The Murdoch neo-lib press machine first cut its teeth on running discriminatory campaigns in Australia - long before it hit up the rest of the world. This is their stomping ground. Interesting that... the texts the actress sent are not discussed here, that there's no other claims similar to her's over his 45 years in the business working in many different contexts/work cultures and that whilst she didn't go directly to the press - it got there anyway. The devil may be in the details of this case, but the dogmatism of the Murdoch press versus the essentialism of the #metoo movement -may derail two careers, keep all of us in the shadows of what constitutes harassment compared with flirtation and provide all lawyers involved holiday homes in Byron Bay. Justice served or identity politics played?
6
He has guts to do this, its all a bit odd: fodder for a movie itself: the where when and why of all the machinations of movie star power...
1
@marnie
I've never heard a less nuanced argument. As a participant of the #metoo movement, please remain unarmed until you can affirmatively articulate (ie provide insight or proof) what you are attacking or defending. Its messing with the movement's actual gravitas.
3
Anybody who has some familiarity with the case, and knows what "loaded" words (yes we are now analyzing every texted word) Ms. Norville herself texted to Mr. Rush, would consider this as not a #metoo case. This is a smear campaign by a Murdoch tabloid, and that's how they make money. Mr. Rush is suing them, not the actress, for defamation, and good for him. He has never been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior before or after this during his many decades long career, and he is lucky that this is taking place in Australia, where the burden of proof rests with the claimant, unlike the USA where the accused has the burden of proving his innocence to any accusation of misconduct, which has not even been properly defined in a legal sense yet. When Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken get thrown together in many newspaper articles as equals, for instance, that's just ludicrous.
22
Personally, I like that we have strong defamation laws in Australia. If you are going to accuse me of something and drag my name through the mud you better have the evidence to back up your claim. Also, the line between flirting and sexual harassment needs to be clearly defined because as things stand, I am glad I'm not in the dating scene as I would have no idea when flirting crosses the line. I've heard it said that sexual harassment is anything that the woman deems unwanted, how is a man supposed to know what a woman deems "unwanted"? Is commenting on a new hairstyle unwanted? Is a compliment of a job well done unwanted? Thank goodness I'm in a long term relationship, I would be petrified to flirt with someone.
15
Oh no, not him too. Who's next?
2
No quid pro quo, no physical assualt-so where is the harassment? Flirtation is not harassment, even if it was unwelcome.
17
The Daily Telegraph owned by Rupert Murdoch. Hmmmm. That said, I remember Eric Clapton's answer to the Proust Questionnaire in Vanity Fair Magazine. "Who do you despise most?" Clapton responded - "Rupert Murdoch."
6
@susan And Dennis Potter. Hated Murdoch more than anyone in the world.
1
As a subscriber to the New York Times, I am disappointed at how this has been reported in this article. A lack of understanding of Australia's defamation laws notwithstanding, substantial parts of the case have been omitted. While I, as a bystander, as it were, don't know the truth behind the allegations, it concerns me that while the writer of the article mentions that in text messages Mr. Rush called his fellow actor "yummy", and that is clearly seen as predatory, and yet what was not mentioned is that Ms. Norvill admitted that, in text messages to Mr. Rush, referred to him as "Galapagos Lusty Thrust" and "Jersey Cream Filled Puff" and justified these as "intellectually flirtatious" and "part of an ongoing word game". While I obviously don't know either of these two actors, it seems to me that there are two separate standards being exercised here. What is disturbing is that if this case is found to be frivolous, then in the future victims will be even more reluctant to speak out than at present.
47
I believe her. What could she possibly have to gain by making something like this up?
10
@Jerry Gaines
It's not that simple in this particular case.
For a start, the (single) alleged incident of touching happened during Lear's most emotional scene (he's lamenting over Cordelia's dead body - she was Cordelia), and it's awfully easy for an actor's hand to go - briefly - where he didn't intend it to when he's howling and weeping.
More importantly, **she** did not initially go public with the accusation. Evidently, someone else at Sydney Theatre Company leaked her confidential complaint to the tabloid being sued without her knowledge or consent.
16
Too bad that even if Mr. Rush prevails, and I hope that he does, the legal ramifications---even the cultural ones---won't reverberate much beyond Australian borders.
Nevertheless, it's pretty much the same all over---once ordinary and benign male-female interactions have been rendered no-go zones. Even the genteel bantering, of which I am confidant Mr. Rush is entirely predisposed together with so many of his generational contemporaries, has been ridiculously re-classified as something "creepy", even criminal.
Of one thing I am certain: One day even the plaintiff here will wish that anyone should think them still "yummy."
12
@David Bartlett I don't think the interactions described in the article have ever been appropriate, but people just put up with them because they had no kind of recourse. They'd complain to friends and coworkers to vent instead - exactly as this woman has done.
