It concerns me that people calling for an investigation into Christian Porter are being dismissed as some sort of lynch mob ignoring the rule of law. True, there are some people that are declaring him guilty without due process, but most people are simply saying that while he almost certainly wouldn’t be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt making a criminal trial pointless, that doesn’t mean that a inquiry couldn’t examine his response to the accusations and whether – on the balance of probabilities – he’s made several inaccurate statements unbecoming of someone who’s the chief law officer. In other words, if he’s found to have lied through his teeth about some of the accusations, it doesn’t matter if the central one isn’t true, he’s not fit to be Attorney-General, but if he can show that there is no significant inconsistency in what he’s said, then he could continue in his role.
As you know, I’m very concerned that we take the personalities out of any controversial situation and try to establish some sort of general principle. For example, in the recent Harry and Meghan tete-a-tete with Oprah, it seems that people who want a republic are saying how terrible it must have been for Meghan, while Monarchists are saying that she can’t be believed because, after all, she doesn’t have Royal blood and consequently is just a common social climber and isn’t the Queen dignified.
If you take the personalities out it and ask yourself the simple question: Who is more worthy of being listened to? A family who has been put there by Divine Right, or an actress from a television show. You realise that it doesn’t matter who’s telling the truth because the Queen and her family are our heads of state and we should never question anything they say even if it is a complete load of bollocks and we know they have a history of racism and historic support of the Nazis.
Yes, we should support the Royal family whatever they do because otherwise, it’s just mob rule… Or as some like to call it, democracy.
Anyway, I’ve been playing around with this whole presumption of innocence thing ever since Peter Van OlefriendofPorter asked how people would feel if it were them accused of something.
Because sexual assault is so triggering and because I may be accused of trivialising a very serious matter, I’ve deduced to tackle the whole presumption of innocence thing and apply it to a completely different scenario to explain why Scott Morrison is completely wrong. (At this point, I feel tempted to ask if he is a member of the Big Swinging Dicks and, if so, as PM does that make him the Big Dick Head? Honestly, this seems to be another time when the Liberal announcement will not be followed up with delivery… )
Anyway, I tried to think of a time I was falsely accused of something but as I’m an innocent man under the law, it was impossible so I’ve decided to go with fiction. Imagine that someone accuse me of smoking a joint at a party when I was a teenager. This – to quote Christian Porter – just didn’t happen. I was never invited to parties as a teenager! But leave that to one side. Some of you are probably thinking, well, so what if you did, but let me remind you that I’m a part-time teacher and my life should be above reproach and this is an accusation of criminal behaviour.
If the accusation were sent to the police, I suspect that their response would be that they’d be unlikely to gain a conviction so I could be presumed innocent in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In such a circumstance, I very much doubt that I’d stand up at a school assembly and announce that I was the teacher under investigation and that it had been a shocking week and I needed some time off to get my head right, but maybe I have more mental toughness than Christian Porter. Whatever, it’s enough that I haven’t been charged and…
Yes, some of you are thinking, how could it be true that a man as charismatic as I am wouldn’t’ have been invited to parties and that possibly I’ve just forgotten the night in question because of the effects of the drugs. And that’s all fine, but the point is without proof, I’m entitled to the PRESUMPTION of innocence.
Which brings me back to Porter and a very serious accusation and, no I’m not being facetious with what I’m about to say.
I’ve read an allegation that Mr Porter needed to get a new phone last year because his son wiped all the data. Now, as far as I know there is no police investigation into this so I don’t know if it’s true or not, but if it is true, it seems that Mr Porter has allowed his phone to be used in a cavalier way. I mean, if he didn’t have a lock on it or some way that stop his son doing such a thing, his son could have accidentally called any number of people and breached all sorts of security. He could have accidentally forwarded confidential messages to inappropriate people. I am sure that wiping data from the Attorney-General’s phone without permission must be illegal.
But all that is unimportant, because one thing is clear: The police have not charged his son. Therefore the son is innocent of the accusation under the law and we can conclude – like Scotty the Big Swinging Dick Head – that it wasn’t the son who deleted information.
So who did?
And why?
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
[/textblock]
