bold as a country, when it comes to this kind of thing. It does require some real backbone, some real fearlessness. But I think we can get there!
The Papua Advocacy Team says that Indonesian police committed acts of violence and sexual harassment while breaking up a protest and arrested 17 people in front of the US Embassy in Jakarta last week.
The team said that that the protest on Thursday was forcibly broken up by police without legal grounds.
“During the dispersal of the rally, there were protesters who were hit in the eye, trampled on, kicked, and a Papuan woman was sexually harassed,” the team declared in a media release.
Based on the advocacy team’s release, the protesters from the Papua Student Alliance (AMP) and several other civil society organisations arrived at the US Embassy at around 11 am.
The action was to demand the annulment of the 1962 New York Agreement which paved the way for Papua’s integration into Indonesia, the release of all Papuan political prisoners and the withdrawal of the military from Papua.
As they began conveying their demands the police immediately ordered then to disperse on the grounds of covid-19 social distancing restrictions.
According to the advocacy team, teargas was fired at the demonstration when police broke up the action.
Protester thrown out
“One of the protesters who couldn’t stand the teargas was thrown out of a vehicle by police and injured their foot. Other protesters meanwhile were packed into a [police detention] vehicle because they door was locked from the outside,” the group said.
According to the advocacy team, these incidents were a violation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Law Number 39/1999 on Human Rights and Law Number 9/1998 on the Freedom to Express and Opinion in Public.
The advocacy team also believes that the police actions were a violation of freedom of expression and opinion which is guaranteed under the 1945 Constitution.
The Papua Advocacy Team is made up of Michael Himan, representing the group Papua This is Us; Citra Referandum from the Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation (LBH); Nixon Randy from the Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH Masyarakat); and Abimanyu Septiadji from the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras).
The group strongly urged Indonesian police chief General Listyo Sigit Prabowo to take action against the officers and to apologise.
“To take firm action in terms of ethical, disciplinary and criminal [sanctions] for the violations and the physical, psychological and sexual violence by the Central Jakarta Metro Jaya district police against the protesters,” the group said.
17 demonstrators arrested
One of the protesters, former political prisoner Ambrosius Mulait, said that 17 demonstrators were forcibly taken away by police as soon as they arrived at the US Embassy.
They were only released on Friday, October 1, after being questioned for 18 hours.
“It was only [on Friday] at 7.45 am that they were released without any kind of status, none were declared suspects [charged],” said Citra Referandum, an advocate for the arrested activists.
Kompas.com reports that the Papua Advocacy Team said two Papuan activists had also been arrested by police at the Jakarta LBH despite the fact that they did not take part in the US Embassy rally.
A key part of the Respect@Work program to prevent sexual harassment has a “woefully inadequate” budget, especially compared to the $3.8m dedicated to the widely panned “milkshake and taco” site, shadow minister for women Tanya Plibersek says.
A website to help workplaces tackle sexual harassment was the 48th of 55 recommendations in sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins’ landmark report on making workplaces safer.
A key part of the Respect@Work program to prevent sexual harassment has a “woefully inadequate” budget, especially compared to the $3.8m dedicated to the widely panned “milkshake and taco” site, shadow minister for women Tanya Plibersek says.
A website to help workplaces tackle sexual harassment was the 48th of 55 recommendations in sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins’ landmark report on making workplaces safer.
Sexual assault survivor and Australian of the Year Grace Tame says the Morrison government has made a “grave mistake” in appointing a new human rights commissioner who has expressed concern about affirmative consent laws.
In addition to Tuesday’s pointed criticism from Tame, Guardian Australia understands the government’s recent appointment of the Western Australian lawyer Lorraine Finlay has triggered concerns within the Australian Human Rights Commission itself.
After nearly 15 years behind bars, 39-year-old mother and domestic violence survivor Erika Ray will soon get another day in court to attempt to gain her freedom.
Ray is currently sentenced to remain in prison until 2049. But on August 3, she appeared in court to argue that her defense attorneys provided ineffective assistance at her 2010 trial and that one of the actions for which she was convicted — armed robbery — did not occur at all. On September 1, she will return to court for closing arguments. If the court rules in her favor on either argument, Ray could return to her family sooner.
A “Felony Murder” Charge for a Death She Didn’t Cause
In 2006, Erika Ray was a 23-year-old single mother working as a server at Leona’s, a Chicago restaurant with several locations.
Ray had had problems with one of her supervisors, Corey Ebenezer, for months. It started, she told Truthout, when he obtained her phone number from the restaurant’s records and called her at 2 a.m. “I told him, ‘Don’t ever call my phone again.’”