A professional colleague 40 years your senior and in a position of power licking his lips at you, calling you yummy, and touching your breasts at work is nowhere in the vicinity of anything appropriate.There is a huge and obvious difference between "genteel banter" and coming onto a coworker who you have power over - before you even consider touching them inappropriately.
This kind of behaviour has always been creepy. It is nice to see the onus starting to finally be moved to the people being creepy to stop, rather than their victims to put up with it.
Also Geoffrey Rush is the plaintiff, not the poor woman who was dragged into this without her consent.
33
@Shannon W
You're right; I should have referred to Ms. Norvill as the accuser.
As for the "huge and obvious difference" between genteel banter and more repugnant, boorish behavior, it is precisely because all behaviors---genteel/boorish, consensual/consensual-with-remorse and non-consensual are all being conflated together that we cannot seem to have an intellectually honest dialogue with each other on these matters.
10
@David Bartlett she’s also not the accuser - that would be the newspaper who leaked a complaint she made in confidence to her employer.
I don’t think all behaviors are being conflated together at all. In fact the only time I’ve seen them conflated are when people complain “you can’t even say hello to a woman anymore” rather than trying to learn more and understand the issue. It’s hard to have an intellectually honest discussion when there are people making out like the distinction is way more complicated than it is and complaining about things no one is doing.
10
The norm that there should be evidence for severe accusations is presented in this article as creating an athmosphere of fear (to defame public personae). Well, compare this with the athmosphere of fear in a situation where you can accuse anybody of anything with no evidence like in the US "as long as there is no malicious intent". The latter is surely better for #Metoo campaigners, the former for plain old justice.
9
This article is misrepresenting not only this case, but also the situation about defamation in Australia. Mr Winter gave different statements to different people and some of those present, including the (female) actor Robin Nevin and the director maintain that Mr Rush did not touch Ms Norville's breast. Whether we like it or not, in Australia it is usually expected that allegations of this nature are put to those complained about first (it's usually called natural justice) before publication. In addition, Ms Norville complained to the Sydney Theatre Company and someone leaked her complaint to the newspaper which was not fair to her either. There have been allegations made about well known television figures earlier in Australia so this case is not a "Me Too" moment at all. It is about the right of a citizen to defend his reputation. Mr Rush is not suing Ms Norville, he is suing the newspaper.
37
@Jill Reddan
So someone at Sydney Theatre Company leaked Ms. Norville's confidential complaint to a tabloid without her knowledge or consent?
So it would seem that some individual at STC wanted to punish Geoffrey Rush or get him out of the way ...
7
The issue here isn’t #metoo or sexual harassment.
It’s about whether a newspaper can print devastating allegations against an individual that it can’t substantiate. That SHOULD be illegal and, in Australia, the law protects the defamed.
As for sexual harassment, the antidote isn’t freeing the media to destroy careers at will. The antidote is our justice system. And if our justice system doesn’t work properly for sexual crimes (it doesn’t) then let’s fix it.
51
He was good in Pirates of Carib....great in The Kings Speech... very good as Einstein. But that's beside the point. He may also be guilty of sexual harassment.
8
@Harley Leiber
Or he may be innocent. So what's your point here?
27
@Harley Leiber Yes, what is your point?
14
@Harley Leiber innocent until proven guilty
8
Rush, like some of the other sub-Weinstein harassers, seems fundamentally to feel hard done by because men like him were able to harass young women with impunity for so long. He is outraged, infuriated, and marshalling every resource at his disposal to turn back the clock.
35
@junewell Like @Harley Leiber, what is your point? Here in Australia, we believe in justice. How do you know he is "able to harass young women with impunity for so long". This is still the only complaint about an actor has been in dozens of movies and hundreds of plays without complaint. That was made in a newspaper over a year, and still, no one else has accused him of anything. You obviously have a personal bias with no evidence. That is why in Australia we have strong defamation laws.
41
@junewell Very unfair. He sent panting emoji - she called him "dearest daddy McGush xoxo" among other double entendres names. She complained of grabbing breast gestures - her friend described it as a Stooges skit. So we are left with a 5 second side breast touch during an emotive 'touchy' scene. She said it happened on one side - the friend said the other. All other theatre members and an audience saw nothing of note. Whatever happened here or elsewhere the lack of natural justice - in this case -is astounding.
30
@junewell
When will people like yourself realise that making evidence free claims like; 'because men like him were able to harass young women with impunity for so long.' undermines the #metoo movement. This court case is about the conduct of the media. The actress involved had her confidence betrayed when resolving a work place matter, and a newspaper chose to scurrilously profit from it. I feel a great deal of sympathy for her, she gets backed into an adversarial position, when she was merely trying to articulate her discomfort about her perception of Mr. Rush's behaviour and actions (that he could quite easily not have perceived as inappropriate). I feel she should sue the newspaper as well, or maybe Mr Rush could share a portion of the settlement with her.
4