The Labour “SEX SCANDAL” that wasn’t, reminds us how vital the “presumption of innocence” is to preserving a civilised society. A powerfully written story, based upon the “testimony” of a young sexual assault “victim”, was instrumental in assembling a journalistic and political lynch-mob which ended up depriving the Labour Party of its president and a young man of his job. That the “sexual assault” charge was deemed by Maria Dew QC to be “not established”, and that the principal complainant admitted to fabricating evidence, requires all those who have played a role in these events to engage in some pretty serious soul-searching.
It has certainly taught me a lesson: that the news media are singularly ill-equipped to judge (as opposed to report) the claims and actions of others. Politics is one thing, but crime – or alleged crime – is something else altogether. There are very good reasons why criminal accusations are a matter for investigation by the Police, and why judgements are best left to judges and juries and courts of law. The very best of these being that although it is very easy to make accusations, it is a great deal harder to prove them. Yet prove them we must, lest accusation ends up taking the place of proof – the very definition of ‘witch-hunt’.
In practical terms, that means that when The Spinoff was approached by a group of young people accusing an influential member of the Labour Party – a person employed in the Leader’s Office, no less – of sexual assault, its first instinct should have been to tread extremely carefully. Sexual assault is a crime, and the people to whom our society has entrusted the job of investigating crime are the Police. For a media outlet to, in effect, take over the job of the Police is fraught with significant risk – not only to the reputations of the accused but also to the reputation of the journalist/s involved and to the media outlet itself.
Many journalists would object that this conservative approach to dealing with serious allegations of wrong-doing would effectively preclude all forms of investigative journalism. It’s a valid objection. Sometimes matters which should be the subject of official concern are swept under the carpet. Sometimes the people who are supposed to protect the public fail in their duty. In these circumstances, we rely upon the Fourth Estate to take up the cudgels on the public’s behalf and do the job that the powers-that-be have refused to do. Think of the My Lai Massacre, or Watergate, or – closer to home – Operation Burnham.
It has not, however, been established that in the case of “Sarah” (the fictitious name of the young complainant at the centre of the “scandal”) there had been any failure on the part of the Police to act upon her accusation of sexual assault. Rather, it appears that the Police were never approached. The onus of investigation and justice delivery had, instead, been laid upon the Labour Party organisation. It was the latter’s finding that the young male respondent had no case to answer which prompted “Sarah” and her friends to not only get in touch with The Spinoff but also with Paula Bennett, the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition.
It was at this point that a responsible media organisation should have held up its hands and said “Whoa! This positively reeks of multiple personal and political agendas! Thanks, but no thanks.” What was it, then, that persuaded The Spinoff to take up “Sarah’s” story and run with it?
In my opinion, The Spinoff was driven by two considerations. The first and most obvious was that it was in possession of a story that was bound to generate enormous interest and attract thousands of eyeballs belonging to its target demographic to its website. In short: it was news – big news! The second consideration, in my view, was ideological. It is an axiom of the liberal-left that women making accusations of rape and/or sexual assault and harassment must be believed. Underpinning this axiom is the undeniable historical fact that the Police and the courts have a very poor record when it comes to believing and supporting female complainants. It is, therefore, the duty of all “progressive” individuals – men especially – to believe and support the victims of criminal sexual behaviour. With hindsight, it seems clear that these two considerations instantly became mutually reinforcing. By doing the “right thing” – believing and supporting “Sarah” – The Spinoff was also going to get a massive spike in its unique visitor numbers. Win-Win!
At the back of The Spinoff’s collective mind, there would also have been the need to get the story out as quickly as possible. New Zealand is a very small place and word gets around, so if you take too long, or ask too many searching questions, there is every chance your “exclusive” will be taken somewhere else. “Quick, quick, quick!” Is the motto of modern journalism, not “Careful, careful, careful!”
The rest, as they say, is history. The Spinoff breaks “Sarah’s” story and instantly Jacinda Ardern and her closest colleagues come under withering fire from both the Left and the Right. From the sports-mad, DIY tradies, aka “Waitakere Men”, who are never really all that comfortable living under female prime ministers, there was only one question: “Is she lying?” (FYI – they weren’t asking about “Sarah”.) Feminist journalists waded into the media scrum, rhetorical broadswords flashing in the television lights. Accusation = Evidence – all that they needed. “Sarah” had to be believed, and that meant heads on spikes – male heads – asap.
Labour’s grandfatherly president, Nigel Haworth, was the first to go, closely followed by the young man at the centre of the allegations. To those who labour in the vineyard of electoral politics, a job in the Leader’s Office is generally seen as a stepping-stone to greatness, or, at least, to a seat in Parliament. To be driven from one’s employment; to see one’s promising political career shredded; and then to be found guilty of nothing more than behaving like an alpha male; in a party where such displays of overbearing masculinity are not appreciated; must be hard – very hard. The young man cleared by Maria Dew QC could be forgiven for asking her for the number of a good defamation lawyer.
All avoidable, of course, if those involved had held fast to the core journalistic principle that facts are sacred: facts backed by evidence. Sacred facts, and the time-honoured precept of the English Common Law: that an accused person is to be deemed innocent until such time as his guilt is proven – beyond reasonable doubt.