At work, she said, Ebenezer repeatedly asked her out and followed her around. She reported his behavior to the shift manager, who spoke to Ebenezer. But his behavior didn’t stop, she recalled. “It created a more hostile environment.” Ebenezer would prevent her from serving tables where she might earn more in tips; other times, she said, he slowed her orders, causing customers to complain. “Unless he thought I was being nice, he was aggressive,” she said.
On June 14, 2006, Ebenezer and Ray had a dispute about whether she could serve a party of 30 by herself. “What do you mean I can’t have the table?” Ray recalled saying. “It’s in my section.”
Ebenezer ordered her to go home. When Ray refused, he called the restaurant manager, claiming that she was insubordinate. Upon arriving, the manager told her that she could be transferred to another restaurant, but could no longer work at that location. Ray refused, feeling that she was being penalized for being harassed; she was fired.
That night, when Ray picked up her seven-year-old daughter Jada from her grandmother’s house, two of her cousins were there. After she told them what had happened, one cousin, 18-year-old Paris Gosha, decided to physically confront Ebenezer, bringing along his 14-year-old brother, and two friends. Unbeknownst to Ray or her cousins, one of those friends, 19-year-old Lorenzo Wilson, was carrying a gun. Their plan, she told Truthout, was to confront Ebenezer about his actions, but not to rob or kill him. “I didn’t even know anyone had a gun,” she said.
Ray drove the group to Leona’s, but stayed in the car. Once inside, the planned confrontation went awry and Wilson shot Ebenezer, who later died. Ray, her cousins and Wilson were arrested and charged with armed robbery and first-degree murder. (The fifth person was never charged.)
Illinois law allows prosecutors to pursue a first-degree murder charge (also known as “felony murder”) if a death occurs during a crime, such as robbery. Under felony murder, the person can be charged even if they did not cause the death or, like Ray, were not present.
In 2010, after three years in Chicago’s Cook County Jail, Ray and Wilson went to trial. Shortly before her trial began, Ray recalled that her attorney, Paul Christiansen, told her that the state had made a plea offer of 21 years at 50 percent (meaning she would only have to spend 10.5 years in prison), but he had turned it down because he thought she wouldn’t take it. (Christiansen is now dead.) He also told her not to talk about Ebenezer’s harassment because it would be construed as victim-blaming.
At trial, Gosha, who had pled guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 30 years at 50 percent, testified that, though their intention had simply been to beat up Ebenezer, he had taken cash from the restaurant.
The court instructed the jury that, if they found that Ray had intended an unlawful act, such as armed robbery, and that Ebenezer was killed by one of the people involved in that act, that would be sufficient to find her guilty of murder. Following these instructions, the jury convicted Ray of armed robbery and murder.
Ray was sentenced to 42 years in prison (with a 22-year sentence to run concurrently, or at the same time). Her earliest release date is 2049. (Wilson was convicted and sentenced to 75 years.)
Ray’s Fight for Freedom
Ever since she arrived in prison, Ray has been thinking about the plea deal that her lawyer never communicated to her, which would have allowed her to come home after 10.5 years. Had her attorney told her in advance, she told Truthout in a call from prison, she would have accepted and would now be home. Although she realized that some of her actions had set into motion the events that led to Ebenezer’s death, she knew her sentence was unjust. “I felt like I should have a level of accountability,” she stated. “But 42 years doesn’t salvage the situation.”
After being assigned another attorney, she asked him to file a motion of discovery for any plea offers made before trial.
A 2017 hearing uncovered a state record of a discussion with the original prosecuting attorney, who had made an offer. But the specifics of the offer had not been documented.
Ray also filed a post-conviction petition. In 2021, a Cook County court agreed to hear her petition on two issues — whether her original attorneys told her about the prosecutor’s offer for a 21-year sentence at 50 percent (or 10.5 years in prison) if she pled guilty to armed robbery and, paradoxically, whether an armed robbery, on which her conviction and prison sentence hangs, even occurred.
At the August 3 hearing, Victor Erbring, the co-counsel in Ray’s original defense, testified that only one plea offer had been made — a 20- to 40-year sentence at 100 percent (meaning she would serve the full sentence) — and that Ray had declined it. Ray told Truthout that she was never offered such a plea. Erbring, now an assistant district attorney in Travis County, Texas, did not return Truthout’s request for clarification.
