Defaming Dutton and Co or calling a racist a racist?

Managing editor Michelle Pini discusses defamatory statements versus inarguable facts relating to Peter Dutton's hurt feelings over being called out as racist, among other high-profile litigation.

IS IT defamatory to tell the truth?

There should be repercussions for false and misleading claims, especially when they are personal affronts that may cause reputational damage. That is why defamation laws exist.

However, such protections are not intended to provide a smoke screen under which the truth can be buried or even weaponised to advance personal or political ends.

Basically, if someone’s behaviour is consistently racist, then describing that person as racist is simply a statement of fact.

In the case of Peter Dutton, so extensive is his unsavoury history of racist dog-whistling that it is nigh immeasurable. (Read more about Dutton’s racist behaviour here and here.)

Peter Dutton: The would-be PM and overlord

Senior editor Michelle Pini discusses the new Dutton – the "good bloke" and would-be PM – currently showing in most MSM outlets.

So, when Independent MP Zali Steggall pointed out Dutton’s racism over his call to refuse visas to Palestinians, it should hardly be cause for debate, let alone require legal counsel. It’s just the latest heartless move, steeped in racism, from a man who could easily wallpaper his living room with them.

Nonetheless, Mr Dutton’s delicate sensibilities were so wounded, he is reportedly seeking “legal advice”.

Dutton said Steggall’s comments were “offensive” and “unparliamentary”, though, interestingly, he did not deny their accuracy.

Mr Dutton, of course, is hardly a newbie when it comes to making blanket accusations against all manner of people, particularly asylum seekers and assorted people of colour.

Not counting all the times he has used parliamentary privilege to dog-whistle against minorities, Dutton has rarely concerned himself with accuracy.

In 2017, Dutton claimed a riot had taken place on Manus Island after three asylum seekers were seen leading a five-year-old boy towards the detention centre, implying that it was linked to paedophilia concerns.

Dutton told reporters at the time:

I think there was concern about why the boy was being led, or for what purpose he was being led, away back into the regional processing centre...

I think it’s fair to say that the mood had elevated quite quickly. I think some of the local residents were quite angry about this particular incident and another alleged sexual assault.

In fact, the PNG Police Commander expressly rejected Dutton's claims, indicating the disturbance occurred because a soccer game exceeded the six o'clock curfew, angering some PNG soldiers, who were also drunk.

His exchange with Barrie Cassidy, on Insiders in 2017, when Dutton was Minister for Home Affairs, illustrates the ease with which Dutton employs lies to demonise. (See the full editorial for more details.)

A Bolt of Dutton: Fake news and Section 18C

The Coalition wants to amend s18C of the RDA so they can tell malicious racist lies.

The Opposition Leader has routinely referred to people and groups concerned with human rights as, "the boisterous minority and the politically correct".

As far back as 2001, in his maiden speech, Dutton said:

"The silent majority, the forgotten people – or the aspirational voters of our generation, as some like to term them – are fed up with bodies like the Civil Liberties Council and the Refugee Action Collective, and certainly the dictatorship of the trade union movement."

Aside from Dutton freely demonstrating his racism and then seeking legal advice whenever people point it out, there have been a plethora of high-profile defamation proceedings in recent times.

MPs happy to enjoy the safeguards of parliamentary privilege but equally happy to flex their litigious muscle have included former Coalition MPs John Barilaro, Christian Porter and Andrew Laming, among others.

Dirty little secrets exposed in Higgins' case against Lehrmann

The abandonment of the Bruce Lehrmann trial, the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins, is a devastating blow for all women who dare to speak out.

The latest such legal stoush is the one brought against rape survivor Brittany Higgins by her former boss, Senator Linda Reynolds.

In short, Reynolds is suing her former employee – who was found by the Federal Court, on the balance of probabilities, to have been raped by Bruce Lehrmann in the Senator's Parliamentary office – for defamation over social media posts which suggested Brittany felt unsupported by her boss.

We are not suggesting that Senator Reynolds did not support Brittany Higgins, though how she may have done this has not yet been established.

In court last week, Higgins’ lawyer Rachael Young asked Reynolds:

“You never took her aside, in a private space, to ask her, ‘Hi Brittany, how are you going?’”

Reynolds replied:

“I didn’t seek to be her counsellor.”

Established facts, so far, regarding Reynolds’ actions following the sexual assault include calling Brittany a “lying cow”, before feeding information to accused rapist Bruce Lehrmann’s defence attorney during the criminal trial, sending privileged government documents concerning Brittany to The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen and referring Brittany’s compensation settlement to the NACC.

Essentially, there are defamatory statements and then there are inarguable facts. Hopefully, the “truth defence” will always win out.