At that same hearing, Paris Gosha, who had been paroled in March 2021, testified that he had perjured himself at trial to keep his younger brother from being charged as an adult. (The teen was charged as a juvenile and sentenced to five years in juvenile prison.) There had been no robbery either planned or committed that night, he stated.
“It was just supposed to be a fight,” Gosha told Truthout. “A fight is something that everybody can walk away from. No one had any intention of killing someone.” He declined to discuss the specifics inside the restaurant.
He said that, though he was a state witness, he hadn’t intended to testify against Ray and Wilson.
“I did what I had to do to get out of that situation,” he said, and what he felt he had to do was confess to a robbery that did not happen. At the time, he had reasoned, “If I said I took something — and no one knew that I took it and I didn’t split the money — then they wouldn’t charge no one else. It [the charge] won’t fall on nobody else’s head.”
Gosha’s testimony helped convict Ray and Wilson.
He reiterated to Truthout what he had testified at the August 3, 2021 court date — no one took anything from the restaurant. Also on August 3, Ray’s shift manager, who had not been called to the stand at the original trial, testified that she had been called into the restaurant after the shooting and found the register still full of cash. She also testified that Ray had complained to her about Ebenezer’s behavior and that she had witnessed it.
“I Was Part of the Movement That Was There for Me”
Jada Lesure hugs her mother, Erika Ray, during a pre-pandemic visit organized by Mothers United Against Violence and Incarceration.Courtesy of Holly Krigof Mothers United Against Violence and Incarceration
Three dozen supporters filled the court on August 3. Among them were women who had been imprisoned with Ray — and whom she had helped during their time behind bars.
Paris Knox is one of them. As reported previously, Knox was convicted and sentenced to 40 years for the 2005 death of her ex-boyfriend after he attacked her. After grassroots organizing by advocates, the conviction was vacated and Knox was released.
Women were unable to get phone calls, mail (including legal mail) or access the commissary or the prison store. None had been restored by Knox’s 36th birthday two weeks later. To cheer her up, Ray suggested that they play Monopoly. While they were playing, another woman came to their table, demanding attention. When she didn’t get it, she tossed the board and all its pieces.Knox and Ray met in 2007 at the Cook County Jail, where both were incarcerated awaiting trial. They were assigned to the same judge and transported to court together and, later, placed in the same housing unit. They reconnected at the Dwight Correctional Center, where both were imprisoned after sentencing. In 2013, both were moved to Logan Correctional Center when the state of Illinois shuttered Dwight.
Knox and the attention-seeker fought, despite Ray’s efforts to calm them. Physical fights are prohibited in prison; both were sent to segregation, or solitary confinement, for 14 days. When they returned to the housing unit, Ray had them sit down, talk through their disagreement and apologize to each other. That, Knox said, was the type of person Ray is.
Ray was also, Knox recalled, “a genius in the law library,” helping women with their post-conviction petitions. Some had already had their petitions denied by the courts, but with Ray’s help, were able to redraft their petitions to have their cases heard.
In 2017, after three years in jail and 10 years in prison, Knox’s conviction and 40-year sentence were vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Kim Foxx, the state’s attorney, agreed to a deal in which Knox pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, was given time served and released two days later on February 15, 2018. Ray counseled Knox through those last two days as Knox worried about reentering a drastically changed world. Ray, still with decades on her sentence, reassured her friend. “She told me, ‘You’re going home. You’re going to be fine,’” Knox said.
Three years later, for Ray’s hearing, Knox made t-shirts with Ray’s face and the words “Free Erika.” She had two special shirts made for Ray’s daughter and toddler grandson: “Free My Mom” and “Free My Grandma.” Of the three dozen supporters who attended the hearing, one-third sported “Free Erika” shirts that day. For Knox, the moment was profound, not only because she could see her friend again, but she said, “I was part of the movement that was there for me when I was behind these walls.”
Lauren Stumblingbear, who was released from Logan prison in July, also sported a “Free Erika” shirt that day. Stumblingbear met Ray at Logan when she joined its Helping Paws Program, in which women trained therapy dogs for veterans and children with disabilities. The two quickly became friends and Ray, who had been imprisoned for six years by then, frequently helped Stumblingbear navigate her guilt and helplessness at not being with her family.
During Stumblingbear’s incarceration, her mother was diagnosed with cancer. She died in April 2020. “I never had a chance to make it home to her,” Stumblingbear told Truthout. Ray listened and talked with Stumblingbear, counseling her through her grief and guilt. “There were some nights I don’t know how I could have made it through,” she said. Ray also comforted her through her cousin’s death the following year.
When COVID ravaged the prison in late 2020, Stumblingbear took care of Ray after both women contracted the disease and were moved to the COVID unit. Ray, who has Lupus, could barely walk, dress or shower. Stumblingbear cared for her, making her food and ensuring that she ate, helping her dress and make her bed (a requirement in prison) each morning.
Also present in court on August 3 was Jada Lesure, Ray’s daughter. Lesure was seven when Ray turned herself in to the police, telling her daughter she had to go away for a while before leaving the girl with her grandmother. Lesure was too young to attend the 2010 court proceedings — or even grasp her grandmother’s descriptions of them. The post-conviction hearing was the first time Lesure, now 21, attended court. It was also the first time she had seen her mother since March 2021 when COVID stopped prison visits. Visits have resumed, but Lesure has not yet been able to make the 175-mile trek from Chicago to Logan. “I hadn’t seen her in a whole year,” Lesure told Truthout. “It felt good to see her even though I couldn’t hug her.”
On September 1, Ray will return to court for closing arguments. If the court agrees that no armed robbery took place, it may vacate that conviction and resentence Ray to fewer than 42 years.
If the court rules that her counsel was ineffective in not communicating the initial plea offer, Ray could be resentenced to that uncommunicated offer of 20 years at 50 percent, entitling her release.
If that happens, said Lesure, “it would be like a new beginning. I hadn’t had a mom since I was seven years old. It would complete my life.”
For Ray, resentencing could mean not just a second chance, but the possibility of reaching out to the people she hurt. In February of this year, Ebenezer’s fiancée wrote her a letter, wanting to know what had happened that fatal night. But Illinois law prevents incarcerated people from communicating with their victims and victims’ families. If she were released, Ray reflected, “there could be a real reconciliation. [State’s Attorney] Kim Foxx ran on a platform of transformative justice. This is the opportunity for that.”
Foxx’s office declined to comment about Ray’s petition and potential resentencing.
The revelations last week of toxic workplace behaviour and a “boys’ club” culture at MediaWorks raise questions about organisational policies and processes that go well beyond a single company.
The MediaWorks review by Maria Dew QC identified instances of bullying, sexism, harassment, inappropriate relationships and use of illegal drugs. Her report’s 32 recommendations will now inform a culture change plan at the company.
The case provides a warning and an example for other organisations looking to improve their own cultures. But it also underlines how pervasive and resistant to change these problems can be — as our own research has shown.
We analysed three years of reflections by tertiary human resources (HR) students who had just completed a training session on sexual harassment processes and responses. While all felt they better understood definitions of sexual harassment and bullying after the course, they also felt there was a lack of consequences for the harassers, and that victims often lose everything.
More concerning, the students almost unanimously said they would be unlikely to raise the matter if they witnessed an act of harassment. Many also felt they would find it difficult to speak up about or improve inadequate HR policies or processes they might find at future employers.
They felt to do so would be a “black mark” on their own career development. While many “hoped” they would speak out, they were unsure how they would act in reality. Those who had experienced sexual harassment themselves reflected on how “difficult it is to make a complaint”.
#LATEST: MediaWorks investigation uncovers multiple sexual assault, racism, sexism, drug use allegations, CEO ‘unreservedly apologises’ https://t.co/eU2WWH0Zca
HR is part of the culture This last observation is important. Not unlike the findings in the recent Christchurch Girls High School survey, close to half of the HR students reported instances of either experiencing or witnessing an act of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Most reported they would likely “remain silent and just leave” if faced with instances of harassment in their future professional lives. Simply put, as other research has also shown, we found sexual harassment was experienced as a “normal” and complex part of working within a corporate environment.
This is not a criticism of HR students, who will no doubt move on to become ethical, high-performing professionals. In fact, their responses mirror those we see across employee groups.
But our study is unique — most research has focused on managerial or employee experiences of sexual harassment, whereas ours involves practitioners who play a critical role in harassment policy design and implementation, as well as in developing work cultures intolerant of harassment.
To see such responses in a group that is often blamed for organisational failure by high-profile inquiries suggests we first need to acknowledge that HR people themselves are working within a wider culture that can inhibit meaningful change.
TONIGHT: The dark side of one of our largest broadcasting companies. I’ve spoken to current & former Mediaworks radio staff who say they have no faith a current culture review will lead to change, partly because it’s claimed the problems are coming from the top. 6pm tonight. pic.twitter.com/hzX7bJpX13
Why workers don’t speak up The responses in our research reflect the expectations of a corporate culture these future leaders are already well versed in — that to speak up means potentially sacrificing your own professional progression, or risking being seen as someone who “can’t take a joke”.
Many people will understand this dilemma, which is not limited to speaking up about harassment and bullying. Those who speak up against racism and discrimination based on sexual orientation or disability face similar issues.
If even those charged with developing processes to support positive work cultures are not confident in speaking up, how do organisations do better? This is surely an issue of critical importance to all New Zealand organisations, given recent reports suggesting the problem is widespread and certainly not limited to high-profile cases.
As the Mediaworks report showed, solutions have to go beyond fixing the support processes for employees who have experienced harassment, and involve confronting the largely invisible drivers of toxic organisational culture.
These are not easily captured in a traditional “organisational values” statement. The idea of “culture” extends to the language, behaviours and micro-interactions we have with one another every day.
Our research participants reported their own experiences of needing to “adapt to the crass behaviour” and the difficulty in stepping outside taken-for-granted norms: “You can’t put up a force field.”
Leaders need to be honest Given this, perhaps recommendations around processes and training programmes specific to sexual harassment are not enough. Instead, the key might lie in seeing this behaviour as part of wider cultural behaviours that, on their own, might not immediately raise alarm bells.
Studies have shown that any form of disrespectful behaviour — such as refusing to help, spreading rumours, subtle undermining, or even leadership behaviour such as “shoulder tapping” for preferential treatment — can lead to a culture that supports toxic power structures and where harassment and bullying become risks.
Many of these behaviours are seen as a “normal” part of office politics, easy to dismiss or difficult to see. More importantly, they can be hard for leaders to admit to — we all want to lead organisations with strong, positive organisational cultures.
But having clear, candid and honest discussions with colleagues around the leadership table about the invisible culture will open a dialogue and create the potential for change.
Importantly, it takes a willingness by leaders to be brave enough to take an honest look in the cultural “mirror” and be open to what is revealed.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced his resignation, effective August 24, after a week of intense pressure from fellow Democrats for him to step down. Cuomo, who has been in office since 2011, had few allies left after an investigation by New York’s attorney general found he had sexually harassed at least 11 women — allegations he continues to deny. “Governor Cuomo is still gaslighting New Yorkers,” says Yuh-Line Niou, a member of the New York State Assembly representing Manhattan, who says Cuomo must still be impeached. “Impeachment means that New York will not be paying Andrew Cuomo’s pension for the rest of his life. Impeachment means that Governor Cuomo will not be able to run for office again.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMYGOODMAN:New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced he’s resigning, following the recent release of a devastating report from the New York Attorney General’s Office, which found the three-term Democrat sexually harassed at least 11 women in violation of state and federal law. New York Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul will take over in two weeks, becoming New York’s first woman governor. Cuomo made the announcement Tuesday afternoon as state lawmakers were moving forward on starting impeachment proceedings against him.
GOV.ANDREWCUOMO:“New York tough” means New York loving. And I love New York. And I love you. And everything I have ever done has been motivated by that love. And I would never want to be unhelpful in any way. And I think that given the circumstances, the best way I can help now is if I step aside and let government get back to governing. And therefore, that’s what I’ll do.
AMYGOODMAN:During his resignation speech, Governor Cuomo denied all the allegations and continued to defend his actions.
GOV.ANDREWCUOMO:I take full responsibility for my actions. I have been too familiar with people. My sense of humor can be insensitive and off-putting. I do hug and kiss people casually, women and men. I have done it all my life. It’s who I’ve been since I can remember. In my mind, I’ve never crossed the line with anyone. But I didn’t realize the extent to which the line has been redrawn. There are generational and cultural shifts that I just didn’t fully appreciate. And I should have. No excuses.
AMYGOODMAN:One of Cuomo’s accusers, former aide Lindsey Boylan, responded by saying, quote, “From the beginning, I simply asked that the Governor stop his abusive behavior. It became abundantly clear he was unable to do that, instead attacking and blaming victims until the end. It is a tragedy that so many stood by and watched these abuses happen,” she said.
Governor Cuomo had faced mounting calls to resign for months over the sexual harassment allegations, as well as his cover-up of thousands ofCOVID-19 deaths in New York nursing homes.
We’re joined now by two guests. Zephyr Teachout is a professor of law at Fordham University who ran against Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 2014. We are also joined by Democratic Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, who first called on Cuomo to resign in February. She was one of the first.
Democratic Assemblymember Yuh-Line Niou, thanks for joining us once again onDemocracy Now!Respond to Governor Cuomo’s resignation yesterday. And now, again, this doesn’t go into effect — this has been sort of unexplained, why he wants two weeks, but for 14 days.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERYUH–LINENIOU:Yeah, well, I mean, I don’t believe that it’s a shock to us that he also still wants to control the narrative, control the timeline, control everything. Governor Cuomo is still gaslighting New Yorkers. He had his lawyer — that the state is actually paying for — come out and defend him again on a state platform, basically telling these women that they were imagining it, that they were not harmed by the governor. And then he continued to say things, just like the clip that you played, that “I didn’t know where the line had — that the line had been redrawn,” and, you know, all of these different things that continued to basically dismiss the fact that women do know when men are mistreating them.
And then, at the end, he addressed the Legislature and tried to say that it would be costly to the state and painful for the state to proceed with impeachment proceedings, because he doesn’t want us to actually hold him accountable. Governor Cuomo basically told New Yorkers in his remarks that in exchange for resigning, he’d like the Assembly to not impeach him and not investigate his conduct any further. This is gaslighting all New Yorkers. Impeaching him isn’t what is costly; actually, not impeaching him is what is costly.
JUANGONZÁLEZ:And, Assemblywoman, in terms of this issue of what happens now with the impeachment proceedings, because there has been some speculation that the governor and some of his remaining few supporters would like to see him possibly have a comeback later, and if he was impeached, obviously, he could not come back to run for office again, so I’m wondering what your sense is in terms of whether the Assembly will move forward, now that he’s resigned.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERYUH–LINENIOU:What you’re saying is exactly right. Impeachment must continue. And we must remember that the governor’s abuse of power extends far beyond just the women that, you know, he actually harassed and harmed and victimized. And it also extends to the millions that he made on the book deal while abusing his staff and misusing his staff. It extends to the victims ofCOVID-19 who passed away in nursing homes and whose numbers and whose deaths he erased, in their numbers, and hid from the Legislature, right? This is a pattern. This is serial abuse.
Impeachment means that New York will not be paying Andrew Cuomo’s pension for the rest of his life. Impeachment means that Governor Cuomo will not be able to run for office again by claiming to be the victim, while he’s also gaslighting and harming further the actual victims that he caused harm to. Impeachment means that we are then securing justice for folks who actually came forward, were brave enough to speak up about their experience, and also the folks who were not yet able to come forward, who we know there are many.
JUANGONZÁLEZ:And could you comment on this irony of Governor Cuomo, while he was in office, supposedly championing the rights of women and now to being forced to resign in disgrace because of his treatment of women?
ASSEMBLYMEMBERYUH–LINENIOU:Well, I mean, it’s interesting that you actually commented on that, because just because Governor Cuomo is retiring, it doesn’t actually mean that the toxic culture of abuse and misogyny in which he operated and thrived in is actually going away. We want to actively work to change that. We have to pass legislation that will make Albany a safe and harassment-free workplace. Landmark legislation was passed in 2019 to protect workers in the workplace from sexual harassment, but we, very ironically, exempted our own staff, our own folks, from being protected. I actually have a bill, with Senator Andrew Gounardes, to close that loophole.
AMYGOODMAN:How is that possible that you exempted yourselves?
ASSEMBLYMEMBERYUH–LINENIOU:Well, I believe that that was a clause or an exemption that the executive wanted.
AMYGOODMAN:Well, as Governor Cuomo continually says, “I did this to everyone. It’s just that mores are changing now, and I wasn’t up on the times,” I wanted to go to Governor Cuomo’s former executive assistant. In the report, she was known as “Executive Assistant Number One.” But this past week, she came out, named herself and filed a criminal complaint — her name is Brittany Commisso — accusing Cuomo of groping her, kissing her against her will, verbally harassing her. This is Commisso speaking onCBSabout one of the incidents that occurred at Cuomo’s Executive Mansion.
BRITTANYCOMMISSO:So, he gets up, and he goes to give me a hug. And I could tell, immediately when he hugged me, it was in the — probably the most sexually aggressive manner than any of the other hugs that he had given me. It was then that I said, you know, “Governor” — you know, my words were, “You’re going to get us in trouble.” And I thought to myself that probably wasn’t the best thing to say, but at that time I was so afraid that one of the mansion staff, that they were going to come up and see this and think, “Oh, you know, is that when she comes here for?” And that’s not what I came there for, and that’s not who I am. And I was terrified of that.
And when I said that, he walked over, shut the door, so hard, to the point where I thought, for sure, someone downstairs must think — they must think, if they heard that, “What is going on?” — came back to me, and that’s when he put his hand up my blouse and cupped my breast over my bra. I exactly remember looking down, seeing his hand, which is a large hand, thinking to myself, “Oh my god, this is happening.” It happened so quick. He didn’t say anything. When I stopped it, he just pulled away and walked away.
AMYGOODMAN:Again, that is the Executive Assistant Number One. She is naming herself, Brittany Commisso, filing a criminal complaint accusing Cuomo of groping her. Unclear if other criminal complaints will be filed. A number of local DAs, from Albany to New York City, have asked for the evidence behind the attorney general’s report. And this could continue at that level, on a criminal level. Yuh-Line, state Assemblymember Yuh-Line Niou, you yourself are a sexual assault survivor. You have championed the legislation that ultimately Governor Cuomo has signed off on. Can you tell us whether he will be impeached, whether or not he leaves, as impeachment proceedings are continuing in the Assembly now?
ASSEMBLYMEMBERYUH–LINENIOU:I mean, you mentioned, you know, the Child Victims Act, which is about child survivors of the childhood sexual assaults, etc., that we actually passed. But we have not passed the Adult Survivors Act, which is actually very important in this case.
And I just wanted to note that if you are a survivor of sexual assault, it doesn’t matter if you had to laugh it off, go to a dance party or drink until you made yourself sick or make a joke or even have sex or forget or just read a book or take a shower, or whatever that you have to do to survive something like that, because the way that Governor Cuomo’s lawyer addressed that situation was just gaslighting and very harmful, talking about how Brittany actually got up and ate cheese and crackers and made jokes with her colleagues. And I just wanted to say that there are lots of different ways for survivors to cope and to survive after something violating, and it’s a really big deal that they just got through it. And I think that it’s a really big deal to acknowledge that.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is facing calls from several prominent members of his own political party to resign from office in light of a recently released report that alleges he sexually harassed multiple women.
“I think he should resign,” Biden said to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, after the report was released.
State Democratic lawmakers have also indicated they will likely seek to impeach Cuomo over his conduct.
“It is abundantly clear to me that the Governor has lost the confidence of the Assembly Democratic majority and that he can no longer remain in office,” said Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, a Democrat from New York City.
Heastie added that he and other lawmakers would “move expeditiously and look to conclude” an ongoing impeachment investigation in the Assembly “as quickly as possible.”
The New York Times editorial board has also called for Cuomo to resign. The board wrote:
Mr. Cuomo has always had a self-serving streak and been known for his political bullying. He also has used those traits to be an effective politician and, in many of his achievements as governor, won the public’s trust. What this report lays out, however, are credible accusations that can’t be looked past.
“If Mr. Cuomo cares for the well-being of the state and its citizens as much as he has said he does over the years, he needs to do the right thing and step down,” the Times concluded.
It isn’t just politicians and newspapers that are calling for Cuomo to step down, however. A snap poll conducted by Marist on Tuesday found that 63 percent of registered voters in the state also want Cuomo to resign, with only 29 percent saying he should stay in office for the remainder of his term.
The independent investigation on Cuomo’s behavior in office, released by state Attorney General Letitia James’s office on Tuesday, revealed that at least 11 women (nine of whom were or are state employees) said the New York governor had sexually harassed them. The report corroborated these women’s accusations by listening to testimonies from 179 other individuals, and by reviewing around 74,000 documents, including texts and emails.
Cuomo is alleged to have groped the women’s breasts and other parts of their body, and to have run his hands and fingers over their bodies. He also used “sexually suggestive” language toward several women, commenting on their appearances or asking them about who they were dating.
Cuomo has denied the allegations, claiming that his accusers misinterpreted ordinary gestures of platonic affection.
But James rejected those claims by the governor. Although her office is not currently pursuing criminal charges against him, James suggested that Cuomo’s actions toward these women “violated multiple state and federal laws.”
“This investigation has revealed conduct that corrodes the very fabric that makes our state government and shines a light on injustice present at the highest levels of state government,” James added.
Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner, Kate Jenkins, has urged the Morrison government to impose a positive duty on employers to stamp out sexual harassment, insisting the problem in workplaces is much larger than “a few bad blokes”.
The number of calls made to a 24/7 counselling helpline for workers in parliament and MPs’ employees has risen over the past year. Callers have raised issues such as bullying and sexual misconduct.
A union leader said the helpline is only treating the symptoms of endemic issues in Westminster and not the root cause.
Systemic issues
Figures obtained by the PA news agency show the number of calls has risen year on year.
Jenny Symmons, chair of GMB’s branch for MPs’ staff, said that not all those who needed help were seeking it. And moreover:
much more intervention is needed to address the systemic issues with bullying and harassment, sexual misconduct, unhealthy work patterns, and other problems that have permeated our workplace for decades
She added:
These figures do not show all those staff needing help in Parliament – only those seeking it.
Parliament has made huge headway in supporting MPs’ staff pastorally. As more effort has been made to publicise the (Employee Assistance Programme) during the pandemic, more staff have made use of it.
However, services offering mental health support are only treating the symptoms of cultural issues in Parliament – not the cause.
Employee Assistance Programme
The Employee Assistance Programme was set up in 2014 initially for MPs’ staff. But in October 2018, this was expanded to include staff of both the House of Commons and House of Lords administrations, members of the House of Commons, peers and their staff.
A staff handbook for the Commons describes the helpline as offering 24/7 support, 365 days a year. It offers “practical advice and guidance as well as online, telephone and face-to-face counselling and support on a broad range of issues”.
Findings
Between 1 May 2020 and 30 April 2021, at least 1,073 calls were made to the helpline. 979 of those were from Commons staff and 94 from those who work for MPs. The vast majority of these were for mental health issues, followed by legal problems and work. But other concerns ranged from relationships to trauma, and whistleblowing.
This had risen from at least 973 in the same period the year before, with 934 calls from House of Commons staff and 39 from MPs’ employees.
The true figures may be higher as some were redacted to protect confidentiality. And the breakdown did not include House of Lords staff, peers or MPs.
Garry Graham is deputy general secretary of the Prospect union, which represents staff working in the Houses of Parliament. He told PA:
These figures show the magnitude of the effect a year of Covid pressure has had on parliamentary staff.
The impact was amplified by the Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg’s insistence on physical attendance at a time when many of the lower paid cooks and cleaners were genuinely afraid that coming to work might put their health at risk.
Staff wellbeing
The wellbeing of staff was raised in the Commons on Thursday 8 July. Shadow Commons leader Thangam Debbonaire said there were concerns over former Conservative MP Rob Roberts potentially returning to the estate, despite an independent panel finding he sexually harassed a member of his team.
Commons speaker Lindsay Hoyle said the wellbeing of parliamentary staff, who number around 3,000, was a “top priority”. And he said he was pleased that they weren’t “suffering in silence”.
He told PA:
As staff begin to return to Parliament in the coming weeks, we will continue to encourage them to use the services of our onsite GP, mental health first aiders and health screening awareness programme – while also promoting the 24-hour helpline.
Students of the University of PNG have taken the right step to demand that the authorities address harassment on campus, says the women’s wing of the Papua New Guinea Trade Union Congress.
Wilma Kose, leader of the wing, said the protest was the right thing to do as it would demand remedial action by the authorities.
She said the authorities must now inform the public on what action had been taken to address the issue.
“The prevalence of harassment of the girls and mothers, left unattended for so long, has become a major hindrance to development progress,” she said.
“As a public institution for all Papua New Guineans which is largely funded by workers — half of which are women — we demand drastic action and responses from the university administration, Department of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology and authorities who should be concerned about such behaviour.”
Kose said girls and women who progressed to tertiary levels of education had earned their places by merit and deserved respect.
“We are not sending our daughters, our sisters or our mothers to be someone else’s punching bag to get harassed and assaulted,” she said.
The Media Council of Papua New Guinea has condemned an attack by male students at the University of Papua New Guinea on a media team covering a protest staged by female students on Tuesday, reports the PNG Post-Courier.
The council said that the actions of these students was an act against Article 11 of the International Human Rights Act, which talks about Freedom of Assembly and Association, and Sections 46, 47 and 55 of the country’s Constitution, which talks about the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association and equality of citizens.
The council is disappointed that these male students, who are supposed to be part of the elite of our tertiary student population, could use a mob rule approach, to harass and intimidate their female colleagues as well as the media.
The students were protesting against increased incidents of harassment against female students, and media representatives were there doing their job.
MCPNG is also saddened that the students who profess to come from a premier university in the Pacific could act in such an ignorant, rowdy manner and protect would-be criminals and sexual predators in the country’s leading university under the pretext of safeguarding the institution’s reputation.
The council believes strongly that continued coverage and exposure of ongoing social problems such as this, will help concerned authorities and the university administration address them, to make the university improve its image and reputation for the better.
MCPNG is now calling on the university administration and the council to immediately look into this matter and to ensure that female students’ safety and wellbeing on campus is guaranteed.
(@davemacladd) 
(@inelliegant) 
